So. How are you getting your hunger met?Talking like a big weirdo? How’s that working out for you?
I talk like a weirdo?
Am I the one implying what I cannot prove nor rationalize?
All is energy - harmonics.
Interactive, meaning attracting repelling in accordance with how they harmonize.
Hang on, a person controlling the use of her own body is more statist than the government commandeering it for the Greater Good?
Or do have sexual intercourse, and use any of the many types of birth control humans have developed. And if you didn’t, take a morning after pill and trigger menstruation to prevent implantation. And if you didn’t or they didn’t work, get an abortion.
Humans don’t have to be the guy in Austin Powers screaming in terror as the steam roller slowly bears down on him, eventually crushing him to death. Until the consequences of an action have actually happened, we have the option to take steps to prevent those consequences instead. In fact, taking those steps is one of the ways of dealing with them.
In most contexts we don’t treat fetuses as human beings. They aren’t counted in the census, you can’t claim them as dependents on your taxes. When my grandmother miscarried late in her pregnancy, the Catholic Church wouldn’t let the fetus be buried in a Catholic graveyard because that was reserved for people.
But even if we insist that the fetus is another person, forcing the woman to carry it to term is forcing the woman to use her body for the benefit of someone else.
That’s an interesting comparison, it seems pretty similar, although again I think the medical context is special and should be. And unions also have special status under the law, I wouldn’t be surprised if they are held to a different standard.
What’s the source for that quote? I didn’t find anything about felony/misdemeanor in the linked sources.
What do you mean? Most abortions involve taking a pill.
An embryo develops into an infant.
Once again as I said in another thread recently Karl Marx was irreligious and an atheist. His own father converted to Christianity, so this position of Marx being pro Judaism is laughable.
No, what Marxism or communism wants is a world of justice, fairness, and economic social order. That doesn’t mean that individuals get the same outcome everywhere. Marxism is not nihilism, nihilists want to return to a primal state of the world of violent competition and active killing, destroying, or eliminating their competition along with anybody they perceive as a threat. I have in my own life lived in such an environment for awhile that one might even call almost pure nihilism, none of you really know what you’re asking or bargaining for just as all of you who want that wouldn’t survive a single month in such a world. Such an environment like that is very chaotic making the simplest tasks of social cooperation impossible. Nothing gets done in a chaotic environment of constant infighting everywhere.
The future is either one of collectivism in terms of people working together or it is one of nihilistic individualism that destroys all of human civilization. You can only choose and pick one.
Women forget there is a social contract in this society or thing we call civilization. That social contract requires both men and women working together despite our differences.
If they conduct their entire lives out of spite towards men or in a sort of indifference towards the rest of society, state, and nation they will eventually find themselves on the worst end of society very quickly once that contract is ripped up completely towards their embrace of total indifference. This was pretty much common knowledge in ancient civilizations for thousands of years but I think modern women have forgotten this and are putting themselves in a perilous position because they have forgotten history altogether.
We either elevate ourselves above nature or we can devolve into violent animal beasts. It’s really that simple.
Sometimes it becomes necessary to force the ranks of people into one direction especially if they won’t do it themselves, sometimes you have to save the people from themselves and their own ignorance. I am perfectly fine with such a perception, the iron hand approach gets things done.
1 Like
Explain Marxism and communism in Asia then, there’s no philosemitism there much at all.
Buddhism is to Hinduism what Judaism or Abrahamism is to Hellenism.
Population pressures necessitate philosophies that restrict or repress individuality.
In the east such population pressures began earlier, than in the west, where the Faustian spirit found new frontiers to expand into.
This is why Oriental, despite having a higher than European average IQ, are not innovative. they do not challenge the status quo or authority.
The masculine is repressed…except in Japan.
Communism fit well with Buddhism and Confucianism.
1 Like
One would think you would like Chinese Confucianism with its strong emphasis on family, marriage, and societal structure.
Once again as I said in another thread recently Karl Marx was irreligious and an atheist. His own father converted to Christianity, so this position of Marx being pro Judaism is laughable.
The spirit of Judaism is evident in his upbringing.
Christianity is Judaism for European pagans.
Platonism for the masses.
Judaism is platonic in that it claims divine sparks are trapped in kellipots, the physical body, and that they must be ‘liberated’ to return to their original ideal state.
Existence is cast as a fallen state, or a shadow of the divine, the ideal.
God of Abraham is an idealization of collective Jewry.
Buddhism wasn’t messianic though, the Buddha never promised to save anybody, instead he just passed some wisdom along showing people how to save themselves. Buddha and Jesus might seem similar at first glance but they’re really not.
I assume you’re talking more about the Christian peasants revolting against the Roman aristocrats or the Buddhist priesthood revolting against the Brahmins. Yeah, that sounds about right, although one has to question the logic of such supreme nobleman when they have more underclass slaves than free men in their societies, apparently they lacked foresight transgressing such a huge error on their part which is why movements of revolts start to begin with.
Or Karl Marx could of just been an idealistic fan of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
No, messianism is distinctly Abrahamic.
Buddhism is nihilistic…like Abrahamism.
Not the same, but both are nihilistic.
Not as nihilistic as western nihilists would claim. You forget the aspect of social cooperation and compassion Buddhism preaches, not quite the amoral nihilism you’re associating. There’s certainly disattachment to society in Buddhism, but that’s because society becomes distracting away from obtaining enlightenment. Not because of reasons concerning nihilism.
Nihilism is a rejection of natural identifiers and order.
It has many variants.
Hindu castes and cosmogony are rejected by Buddhism.
1 Like
Two branches of Caucasians, Indo-Euroepans, descended…some moving east, and some west.
Ergo, Indo-European languages identify the Caucasian race.
The eastern tribes descended into northern India, establishing the caste system.
Nature based hierarchies.
Buddhism in the east, and Abrahamism, in the west, revolted and sought to replace them with anti-nature ideological, philosophical, spiritual alternatives.
Early peasant Christians rejected being imperial slaves of Roman aristocrats.
The castes under the Brahmins rebelled being slaves for a variety of religious bullshit reasonings within Hinduism.
Next you will be telling me human slavery is a part of the natural order and thereby rejecting it is nihilistic, yes? Well, that’s certainly a hilarious way at looking through history.
Humans want to adjust nature to their ideals.
I am not promoting anything. I am stating facts about the nature of man.
Exploitation is part of nature.
I don’t like it, but it is so.
I see, next we will be describing the virtues of slavery. That seems to be your entire shtick.