Feminism, Abortion, And State Eugenics

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
101

Radical liberals like you are no better than radical conservatives. Both are unwilling to recognize any facts which conflict with their personal agendas and use hyperboles, broad statements and distort facts, both utterly detached from reality.

Third-wave feminism is repugnant - it’s bigoted, irrational and hateful for the most part. I at least appreciate to some extent the sincere feminists who admit that they fight for female rights, but when people tell me that “feminism” fights for “equality”, I can’t take them seriously anymore. When has ever in history a party which advocated the equality of 2 categories of people used exclusively one in its name? It makes absolutely no sense - imagine if a person labeling themselves “whiteist” claimed they stand for equality of races. I would question first the seriousness and then the intelligence and sanity of such a person.

Just take a look at reddit feminism and feminist forums - aside from a few admirable threads which criticize the ACTUAL oppression of women and privilege of men in eastern countries, most of them focus on the West and imaginary things like rape culture, privilege (in the West) and so on. In most Western countries equality of opportunity is achieved already. It’s your turn to prove yourselves now women.

About gays I mostly agree aside from the fact that your hyperboles may be (justifiably so) interpreted as strawmen - that’s usually not the kind of language you want to use if your intention is to be taken seriously and have a rational argument with others.

102

Do you really not know that?

Their cultures are different, partly very much different, from the Occidental (Faustian) culture!

You have no idea of Occidental culture.

No, it was not, at least it has not been being for a very long time.

You have no idea of Occidental culture.

What? Where do you live?

That is one of the main differences. The Old Testament is Jewish, the New Testamen is Christian. That’s the point. Their cultures are different (see above).

This “rights” can also be interpreted as duties. Nicholas Rockefeller said it, and in that case: he is right.

The truth is that they were and are not able to do that donkey work (scutwork, dirty work, beastly job, filthy job, and so on) that men did and partly still do. Most part of this work has been becoming a work of machines, and in future it will be not only most but probably all of this male work and perhaps even of all human work (compare: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=187221). I estimate that the probability that machines will completely replace all humans is about 80% (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

103

My question exactly!

European nobility still prefers insider marriages.
Twentieth century western cultures did not allow interracial relationships.
Kate Middleton is still mocked as an outsider.
American classical movies had two different versions, one for the southern white trash, and another for the free world.
In the southern version woman were more obedient not not too smart, and blacks were not allowed to speak.
This show exactly, that on some level they considered women as a special type of slave.
Women could not open a bank account or own a business just one hundred years ago.
You go outside of major urban centres, and when it comes to payment they almost always turn to the men. Praise the Lord!

Here is my proof! What an earth are you talking about?! Scrubbing and washing on their hands and knees using deadly chemicals. Nursing the dying and deadly diseased. Suffering a horrible death after childbirth because ‘a gentlemen’s hand is always clean’ type ignorant men. Raped by soldiers of war and fortune!

Where do you live?!

104

So you live in the „world“ of nobility and feminism. Do you live in Buckingham Palace or in one of the banks of the City of London? According to your funny posts one can conclude that you live in a noble „world“ and have to marry your sister, or your cousin, or your niece.

We don’t have much to do with the nobility. Nobody of us Westerners does have to marry relatives.

You are talking about the exceptions of the rule that there is no insider marriages in the Occidental society. In other cultures the reverse is true, namely: insider marrriage as the rule and other marriages as the exceptions.

Hard work is the work of male humans, oxen, horses, and - of course - machines. Machine work has replaced oxen work, horse work, and most of the typical male human work. If it had not, then there would still be more male work than female work. We have more female work than male work because of the fact that male work is almost completely replaced by machine work.

Your examples are ridiculous.

Greetings to your lovely mama and your „scrubbing“ queen in Buckingham Palace.

105

image
image688×436 68.6 KB

Is there anything else to say?

1 Like
106

But if I exercise my bodily autonomy, to harm another being, such as using my fists to punch someone in the face, I could go to jail for that.

Bodily autonomy is a myth. In America I cannot even shoot one turkey without buying a license first.

As for abortion, if you can somehow guarantee painless deaths to fetuses, I find nothing wrong with it. Less souls entering this garbage world if you ask me.

107

It’s not for you to say, objectively

108

Here we go with this garbage again.

Who’s gonna say it then? The dead infants that were killed? Who experienced subjective pain and suffering?

109

You have no case here.

Your view that a foetus has a right to a woman’s body is an opinion. It is not objective in any sense.
You just believe that for some personal reason.
You can “rubbish” me as much as you want. But that is not an argument

110

There are videogames we call “king simulators” where Aristocrats have to make hard decisions, usually these games take place in medieval times and usually the decisions both have bad outcomes. This could result in some philosophers erroneously believing that morality is “subjective”.

Democrats are the party of, pretending that all their decisions have only good outcomes, in fact for a democrat the decisions are already made for them, whatever the majority say, whatever will make them popular, True Democracy.

Your decision is already made for you, by majority leftist consensus.

But there are bad outcomes from it, didn’t you know that in America and Europe, right-wingers have much higher birthrates than the left, which will take effect in 18 years, less than 18 years, since it has already been a thing for many years. But you won’t concern yourself with hypergamy and other affairs, because the decisions been already made for you. You hope to alleviate the disparity with more Mexican immigrants, but most of them are Catholics, who will likely vote Republican in the long-term.

As for Trump, and back to the King-simulators, well the assumption is they pick most the well-meaning decision but it leads to a bad outcome anyway. (Trump, on the other hand, seems to pick the worst decisions that will guarantee a bad outcome…) All I’m saying is, if the Mexican immigrants are already here, then leave them here, but that many of the Democrat ideologic policies may not bode well for Democrats long term…

As for moral subjectivism… I had an argument with Satyr about it, he is another moral relativist as well… his argument was that humans kill billions of animals to survive, as meat… They are raised in unethical conditions. But if morality didn’t exist, then how could we even have words such as “unethical conditions” or “ethical conditions…?” And I said that the path to morality is in Tech… tech allows us to have morality… Tech has reduced the amount of wars, tech can have us grow lab meats, tech can allow us to achieve painless abortions…

I think why people believe moral relativism, is they don’t want to admit that the human species are pieces of shit… they have to feel proud of the humans around them, can’t just admit that humans are pieces of fucking shit… so they have to invent moral relativism, so they can have less moral dissonance with the human species.

Of course when tribalism enters the picture, us vs them, left vs right, then all of a sudden moral relativism goes out the window, Trump is bad, etc. (Although he actually is bad, but not my point.)

111

Ah yes, the grand unifying theory of politics, morality, birthrates, and lab-grown meat—delivered with the coherence of a drunk philosophy 5th grader arguing with himself in a Waffle House parking lot at 3 a.m. You’ve managed to mix moral absolutism, demographic panic, and Trump fan-fiction into a casserole of smug doomsaying, all while mistaking cynicism for insight. Truly, a masterpiece in the genre of “I just discovered Reddit.
And why are you not responding to my question about the Moon Landings?

112

I don’t have a solid opinion on Moon Landings. I’ve heard arguments from both sides which appear to be convincing.

I do have a solid opinion on moral objectivism though.

Most moral relativists do not believe in moral relativism. They only use moral relativism when their opponent doesn’t agree with their ethics, then all of a sudden they tell their opponent they should believe in moral relativism. But if their opponent does something they don’t like, and is immoral, these “moral relativists” all of a sudden become moral objectivists and protest about their opponents lack of ethics. The “moral relativists” of course have the “one true ethics”. You never see leftist moral relativists agreeing to talk calmly and rationally with a right winger about something, saying “well morality is relative, we all have our own Truth, we all have our own opinions, I respect your morality, please respect mine.” No its always “right-wingers are objectively bad, Leftism is the one true morality”. Then when a right-winger says that “leftists are immoral” then all of a sudden leftists will say “morality is relative, not absolute.” The thing is, lower birthrates are objective and not a matter of opinion, since less birthrates means less votes and then less political power in leftist parties. Weaker societies tend to fall to stronger societies, no matter what someone’s opinion is or what they believe.

113

Aside from politics, moral relativism is actually a horrible position to have. Thankfully, most moral relativists are not true moral relativists. If they were, things could get very bad. Things are already bad. For example, there are a lot of American assholes who do fireworks late at night, fireworks almost sound a lot like gunfire. They do it because they are psychopaths that don’t care about anyone else, they are assholes. But as a moral relativist you can’t say that, you gotta say “everyone has their own truth, morality is relative and subjective, we might as well have anarchy and no rules at all, who’s to say? Fireworks at night? Why stop there, bring in artillery! Lets fire artillery at night! Shotguns in the air! Artillery, shotguns, and fireworks! Might as well bring in gatling guns too! In fact lets have endless wars! Morality doesn’t exist! Lets all use oil till the planet runs out and has climate disasters! Lets all be ooga booga, ape around, lets go to the stone age, ooh ooh ah ah! ooh ooh ah ah! ooga booga!”

iu

114

Priceless. lol

You know that you mind can be so open that your brains might fall out