Under the scrutiny of what morality, then? A morality based on divine right, or only on positive right? If the latter, I could simply posit a different right. And if the former, feel free to rewrite my statement as:
“By saying it’s wrong for men to use that with which they’re divinely endowed, feminism is saying either they were wrongly endowed with it–which means God was wrong in endowing them with it–, or God also endowed them with the revelation of its right use.”
Not necessarily.
Better as opposed to “worse”, but not to “more evil”. As Nietzsche immediately goes on to say:
[size=95]“Rather the opposite! There is nothing to life that has value, except the degree of power–assuming that life itself is the will to power.”[/size]
Some ends are better than others in that their attainment requires more power, is an expression of a higher degree of power. Only insofar as preventing women from being raped and assaulted is more difficult than raping and assaulting women is the former a better end than the latter. The same goes for the means: winning a race in spite of taking a detour is better than winning it without taking one.
I will answer by way of a reply to one of phyllo’s replies to you:
I think phoneutria, too, means that impositions against people’s wills are needed for the sake of society. My counterquestion, then, is: Why is society good? My answer to this question is: Because there can be no philosophy without society. It may be helpful to consider that I identify the philosopher with Nietzsche’s superman.
What is a “positive” right to you? Is that a right one simply posits?
But that’s a red herring. It doesn’t matter what morality it is, just that the only context in which morality plays a role at all is when there is free agency and when there is sufficient understanding of the moral ramifications of one’s free choice. Men are endowed with more muscular strength and more aggression hormonally, but that could be used to protect and defend women and their children just as much as it could be used to rape and dominate over them.
Yes. Positive right is posited right. That’s all it means (though usually not the right posited by a god, which would be divine right).
Is there free agency? And regardless, is there a given–that is, not posited–good and evil? Why should men use their greater muscular strength and aggression to protect and defend women and children rather than to rape and dominate over them? The question is always quid sit deus, “what shall be god”–that is, what shall be our highest good, our ultimate end.
Indeed.
Yes, for society, but even in a very elementary level, they’re needed for the family.
If a man cares at all for his legacy, or for what happens to the world after he is dead, he must subject himself to a family.
A man who is bound to a family is not one who is free to wholeheartedly exercise his will.
Likewise it is for the benefit of all that a man who is bound to a society not be free to wholeheartedly exercise his will.
If a man kills your family and you have the power to do so, you can bash his head open, but that does not make your family any less dead.
How many bash skulls did it take us to where we are now… do we want to devolve to bashing skulls, because it was the original, the more natural way of things, and that means that somehow it is the better way?
Just another group trying to get power. If they stood for equality like many of them say they do, then why the need to categorize under a one label that isn’t in equality? Last I checked, equality meant equality. Not feminist equals equality. There is no equal in one or division of many with one superior over any. Equality is all and many.
Why should he care about his legacy, or about what happens to the world after he’s dead? This is not a rhetorical question.
But what are these “all” for the benefit of? Why is society, or the family, or whoever these “all” may be, good?
You’re definitely misrepresenting my position on purpose now. Then again, my position is precisely that such mendacity is necessary for feminism to triumph!
The female specie is the privileged half of all sexual lifeforms.
You’d need to be severely indoctrinated (enslaved) as a child, or severely mentally retarded, to grow and mature through life, and miss this basic observation. Evolution precisely occurs through deviation of sexual roles. This is simple. It means that males do some activities and females do others. And any scientist can look through any sexual specie, and discover this. It is called “Sexual Dimorphism”. And it applies to “humans” as well. The first thing you ought to understand is that “human” is a secondary category. While gender and sex is the primary category. The evolution of sexuality occurred before evolution of life-forms. In fact division of sex and gender may well be the cause for difference of life-forms.
How do I know all this? Because I reject humanist indoctrination and lies. I am not “human” and neither are you.
You are male, or female, first, not second. As such, you are a different type of organism entirely than what you’ve been indoctrinated with. Humanity is a religion, not a science. Even the liberals who claim that “race and gender are social constructs” ultimately are forced to agree with me. Because how can they be social constructions, meanwhile “humanity” is the end goal? Isn’t humanity too, then, also a “social construct”? Yes, it is. But what is society? And what is individual? What is the difference of gender and sex? What do these types and categories represent historically and biologically, culturally and politically?
Females are born privileged, born immortal. Males are born without privilege, and born mortal. Men can die, women cannot. At least in a different, common sense, manner of speaking. What does a woman have “to do” to reproduce? Almost nothing. Males instinctively will have sex with a female in heat, if it bears no burden, cost, or risk upon him. Because this is his role in life as a male. Maybe you’ll counter-argue that he is a homosexual, and not attracted to women. Homosexuality is a lie. It represents something unnatural and artificial. Therefore it is natural that men will have sex for “free” when available. To go further in depth on this point, requires understanding about what female “attraction” can exist. Why is one woman beautiful but not another? Is beauty objective or subjective? And imagine beauty as if it were either possibility.
A woman doesn’t need to work to survive. A woman doesn’t need to compete for sex. All a woman needs to do, is to spread her legs apart, and give birth, and she is has reproduced (fulfilling the requirement toward immortality). This is why the female is automatically born privileged over males. Males are born without privilege. The idea of “rights” are just a conflation of these natural laws and principles. Rights are an illusion, to compensate for the lack of male privilege. Since males are born without privilege, and mortal (subject to death whereas females are not), the idea of “human right” of men is too enticing to pass up. This is why men flock to “human rights” politically. While for females, it is a foregone conclusion. Females don’t need “rights”, meanwhile, they own sexuality. Females are the embodiment of sex.
Females are the embodiment of sex, reproduction, and immortality.
Hypothetically, a man and woman bound together, can reproduce infinitely by having one son and daughter, who therein have a son and daughter, ad infinity. This is technically immortality. So why are other humans necessary? Why are there 7 billion humans instead of Adam and Eve? This is an easy reason to dissect. Because females still risk death by one means. If a woman dies before she gives birth, then she obviously is mortal. It’s her sexuality that makes her immortal. It’s her willingness to spread her legs apart. It’s her willingness to reproduce and have children. Without such a willpower, she is dead already, as is man.
This is the reason that men compete for sex, while women do not. Women do not compete for sex. Instead, what women actually compete for, is to exclude some types of men out of the gene pool. Females open spread their nimbly knees for some men, but not others, why them but not those? And this sexual selection process is the essence of all evolution of all life. Let me repeat myself, for the retards out there. This sexual selection process is the essence of all evolution of all life. This is universal, natural, moral law. And when I tap into this, then I can make the grandest, most accurate predictions of all. Because it is no true prediction to expect the pull and force of gravity on earth. It is merely knowledge and wisdom.
The “feminist” movement is an extension of female privilege, that hopes to maintain, secure, and extend female privilege further. However it becomes more and more difficult to morally justify female privilege, when it becomes too unbalanced. Eventually there comes a point when the lie loses its potency, and everybody sees the world as it is, rather than how humans want it to be. The idea of “humanity” and “human rights” ultimately will destroy feminism. Because humanism and feminism are at odds. How can people claim “equality” of gender, let alone equality of race, meanwhile, females are born privileged while males are not? Never have been. Never will become. Why is female privilege a natural, universal, moral law? Why are some organisms automatically closer to immortality and eternal life than others? Why are some animals at the top of the food chain, others at the bottom?
You see, it’s not until you investigate that you can know the reasons, if you were so inclined. I am the philosopher. I am so inclined. So I will study this, and have studied. And I have the answers.
Who has incentive to become “human” or buy into “humanist” ideology, males or females? Males do, because, males buy into human equality which attempts to superimpose a proposition upon animals, after the fact. It claims equality, if not now then later, as a goal to achieve. But what is the nature of equality, if not inherent born privilege? You may claim that “nobody is born privileged”. But this is false. Aren’t rich people privileged? Isn’t it better to be born rich, beautiful, blonde, blue eyed, woman? Isn’t it better to be born closer to immortality than closer to mortality? Isn’t it better to be born healthy than ill? Yes, it is better to be born fit than unfit.
It is better to be born with the intent of immortality (survival) than mortality (inevitable death, genetic dead end). Because immortality has a future…and is the only future possible. It is only through immortality that any “future” can exist and take place. And so any “future” must also be immortal. It presumes that life will go on. And how does life go on, except as I’ve outlined and described? Except through the womb of the female?
On another date, I’ll go into much more detail how females shut out some types of males from the gene pool, excluding them, and forcing their extinction. I’ll explain male mortality, and gender risk taking, to my inferiors.
I can’t wait.
Just waiting for the day science triumphs as it has already proven credible. An artificial/synthetic egg or sac being created to hold the males seed. Interesting to think about huh Wizard?
The ‘truth’ as it sits plainly before you is that women have contributed practically nothing to the entirety of civilization apart from the necessary feminine aspects - reproduction, community, child-rearing. The strength of European culture in times past conferred dignity upon this essential role, even under the inorganic Judeo-Christian monotheism by which it was conquered. Now women are loathed to think of themselves as ‘walking incubators’ and ‘wet nurses’ believing, in tragic and naive fashion, that social parity was denied them on vulgar or primitive grounds and that women are equally capable.
This is very obviously not the case.
Only about 150 years after the Industrial Revolution was there any sensible talk of women contributing in productive terms to the wealth of nations and the GDP and the economy. This reveals the superfluous nature of female intelligence and creativity. It is noticeable that women had no meaningful part in any aspect of the entire civilizational process and have yet to contribute anything revolutionary in any field. Not in Mathematics, Science, Politics, Architecture, The Arts, Philosophy, Psychology or any other category of human insight have women done anything more than contribute by synthesizing and regurgitate the pre-existing mores and codes inherited from previous males. There is not a road you have traveled or building you have entered not erected by men. To a mind not hellbent on contriving a mythical narrative of comparable male and female intelligence and equality of perception it is telling that even feminism is not something which sprang from the minds of women, rather, from Gloria Steinem, funded by the CIA, to FEMEN, who are trained and directed by males, feminists are a simulation of rebellion which in fact is totally conformist. The Women’s ‘Revolution’ and the Sexual ‘Revolution’ are a mockery of the term given that they were desirable behaviours for the existing status quo and involved no violence - the by product of radical change and the friction involved in the process of changing.
And anyone with a basic appreciation of what biology, history, hypocrisy, statistical analysis or debating in good faith are, will at some point in their life come to realize that feminism is perhaps the most illogical, fraudulent and corrupt discipline in the entirety of academia. The absurdity of third wave feminism, now a total capitulation to subjective emotionality, with a very blatant socialist undertone on its media/political level, is plainly evident to anyone who prioritizes objectivity and coherence in their understanding of the world. It is an ideology for stunted narcissists and women, natures eternal followers. The idea that women are doing, or even can do, anything which disrupts the politics and ordering that emerges from the male mind, is a rejection of ‘human being’ as a sexual classification. Humans are sexually dimorphic and biologically inclined to produce patriarchal cultures and all other models of social ordering are provably inferior by comparison if civilization is best described as a stable state that reproduces itself. The need to curtail the birth-rate of our (mostly) greedy and short-sighted species is likely the major reason why feminism is infiltrating every social, occupational and legal institution given that it is provably not meritocratic. The need to drug, poison and indoctrinate males, so as to create a more docile, weak and overall feminine male population is a very close second. The technological revolution, which created an environment where women could, sometimes, exhibit the same average productivity as men, in certain fields, is, in my opinion a distant third given the level of contrivance and political involvement that is necessary to disguise obvious disparities in quality, quantity and creativity. Brilliant women are statistically insignificant and never as brilliant as brilliant men.
I like how it is ‘we’ who should protect the women, the children and the elderly when in reality you are a woman and it is men who you burden with the task. Furthermore, at what point does cumulative weakness come to topple strength and inhibit the essential functions of a civilization? - when the birth rate is so low that it requires unsustainable immigration perhaps? - when man becomes totally domesticated and institutionalized? - when humans become entirely eusocial with political and technological interventions? What happens when civilization no longer produces resilient or desirable populations and conformist mediocrity is rewarded as readily as excellence and when baseness, stupidity and criminality is sheltered rather than extirpated and nullified? Protecting the weak for the sake of it and without thought as to what this propagates now and in the future is, dare I say, incredibly feminine of you. It also reveals your reliance upon Judeo-Christian slave ethics where the importance of weeding out weaker and less intelligent organisms is ‘immoral’. Could this be a subconscious appreciation that your own contribution is superfluous and decadent? Trust me on this, I have read number of your posts, and your every word betrays your own intoxication with sweet mind-numbing lies that women are rebellious and capable whereas the proof that you are just about intelligent enough to behave like a petulant little contrarian, and no more, is in abundant supply. Your remarks: ‘And what is the truth? That men can carry bigger rocks than women can? Whoopity fucking doo’ and ‘If muscles were the natural measure of power, we should all yield to be dominated by the Africans, as they are on average the strongest race’ reveals this underlying resentment and denouncement of what you think you understand but self-evidently do not. And strength as defined how please? Go ahead, make a fool of yourself and answer as arrogantly as usual.
If man cares about what society looks like then family, as you seems to conceptualize it, is one of the ways which would further his interests. But without a stake in his own defence and a measure of autonomy, the family becomes a slavish vehicle of productivity which exists only to be consumed or eradicated by whatever social formation comes next. This is why law and order is really war and order, because without the means to defend your people and bring life to your values via imposition, upon those that threaten it, you can only be a follower of whatever order exists or manifests. A slave. And is bashing open the head of the man who killed your family more or less moronic and productive than taxing citizens for his indefinite incarceration and maintenance?
Cunning can only exist when strength establishes a degree order and manipulation/deception becomes profitable as risk decreases. Strength always comes before cunning because cunning relies upon predictable responses and the submission to established codes of conduct that can only be created by the strongest of men in a given era.
Knowledge is power. A small man or woman that knows the mechanics and geometry of the body can easily defeat a muscled man/woman who doesn’t.
Not if he has a gun.
Knowledge is still more powerful, you have to assume they even know how to use the gun without being disarmed, missing shots or just failing to use it lethally.
One can memorize the entire encyclopedia yet not have the intellect to use it, and thus have no power from it at all. Knowing something and being able to use it are two different things.
If you are floating in space in a suit and know more than any human has ever known, what good does it do you?
Fantasy. The top 1% of women are as physically strong as the lower average male and have less stamina, aerobic capacity, tolerance of pain, spatial awareness, upper body strength. A small woman cannot defend herself against almost any male intent on actually doing her harm and saying it would be a task ‘easily’ achieved is delusional.
And I am guessing everyone knows everything about guns and how to use them right? Your argument doesn’t really make much sense. I am sure there are some people who don’t even know where the safety on a gun is, let alone how to use it to its full potential.
Not delusional at all, any being who knows the human body and is knowledgeable of it can defeat a muscle man. Intellect/knowledge is more powerful than brawn. Nothing fantasy about it.