Hello Trajic,
— Self-responsibility maybe an impossible concept to validate. Therefore any sense or knowing about “self-responsibility” is also Self-evident.
O- If it is self-evident then it is as valid as you can have it, so why say that it is “impossible”?
— Self-responsibility is like logic in its very confined utility, self-responsibility is very useful for morality, and almost entirely useless outside the realm of morality.
O- How can it be? Explain.
— Self-responsibility cannot be proved, eveeeeer, Ever, Ever. Nobody can prove it, we can only talk about it. No action ever sufficiently demonstrates it.
O- It doesn’t have to be proved. To deny it or affirm it is in itself your responsibility. It is self-evident because only if you lack a self, or a sense of self, is it debatable whether such a thing can be held responsible. A robot is not responsible, a dog is not responsible, yet man is. Is it in need of a demonstration to explain how we differ from dog or from a robot? Though we are a bit of our nature, how we are born, our chemical make-up, we, as self, are also derivative of such concotions, yet it is not the quantity of elements that can account for my actions alone, but must be also explained by my hopes, my dreams, my fears, in short, a whole entire inner life of the mind based on a biography that lives in our memories, in our imagination.
— Chastity, Trust, Honor, Sacrifice for others. An excessive american “individualism” has caused our populace to become solipsist, and narcissistic, eternal children who view “adulthood” as something to avoid, rather than embrace.
O- No one wants their daughter to become the campus whore. Fathers still consider that they have failed somehow if their baby grows up to become a porn star or at the very least a sex-worker, so I would say that they hold chastity as an ideal. Trust is still the foundation of human interaction so I don’t know where you get that it has now a negative conotation. Same with Honor, same with Self Sacrifice…in short I don’t know under what rock you are living.
— Masculinity, as well as God, has morphed into “The State”. People serve “The State” religion, which is, Humanism. This ideology of humanism, yes, does “entice many women” to it. Women herald and do not question humanism, also known as, Human Rights. These are negative human rights though, Negative Liberty opposed to Positive Liberty, “Freedom From” opposed to “Freedom To”.
O- The predicament for your belief is what came first? Meaning that it could be that God morphed into the State or that the State actually morphed into God. God, and masculinity, have always been ideals of men. The State became ever greater. City states, feudal states, these were not God, all-encompasing. They became this only in time…God and masculinity have remain that which they were, they did not morph into anything, but it was the State that change itself.
Human Rights were not the creation of humanism. Belief in man as the ultimate source of truth was. That man could be wronged even by God was the seed to the belief that man, an honest man, an innocent man, had valued in himself as man. The interactions with God would not be intelligible (see Job) if it was not assumed that the virtuous man had rights. Blood was also the source of rights in the ancient world. It was irrelevant in some cultures whether you earned your rights, your liberty. It was your source, your blood, your birth that secured for you the right to freedom for example…all of this centuries before humanism came about. This is what nobility means and it is ironic that you advocate it, but not rights. I guess that what you have a problem is that Rights, after humanism, were extended ever more widely, regardless of station. Blood and privilege, rights, were given to everyone simply for being born human. That is fine, but then the problem has it’s origin in the concepts created and perfected before humanism would popularize them.
Last: “Freedom from” and “Freedom to” is a false choice. Human rights contain both.
— Spare me the moral relativism please, omar…show me that side of your moral absolutism instead. I don’t care for subjectivists.
O- Really? Let’s see:
"Even “the big bang” hoax is not true until you believe it! The universe does not begin and end until you believe it does!!!"
That is subjectivism.
“…all and every inch of Truth depends upon belief.”
How do we disagree?
“Define “poor”. I maybe “poor” under most definitions of the word.”
Who is being a relativist right about now?
— Soldiers who are ordered to die at the command of an officer.
O- Have you served in the military? Because this is false, and worse, nothing to do with the point.
— Yes but I am human, all too human. And my imperfection causes me to Judge, and to Judge all too harshly. I only hope that another can relieve me of my weaknesses here. Otherwise who knows what I’ll continue to do…
O- Let us hope that this is a good beginning.
So naive. Maybe she’ll think twice about hanging with you after she reads 