Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.

[Greatest I am]

Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.

Seeking and demanding sanctity is one of the main five best rules of morality. Those rules shown below closely resemble most religious rules. For humankind to give an idea sanctity they must give sacrifice to it. The sacrifice that we must all do is deny women equality and give men a lower position in rulership. Men must bend the knee to women and elevate them to our ultimate sovereign. Those women and men who do not demand this are not in the best moral state of mind and should try to move to it.

We are all natural animals and follow the hierarchical rules of those species which have Alpha males. The main survival strategy of such a species is that the Alpha males will fight to the death to insure that the Beta females live.

Females, as the incubators of life and the most important within that species, must have the highest protection to insure that they will survive to continue the life of that species. Men, being the most physically powerful and having a more natural tendency to rule, must take a leadership role to insure this continuity. The Alpha of any species fights to insure that the Beta always has the highest position. The Kings and all other men IOW, must rule as the power behind the throne but the Queen is the one who must always sit on that throne and rule over the King.

The research done by Mr. Haigt shows that the right wings of religions and politics show more concern with tribalism than do the left wings. It appears then that if we are to move to the most advantageous moral position then it is to the right wings to promote it. As an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian, I am the left of center and not in the best camp to sell the view that women should rule even as I recognize that they should. The right has been given a wakeup call thanks to president Obama being re-elected. FMPOV then, the right needs a new platform if they are to survive, as they should to balance the political spectrum.

Generally speaking only; women are the weaker of the sexes and are better places to know what the requirements of survival are and should thus rule. Women should then demand the full protection and sacrifice of the Alphas males as that is the natural order of hierarchical species and must be to insure survival. This sacrifice gives sanctity to our species and insures it’s longevity. The religious and political right seem better suited to lead towards this end.

In my opinion, men and women who do not agree with this premise are not taking the best moral position for families or for society at large. This issue is more in the hands of men than women and in that sense men would be more immoral than women if they do not deny women equality and place women above themselves.

Should the religious and political right take up this best moral position and demand that equality be denied to all women and demand that they be given their rightful and natural position above men?

Please see the research and logic behind this premise.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHc-yMcfAY4

Regards
DL

[Vashta]

I don't really see how the references support the argument, I mean he does talk about positive tribalism, but he doesn't say anything about gender. I don't think I agree, because to agree would be saying that women are weaker than men, and shouldn't be allowed to choose their own path in life. I really don't think that's the case, I think both women and men can do anything they put their whole self into, and I wouldn't want to deny anyone the freedom to choose. I don't think it's right to hold either gender higher, regardless of how it's framed, and the references provided say that when a tribe holds something sacred, it tends to make them ignorant to anything that doesn't support the argument, which is counter-productive to progress.

But honestly, women can do anything just as well as men, they don't need to be protected, they need to be empowered, because societal norms in a whole bunch of places by large train women from a very young age to accept a subjugated role. Those who accept this, do not push themselves as far as they can be pushed, because they're conditioned to concede defeat. Those who see beyond this, can push themselves to their true limit. In my opinion, to rectify the situation, we need to help more women understand just how powerful they really are. We don't need to put them on a pedestal and treat them like porcelain dolls, we need to treat them like any other people. But, hey, I'm pro-equality in all forms really.

One last thought: If you honestly think a woman couldn't serve in the army, you've clearly never met a Scottish mother ;P

[Rauðolfr]

huh? what?

yet another reason why the concept of morals in completely unnattractive.

hierarchy is sickness. that's my opinion.

there is no logic or reasoning to your argument just pure blind assertion. Its as if your moral compass points perfectly south.

[Nahemah]

If you honestly think a woman couldn't serve in the army, you've clearly never met a Scottish mother ;P

And...

...now you have.I'm a particular kind of Scots Mother,the Glaswegian one.Hello,my name is Geri.[Look up my name in Norse mythology,lol.But seriously,you might laugh. [wink] ]

I don't know what to go for first.

The logical deconstruction or the emotive?

Weak as I am,I think I 'll play mixed metaphors and do both.

Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.

―Christopher Hitchens.

You are basing a moral argument around a religious frame and it's a very narrow frame indeed.

You also seem to be be confusing Religion with Politics.

Those rules shown below closely resemble most religious rules.

Most? Are you sure?

Please clarify which Religions you have asserted to mean 'most'.

Without this,how can you justifiably make that assertion.You make many assertions but show little reliable evidence other than some bad Science, and on that subject:

Here is some information about Wolf pack dynamics:

...Wolves naturally organize themselves into packs to maintain stability and assist with hunting. These are often groups of three to seven wolves led by an alpha male and alpha female [source: Busch]. From there, the couple's pups and possibly younger, unrelated wolves comprise the rest of the pack.

The pack leader isn't necessarily the alpha male [source: Busch]. The alpha female takes the reins in certain groups since wolf rankings are based on strength and the ability to win fights, not gender. Although other wolves within the pack may copulate when prey abounds, the alpha pair are normally the only ones to mate. Multiple female wolves in the same pack can cause problems, however, since they fight with each other more often than males... [source: Busch].

http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammal ... tality.htm

I know of Religions which do not follow what you are inferring as 'rules'.It seems they are a mixed bag of Abrahamisms,these rules.

But,then making distinctions like this clearer, I believe, would render your argument a lot less valid:especially if we were to spend time on rooting all the other weasel terms [and other logical fallacies] out of this essay.

I'm not going to mire myself down in that.So the wolves example must be the main one,for now at least.

Logical presentation fail,on this alone.

In order for a correlation to be established as causal, the cause and the effect must be connected through an impact mechanism in accordance with known laws of nature.

You then also provide a long string of non sequiturs,none of which prove the others,any more than your flawed Wolf analogy does.

Correlation does not imply causation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlatio ... _causation


I'm surprised at the hint of Neo Nazism I scent here too.Some of the writing is reminiscent of material I 've read in the past; re : the juxtapostion of the terms 'weaker' and 'rule' ,and that concerns me a lot.

Yes,I went there. [greensmile]

Who calls Godwins?

Anyone?...

[Occultess]

Yeah, I was going to add the wolf thing, too. And I know you already said this Nehemah, but I'll say it again. There are Alpha Males AND Alpha Females in wolf packs. Then beneath them (in ranking) are the Beta Males and Beta Females.

And how on Earth can you have someone be weaker and rulers at the same time? That doesn't make sense.

If you do really believe a woman couldn't serve in the military, well, what about Joan of Arc? I mean, you are talking religion here aren't you? And the religious and political right. So, I'm going to assume, then, that you are in to the God of Abraham. If that is in fact the case with you, then, ...well, it really didn't seem to bother him.

[Vashta]

In fairness, it's nice that you want to offer protection and exalt women, I'm sure there are plenty people, male and female, who would love to be treated like that, but I still can't agree that it should be mandatory in any way, I just can't agree with the belief that women need protecting. And I think it's immoral to deny someone the freedom to choose, but that's the thing about morals, we all have our own, and we're all entitled to them.

[Greatest I am]

I don't really see how the references support the argument, I mean he does talk about positive tribalism, but he doesn't say anything about gender. I don't think I agree, because to agree would be saying that women are weaker than men, and shouldn't be allowed to choose their own path in life. I really don't think that's the case, I think both women and men can do anything they put their whole self into, and I wouldn't want to deny anyone the freedom to choose. I don't think it's right to hold either gender higher, regardless of how it's framed, and the references provided say that when a tribe holds something sacred, it tends to make them ignorant to anything that doesn't support the argument, which is counter-productive to progress.

But honestly, women can do anything just as well as men, they don't need to be protected, they need to be empowered, because societal norms in a whole bunch of places by large train women from a very young age to accept a subjugated role. Those who accept this, do not push themselves as far as they can be pushed, because they're conditioned to concede defeat. Those who see beyond this, can push themselves to their true limit. In my opinion, to rectify the situation, we need to help more women understand just how powerful they really are. We don't need to put them on a pedestal and treat them like porcelain dolls, we need to treat them like any other people. But, hey, I'm pro-equality in all forms really.

One last thought: If you honestly think a woman couldn't serve in the army, you've clearly never met a Scottish mother ;P

You say women are equal then give a list showing how they are not thanks to conditioning.

If you do not think it right to hold another gender higher then I hope you are not an Italian ship captain.

You say that women are equal while forgetting that they have the wombs and are the backbone of family.

You might want to listen to those Haigt clips again for the first time.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

huh? what?

yet another reason why the concept of morals in completely unnattractive.

hierarchy is sickness. that's my opinion.

.

Too big of a fool for me.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

In fairness, it's nice that you want to offer protection and exalt women, I'm sure there are plenty people, male and female, who would love to be treated like that, but I still can't agree that it should be mandatory in any way, I just can't agree with the belief that women need protecting. And I think it's immoral to deny someone the freedom to choose, but that's the thing about morals, we all have our own, and we're all entitled to them.

So from YPOV, the weaker should protect the stronger and the fact that women are the womb of life and the backbone of the family does not make women more valuable to society. Ok.

You are entitled to that less than moral view but you deny men their duty to society.

So much for women and children to the lifeboats first.

Regards
DL

[Vashta]

Yeah, the thing is I did watch them, and I paid very close attention. If anything, those references actually contradict your argument.

I don't see where you're getting the meaning you've taken from my posts, are you actually reading what we're saying here, or just fishing out the first bit of confirmation bias you can find? For a definition of confirmation bias, see your second reference around 33:00.

And the conditioning may not be identical between genders, but men are just as subject to conditioning as women. Both must overcome it. In my opinion, it's equal. Men face a conditioning that can make them bite off more than they can chew, because they believe they're supposed to be the "strong" one, and take challenges they can't face up to, placing themselves in danger just because their conditioning says they should. Sound familiar?

No, I'm not an Italian ship captain. Maritime protocol is the domain of sailors, and the product of antiquity. On a sinking ship, I would certainly let the women and children go first, as maritime protocols say to do so, and quite frankly in the middle of a shipwreck, there isn't time to debate the morality of it. So, I'd allow the protocol to make the escape smoother for everyone.

I can't agree that women are necessarily the backbone of the family, I've seen families where the father is the backbone, so to me that comes across as a sweeping generalisation, and in my opinion, generalisation is good for nothing but postulation, it should never be the foundation of policy.

Women have wombs, yes this is true, but what good is a womb without sperm to inseminate it? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

As for the "weaker should protect the stronger".. what? How did you get that meaning from what I said? Are you still assuming women are weaker? Because that's something I've been flat-out denying from the onset.

What's absolutely hilarious about your post is that the references you provided are all about how people abuse the concept of morality, by trying to make others cave into their beliefs by associating any contrary belief with evil, and that's exactly what you're doing here. You've presented your idea in the form of an appeal-to-morality fallacy, using reference materials that condemn the way you're attempting to make your point. Can't you see the irony?

You're also not really listening to and logically countering the arguments you've met here, and you're in very real danger of looking like a troll. You're free to hold your opinion, and you're free to express it, but you need to be aware that so is everybody else, and calling people immoral just because they disagree with you is pretty damn low.

[Greatest I am]

I call them as I see them.

If you would just follow maritime protocol blindly, you do not care about moral implications and as far as women being the backbone of the family, count the number of deadbeat dads as compared to deadbeat moms and recant you foolish statement.

I know many unwed mothers who kept their children. I know few unwed fathers who have done the same.

Regards
DL

[Nahemah]

Posting the opinion of another and then hiking your thoughts on to theirs,does not not make them or you any more correct in what you have to say.

Opinion added to opinion does not make fact,it just makes two similar opinions. [thumbup]

GIA,you are very amusing.I haven't lolled so much,or typed so much in ages.

[Thankfully,my hands are up to it,once more.I'd have burst if I couldn't have posted to this thread,lol. [yay] ]

You are now guilty of at least two more logical fallacies as well as the appeal to morality and the appeal to [false] authority,while still not providing any kind of factual evidence for your assertions,so they must remain opinions,with no more or less validity to them than any others,rather like my opinion that you are amusing,actually. [eg]

Opinions are debatable,facts are not.

So far,you are showing a lot of weaknesses and no strength at all.

This is not at all impressive,given that you claim to be a superior entity to me,how can this be so,when you can't justify what you say without falling into ad hominem attacks and circular logic?

This is a gem,an absolute howler,in fact,love it [crazy] :

You say that women are equal while forgetting that they have the wombs and are the backbone of family.

I'm trying hard not to troll,honestly,but I don't know If I can hold back much longer.

[Nahemah]

I think we're heading for the Troll pit too, Vashta. [thumbup]


However,in the meantime,this:

Shame on Ireland’s Catholic Bishops and our cowardly politicians. They could have protected the life of 31-year-old Savita Praveen Halappanavar, who tragically died last month in Galway after doctors denied her the right to abort an unviable foetus during a miscarriage.

Instead, while Savita was dying, the Catholic church was running an immoral propaganda campaign to mislead Irish people into believing that pregnant women will always get the medical care they need in Irish hospitals.

And Irish politicians were yet again refusing to legislate for abortion to save the life of a pregnant woman. They have now repeatedly refused to do this for twenty years, since the Irish courts established this right in the X case.

It took a raped pregnant teenager to establish this right in 1992. It should not have taken the death of a pregnant woman, twenty years later, to remind Irish politicians of their duty to legislate for that right...

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2012/11/14 ... cowardice/

Religiously Moral Relativism in action.

[Begin sarcasm] I'm sure the grieving husband and father can rest a little better in the knowledge that his wife's 'weakness' was 'protected by those who know better than her.[End sarcasm.]

In the 'Moral 'rush to hold one human life above another,both lives were lost.

And in other news,this:

[Nahemah]

Haidt was criticized for oversimplification and lenience toward moral beliefs that historically led to grave injustices.

Might is right,has been proven to be wrong,I'm afraid,lol.

In a response to Haidt's suggestion that atheists "pollute the scientific study of religion," author Sam Harris wrote:

"Even if Haidt's reading of the literature on morality were correct, and all this manufactured bewilderment proves to be useful in getting certain people to donate time, money, and blood to their neighbors—so what? Is science now in the business of nurturing useful delusions?
Surely we can grow in altruism, and refine our ethical intuitions, and even explore the furthest reaches of human happiness, without lying to ourselves about the nature of the universe."

In discussing his book The Righteous Mind, during an interview with WNYC's Leonard Lopate (aired April 17, 2012), Haidt expressed the opinion that the failure of the Occupy Wall Street movement was due to their willingness to listen to the point of view of everyone, even "the mentally ill."

So far ,we have the inherent weakness of women,the dangers of showing respect for the mentally ill and the exclusion of atheists as valid co contributors to society...

What else lurks in this philosophy of morality and 'righteous thinking',I wonder...?

And,going there again: are homosexual men equal to other men too?


Quotes taken from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt

I am wondering also if the pattern I 've observed in the OP's responses thus far,indicate an unwillingness to reply to the females who've posted here?

In case of this being so, due to the OP's superiority issues,below is some masculine based rebuttal of Mr.Haidt,[ which sums up my thinking on his work *so far*, also ]:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books ... wanted=all

re: *so far* :this is how I feel atm,based on what I 've read up till now,but opinions being subjective are subject to possible change,in light of further information.Just saying.

I am also wondering how much Mr.Haidt might wish his moral relativism to be associated with the OP's particular brand of Religious relativism,given he seems to regard himself as a Secular Humanist? And this notion also confuses me somewhat,given what Hiadt himself opined about atheists?

In conclusion,for now:

[Occultess]

Here's a couple of female body builders:








And we can't forget the Amazons, now can we:

[Occultess]

[cactusjack543]

my moral as a witch satanic at that is protect spirituality at all costs. i have schizophrenia see satanic organizations pawning the hell outa the spiritual realm and hells angels thus in my eyes full from grace as bieng a witch or fail the oath of honoring true hells angels. one day morally withcraft may seperate such as moral code of good vs evil in the name of human survival. are we in witchcraft to fail our moral partners in history.

ive always pondered the jealouasy of seperated rights such as the bread and wine our we to pass the buck always or have spiritualists produce spiritual food for all witchcraft without going to church 1,000s of rights our like this what exactly do we produce as a whole

[TheSeeker]

Here's a couple of female body builders:

Hey, you don't have to convince me.
My wife and I took on 5 Korean dudes on the street a few years back and she totally kicked ass, quite literally! [grin2]

I had to comment though:
I know this is a little off-topic perhaps, but I honestly think that regardless of gender the typical overenhanced, steroid-abusing, spray tanned look of some of these people just turns my stomach.
I don't believe that it's an indicator of power or strength at all.
I see it as a sign of obsessive overcompensation for weakness and insecurity.

Also imho, this entire Thread is no more than a load of myopic sexist tripe.
I too therefore cry Troll. [eek]

[Greatest I am]

Nahemah

What a pathetic waste of a mind.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Stick to the issues and not your garbage psychobabble of my person and I will bother with you.

You chastise me for getting behind a quote and then you do the same.

If you want to discuss this issue, lets.
Leave your garbage elsewhere and KIS.
You are talking more of the individuals than the issue. Stop it or be ignored.

Begin again if you choose to.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

If we do not sacrifice to something it loses it's value. Since in the survival sense women are more valuable than men and we want to remember that over time, then it is in our best interest to sanctify or elevate women above men.

Women get to the life boats before men.
Physical strength or weakness is irrelevant.

Refute that logic if you can.

Regards
DL

[Vashta]

Sorry, I don't see any logic to refute.

You still seem to be under the impression that an appeal to morality will "win" this discussion, or that putting other members down (hint: search for those words in the terms and conditions) will somehow make us decide you're right. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is a grown-up place where we have grown-up discussions (usually, obviously we have silly times too), high-school-bullying argument techniques won't cut it here. Maybe you're taking our rejection of your idea of morality as a personal attack, and maybe that's why you're responding with personal attacks, but they're really not. We're trying to have a mature discussion on the issues you've presented, we're presenting our opinions of it, and explaining to you in detail why we disagree.

You haven't shown us a single thing to support your position here. You've cited references that actually work against you, made personal attacks against other members simply for not agreeing with you, and you're still trying to "win" by appealing to morality, in a crowd of people who will naturally question every motivation behind what you call morality, which, as it turns out, is a paper-thin veneer of morality dusted on top of a hefty dollop of misogyny. It's kinda like you saw the creek, saw the canoe, and didn't think you'd need the paddles...

Nahemah, I think this post needs to be filed accordingly, would you like to do the honours?

[Nahemah]

Yes please,Vashta.Thanks. [thumbup]

Physical strength or weakness is irrelevant.

Refute that logic if you can.

Ahem...it was you who based your argument around the 'strength of men and the weakness of women.

You contradict yourself, as quoted above,in your opening post,lol....

Greatest I Am SAID:
Men, being the most physically powerful and having a more natural tendency to rule, must take a leadership role to insure this continuity.

Generally speaking only; women are the weaker of the sexes and are...

Thank you for finally having the sense to realise the invalidity of your own stance.

And you are the one who began by using another person as your evidence,so I think it is you who suffers from confusion regarding small minds and ideas,more than anyone else who posted does.

The research done by Mr. Haigt shows...

You do realise you mispelled his name here too,don't you? You should pay more attention to this kind of detail,actually.It's sloppy.

I agree ,you are wasting your mind.You should try harder. [greensmile]


The personal insults are amusing,but they helped you lose your argument a while back,it's a bit late to include me in them now...over and out,on that.

You lost already,the rather strange attempt at anthromorphism regarding wolf pack dynamics was a major blooper and you would be wise to reflect on how to structure an argument cohesively,before you present it and you need to work on losing the logical fallacies too.

Fail.

[Rauðolfr]

Nahemah

What a pathetic waste of a mind.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Stick to the issues and not your garbage psychobabble of my person and I will bother with you.

You chastise me for getting behind a quote and then you do the same.

If you want to discuss this issue, lets.
Leave your garbage elsewhere and KIS.
You are talking more of the individuals than the issue. Stop it or be ignored.

Begin again if you choose to.

Regards
DL

ok lets talk ideas. the animal kingdom expresses its society in a range of different ways. some have heirarchys some do not. each one is different. this does not reflect on how we should or should not behave. the natural way for humans to live is not known by anyone. it is a matter of debate that it can be known. however, even if we did know, it is possible for humans to transend their base natures and aim for something higher and or greater.

the nature of women being seen as 'the womb of life' is a relatively recent idea. for a long time it was thought that men were the life creators, women just incubators. but the biological truth is that it takes two to tango.

women being the backbone of the family is also a fiction. both men and women are perfectly capable of expressing a maternal or paternal relationship with a child. this is demonstrated by single or same sex parents who do a great job and produce healthy successful children.

the roles of men and women in our society are learned not inherent. you need to offer some proof of this if your going to base further assumtions on it.

you have to go some way towards arguing against free will. that is the key issue for me here. first you are taking away peoples right to choose how to be beyond thier gender, and second you are insisting on a scenario where one group is oppressed by another. without extraordinary proofs its just completely unconvincing.

[Moth]

I always thought of morals as limitations society places on you, whilst principles are limitations you place on yourself.

[Greatest I am]

ok lets talk ideas. the animal kingdom expresses its society in a range of different ways. some have heirarchys some do not. each one is different.

True but there is a hierarchy for all species that fight to protect their young including mankind. The strongest usually leads the defending and then goes to the weakest.

this does not reflect on how we should or should not behave. the natural way for humans to live is not known by anyone. it is a matter of debate that it can be known. however, even if we did know, it is possible for humans to transend their base natures and aim for something higher and or greater.

We can judge historically what has transpired for humans. It looks like women and Goddesses led mankind for 20 odd thousand years before man developed the weapons powerful enough to kill each other with and that is when men took over and had to start fortifying cities against each other. We have been warring ever since.

This indicates that women are better at ruling than men and by reversing our trend, I think that a higher and or greater system would result from what we have now.

the nature of women being seen as 'the womb of life' is a relatively recent idea. for a long time it was thought that men were the life creators, women just incubators. but the biological truth is that it takes two to tango.

True. But the man tangos for 3 seconds and the woman for 9 months. Who needs more protecting and contributes more to reproduction and child rearing?

women being the backbone of the family is also a fiction. both men and women are perfectly capable of expressing a maternal or paternal relationship with a child. this is demonstrated by single or same sex parents who do a great job and produce healthy successful children.

Can a man breast feed or bond with a child in the womb?
No.
Who then is the real backbone of the family?

I agree that both men and women can rear but think that generally women have a better disposition for it. There is some evidence for this in just the numbers of deadbeat dads and the numbers of unwed mothers. Women take the car/harm of children more seriously. You might also look at how many men abuse their children as compared to the number of women abusers.

the roles of men and women in our society are learned not inherent. you need to offer some proof of this if your going to base further assumtions on it.

You have a point for some of the finer details of child rearing but not the main ones. I think a woman knows by instinct that if she has a baby, it belongs on the breast. If it is not instinct, then who taught the first women?

you have to go some way towards arguing against free will. that is the key issue for me here. first you are taking away peoples right to choose how to be beyond thier gender, and second you are insisting on a scenario where one group is oppressed by another. without extraordinary proofs its just completely unconvincing.

Do you really think that women who are generally weaker than men can oppress them? Really?

You assume that because men have oppressed women for many generations that women would oppress men. I doubt that this would happen because women bond stronger with the species than men do. That may be why many men beat women while few women, even if stronger than the men, will not beat them.

You likely heard this while growing up. Wait till your dad gets home. You knew what that meant.

You said we cannot know who should lead who yet many think they do.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6PjAYNl24E[/youtube]

Regards
DL