Since Women Were "Liberated"

[Belinda]

She is an honorary man because she is old enough or wise enough to be accorded male rights and privileges.

What about male responsibilities? For responsibility is the conterpart of "rights and privileges."

Everyone forgets that. They think they can have the best anyone else has, without also accepting the worst...which they ignore.

So are women fit to bear the burden of not having children so that they, like men, have no time out of their careers? Are they prepared to devote 70 hour weeks to their jobs, sleep at the office and have no private lives? If they are, then there's no reason that they, like men are, can be top CEOs or investment bankers. Are they ready to defend the country with their blood, build our bridges and roads with their hands, haul down our trees and mine our resources, and so on, with exactly the same level of strength and effort as men are putting forward, and with the same effects? If they are, they can have all the rights and privileges and responsibilities of men.

No problem there.

In all my experience I have never heard of a professional teacher or medic who marginalises males.

Then you have never seen our education system, which is almost entirely shaped to favour the disposition and skills of women, and in which men are failing and dropping out in record numbers today. And you have never realized that 60% of college students are now women, but there is no talk at all of affirmative action for men, or even dropping affirmative action because of the men. Nor have you considered that 76% of teachers and 91% of nurses are female, but there is still no concern about the imbalance there. And good luck getting tenure, or even a university job today, if you are a male...particularly a pale-skinned heterosexual one.

The nuclear family is the normal societal unit

Yes, it is.

So what happend to the transers? They say their sex doesn't fit what they claim is their "gender." So what are they? Are those women really women, or are they really men? And are the men who trans really women, or are they men?

How does a "transer" identify themself? Any more is none of your business.

Then a man can BE a woman.

And women are no longer important, at least not in any distinctive way. We can cancel all the real women in sport...they'll be gone very quickly anyway, unable to compete with the trans-men. And why are we having affirmative action when a man is a woman if he wants to be? Hiring quotas...we can just hire trans-man to fill the female quota. Wage parity? All trans-men can make the same as real men, and who cares about the real women? And what is all this talk of "violence against women," when a man can be a woman? The conversation has to change. And "women's washrooms" -- why should they have any privacy if it makes trans-men feel bad? What is "women's history," when any man can be a woman? What are "women's rights" then? Or a "woman's shelter," or a "women's prison"?

It's already happened. In women's sports, women are being wiped out by trans-men. In prisons, any claiming "woman" is put in the female population. And how that is working out is exactly as you would expect.

They're coming for the real women, B. You just don't know it yet. You've become accustomed to assuming the "victim" position, and you can't imagine you're going to lose it...but in truth, you already have. You're in the new "oppressor" class.

It's not possible always to link responsibilities to rights.

Young men from disadvantaged backgrounds are often unemployable for reasons of psychological anomie. Girls can feel part of society by becoming mothers.The remedy is improving social mobility by means of reducing the difference between rich people's schools and poor people's schools, and between rich people's housing and poor people's housing.

[Immanuel Can]

It's not possible always to link responsibilities to rights.

Then give me a "right" that you believe you have, but one that does not implicate a "responsibility."

Let's see what you're thinking of.

[Scott Mayers]

...the 'traditional' family is as flawed...

The word "traditional" was never used. We were speaking of the "nuclear family," meaning two parents of opposite sex, plus kids.

And the very simple point is that that is the only structure that produces children. Biologically, like all mammals, human beings are male-female. mono-sexual, multi-sperm, or asexual arrangements produce no offspring.

That point isn't even possible to debate. It's obvious.

Yesterday's Dr. Phil show was just such a 'debate'. The topic was about a confusion between gender identity versus sex. What you are dictating is that one MUST behave according to some specific standard of 'gender' as being identical to one's 'sex'.

I already take the view that 'gender' identities are personal psychological interpretations of one's behaviors BASED upon traditional views of 'sex'. But given laws we can make in governments, this strict 'traditional' view, though based upon evolutionary facts, becomes RELIGIOUS laws if you demand that we require ONLY accepting the traditional view.

I don't know what you disapprove of the term, "tradition", other than that you might fear being pointed out how the "nuclear family" definition APPEARS to be progressive. Changing the term to "nuclear" is more about the political REDEFINING of terms by the Right to appear "Left-friendly" when trying to draw adherents FROM the Left. That it appears 'progressive' due to the link to our nuclear times does not make it distinct from what you believe existed before 1900s.

Everyone favors 'family'. How can government 'favor' them

Who needs the government to "favour" anything? The government does very few things adequately, and almost nothing well. In most matters, the less of them we have, the better.

There were families long before there was any government, let alone any "social services." And if the latter collapse, there will still be families.

And we were also just ANIMALS before the concept of 'governments' existed. And if governments collapsed, we would still be ANIMALS. "Social Services" are ALL that governments serve. What you mean is that social services that aide the poor were non-existent and that you ONLY approve of a government run BY the wealthy that serves ONLY FOR the wealthy. What would a government be if it lacked such serves? It would be a PRIVILEGED PRIVATE GOVERNMENT owned and operated by ONLY those who have a coincidence of POWER. It would 'govern' the poor BY the 'wealth' and thus act as a TAX against the poor ONLY! ["Tax" is a burden only to those who are expected to contribute without a choice. When you disempower the poor by burdening them to DO MORE in order to exist than some SPECIAL SUPERIOR class of people require, you 'free' those who are already 'free' but dictate against the 'freedoms' of those who do not have the fortune.

All concepts of 'government' are themselve not 'natural' in light of all other living beings. So if you think that governments should NOT have social services, you are hypocritical to accept ANY government UNLESS you are expecting ONLY a system that governs ALL OTHERS except yourself but BY yourself.

If you actually believe in what you say, prove that YOU can exist independently among the bears in the wild. They are 'natural'. If you think one should survive ONLY on their own nature, then you can't cheat and say that YOU should get a 'right' to OWN. Prove you 'own' a bear's territory based upon no tools that the social collective of humanity has passed on 'freely'. Then you can complain to the bear that is trying to eat you whether you deserve some 'right to live' by nature at all.

The fact is, governments that do not support imbalances SOCIALLY by a system that DEFINES us as 'equivalent' members of the society, are merely mechanisms of CONTROL by some TOTALITARIAN CLASS of people who have NO OTHER REASON to set it up other than as their OWN 'corperate' domain. That is, you make all non-owners "SLAVES" because you DEFINE POWER as based upon one's ECONOMIC strength and so undefine those without wealth as necessarily subservient to behave according to those who ARE.

Note that you would still have that 'social service': the social service of dictating how you and your own 'family' (based upon wealth) should be FAVORED in laws in contrast to non-privileged people regardless of whether they are or are not 'families' but still have to submit to those 'families' who are wealthy.

You are not for 'family' then UNLESS you are indicating some favorable SOCIAL laws that enhance your freedoms merely by accident of your prior wealth. You just don't want to have ANY taxes (no burdening laws) while arrogantly imposing the opposite on those subsocieties that are not your own. Because you favor inheritance, this implies a form of 'socialism' that is "NATIONALISTIC" (as in one' family genetic heritage or roots). I don't have to spell out what this implies do I?

[Immanuel Can]

What you are dictating is that one MUST behave according to some specific standard of 'gender' as being identical to one's 'sex'.

I don't "dictate" anything. Reality does. And I don't say people are not allowed to be deluded if they want to be; they can. But they can't ask me to participate with them in their delusions.

I already take the view that 'gender' identities are personal psychological interpretations of one's behaviors BASED upon traditional views of 'sex'.

No, that's not what they are. They are the products of chromosomes and gametes, somewhat socially shaped, but not optional to reality. People are XX or XY (with very few, rare exceptions that signal chromosmal abnormality), and reproduction is egg (the female component) and sperm (the male, obviously). There are no other options, and never have been.

I don't know what you disapprove of the term, "tradition",

Not for some things. But "tradition" has no importance here. It's basic biology that matters.

And we were also just ANIMALS before the concept of 'governments' existed.

Well, let's pretend that was true.

We were mammals, then...male and female. And reproduction was never any other way.

What you mean is that social services that aide the poor were non-existent and that you ONLY approve of a government run BY the wealthy that serves ONLY FOR the wealthy.

You don't know what I "mean," obviously. You're just sadly mistaken, Scott.

I'm not against all government. Government has a few legitimate functions. It will still likely perform them very poorly -- it always does -- but it will perform them to some low degree of competency. And in some cases, that's necessary. But mostly not.

I'm no advocate for "the wealthy" or for "privilege." I'm an advocate only for things like personal responsibility, moral behaviour, efficiency, and facts. That has nothing to do with who is rich and who is not.

It would be a PRIVILEGED PRIVATE GOVERNMENT owned and operated by ONLY those who have a coincidence of POWER.

You mean Trudeau? Yes, he's all of that. I'm no fan of his.

So if you think that governments should NOT have social services,

I didn't say they shouldn't. They need to do prisons, borders, policing, roads... But government functions should be as few and modest as possible, because government does nothing well.

However, I'm a big advocate for charity, for voluntary societies, for community support, religious aid services, and so forth...all the stuff private citizens do, and do efficiently and well. I'm just not for bureaucracy.

If you actually believe in what you say, prove that YOU can exist independently among the bears in the wild.

That's a bit ridiculous, Scott. But I'll humour it anyway.

There's a big distance between living with minimal government and living with bears. I'm not against civilization, or community, or even limited government; I'm against big, bloated, inefficient, ugly, out-of-touch, Leftist, gravy-train-elitist governments like the one under which you live.

[popeye1945]

Context always bestows one's identity upon one, even where one strives to escape one's context, it then becomes your storyline context identity, the life as lived. Identity is the clothing the constitution wears in public.

How one identifies oneself is not the same as how the same individual is identified by others.

Hi Belinda, One's identity is presumably the individuals's identity. When we come into this world we have no identity, we are simply a constitution either hardy or frail. It is the life journey of that constitution through the context of its world experience that gives said individual their self-identity. As a word within a sentence, a sentence in a paragraph context defines.

[Belinda]

Context always bestows one's identity upon one, even where one strives to escape one's context, it then becomes your storyline context identity, the life as lived. Identity is the clothing the constitution wears in public.

How one identifies oneself is not the same as how the same individual is identified by others.

Hi Belinda, One's identity is presumably the individuals's identity. When we come into this world we have no identity, we are simply a constitution either hardy or frail. It is the life journey of that constitution through the context of its world experience that gives said individual their self-identity. As a word within a sentence, a sentence in a paragraph context defines.

I agree personal identity is learned not inherited.

Nonetheless the Christian idea that God knows when the sparrow falls is a poetic rendering of deterministic necessity. New Age has the same idea: " You are a child of the universe".

[popeye1945]

[quote=Belinda post_id=556312 time=1642760249 user_id=1

I agree personal identity is learned not inherited.

Nonetheless the Christian idea that God knows when the sparrow falls is a poetic rendering of deterministic necessity. New Age has the same idea: " You are a child of the universe".
[/quote]

Belinda,

If there is something to the term deterministic, it is infinite, thus for the purpose of our understanding it is quite useless.

[Belinda]

[quote=Belinda post_id=556312 time=1642760249 user_id=1

I agree personal identity is learned not inherited.

Nonetheless the Christian idea that God knows when the sparrow falls is a poetic rendering of deterministic necessity. New Age has the same idea: " You are a child of the universe".

Belinda,

If there is something to the term deterministic, it is infinite, thus for the purpose of our understanding it is quite useless.
[/quote]

Ultimate universal determinism, or ' necessity' to give it another name, is an insight into the metaphysical insight of the One and the many. Necessity pertains to the One, and individuals pertain to the many.

[popeye1945]

Belinda,

If there is something to the term deterministic, it is infinite, thus for the purpose of our understanding it is quite useless.
[/quote]

Ultimate universal determinism, or ' necessity' to give it another name, is an insight into the metaphysical insight of the One and the many. Necessity pertains to the One, and individuals pertain to the many.
[/quote]

Belinda,
Could you elaborate, I am afraid I don't understand.

[Immanuel Can]

...the Christian idea that God knows when the sparrow falls is a poetic rendering of deterministic necessity.

It's not, actually.

"To know" is not the same verb as "to cause." The verse does not say that God "causes" the sparrow to fall; just that He knows when/how it will. One can "know" plenty of things for which one is not the "cause."

[henry quirk]

God knows when the sparrow falls is a poetic rendering of deterministic necessity.

as I reckon it: God may well know how, why, and when the sparrow falls, as long as man isn't involved

man, as a free will, is a wild card, the wild card: why and when Joe shoots the sparrow is as much a mystery to Him as it is to you and me

[Immanuel Can]

God knows when the sparrow falls is a poetic rendering of deterministic necessity.

as I reckon it: God may well know how, why, and when the sparrow falls, as long as man isn't involved

man, as a free will, is a wild card, the wild card: why and when Joe shoots the sparrow is as much a mystery to Him as it is to you and me

Well, I might know, and know accurately, that my message was going to be responded to by somebody. Did that mean I made you respond? Of course not. You have your own will. We both know that.

Even if I knew with 100% accuracy that the response would be from you, Henry, it would not imply I had manipulated your limbs to type your response. I did not do any such thing. What you typed was at your discretion, and whether you responded was entirely your choice.

To say I "foreknew" is not the same as to say I "forecaused" your response. I actually had no hand in making you respond at all.

The same is true of God. God knows what will happen. That is not to say that He makes it all happen. As you point out, human beings have free wills. And that means they often do things that God does not like and would wish they would not do. That's the meaning of "free" will -- it means "free from constraint or necessity from outside itself."

That means mankind can, and does do, that which God knows about but does not approve in any way...far less cause Himself.

[henry quirk]

Mannie,

we're not talkin' about one human, by way of experience and reason, accurately predictin' an event, action, or behavior

we're talkin' about God, knowin' in advance, perfectly, what a man will do, say, and think

the first isn't knowing: it's accurate prediction

the second is a free will nullification: doesn't matter if God causes Joe to off the sparrow or if He just knows when, why, and how Joe will off the sparrow, His perfect knowledge means Joe is gonna off that bird, is gonna for a specific reason, and is gonna in a specific way

Joe is an event, not an agent, in such a set up

no, if God prizes free will, then He can't know what Joe will do: like any of us, He can only guess or predict

as I say elsewhere: mebbe one of His reasons for creatin' man is to experience surprise

I don't find the notion demeaning of Him, or limiting on Him: I see it as indicative of His personhood; it adds dimension to created in His image

[Immanuel Can]

Mannie,

we're not talkin' about one human, by way of experience and reason, accurately predictin' an event, action, or behavior

we're talkin' about God, knowin' in advance, perfectly, what a man will do, say, and think

the first isn't knowing: it's accurate prediction

I hear what you're saying, Henry...and I know it's a brain-bender. But even accuracy is actually just an irrelevant variable. One can be accurate or inaccurate in a case of foreknowledge; but neither creates a causal relation. Causality is a different dynamic than knowledge.

So, to illustrate from my own case, whether or not I knew correctly I would get a response has nothing to do with whether or not I made a response happen. You know I didn't make you respond. Yet I was now certainly correct in assuming I would get a response.

His perfect knowledge means Joe is gonna off that bird, is gonna for a specific reason, and is gonna in a specific way

It doesn't, actually. And again, that's simply because knowledge doesn't make things happen.

Again, if say "I know that the Napoleonic Wars happened," as accurate as that may be, and even if I know it correctly down to the very last fact, that does not imply I caused the Napoleonic Wars. That's obviously impossible, as I wasn't even alive then. And the same is true of the future: to say I know that X will happen does not mean that when it happens, I will have caused it. And that is also true, whether or not I know it correctly, down to the last fact.

It can take awhile to get one's head around that, if one has been used to assuming that foreknowledge and predetermination are identical postulates. But that they are not is actually generally recognized among theologians...what they debate is not whether or not the postulates are distinct, but whether or not God actually does just one (as Provisionists and many Arminianists insist) or both (as Calvinists insist). But even the most hard-line Calvinists accept that foreknowledge is not, by itself, predetermination. They know the extra step is necessary in order to assert both.

Here's a short vid. on the distinction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIBJ1wVqCeU.

Joe is an event, not an agent, in such a set up

No, Joe's still an agent, because knowing is a passive thing, and doing is an active one. Joe is the agent; he still does what Joe wants to do. Joe may also do what God does not want him to do, but foreknows he will do. That doesn't make Joe's misdeeds God's fault.

no, if God prizes free will, then He can't know what Joe will do

Actually, He can. He's not time-bound, as we are. But knowing does not make things happen.

mebbe one of His reasons for creatin' man is to experience surprise

That has other unpalatable consequences.

It would mean that God cannot prophesy anything, and it means that things can happen that take Him unawares. In which case, what's our level of trust in Him? I mean, He might say He loves us and He forgives us, but if He doesn't know everything we're going to do, how does He know He will actually forgive us for what we're going to do? So we then could have no assurance that we are going to be saved at all...maybe there's some factor that will "take the Almighty by surprise" and put us beyond forgiveness, no?

I don't find the notion demeaning of Him, or limiting on Him: I see it as indicative of His personhood; it adds dimension to created in His image

The fact that we have free will does indeed mark our being "in His image." But He is not "in our image." What we have to keep straight is which is the prototype and which is the antitype; He's the original, and we are the pallid little copy. He does not resemble us, except to the extent and in the ways that He has allowed that we shall resemble Him.

In the same way, we can't take our lack of foreknowledge as an indicator of His lack of foreknowledge, anymore than we can take our impulsivity, untrustworthiness, mortality or wickedness, or our boundedness by time and space, as a sort of proof that God must be impulsive, untrustworthy, mortal or wicked and confined by time and space.

[Belinda]

Belinda,

If there is something to the term deterministic, it is infinite, thus for the purpose of our understanding it is quite useless.

Ultimate universal determinism, or ' necessity' to give it another name, is an insight into the metaphysical insight of the One and the many. Necessity pertains to the One, and individuals pertain to the many.
[/quote]

Belinda,
Could you elaborate, I am afraid I don't understand.

Determinism is more that causal chains that necessitate one event preceding or succeeding another event. Determinism is also all events past and future are necessary events that can't be otherwise than they are, were, or will be.

If you think of determinism as per my second sentence, then you are thinking of the one. The one is variously called "existence itself" , "the universe", "nature", or "God".

If you think of all the separate events then you are not thinking of the one but the many.