Since Women Were "Liberated"

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 13396
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by henry quirk »

It can, very easily.

nope

All it requires is that we note the difference between two verbs: "know" and "cause."

it was noted, understood, and dismissed as nonsensical (and irrelevant to our conversation cuz I never connected know and cause and yet you insist on respondin' to me as though I have [and that, sir, is my complaint: you're not actually havin' a conversation with me, but sellin' to an audience)

But yes, we can leave it.

👍
Belinda
Posts: 6413
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:30 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:38 pm You confuse determinism with fatalism.
Fatalism is the existential application of Determinism. Fatalist is what somebody becomes when they believe Determinism is true. That, and amoral, of course.
...we are living beings who face the future and have to decide what it will be.
If Determinism is true, our "decisions" decide nothing at all. Like all things, they are simply fated to be what they are. We may imagine we have free will, but we're just fooling ourselves, in that case.

Having the illusion of free will is not the same has having free will. That's the mistake you're making.
Except for God, determinism does not imply prediction.
Gary Childress
Posts: 3095
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Gary Childress »

Belinda wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 11:38 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:30 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:38 pm You confuse determinism with fatalism.
Fatalism is the existential application of Determinism. Fatalist is what somebody becomes when they believe Determinism is true. That, and amoral, of course.
...we are living beings who face the future and have to decide what it will be.
If Determinism is true, our "decisions" decide nothing at all. Like all things, they are simply fated to be what they are. We may imagine we have free will, but we're just fooling ourselves, in that case.

Having the illusion of free will is not the same has having free will. That's the mistake you're making.
Except for God, determinism does not imply prediction.
So whatever we happen to do is pre-determined? Then there is no free will. If there is no free will, then we are not responsible for what we do or don't do. And if God has a plan, then all of us are simply playing our roles in it just by being ourselves I guess.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 13396
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by henry quirk »

Gary,

come over to the dark, er, deist side

God created you: that's it, that's all

He made you to have reason, free will, and conscience: what you do with yourself is all on you (and Him? He ain't acceptin' calls at the moment)

well, then what good is He, Henry?

hey, be grateful He made you...isn't that enough?

the problem with theists: they expect too damn much from Him when everything they actually need to make a go of it is right there inside 'em
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15201
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 11:38 am determinism does not imply prediction.
Utterly irrelevant. Prediction has nothing to say about that question.

The fact that we are clueless about Determinism, or can't predict its outcomes, would not make Determinism untrue; nor would it make our will free. All it would do is make us robots that don't know we're robots.
Belinda
Posts: 6413
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:53 am
Belinda wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 11:38 am determinism does not imply prediction.
Utterly irrelevant. Prediction has nothing to say about that question.

The fact that we are clueless about Determinism, or can't predict its outcomes, would not make Determinism untrue; nor would it make our will free. All it would do is make us robots that don't know we're robots.
Prediction means knowing what is going to happen. Determinism means every event is a necessary event.

You do not know what is going to happen . Your God knows what is going to happen; you don't.

Just keep on making the best decisions you can and you will be as okay as you can be.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15201
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:18 pm Prediction means knowing what is going to happen. Determinism means every event is a necessary event.
Yes? And?
You do not know what is going to happen . Your God knows what is going to happen; you don't.
Both are true...and?

Knowledge is not making. God foreknows what you will do; He absolutely does not MAKE you do it.
Just keep on making the best decisions you can and you will be as okay as you can be.
That would be true if God had said nothing at all about what He expected of you, or what His plans were, and had left us all in the dark. Then, whether we were all destined for eternal happiness or bound for the pit of blackness, there would be zero we could do about it, either way. And we would be completely ignorant.

We are not. God has spoken. And He holds us responsible to listen and act. And He has given us the means to change our destiny. So we cannot beg off our personal responsiblity by pleading Determinism.
promethean75
Posts: 931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by promethean75 »

"God foreknows what you will do; He absolutely does not MAKE you do it."

Pardon me, but if god knows what you will do, and you do otherwise, instead, god would have been wrong about what he thought he knew you would do. If this is so, then god is not omniscient and is capable of having fallible knowledge... of being wrong. Shirley you'd not admit this of god, wouldja?
promethean75
Posts: 931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by promethean75 »

... on the other hand, if god is omniscient, knows in advance what you will do, cannot be wrong, and you cannot do otherwise, there is no freewill.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Scott Mayers »

Sorry for writing late. I'm not spending as much time online that I used to.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:35 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:08 pm 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.
Biology is SEX, pyschology is GENDER. I'm not sure why you are even spelling this out because I am responding to how the Right wants to IMPOSE 'cultural' beliefs using some specific religious views as its guide. The 'right' would not merely pretend NOT to care as you assert, they would do whatever it took to intentionally make it hard for people who have unusual GENDER preferences to have ANY help or protections against discrimination.
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.
I don't recall responding by that quote regarding sex or gender. I am against an assumption that the government's social services are presumed unnatural by your side's position while ownership is not. If I said anything relating to governments favoring alternate lifestyles, it is about you disrespecting it as UNNATURAL when ANY concept of ANY modern human endeavor is itself no longer 'natural'. Thus, while it may BE 'unnatural' for men to be with other men, for instance, it is more 'unnatural' for one to be wealthy beyond what they can carry. Animals DO practice homosexual behaviors under limiting conditions. For humans, it is actually more functional to encourage these alternate lifestyles (regardless of it being unnatural) if only to make it LESS dysfunctional for those who cannot get ANY sexual relationship. The taboo itself makes many react in bad social ways and where the taboos do not exist, they permit those who would normally REFUSE to go outside their normal preferences.

I don't believe one is born with ANY sexual preference but should have a choice without legal penalties as it was before. It WAS illegal only until recently in most of the West. And this tabooing was done by religious people most specifically against it as you are. When 'choice' existed before the law without concern, the religious community encouraged hate towards these people and believed it was their right to IMPOSE their gay children to be counterculturally retrained to be 'normal'. Thus, the laws of our countries had to formally assert these people as 'legitimate' or the default assumption would treat these people as coequivalent to being pedophiles.
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.
Actually you are because you interpret it 'natural' for ownership to be treated as something DEVINE and that government should serve to SAVE YOU tax dollars while oppositely favoring a lack of protections for the poor except BY voluntary religious associations. If the churches were expected to be the ones to take on social services, it would be IMPOSING RELIGION upon those in need. It was in Canada and the U.S. and other pre-British colonys had go governments in your mind set the churches 'free' reign in "educating" the Aboriginals. The abuses and murders of children in these residential schools was based upon 'voluntary' faith in these institutes. Because our system protects SPECIFIC religions that they gave permission to these educational facilities, NO RELIGIOUS PERSON is held liable by law here. That is, the Aboriginal cannot have specific charges held against their abusers because they are religious!
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.
Huh? How does this even act as any 'counter'? But it is interesting that you now recognize that this is a 'rightwing' ideal given it is Trudeaus' conservative side that gives this weight only. That is, your dig against his position is based upon a right-wing ideal that I'm arguing against, not a left-wing one.

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.
I certainly have had more of a reason to complain about bureaucracy that you'd think. But, this is more true of PRIVATE governments where there is NO ONE that some people can turn to when in need. The complaint you have is about assuming that the jobs given to people working with the government are somehow 'unnatural' but that private governments, like corporate officials or business managers serve. I don't know any 'bureaucrat' getting comparable earnings and bonuses as those in businesses doing similar work.

"Voluntary" concepts still favor the owner classes with priority. They 'own' these religious organs by their affiliation and to what they are willing to dole out. But it would be intentionally biased to the volunteer's POWER over the poor. I prefer a system that ASSURES no one is poorer than a certain limit and no one is richer than a certain cap. Billionaires cannot be such without at least indirectly stealing from someone. Bill Gates made his success by literally taking out the normal use of customer services (a bureaucracy) but charges more per capita for their products still rather than pass that savings onto the people.

So for business, reducing bureacracy saves THEM money but at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. Governments are not meant to require running to MAKE money but to serve the people. It is a debt to us all. With a right-wing government, they would first and foremost prevent the 'bureaucracy' that POLICES them, like the regulators against corrupt business practices. But you'd welcome encouraging police that serves to protect you and your property with priority regardless of its own faults.
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.
It is certainly cheapest to have ONE person running the government. If you had the choice in extremes, would you prefer to have ONE person ruling us or ALL? It might be fine to think that if you had the power that you'd be kind enough a dictator. But IF the majority contains people who would be abusive regardless, this stat would be MORE true of private interests.

"Elitists" are the wealthy regardless of where they come from because they believe they are the selected in favor.
elite (n.)

"a choice or select body, the best part," 1823, from French élite "selection, choice," from Old French eslite (12c.), fem. past participle of elire, elisre "pick out, choose," from Latin eligere "choose" (see election). Borrowed in Middle English as "chosen person" (late 14c.), especially a bishop-elect, but it died out mid-15c. The word was re-introduced by Byron's "Don Juan." As an adjective by 1852. As a typeface, recorded by 1920.
Trump is thus also 'elite' and in fact moreso given his extreme expectation of respect! The term is used to describe how some demand respectful etiquette like whether you put your knife on the right side of the plate or the left. The extended link to this to those who are politically correct ONLY relate to this trivially. If someone demands that they require being 'titled' acording to their gender, for instance, counts like this BUT is NOT 'elite' by the whole set of expectations of some. Trump is an excellent example given his own demands of respect and entitlement.

You'd be more helpful if instead of condemning government bureaucrats, you just suggest HOW the particular departments you are concerned about can save as much money as possible. But in voluntary systems, like charities, the actual moneys being used to serve the people they claim to be standing for are MORE bureaucratically flawed.

While having more bureacracy is not welcome, you ignore that the jobs of these people are valid too. There is NO reason for our world to CREATE jobs that many do not think serve any function. I think it is wasteful, for instance, to have money spent on commercials and advertisements for television that ONLY serve to fuel other people's wealth while it also encourages cleaver manipulators which is more of a hazzardeous influence on society. That is, it 'taxes' those of us wanting to just watch the specialty channel we paid for distinctly but while the media owners are double and triple dipping into getting more money out of us than necessary. The channels of a cable provider are all now owned by them also. So what used to be commercials serving to pay for the costs, they charge those who want their commercials aired PLUS us at the receiving end ...TWICE: once for the 'access' to the cost of cable and once for the particular channel. This also has the advantage of the owners to get us to pay for the cost of the commercials THEY can select for us.

Burdens are 'relative' and affect the poor more than they do the moderate let alone the rich. So I'm not 'against' wealth per se (I'd still 'accept' a lottery, for instance) but against HOW the very same percentage of people you think exist as a waste in government positions are not dispersed to all people regardless of wealth. That is, if you think government is a burden because most people are 'greedy' there, do you think the percentage of those who are most fortunate LACK the same likelihood of abuse? I would say that it would be worse.

Here's a question for you that might help: If we had the capacity to replace all labor intensive work to machines such that no one HAD to work, would this change your mind about government costs?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15201
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:12 am Sorry for writing late. I'm not spending as much time online that I used to.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:35 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:08 pm 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.
Biology is SEX, pyschology is GENDER.
No, not for almost all of human history, up to five minutes ago. The alleged sex-gender distinction is merely a recent conceit, and poorly rationalized, even now.
I am against an assumption that the government's social services are presumed unnatural...
That's nothing I ever said, so I'm ignoring that whole section. You need to find the person who said it, and talk to him.
you interpret it 'natural' for ownership to be treated as something DEVINE
Again, these are no words I ever used. So find the person who did.
I certainly have had more of a reason to complain about bureaucracy that you'd think.
Good. Then you understand. You realize, then that the government does nothing very well. And most of what they do, they do very badly. So they are, at best, a necessary evil for a particular set of tasks. Limited government is the right way to go.
"Voluntary" concepts still favor the owner classes with priority.
Nope. They don't. They are actually incredibly effective ways of improving the lot of the poor and underprivileged...far better than government programs, in fact.

Voluntary charitable organizations have been responsible for all kinds of amazing things. They started the whole concept of public schooling, for example. And they were at the forefront of prison reform, homeless provisioning, addiction treatment, and the only kind of foreign aid that has proved successful in actually reducing global poverty.
Trump
The Leftist hatred for Trump always bemuses me. It goes beyond an sorts of reasons or relevance, and I'm yet to figure out why...

I'm not in his country. You're not in his country. To me, he and Biden are equally irrelevant. By all rights, they should be to you, too.
There is NO reason for our world to CREATE jobs that many do not think serve any function.
Well, that's most of the government bureaucracy you've just fired there. And I agree: fire the lot.
Here's a question for you that might help: If we had the capacity to replace all labor intensive work to machines such that no one HAD to work, would this change your mind about government costs?
Who is the "we" in your question, and what is the "labour intensive work" you want replaced? And how does "government" fit into that picture? It's not at all clear to me what you mean, there. Maybe you can explain.
Belinda
Posts: 6413
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:46 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:18 pm Prediction means knowing what is going to happen. Determinism means every event is a necessary event.
Yes? And?
You do not know what is going to happen . Your God knows what is going to happen; you don't.
Both are true...and?

Knowledge is not making. God foreknows what you will do; He absolutely does not MAKE you do it.
Just keep on making the best decisions you can and you will be as okay as you can be.
That would be true if God had said nothing at all about what He expected of you, or what His plans were, and had left us all in the dark. Then, whether we were all destined for eternal happiness or bound for the pit of blackness, there would be zero we could do about it, either way. And we would be completely ignorant.

We are not. God has spoken. And He holds us responsible to listen and act. And He has given us the means to change our destiny. So we cannot beg off our personal responsiblity by pleading Determinism.
Free Will is an exception to God's absolute power. Free Will gives us freedom and responsibility. Immanuel Can's best decisions for himself include his decision that God in his grace has intervened to give us a map, a compass, and a guiding star.

Where my stance differs from IC's is that, if God exists as He may well do,what matters to God is not the quantity of good we accomplish but the honest intention to accomplish good. To "plead determinism" is deeply uncharming, as is wallowing in self blame. The way ahead then is to repent moment by moment and decision by decision. Repentance does not include certainty that some ancient literature has all the answers. Know and respect The Bible, but don't imagine that it's your puppetmaster.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15201
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:45 pm ...what matters to God is not the quantity of good we accomplish but the honest intention to accomplish good.
Well, that gives an excuse for anybody to do anything, so long as afterwards he/she can say, "Yeah, but I had honest intentions..."

"Well I did, in fact, kill and immiserate millions of people; but I did have the honest intention to put an end to exploitation and oppression worldwide. Sure, what I accomplished was gulags, economic collapse and death...but my heart was in the right place."
Belinda
Posts: 6413
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:52 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:45 pm ...what matters to God is not the quantity of good we accomplish but the honest intention to accomplish good.
Well, that gives an excuse for anybody to do anything, so long as afterwards he/she can say, "Yeah, but I had honest intentions..."

"Well I did, in fact, kill and immiserate millions of people; but I did have the honest intention to put an end to exploitation and oppression worldwide. Sure, what I accomplished was gulags, economic collapse and death...but my heart was in the right place."
God knows all about everyone's motivations. You cannot fool God. It's best not to fool yourself by inventing excuses why you failed. The failure is your own and nobody else's.

If you are so misled as to sincerely believe it's okay to make choices such as Stalin made, then you are responsible for your own ignorance and cruelty. As far as I know Stalin never repented.

The thing about determinism is that we make bad choices based on our own lack of reason and foreknowledge. There is nothing in determinism that means we need not admit these failings.

In a court of law the judge may decide that there were malign influences during childhood that caused our cruelty and foolishness, and the judge should be able to be objective. It's not our place to whinge about how it was all someone else's fault.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15201
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 9:41 pm God knows all about everyone's motivations. You cannot fool God. It's best not to fool yourself by inventing excuses why you failed.
But these aren't necessarily "invented excuses." The motives involved might indeed have been entirely pure, but the actions wicked.

Plenty of people set out with good intentions and end up....remind me again, where does that "road" lead? :wink:
Post Reply