Why is Feminism much worse than Cancer nowadays that is caused by women which keeps most men single?

[lightseeker]

I doubt you actually work but don’t quit your day job and try to be a comedian. Maybe you could get a few articles in the Babylon Bee.

Your easy fodder mate, maybe I could bring you up and have you try to define justice or defend anarchy and your other retarded unexamined views, it’d be a riot

 

[Lyfe]

@Drifter

Surely a child isnt capable of making the best choices of their own free will, but how is abuse any better than the harm they may incur from their own misguided choices? Also if most relationships and marriages are full of abusive males then shouldn't we protect the children from witnessing this abuse, or worse ending up like their father?

 

[lightseeker]

Did you eat lead paint as a kid?

random ad hominems about someone you don’t even know aren’t the bullseye you think they are

 

[lightseeker]

I defined justice. Again you base all your beliefs off the propaganda of the czarist secret police and the Nazi’s. You’re an incredible joke. You have nothing.

Yeah and it was retarded. I don’t know anything about these okrana people you quoted. I can define justice easy.

justice is related to God, karma, balance, and truth. It is what is rightfully yours without harming anyone. Subjective justice which harms others according to my vested interests, subjective perception, is in fact injustice

 

[Drifter]

But, if we are on the subject of emancipating deserving parties from models and systems that have failed them and led to their abuse, then why not children?

Because children do not have fully developed fontal cortices.

@Drifter

Surely a child isnt capable of making the best choices of their own free will, but how is abuse any better than the harm they may incur from their own misguided choices? Also if most relationships and marriages are full of abusive males then shouldn't we protect the children from witnessing this abuse, or worse ending up like their father?

So tell me, what is the argument for women being under male ownership?

 

[Cintra]

The truth is that I can take every argument made in favor of feminism and women's liberation and apply it toward children. The statistics are there and probably in greater numbers and since the issue of kids is a more sensitive one then the justification is doubly important. Kids are often treated as property by their parents. They are ruled over and their choices dictated. They have no rights for protection. They often don't even want to report their parents in instances of abuse. If the numbers and models feminists use to argue that men are abusive then the same conclusion must be made toward parenting as a whole as well. The contemporary western model of parenting as an institution is one where much abuse occurs and many children suffer for it. If the same logic feminists use that dictates that men are prone to abuse and mistreatment under a system where they have more rights isn't an exaggeration then neither is my logic. Are the examples and statistics I have at my disposal exaggerated and paint a story consistent with the reality?

Ok, so if we take your correspondence between women and children as correct, then why is it wrong for kids to be treated like that, but ok for women?

Surely if you are correct then it is just as wrong for women to be 'property' as it is for children.

The flaw in your comparison is that children grow up.
Yes, there is a case for reassessing when a child becomes old enough to have choices and autonomy, but surely you aren't saying that a 5 or a 10 year old is capable of managing their own affairs.
In the end, in their teens, a child becomes an adult, and is given autonomy.

With your comparison women never will be granted that autonomy.
She has become an adult and will always remain so.

That is a huge difference.
With children the control over their lives is temporary. For women it would be (and has been) permanent.
She passes like an heirloom from father, to husband, to son.
She is never allowed to become an independent being.

 

[lightseeker]

That’s all you do to me and everyone else that doesn’t tow the line here. You should be banned for all the personal attacks on Vancity, but we all know it’s ideological from the crockpot fraud who runs this place.

You get banned because youre an asshole who has drunken meltdowns, not because of your ideas. I haven’t said anything ad hominem against you, just your stupid ideas

 

[Drifter]

Am i exaggerating that many children are abused and failed by their parents? Is it an exaggeration that serious reforms ought to be made?

Serious reform should be made but parents having guardianship over their kids is not en equivalent system to patriarchy. Come on, you can do better than this.

 

[Lyfe]

Ok, so if we take your correspondence between women and children as correct, then why is it wrong for kids to be treated like that, but ok for women?

Surely if you are correct then it is just as wrong for women to be 'property' as it is for children.

The flaw in your argument is that children grow up.
Yes, there is a case for reassessing when a child becomes old enough to have choices and autonomy, but surely you aren't saying that a 5 or a 10 year old is capable of managing their own affairs.
In the end, in their teens, a child becomes an adult, and is given autonomy.

With your comparison women never will be granted that autonomy.
She has become an adult and will always remain so.

That is a huge difference.
With children the control over their lives is temporary. For women it would be (and has been) permanent.
She passes like an heirloom from father, to husband, to son.
She is never allowed to become an independent being.

Children grow up, but do they ever really grow out of the abuse they suffered? Does it not affect them for the rest of their life and mold them into who they are? Do children really grow up and become functioning members of society in a home that failed them(in some way, shape, or form). These children are adults so I could argue the real reform ought to start there. Do you object to any sort of proposed reform about children having more rights, an outside entity having more influence in how kids are raised? Children having more choices that parents cant overrule at a younger age? Or, parents being able to raise their children, but only by certain proposed guidelines?

 

[lightseeker]

Yeah you do, your protocols and your anti-Semitic Jews control the world comes largely from them. You just lie all the time.

Your definition of justice is retarded because God isnt real. It’s a fairy tale for the weak so your whole definition is thrown out.

No, if no one is willing to correct an injustice than the only option left is to solve it yourself. Otherwise it’s just oppression

I don’t know what they said so can’t tell you, I imagine they didn’t talk about neocons and Zionists which is where I address Jewish power that makes you so upset.

God is real, can be proven through logic easily, as well as many other ways. And even if you don’t believe In God, natural laws like karma fulfill the same purpose

So what about you being oppressed by your anger and drug and alcohol addictions. Those oppress you quite strongly as you always show here. Who should you kill in that case?

 

[lightseeker]

A couple times, sure, most times it’s just for
Being here.


What you think calling me little man is? You

Once you’re banned from the forum you’re banned it seems. It’s not a temporary suggestion

 

[Cintra]

Sweet thanks, I’ll check it out. I think I’ve seen them all anyway so I may have seen it anyway.

The way Kirk declaims it sounds very Crowley.

I reckon Rodenberry was an occultist, probably part of the parsons hubbard clique.

 

[Lyfe]

Serious reform should be made but parents having guardianship over their kids is not en equivalent system to patriarchy. Come on, you can do better than this.

If abuse and lack of rights was your primary objection to patriarchy then the same reform ought to be made toward all parties suffering abuse and mistreatment, including children. Obviously parents did fail their children in patriarchy if all the males became abusive...

 

[Drifter]

If abuse and lack of rights was your primary objection to patriarchy then the same reform ought to be made toward all parties suffering abuse and mistreatment, including children. Obviously parents did fail their children in patriarchy if all the males became abusive...

Okay, answer this: should women not have been liberated by feminism? Was their treatment before its advent acceptable? And I'm not talking about the abuse. I'm talking about the forced dependance and lack of access to resources. Why should women, without appealing to religion, rely on male guardianship. In what way are women similar to children where this guardianship is (unarguably) needed?

 

[lightseeker]

No he isn’t. Not real. Neither is Karma.

I can handle those issues myself and have in fact.

If you don’t believe God is real, you literally live in an absurd paradigm. If you think only the sensory reality exists, you have no way to account for transcendental categories of the mind such as the past, the self, the laws of logic. You literally have no account for how justice or any transcend all principle could exist if sensory perception is the only reality. So you can’t argue for justice and deny God.

Furthermore, a creative principle exists, and organizing principle exists, intelligence exists, therefore it’s logical to assume the creative and organizing principles are intelligent.

Anyone who knows God exists knows because they have experienced him, those are some proofs for people who only have the mind to rely on like you though, no offence.

karma is real because it’s just cause and effect. While given, cause and effect are impossible to verify through the sensory perception alone, they are part of the transcendental categories of the mind and any human being with that mind can verify that they are real easily

 

[Cintra]

Children grow up, but do they ever really grow out of the abuse they suffered? Does it not affect them for the rest of their life and mold them into who they are? Do children really grow up and become functioning members of society in a home that failed them(in some way, shape, or form). These children are adults so I could argue the real reform ought to start there. Do you object to any sort of proposed reform about children having more rights, an outside entity having more influence in how kids are raised? Children having more choices that parents cant overrule at a younger age? Or, parents being able to raise their children, but only by certain proposed guidelines?

Right now children seem to have too much autonomy.
All this gender stuff.
They seem to be being allowed to make life changing decisions about things they cannot even understand yet.
Like puberty blockers and fertility.

I haven't thought that much about it.
I am unlikely ever to have kids.
They should be treated right and allowed to grow properly until they are ready to look after themselves.
People who don't look after them properly should be helped to do so, and if that doesn't work then yeah, the authorities should intervene.

Still.
If it is wrong for children to be controlled, why is it right for women to be?

You seem to be willing to allow children more rights than you give to women.

So, what about girl kids?
Do they get autonomy until they become women, and then they lose it?
Or are girls denied autonomy even as children?

 

[lightseeker]

Everything you stated is just brain chemistry and different states of it. You can believe in all kinds of transcendental states without believing in God. Buddhists do it all the time. Anyway, I’m bored again. Later.

Buddhists aren’t atheists, they understand all the Buddha’s participate in the 3 bodies of the truth which permeate all beings, a single principle which runs through and unites everything is monotheism without personification. They pray to that principle and believe it is intelligent. Maybe the Buddhist class you went to in LA one time or something seemed atheist, but the real tradition is not.

brain chemistry can’t account for the existence and constancy of the laws of logic and the preexistence of mathematical laws like mandelbrot sets.. Seems like a good cop out though

ok bye bye! Too much thinky thinky for you again, sucks when people don’t want a shit throwing competition, hopefully you find someone that will next time

 

[lightseeker]

Secular Buddhism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Shut the fuck up you ignorant hick

Buddhist modernism and western secular interpretations of Buddhism aren’t the authorities on the tradition

 

[Lyfe]

Okay, answer this: should women not have been liberated by feminism? Was their treatment before its advent acceptable? And I'm not talking about the abuse. I'm talking about the forced dependence and lack of access to resources. Why should women, without appealing to religion, rely on male guardianship. In what way are women similar to children where this guardianship is (unarguably) needed?

We clearly disagree on the intent of patriarchy and what laws and rules qualify as oppressive so that's not going to change. I am just saying that if we apply your logic and feminists logic then reform to the current laws and rules in relation to parents and children are long overdue for serious change. Even to the extent of parents having little to no right to raise their kids altogether. I could argue based off of your arguments that children are currently being oppressed, have no rights to protect themselves in an abusive situation, no rights to protect them, they are the greatest victims. Even without clear abuse the question is will parents raise their kids in such a way where they go off into the world as healthy and emotionally well human beings that can function in society and not be prone to make choices that are self destructive in nature. The question you will have to decide is whether or not that's an exaggerated claim and the numbers and findings used to make such a claim math the reality. The abuse numbers are there. Everything is there to paint parenting in a negative light... The grown adults needing psychiatry and anti depressants because of their childhood is there, because they never grow up to be truly functioning adults and often engage in self harm habits. I don't believe I am wrong to apply your logic and contend that the current structure fails children and parents are in one way or another harming their kids in mass then helping them. Therefore reforms and change to the tradtional sense of parents having freedom tor raise their kids as they see fit needs to change.

My personal views are that people in general are self destructive by nature and given their own free will they will only engage in mostly self destructive practices. I think that the very free will they embrace is destroying them. Men will make the wrong choices. Women will make the wrong choices. You view limitations and restrictions to choice as oppressive when I will argue the more freedom a person has to act on their own behalf the more harm they will do to themselves and others. Biblically speaking men were under subjection to. They were under subjection to the laws of God and the laws of Christ so to act like women were the only ones under subjection and having limitations is not true and patriarchy is based off of Biblical precepts.

 

[lightseeker]

“secular Buddhism is founded on a reconfiguration of core elements of the dharma itself.[9] To this end it seeks to recover the original teachings of Siddhattha Guatama, the historical Buddha, yet without claiming to disclose "what the Buddha really meant”

Secular Buddhism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So they reinterpret the original intent and tradition of the teaching for modern people without pretending it’s what the tradition actually says. Also, Lol @ using a Wikipedia article you didn’t read as an argument