@Harlequin5942's banner p

Harlequin5942


				

				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 09 05:53:53 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 1062

Harlequin5942


				
				
				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 09 05:53:53 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1062

Verified Email

men had authority over women in return

That's vague. Men had a higher legal status in some respects and in some situations, but a typical man in a typical historical society had absolutely no authority over any women, except his wife and daughters if he had any.

Russia is not going to dominate Europe, force of arms or otherwise.

It's in the process of conquering the second largest country in Europe and would have succeeded if Trump had been president.

It's not so much that Russia is stronger than Europe, it's that it's crazier. Someone willing to fight can dominate a room full of equally strong people who aren't.

When someone is talking about the 'sexual market place' in the context of dating in the western world they are obviously not talking about brothels and prostitution. You are not being rational or precise with language when you play these word games. It is at best obtuse and obfuscatory.

If someone uses "Nazi" to mean "conservative", then they obviously don't refer to conservatives, but would their usage really not affect their inferences or the inferences of others?

The point I'm making is extremely simple. Man A gets approached by women, gets replies on dating apps and in general finds casual sex and relationships very easy to come by. Man B gets none of those things. In fact women don't even look at him for longer than 2 seconds to decide that he is not attractive.

Man A doesn't need to think about his life goals in terms of what he needs to garner attention from women. Man B does. Man B recognizes that if he does not come by some form of 'thing' or 'currency' or 'bargaining chip' or 'whatever word you want' to balance out his apparent unattractiveness to women, he will likely end up alone or unhappy. Both of these guys might be similar otherwise, but their struggle is not the same. Both want sex and affection. One needs the 'thing' to even be able to play the game, the other does not.

True, different men, like different women, have to work more or less hard to get romantic success. (This is more unforgiving for women than men: almost any woman can get sex, but what people usually want is a loving long term relationship, and men tend to be the gatekeepers for that. A man can work to balance out his unattractive physical traits, whereas a woman's degree or money is unlikely to help her much with the opposite sex.) This is because people care about physical appearances. Physical attractiveness is certainly helpful for initial attraction, though things like conscientiousness and agreeableness seem to be more important for maintaining love long term, since the latter requires a lot of empathy and (rewarding) hard work.

Now, why is working harder to get what you want through labour, exercise, study etc., rather than largely getting it due to inborn attractiveness, not "masculine"? Stereotypically, I would have thought the opposite: a man who is admired by women through displaying virtues and competence is more "manly" than one who is admired by women purely on innate physical grounds. Consider a reversal: is there something unusually masculine about the story of a woman who DID win the affection of her beloved through her abilities and character, despite her plain looks and innately awkward personality?

I appreciate the appeal of gaining easy approval due to one's looks, but I see it as a more classically female way to gain romantic success. Even in nature, among animals that do mating rituals, it's the male that needs to prove himself through dances, chasing the female around etc. in order to mate. Usually, the female just has to look fertile and healthy, and perhaps not even that, even if the result of mating is the male being eaten.

Think Cinderella (be beautiful and agreeable, then someone will eventually be nice to you) vs. Indiana Jones (handsome man, but still only gets the girl by proving himself, proves himself by solving problems and by saving her from danger - sometimes repeatedly in the same movie). Obviously, the latter is more of a classically masculine archetype: the questing knight in European folklore.

This is also seems to be why "saving the man from danger" has more of a maternal rather than romantic feel when it's a woman doing the saving, whereas "saving the woman from danger" has more of a heroic and sexy quality when it's a man doing the saving, unless it's literally saving his daughter as in the Taken movies. And if a man can save the village/kingdom/world/universe, then he's that much more of a classically masculine figure, since he must display great virtue/competence to do so.

Art only has to inspire emotions in people.

Is that true?

If we could inspire the same emotions by taking the relevant pills, would art be redundant?

People saying "if we don't stop him now, he'll take Poland" are fabulists. This is not a realistic scenario.

What about, "If we don't stop him now, he'll attack Ukraine again"?

Just because Russia can't beat Ukraine militarily now, doesn't mean that Putin can't try for a second bite in the future, with the same rationales.

I am not being cute or trolling and don't know how to say otherwise.

Stop engaging in rhetoric and deflection, as opposed to defending your substantive claims or acknowledging your mistakes. This will remove the appearance of trying to be a cute troll.

strongly imply that you think there is no ranking provided, and that the Bible states that all sins are equal. Further discussion has provided more evidence of this.

A comprehensive ranking and a ranking are different, right? I put in "comprehensive" exactly because I know that there are some Bible passages that could be interpreted as elevating some sins as more morally important than others.

For example, consider the set {1, 2, multiplication, blackbirds}. We can put two of its elements into a numerical order, but not all of them.

Sure, but tabooing the word "morality" for a moment, what exactly would the Bible need to say to convince you that not all sins are equal? "God dislikes some sins more than others" is covered in the Bible. "These commandments are more important than these other commandments." is covered. "You will be forgiven of some sins but not others" is also covered. I can't think of anything the Bible could say to contradict your point that it hasn't, besides using the exact same word that you are using.

"Equal" in what sense, given our taboo? Also, a sufficiently similar synonym would be a contradiction. After all, we're really talking about texts in Ancient Greek and Ancient Hebrew, so any such term will not be the taboo word or a grammatical modification of it.

It certainly factors punishments too, both divine and temporal. The Law of Moses punishes different sins differently, and Jesus on many occasions implies that the punishment for some sins is worse than others.

Hmm, that's a good move and a plausible argument. I hadn't thought about differences in temporal punishments. The other arguments you cite are less persuasive, e.g. shifting from "God hates X more" to "X is morally worse," given that it's not clear what an attitude like hate means for an omnipotent and otherwise incomprehensible being. So I don't think it's clear, but I grant that there is a plausible argument to be made.

But to claim the Bible preaches DCT

When did I claim that?

Gay marriage has not opened the way to any age gaps that weren't already allowed between men and women.

Right, but that had entailed legalising sex between adolescents and fully developed men. Whether it's "normalised" it is more debatable, though, since normality /= legality.

If you call that pederasty, then we've already been living in the age of general pedophilia and been fine with it.

This is conflating attraction/sexual activity with adolescents with pedophilia.

Interpreting the war in Ukraine as a sign of Russian strength and capability is quite the contrarian take.

Indeed, but it's not my take: "It's not so much that Russia is stronger than Europe, it's that it's crazier. Someone willing to fight can dominate a room full of equally strong people who aren't."

Russia has shown that it's aggressive. It would have been successful if Trump was president, because Trump is more favourable to Russia/Putin than Ukraine/Zelenskyy. That's why RT etc. likes Trump and dislikes Biden. And I say that as someone who also dislikes Biden.

a flat open nation

A flat open nation that has had massive aid from the US. Assuming that sort of assistance, I also have little worries about Russian expansionism, but the question is whether Trump would be true to his word and be less supportive of the Ukrainians etc.

Indeed: you can shame a redneck for being fat, because they chose to do it.

No, I think you're making a serious and significant argument, which is why I am trying to understand it carefully. I wouldn't spend time on it otherwise.

If being e.g. a femboy or a cad is someone's best bet at romantic success and that's all they want to do, then it's rational for them to do that. And there are no guarantees in love or life, ever. However, it doesn't follow that prosocial masculinity is impossible or irrational for men in general.

Terrible, but not as terrible as what Hitler had planned for Poland.

"Concessions don't always lead to war" is not equivalent to "Concessions reliably lead to peace."

True, it's interesting how some sins (excessive alcohol use, violence as long as it's not too graphic) are more acceptable to many people than sex or drug use.

what is the meaning of the preference?

I don't know what you mean by that phrase.

If illusion can't be disproven then it differs from reality in name only.

Why not also in fact? There's nothing mysterious about the notion of someone being trapped in an illusory state.

If reality and illusion are identical from the observer's perspective, what's the difference?

People's preferences are usually asymmetric over the two.

That's not really 'Irish,' though.

They were in the eyes of Americans at the time, specifically Scotch-Irish. Also, Scots are Celts, though views about that at the time were sometimes complex.

Aside from their Catholicism, there was little to distinguish a typical Irishman from a typical Protestant Highlander. (Their languages would have been slightly different, but equally alien to an English American in 1850.)

Then it wasn't something that men had as men, whereas women had their immunity from conscription as women. Different from today, but not that different, and no solace for an unmarried man who was conscripted (as many young, unmarried men were, sometimes violently e.g. press gangs).

Salami tactics. That was apparently what Putin was trying prior to 2022, but changed his mind for some reason, possibly because of Ukraine's arms buildup.

The only reason the West got sucked into the conflict in its current capacity is because Ukraine put up an impressive resistance

Was it that, or more that Russia is much more pathetic (and apathetic - just look at their public's reaction or the level of mobilisation/defence spending that Putin can muster) than anyone expected?

From what I have seen, it's not so much that Ukrainians have been fighting well, and more that Russia's ability to project power beyond its borders is almost completely gone. Once they could dominate Eastern Europe, now they take months of grinding to gain worthless plains within a country that they once lorded over directly.

This is not to say that passion is a necessary component of great writing

Do you mean sufficient effect?

For Sonic fan fiction, I bring you the lowest depths to which the human mind and soul can sink: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LCWoZEXyGU0

Esteem/affirmation culture, in my view, lends itself far more to mere masturbation-by-proxy than a guilt or shame culture does.

Plausible and interesting. I shall look more into this issue.

Though I am not a Christian or against homosexual behaviour as such, I shall say this: their separation of (a) homosexual preferences from (b) homosexual behaviour ("It's ok to be born gay, as long as you don't do gay things" etc.) is already more sophisticated than many of the takes I hear from my students when debating this issues. Again, what people are vs. what they do.

The Twitter account is run by the character's creator, Andrew Doyle, and has some funny moments. As often happens, the best stuff is the material that is JUST plausible enough to get sincere reactions. Or when reality catches up with parody:

https://andrewdoyle.substack.com/p/the-prophecies-of-titania-mcgrath

'Scottish-Gaelic' and 'Irish-Gaelic' can get confusing.

It would be easy if they were spelt Galic and Gaylick, though the former would cause confusion with the French and the latter would cause confusions best not discussed on a family-friendly forum.