ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
That doesn't follow whatsoever. It presupposes that we're always capable of evaluating deep consequences, which is plainly not the case. It also presupposes a ton of wisdom on the part of the person being persuaded.
Yes, progressives say "it's not my job to educate you" as well. (Traditionalists are just the progressives of 50 years ago, after all.)
If the only difference between you and them is that they have the social power to enforce it and you don't [because your thing is Totally 100% True Trust Me Gaise] then you're worthless and offensive as a movement, and people are right to reject you.
People generally don't like being tricked or called stupid; when you do that I'd argue it costs you a bit of your saltiness.
Well, I assume people here are rational and know both the common and academic meanings of words until they prove otherwise, and are not intentionally taking things to absurd extremes- especially without any attempt to elaborate.
and think it must actually all be about women
That's because it is- more specifically, it's about power.
Abortion rights are, at the end of the day, a sex worker protection law. Babies are a service sex workers provide on contract, they're taking a lot of risk to provide one (especially true pre-medicine, but it's an obligation that normally consumes your entire adult life) and as such it makes sense that if that contract goes badly they should have an out. This includes things like "birth control doesn't work", "contract falls through" [husband leaves- progressives agree with traditionalists that a penis entering a vagina carries the same contractual obligations], "this service was stolen by physical force", and "this service offered violated other sex worker labor laws" [age of consent violations, casting couch, etc.].
This is why [the group of women who resent being sex workers, realize that they are sex workers, but have nothing to offer anyone beyond sex work] are most fiercely in favor of these, and related, laws. The average pro-abortionist is a #metoo and #fightfor25 proponent for this reason.
Traditionalists don't really have a problem with women being sex workers- rape could not be a property crime against fathers if it wasn't- but they strongly believe that a binding contract needs to be signed before sex work of this nature can occur as the primary form of worker protection. So, the fact that being 'forced' (in the presence of trivial alternatives) to carry to term when they have sex outside of that contract is good, proper, natural.
The thing they're missing is that the social infrastructure that once existed to punish this kind of contract violation has been destroyed (age of consent laws are the only compromise still standing, and is part of why traditionalists are very worried that progressives will erase them too). But they're also generally unwilling to build any new social infrastructure and just use what power they have to complain about this, just like progressives are- in fact, progressives would rather destroy traditionalist organizations that exist to support pregnant women in marginal cases than fix the problem; traditionalists do the same thing to conception-prevention organizations when they get the chance (and this should be a sufficient explanation as to why).
The personhood of a fetus, existing or not, really doesn't matter here for either group (traditionalists tend to more strongly believe that their property rights extend to their children; progressives are a lot more redistributionist about that, but they still believe it). Yes, it is convenient that it's alive for the pro-life side; but that's all it is- I have no evidence to believe this would be different were the matter of facts swapped (and is why progressives fight to prove the fetus isn't alive).
Yes, it's unpleasant to acknowledge that the occasional 10 year old will get pregnant, or that some women will die because of this, or that unborn children are killed- but they die because [we believe, and perhaps correctly] our contract law is more important, in the same way school shootings are [the right to defend oneself is a part of the social contract certain societies make with the expendable gender, in return for that expendability- when classical liberals say guns are the left's abortion, this is what they actually mean].
It's hard when many of the same people are arguing a few threads down that women having sex with no prospect of marriage or childbirth is the root of all of our problems.
Yeah, but they're just the spear counterpart to the group of women I described earlier (existential anxiety of men about what they are). If they do that task well, they'll be rewarded; that is one of the earliest contracts.
Since you know, it's fairly well known issue that requires some clarification.
It certainly does- what are "the" passions?
If you're going with the answer of "lust and degeneracy" (which is what I believe you were implying, and what it directly says upthread) that's just "stop liking what I don't like" with the letters rearranged. While you've correctly identified every other response to that argument are [more sophisticated] "no, also fuck you"s, the argument they contain- that being "who decides, and why should the failure of others to control themselves be my problem; and the fruits of my virtue redistributed, stolen at gunpoint, to benefit those without?"- hasn't been answered.
In a sibling comment, you quote
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites
but I am more qualified for civil liberty because I have that disposition. So your "license", that you might demand I forfeit for the salvation of others, is at the same time inherently granted to me simply by being better at this than most people are, thus claiming I don't deserve this liberty is little more than theft.
Surely discourses of that sort were one factor why we've swung so heavily into the other extreme.
Oh no, the safety discourse is the same people, it's just that the "uncivilized" discourse has taken a backseat because most of their pet demographics do it. Being overly concerned about "muh order" is basing your public moralfaggotry on fathers overstepping their bounds; being overly concerned about "muh safety" is when you do that based on mothers overstepping theirs.
free range parenting dismissed not so much due to the potential harm to child but the potential harm to the rest of the society
Everyone has always hated the liberal types: either because they're incapable of doing it properly/just like the aesthetic and actually end up doing that damage, or because they're worthy to do it and hence resented by everyone else/crab bucket mentality.
It has to be visceral/instinctual; there's just no other explanation that makes sense. The people who do feel that are going to try to rationalize it quite a bit harder and, logically, would rather not have to work at sexual attraction because it makes the relationship much more likely to succeed (for obvious reasons). Compare [the emotional impulse behind] 6/6/6 for women. Preference falsification applies to everyone, especially those that suggest vanity.
Conversely, we should expect men who have to fight themselves every time they need to prove they're attracted to their wife to be worse at marriage, which naturally leads to a higher divorce rate. The implication when it's brought up is that it's all on the woman, but obviously that's not true (and considering the market value of sexual access to the female body has fallen through the floor -> sex is expected when dating, women who might not otherwise want to do that really aren't in a great situation).
It makes sense that the revulsion is instinctual; from a biological standpoint women who intentionally seek out sex are malfunctioning since it's very risky for zero benefit. It's only been within the last 70 years that the risk (of pregnancy) dropped to literally zero, so this trait hasn't evolved out of the male population yet, and the selection pressure might actually be in the direction of reinforcement anyway.
no instinctive revulsion
Interestingly, there are a couple of sex things I do feel instinctive revulsion towards (seeing two conventional men interact sexually is one of those; actually, I suspect this is also true for [obligate] gay men, which probably explains some furries... among other things) so I just kind of map that feeling onto this.
Perhaps that's just a side effect of my general pattern of sexual deviancy.
Personally, I would be more concerned about marrying someone who isn't sufficiently deviant/has too much instinctual revulsion about sex to actually be any fun to sleep with... but then again, low body count kind of falls out of that equation anyway for other reasons so maybe that's just a self-serving rationalization too.
and there's no obvious way to fix it
Sure there is: the old simply need to decide/be forced to pay their damn taxes.
The old in the US chose to pay their taxes: they, wisely, chose someone who campaigned on imposing them- he even managed to make them fun. And while the results of figuring out that new tax policy have been... interesting, especially because the reformers choose to televise negotiations (which I will point out was vital to making them fun in the first place), this is necessary for American society to avoid becoming too top-heavy and collapsing under the weight of its unpaid debts. Or in other words, "a deep-seated economic crisis at a structural level".
The old in the rest of the Western world, by contrast (and you can blame some selection effects- these countries define themselves by their social conservatism, Decorum, and Orderliness), have soundly rejected paying their taxes and, as provinces of the Empire, now need to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing so. "Muh Trump" is simply an excuse for this (and the fact that nobody in any one of these nations can articulate what is actually wrong with him besides righteous indignation reveals that).
The housing situation could be solved overnight if you mass-mobilized your potential workforce; I'd leave my current job instantly if someone showed up at my door, thrust a journeyman ticket with my name on it into my hands, and said "we'll pay 1.5x your current salary, and guarantee you a single family home in whatever location you choose, to come build houses for us for the next 4 years", and I think a lot of teen and twentysomethings would be willing to do that too. If the political will was there, it would occur.
There's no way out of this mess.
Well, not until the war in Ukraine wraps up, at any rate. I wonder where that massive surplus of small arms is going to end up if the Ukrainian government wins but can't pay its soldiers (to say nothing of the Russian one)? I suspect European nations in particular are not going to like the answer.
Otherwise, it seems self-evident to me that God would not have made something so fundamentally part of our nature feel good to us if he didn't intend for us to enjoy it
Counterpoint: It also feels good to dominate other human beings, but I don't believe God intended for us to enjoy that.
Now, match "domination" to "sex", combine that with the degree that marriage is inherently an exclusive prostitution agreement for sociobiological reasons, mix that with a generally-productive instinct for men to do this sexually more often... and now you know why traditionalists have an emergent, adversarial relationship with sex. For progressives, mix that with the female zero-sum social game, and the result is "yes, all men do that for power reasons, and they all do it on purpose".
Yes- progressivism (the current dominant ideology of women and their corporate arms- schools, etc.) is omnipresent and an extremely socially conservative force, very publicly allergic to any kind of human dignity (typically referred to as "risk").
Sure, they sometimes pretend to be on the side of "liberalism", but they cheer when kids get arrested by CPS (or are themselves doing the arresting) for not being visibly accompanied by the head of the household, something they have in common with fundamentalist Muslims. That doesn't scream "freedom-respecting and risk tolerance" to me no matter how much leather they're wearing.
Well, no surviving ones, at any rate; the most famous one was the mass of women cross-dressing in the '60s and '70s. Of course, that movement was so overwhelmingly successful that it's just the room temperature now.
There's also tomboyism, though that's not really an organized subculture so much as an emergent phenomenon.
The main way to tell whether a particular crossdresser is doing it for fetish/sexualized reasons or not is to look at how well they fit into the surrounding environment. If they're in formal wear when everyone else is casual (which covers both your average drag queen and Sam Brinton) it's 100% fetish/sexual, but if it's not then it's reasonable to assume they have other goals (where, sexual or not, they're unlikely to try and make it your problem).
However if you prefer, let us taboo the term "racism" and instead discuss "racial identitarianism".
The same should also be done for "sexism" -> "sex/gender identitarianism", which not only covers feminism/gynosupremacy, but LGBT/homosupremacy too.
Ok, so forced arbitration then military action.
I think the current English order is evil enough to order them shot as a motivator if no alternative can be found; whether the soldiers actually pull the triggers when so ordered is another matter.
the nation of Canada is one consequential urban corridor containing 50% of its population (Quebec City -> Toronto)
Which is why it should be its own country. They have very little in common with those outside there and everything they do is destructive to those outside of it.
That is how it should be.
If I were looking for a gotcha passage showing Jesus giving priority to men or being demeaning of women, I feel like I could do better.
That was the impression I had from the exchange (though even if it was 100% true, which I honestly don't believe it is, I'm expecting a first-century Jesus to act in a way common to a first-century people where it isn't conflicting with the job He is doing; that's just the way it works). I'm not bothering to discuss the latter half of the NT because we both know they contain a bunch of this (or at least, the excuse to justify a bunch of this; there's still a lot of 'male should lead and be household's head' too with the implication that it's not a job suitable for women, which gets used as an excuse to underperform or fail to delegate then make that failure the woman's problem).
Interestingly, I find that if you read those letters in a slightly more sophisticated/charitable manner it contains a lot of relatively standard group dynamics stuff. Everyone is aware of, or at least able to conceptualize, someone not being able to shut up during the sermon, and odds are you conceptualize this person as female even if you're a woman. So that + cultural outlook = "women should be silent in church"; it's applying the cultural meme in brain-dead fashion to people for whom it isn't true that creates the issue, but t'was ever thus.
For your statistics, I...
- Understand: 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19.
- Certain I've encountered, but I'd have to look up to be sure: 4, 17
that particular actress are... kind of ugly
Everyone in that movie was ugly. Ramona, in particular, looks like a man (and even looking at her actress after the fact gives me that impression- it's not just for the movie).
Seafood pasta dishes are actually more traditional.
To be fair, that's also true in Japan- instant noodles (just add water and boil for a while) are convergent evolution.
Because we'd be a neutral alternative to both, allowing us to peel off free/red states should the US be rewarded with a real tyrant of a D sometime. Canada (as in, Toronto to Montreal) is a dead end for anyone not living in those areas and, much like how FCfromSSC talks about a national divorce for the US, the divide (and emnity) East vs. West is very strong here too.
The G in GIF is pronounced like
I tend to pronounce it with a 'y' sound. This can create problems with programmers since they tend to prefer yiff GIFs.
If you're tied up about it specifically needing to be about the sex act itself, sure.
That doesn't not make every Taylor Swift song the PG-rated version of that.
it’s being used as a cope
Why do you believe men feel the need to use it as a cope, and why is there anything to cope with?
My argument is that if you take the perspective that the beliefs are sincere and literal, everything starts to make sense.
Sure... but nobody's that self-centered that they'd destroy most of the compromises set up to channel disputes among maximally self-centered individuals, right? Besides, when I do self-centered stuff, I'm lucky enough that it usually has some productive end, and the woo woo shit I might otherwise be partial to/where I work towards what makes observable, repeatable sense is generally... not, so naturally they'd have a sense of that and know when to moderate it.
This is the model that "reasonable citizens" have; that's why they can be defeated.
Cheap Civic-ish cars used to be available in convertible form
A wide variety of cars used to be available like that. Now there are only two that sell for less than 50K new, and one of them only seats two.
The Canadian government doesn't control where Canadians live
But it does have some laws controlling what they do while living outside the country, including ones that have to do with certain types of commerce.
If they can ban that (and as far as I know the courts are fine with it), they can ban working for American companies. Enforcement is another matter, but since when has that stopped anyone?
Yeah, but that's both because nobody knows what a paraphilia is[1], and because it sounds like that other '-philia' that means you're into kids.
(Actually, the same's true of using the expanded form of 'AGP', for the same reason, and those who use it know that.)
[1] I mean, I like that caliber and being prepared and all, but I've yet to develop a sexual attraction to bullets and MREs.
More options
Context Copy link