Toxic Gender Philosophy

[Walker]

Yeah, interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, as it makes sense.

Hard to say. On the one hand that sounds like a man tapping the heels of Dorothy's ruby slippers together and wishing on a star. On the other hand, I've heard people can fool lie detector tests. Fooling a brain scan could be a matter of biofeedback conditioning.

Fooling? Brain scans don't examine genitals. It is what it is.

For Dorothy, formerly known as Him, what was post Oz was a dream that she never really believed in again.

[Alexiev]

Thank you for that. You have divined my intention aright.

My goal is not to plead for one side or the other, because I see that both are put into a serious crisis by the present arrangements. What concerns me most is the backlash: a society divided along gender lines, with animosity the chief characteristic and power-grabs the name of the game, is going to hurt everybody -- children most, but also women and also men. No one will be left unbrutalized; but the genuinely disadvantaged, the weaker, those with less access to the means of coercion, are most likely to suffer most.

When power is made the chief goal of all, as Nietzsche insisted it was, and as his inheritors in the Feminist movement and other Neo-Marxist movements have tended to think it is, then those who naturally have access to the most of it are going to come out on top, inevitably -- but this surely means violence. That's what power is: it's the various applications of force to achieve ends, in competition with opposing forces. That means that he who has the most force wins. The concept of working together, of compatibility, of harmonious roles and goals, as is realized in the healthy family, is no longer a paradigm, no longer thought even to be a possibility. War of various kinds...sex, sexuality, race, class, ideological, and so on, becomes the total dynamic of all encounters between the various interests. Negotiation? Immoral. Compromise? Unthinkable. A win-win solution? Outside the bounds of the imaginable. Force -- vicious, malicious, mendacious manipulative and dehumanizing -- is all that's left.

What I would want is to see a better kind of dialogue developed: one that did not dehumanize and demonize everybody who has a different perspective or desire, but which looked for a negotiated way of giving some gains to one side, some to the other, and reasonable definitions and moral limits to both. But that's hard to imagine so long as the way we construct our discourse is inevitably as oppressor vs. oppressed.

Oh, come off it. Modern Western society is LESS "divided along gender lines" than it ever has been, or than most societies have been. Women can now be soldiers, lawyers, doctors and accountants (heaven forfend). The notion that the "healthy family" must preserve traditional economic roles is, at best, questionable, and, at worst, bigoted.

Who (I might ask) is unwilling to negotiate or compromise? Those who want to retain traditional family and economic structures, or those who embrace freedom and change? Who is close-minded? You, or those who embrace changing designations and gender roles? Who is being "demonized"? You, or the transexuals who want to use appropriate public toilets?

Of course the oppressors don't want the oppressed to construct a discourse demanding freedom and rights. According to IC, the down trodden should just shut up, because any attempt to demand rights "dehumanize(s) and demonize(s) everybody who has a different perspective."

I wonder, though. Who is being "demonized" more extensively? Transgender people? Or their oppressors?

[Immanuel Can]

Thank you for that. You have divined my intention aright.

My goal is not to plead for one side or the other, because I see that both are put into a serious crisis by the present arrangements. What concerns me most is the backlash: a society divided along gender lines, with animosity the chief characteristic and power-grabs the name of the game, is going to hurt everybody -- children most, but also women and also men. No one will be left unbrutalized; but the genuinely disadvantaged, the weaker, those with less access to the means of coercion, are most likely to suffer most.

When power is made the chief goal of all, as Nietzsche insisted it was, and as his inheritors in the Feminist movement and other Neo-Marxist movements have tended to think it is, then those who naturally have access to the most of it are going to come out on top, inevitably -- but this surely means violence. That's what power is: it's the various applications of force to achieve ends, in competition with opposing forces. That means that he who has the most force wins. The concept of working together, of compatibility, of harmonious roles and goals, as is realized in the healthy family, is no longer a paradigm, no longer thought even to be a possibility. War of various kinds...sex, sexuality, race, class, ideological, and so on, becomes the total dynamic of all encounters between the various interests. Negotiation? Immoral. Compromise? Unthinkable. A win-win solution? Outside the bounds of the imaginable. Force -- vicious, malicious, mendacious manipulative and dehumanizing -- is all that's left.

What I would want is to see a better kind of dialogue developed: one that did not dehumanize and demonize everybody who has a different perspective or desire, but which looked for a negotiated way of giving some gains to one side, some to the other, and reasonable definitions and moral limits to both. But that's hard to imagine so long as the way we construct our discourse is inevitably as oppressor vs. oppressed.

Oh, come off it. Modern Western society is LESS "divided along gender lines" than it ever has been, or than most societies have been.

I can't imagine how you think this is the case. There are far more "gender" divisions in Western society than at any time or place in history, as an observable fact. Not only is the antipathy between men and women more evident than any previous point, and not only are our children in crisis over their "gender" status, but we have the Alphabet Mafia of the LGB...etc., whereas previous societies only ever had to deal with two sexes.

The notion that the "healthy family" must preserve traditional economic roles

You'll have to take that up with somebody who said it. I didn't. I just pointed out that the healthy family has distinct values and roles for all members. I said not one thing about "economics," in that regard.

Who (I might ask) is unwilling to negotiate or compromise?

That's also obvious: all of these allegedly "oppressed" factions, who construct all objectors as "racists," or "tyrants," or "homophobes," or "sexists," or whatever. It's not at all secret that demonization of the objectors is not a negotiation-starting position.

Who is being "demonized"? You, or the transexuals who want to use appropriate public toilets?

Or, we might ask, the women who are denied their privacy and security by being forced to allow mentally-ill and autogynephilic biological men invade their designated personal spaces and deprive them of the protections and privileges women have already obtained? Aren't they now being demonized as "TERFs"?

Of course the oppressors don't want the oppressed to construct a discourse demanding freedom and rights.

You just proved my point: when you construct the situation as a war between "oppressors" and "oppresssed," negotiation becomes unthinkable for the constructor.

https://www.tiktok.com/@beardedpatriot9 ... 8213967146

[Alexiev]

I can't imagine how you think this is the case. There are far more "gender" divisions in Western society than at any time or place in history, as an observable fact. Not only is the antipathy between men and women more evident than any previous point, and not only are our children in crisis over their "gender" status, but we have the Alphabet Mafia of the LGB...etc., whereas previous societies only ever had to deal with two sexes.

The notion that the "healthy family" must preserve traditional economic roles

You'll have to take that up with somebody who said it. I didn't. I just pointed out that the healthy family has distinct values and roles for all members. I said not one thing about "economics," in that regard.

Who (I might ask) is unwilling to negotiate or compromise?

That's also obvious: all of these allegedly "oppressed" factions, who construct all objectors as "racists," or "tyrants," or "homophobes," or "sexists," or whatever. It's not at all secret that demonization of the objectors is not a negotiation-starting position.

Who is being "demonized"? You, or the transexuals who want to use appropriate public toilets?

Or, we might ask, the women who are denied their privacy and security by being forced to allow mentally-ill and autogynephilic biological men invade their designated personal spaces and deprive them of the protections and privileges women have already obtained? Aren't they now being demonized as "TERFs"?

Of course the oppressors don't want the oppressed to construct a discourse demanding freedom and rights.

You just proved my point: when you construct the situation as a war between "oppressors" and "oppresssed," negotiation becomes unthinkable for the constructor.

Nonsense once again. Why is "negotiation unthinkable" if we talk about oppressors and oppressed? I vaguely remember that women once chained themselves up to protest in favor of female suffrage. Hmmm. Didn't they eventually negotiate the right to vote?

I'm unaware, by the way, of transexuals violating the security of women using public toilets (privacy? What are you talking about?) . Also, since when do ALL "oppressed factions" claim that all objectors are "racists" or "homophobes"? Of course, when many of the oppressors ARE racists and homophobes, it's proper to label them as such.

If the "distinct values and roles for all (family) members" include the value of objecting to homosexuality or transgendered behavior, where does that leave the gay or transgender family members? Where is the agape? Where is (even) the storge? "Love never faileth," Paul wrote to the Corinthians. Doesn't love include acceptance? Doesn't love include wanting what is conducive to the happiness of one's family members?

[Immanuel Can]

I can't imagine how you think this is the case. There are far more "gender" divisions in Western society than at any time or place in history, as an observable fact. Not only is the antipathy between men and women more evident than any previous point, and not only are our children in crisis over their "gender" status, but we have the Alphabet Mafia of the LGB...etc., whereas previous societies only ever had to deal with two sexes.

The notion that the "healthy family" must preserve traditional economic roles

You'll have to take that up with somebody who said it. I didn't. I just pointed out that the healthy family has distinct values and roles for all members. I said not one thing about "economics," in that regard.

Who (I might ask) is unwilling to negotiate or compromise?

That's also obvious: all of these allegedly "oppressed" factions, who construct all objectors as "racists," or "tyrants," or "homophobes," or "sexists," or whatever. It's not at all secret that demonization of the objectors is not a negotiation-starting position.

Who is being "demonized"? You, or the transexuals who want to use appropriate public toilets?

Or, we might ask, the women who are denied their privacy and security by being forced to allow mentally-ill and autogynephilic biological men invade their designated personal spaces and deprive them of the protections and privileges women have already obtained? Aren't they now being demonized as "TERFs"?

Of course the oppressors don't want the oppressed to construct a discourse demanding freedom and rights.

You just proved my point: when you construct the situation as a war between "oppressors" and "oppresssed," negotiation becomes unthinkable for the constructor.

Nonsense once again. Why is "negotiation unthinkable" if we talk about oppressors and oppressed?

Because one never negotiates with somebody whose character one has decided to impugn in that way. "Oppressors" can't be reasoned-with, or so goes the presumption: they're not motivated by reasons. They are tyrannical wielders of power, not moral agents. They can only be beaten down with contrary power.

I'm unaware, by the way, of transexuals violating the security of women using public toilets (privacy? What are you talking about?) .

I believe you're unaware. Why should I doubt your own word on that?

Doesn't love include acceptance?

Not at all. One has a duty to love even one's enemies, and they're still self-presenting as enemies. But love (agape) is a state of commitment and conviction, not of emotion. And it always seeks the practical, moral and spiritual best for its object...including when that object does not agree with what it thinks is the best for it.

When a child wants to play on the street, love dictates to us that we do not "accept" that child's decision. When an addict craves a drug, love dictates that we deprive him of it. When a person in danger refuses to realize he's in danger, love tells us we must rescue him anyway. "Acceptance" is not always possible, nor even loving.

[Alexiev]

I can't imagine how you think this is the case. There are far more "gender" divisions in Western society than at any time or place in history, as an observable fact. Not only is the antipathy between men and women more evident than any previous point, and not only are our children in crisis over their "gender" status, but we have the Alphabet Mafia of the LGB...etc., whereas previous societies only ever had to deal with two sexes.
You'll have to take that up with somebody who said it. I didn't. I just pointed out that the healthy family has distinct values and roles for all members. I said not one thing about "economics," in that regard.


That's also obvious: all of these allegedly "oppressed" factions, who construct all objectors as "racists," or "tyrants," or "homophobes," or "sexists," or whatever. It's not at all secret that demonization of the objectors is not a negotiation-starting position.


Or, we might ask, the women who are denied their privacy and security by being forced to allow mentally-ill and autogynephilic biological men invade their designated personal spaces and deprive them of the protections and privileges women have already obtained? Aren't they now being demonized as "TERFs"?


You just proved my point: when you construct the situation as a war between "oppressors" and "oppresssed," negotiation becomes unthinkable for the constructor.

Nonsense once again. Why is "negotiation unthinkable" if we talk about oppressors and oppressed?

Because one never negotiates with somebody whose character one has decided to impugn in that way. "Oppressors" can't be reasoned-with, or so goes the presumption: they're not motivated by reasons. They are tyrannical wielders of power, not moral agents. They can only be beaten down with contrary power.

I'm unaware, by the way, of transexuals violating the security of women using public toilets (privacy? What are you talking about?) .

I believe you're unaware. Why should I doubt your own word on that?

Doesn't love include acceptance?

Not at all. One has a duty to love even one's enemies, and they're still self-presenting as enemies. But love (agape) is a state of commitment and conviction, not of emotion. And it always seeks the practical, moral and spiritual best for its object...including when that object does not agree with what it thinks is the best for it.

When a child wants to play on the street, love dictates to us that we do not "accept" that child's decision. When an addict craves a drug, love dictates that we deprive him of it. When a person in danger refuses to realize he's in danger, love tells us we must rescue him anyway. "Acceptance" is not always possible, nor even loving.

Once again, this is nonsense. Every child negotiates with his or her oppressors (the parents). "Why?" they whine when told to do something. Then they negotiate. You are constructing a false narrative. It reminds me of your idiotic overuse of ad hominem. You suggest that any criticism of one's rhetorical opponent invalidates one's argument. But if you actually understood logic, you would recognize that this is an invalid argument. Oppressors can sometimes be "reasoned with" -- as in the case of the granting of women's suffrage. You are simply ascribing presumptions to "the oppressed" that are incorrect. It is sometimes true that oppressors are "tyrannical wielders of power" and sometimes true that they can be persuaded rationally. Occasionally, they must be "beaten down" (think: the American Civil War), occasionally they can be persuaded. In the case of Gender Philosophy, persuasion seems to be the operative tactic of those supporting acceptance. Why would you think otherwise? Where are the torches and pick axes of the ravening liberal mobs?

Of course agape and storge are consistent with protecting the loved ones. And perhaps young children think that rules preventing them from crossing streets without looking both ways are "oppressive". But are parents "protecting" their gay children by sending them to reeducation camps? I doubt it.

[Walker]

OP

The Emasculation Is Complete
“At least according to our leftist overlords, who rejoice in weak men via the rejection of “toxic masculinity.”
https://patriotpost.us/articles/104983- ... 2024-03-07

This rising generation has been fed a steady diet of toxic feminism and has been preached to about “toxic masculinity” their whole lives. Like the Millennials before them, Gen Z women are told they don’t need men because there’s no difference between the sexes — only to then find out at age 30+ that they don’t want to be “girl bosses” but mothers and wives. Our rising generation of men has been raised by gentle parents who are constantly having them check in on their feelings instead of teaching them how to be resilient in a world that routinely chews up and spits out people. We are living in a smothering matriarchy.

[Immanuel Can]

Nonsense once again. Why is "negotiation unthinkable" if we talk about oppressors and oppressed?

Because one never negotiates with somebody whose character one has decided to impugn in that way. "Oppressors" can't be reasoned-with, or so goes the presumption: they're not motivated by reasons. They are tyrannical wielders of power, not moral agents. They can only be beaten down with contrary power.

I'm unaware, by the way, of transexuals violating the security of women using public toilets (privacy? What are you talking about?) .

I believe you're unaware. Why should I doubt your own word on that?

Doesn't love include acceptance?

Not at all. One has a duty to love even one's enemies, and they're still self-presenting as enemies. But love (agape) is a state of commitment and conviction, not of emotion. And it always seeks the practical, moral and spiritual best for its object...including when that object does not agree with what it thinks is the best for it.

When a child wants to play on the street, love dictates to us that we do not "accept" that child's decision. When an addict craves a drug, love dictates that we deprive him of it. When a person in danger refuses to realize he's in danger, love tells us we must rescue him anyway. "Acceptance" is not always possible, nor even loving.

Once again, this is nonsense.

So...no negotiation, no discussion...just everything dismissed as "nonsense." I suppose you must construct me as an "oppressor."

Every child negotiates with his or her oppressors (the parents).

Parents aren't oppressors. They have every right -- and complete responsibility -- to raise their child as safe and healthy.

Oppressors can sometimes be "reasoned with"...

To whatever extent they can be reasoned with, then to that same extent they were not actually "oppressing." They simply had a different view. You shouldn't then have called them "oppressors."

In the case of Gender Philosophy, persuasion seems to be the operative tactic of those supporting acceptance.

It's not, actually. Their tactics involve all sorts of illegitimate things, like appealing to moral standards (like "tolerance") in which they do not have any justification to believe, since they have to believe that the worldview that justifies "tolerance" as an objective virtue is false. Or they propagandize language. They create phony "studies" in academia and try to make them legitimate in the public mind. The call upon inapt parallelisms with legitimate minority groups. Or they elicit sympathy from mere virtue signalers. Or they hold angry confrontations in the streets. Or they subvert (or "queer," to use their term) everything normal and healthy. What they want is to get their way at all costs, and they don't care what they have to use to get there.

Kind of like "oppressors," actually.

... perhaps young children think that rules preventing them from crossing streets without looking both ways are "oppressive". But are parents "protecting" their gay children by sending them to reeducation camps? I doubt it.

I don't recall anybody here saying that. And I don't know of anybody who has done that. If you find somebody, you can argue with them. I'm sure they'll have a view, too: but I wouldn't condemn them as "oppressors" until I understood what they were doing. It may be that they realize their child has been sexually-interfered-with, or is temporarily confused, or is mentally unhealthy. And then I'd want to know why they thought this "camp" was the right way to address that problem. Then I'd decide whether or not what they were doing was "oppressing" or not.

[Immanuel Can]

This rising generation has been fed a steady diet of toxic feminism and has been preached to about “toxic masculinity” their whole lives. Like the Millennials before them, Gen Z women are told they don’t need men because there’s no difference between the sexes — only to then find out at age 30+ that they don’t want to be “girl bosses” but mothers and wives. Our rising generation of men has been raised by gentle parents who are constantly having them check in on their feelings instead of teaching them how to be resilient in a world that routinely chews up and spits out people. We are living in a smothering matriarchy.

Well, the times certainly give this proof. The phrase "toxic masculinity" and the demand for improving "resiliency" are common cries of our age. And it occurs to all too few of us that these are related: the denigration of masculine virtues increases fragility -- at the personal, familial and social levels, and probably at the political as well. And in that situation, nobody is more urgent to re-establish a general sense of strength and security than women who wish to give birth.

And yet, Feminism has made them utterly inept at knowing the means to get what they want, for it has badly misled them as to what the security they long for requires. It requires a person, a home and a society empowered by the same masculine values they decry as undifferentiatedly "toxic."

[Alexiev]

So...no negotiation, no discussion...just everything dismissed as "nonsense." I suppose you must construct me as an "oppressor."

Every child negotiates with his or her oppressors (the parents).

Parents aren't oppressors. They have every right -- and complete responsibility -- to raise their child as safe and healthy.

Oppressors can sometimes be "reasoned with"...

To whatever extent they can be reasoned with, then to that same extent they were not actually "oppressing." They simply had a different view. You shouldn't then have called them "oppressors."

In the case of Gender Philosophy, persuasion seems to be the operative tactic of those supporting acceptance.

It's not, actually. Their tactics involve all sorts of illegitimate things, like appealing to moral standards (like "tolerance") in which they do not have any justification to believe, since they have to believe that the worldview that justifies "tolerance" as an objective virtue is false. Or they propagandize language. They create phony "studies" in academia and try to make them legitimate in the public mind. The call upon inapt parallelisms with legitimate minority groups. Or they elicit sympathy from mere virtue signalers. Or they hold angry confrontations in the streets. Or they subvert (or "queer," to use their term) everything normal and healthy. What they want is to get their way at all costs, and they don't care what they have to use to get there.

Kind of like "oppressors," actually.

... perhaps young children think that rules preventing them from crossing streets without looking both ways are "oppressive". But are parents "protecting" their gay children by sending them to reeducation camps? I doubt it.

I don't recall anybody here saying that. And I don't know of anybody who has done that. If you find somebody, you can argue with them. I'm sure they'll have a view, too: but I wouldn't condemn them as "oppressors" until I understood what they were doing. It may be that they realize their child has been sexually-interfered-with, or is temporarily confused, or is mentally unhealthy. And then I'd want to know why they thought this "camp" was the right way to address that problem. Then I'd decide whether or not what they were doing was "oppressing" or not.

You, not I, are arguing with no discussion or negotiation. I explained why your views are nonsensical. Your notion that anyone with whom one can "reason" is not an "oppressor" is illogical. Many oppressors are smart, logical, and reasonable (why wouldn't they want to continue in their advantageous position?). Slave owners had a "different view". They thought Africans were inferior and some thought (or claimed to think) that they were better off as slaves. They argued endlessly in support of this position. Does this mean they are not "oppressors"?

You decry "appealing to moral standards (like "tolerance") for which they (supporters of gender tolerance) do not have any justification to believe." The suggestion here is that nobody but you and your fellow travelers are justified in believing in any moral principles. Really? Are Muslims justified in beheading those who leave the religion? Their "justification" for their belief is exactly the same as your justification for yours: the notion that morality is established by the will of God. How do we establish which justification merits our approval?

Oh no! Supporters of liberal gender philosophies "hold angry confrontations in the streets." Horrors! That's comparable to torturing heretics, burning witches, and slaughtering infidels! Oh, now I remember. It was the Christians (and Muslims) who did that. And they were "justified"! Better to burn a few heretics than to have them preach apostasy which might lead to many people burning eternally in hell. Torquemada had logic (although based on false premises) in his side. What he lacked was agape. He -- like modern Christians who refuse to accept differing beliefs and life styles -- failed to love his neighbors as himself.

[Immanuel Can]

Your notion that anyone with whom one can "reason" is not an "oppressor" is illogical.

It's not "my" notion. It belongs to the rhetoric of the political left.

Many oppressors are smart, logical, and reasonable (why wouldn't they want to continue in their advantageous position?).

If they are open to being reasoned with, then they are not "oppressors." They deserve a better title, like "incumbents," or "the powerful", or "rulers." But if you style them "oppressors" or "tyrants," then then you're assuming them immoral and thus not actually motivated by any rational persuasion. You're stying them mere wielders of arbitrary power. You're not just saying their making life inconvenient for some, but rather you're imputing to them sinister motives. You're demonizing them.

Do you negotiate with demons?

You decry "appealing to moral standards (like "tolerance") for which they (supporters of gender tolerance) do not have any justification to believe." The suggestion here is that nobody but you and your fellow travelers are justified in believing in any moral principles.

If you believe it to be otherwise, then you can show it. Prove an objective moral principle to me, one that gender theorists can universally and with justification assert, and which people have a duty to believe as well. Just one. Any one.

[Alexiev]

Your notion that anyone with whom one can "reason" is not an "oppressor" is illogical.

It's not "my" notion. It belongs to the rhetoric of the political left.

Many oppressors are smart, logical, and reasonable (why wouldn't they want to continue in their advantageous position?).

If they are open to being reasoned with, then they are not "oppressors." They deserve a better title, like "incumbents," or "the powerful", or "rulers." But if you style them "oppressors" or "tyrants," then then you're assuming them immoral and thus not actually motivated by any rational persuasion. You're stying them mere wielders of arbitrary power. You're not just saying their making life inconvenient for some, but rather you're imputing to them sinister motives. You're demonizing them.

Do you negotiate with demons?

You decry "appealing to moral standards (like "tolerance") for which they (supporters of gender tolerance) do not have any justification to believe." The suggestion here is that nobody but you and your fellow travelers are justified in believing in any moral principles.

If you believe it to be otherwise, then you can show it. Prove an objective moral principle to me, one that gender theorists can universally and with justification assert, and which people have a duty to believe as well. Just one. Any one.

This is silly. If people are being "oppressed" by other people, the other people are "oppressors". Whether they are "open to being reasoned with" is irrelevant to this label. The slave owners who supported their position with reasoned arguments may have been "incumbents" or "rulers", but they were also "oppressors". So was Torquemada, who was actually quite proficient at rationally arguing in favor of torturing heretics. He was a better writer and theologian than, say, you.

Nor am I "demonizing" oppressors. You whinge and complain when I argue against a position you don't hold -- but you constantly argue against a position that neither I nor most of the liberal left hold. I am not imputing "sinister" motives to anyone; instead, I am suggesting that the moral foundation from which you argue is incorrect, and that you are even holding in contempt your own Christian morals of "do unto others" and "love your neighbor".

I cannot "prove an objective moral principle". Neither can you. The best we can do is assert principles. That was also the best Jesus could do. Perhaps you should consider listening to His advice. You seem to be lacking in the Christian virtue of humility. Also, if you continue to proselytize in your self righteous and conceited manner, you will surely not "inherit the earth". "For there is none righteous, no, not one."

[Immanuel Can]

You decry "appealing to moral standards (like "tolerance") for which they (supporters of gender tolerance) do not have any justification to believe." The suggestion here is that nobody but you and your fellow travelers are justified in believing in any moral principles.

If you believe it to be otherwise, then you can show it. Prove an objective moral principle to me, one that gender theorists can universally and with justification assert, and which people have a duty to believe as well. Just one. Any one.
[/quote]

I cannot "prove an objective moral principle".

Right. You can't. That's an obvious fault of a secular suppositional structure. So there's no grounds for believing in any such thing...from that worldview perspective. Morality's dead...anybody who believes in it is believing in things that cannot be objectively real...assuming their worldview were the right one, of course.

Neither can you.

Well, if God says something is objectively right, that's what it is...but then, I'm not a gender theorist. I have a different worldview. The gender theory one, even if we accept it, cannot ground a moral principle. So it fails, even by its own standards, let alone by objective ones.

That's why a gender theorist cannot rationally assert any moral principles. Even their own suppositions don't provide them with any grounds to do so.

[Alexiev]

I cannot "prove an objective moral principle".

Right. You can't. That's an obvious fault of a secular suppositional structure. So there's no grounds for believing in any such thing...from that worldview perspective. Morality's dead...anybody who believes in it is believing in things that cannot be objectively real...assuming their worldview were the right one, of course.

Neither can you.

Well, if God says something is objectively right, that's what it is...but then, I'm not a gender theorist. I have a different worldview. The gender theory one, even if we accept it, cannot ground a moral principle. So it fails, even by its own standards, let alone by objective ones.

That's why a gender theorist cannot rationally assert any moral principles. Even their own suppositions don't provide them with any grounds to do so.

There are two problems with your silly argument.

First, since you cannot objectively prove the existence of the Christian God (or His connection to the Bible), neither of us can prove an objective moral principle.

Second, and equally important, why is an "objective morality" the necessary sin qua non of morality? I can't objectively prove that War and Peace is a superior novel to Shades of Grey either. That does not stop me from firmly believing this to be the case. All morality is subjective. Even if it derives from God, interpreting God's will is a subjective process. The Bible, the Quran, or the Vedas? Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Calvinism?

Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge and learned to distinguish good from evil. But was that knowledge objective, or subjective? We don't know. If, as Keats suggests, truth is beauty, and beauty is subjective, then truth is subjective. This, of course, is one of the principles of post-modernism, a movement that has not been fruitful except in its trenchant criticism of modernism. Your seeming notion that subjective beliefs are invalid is a non-starter. All beliefs are subjective, especially yours. That doesn't invalidate them, although we should see them for what they are.

[Immanuel Can]

...you silly argument.

Every time you start a response with this allegation, or "nonsense," or whatever, it just tells me what I already can see is true: namely, that the argument isn't the problem. It's the one attempting to comprehend it who's having the problem. And that reminds me that perhaps I'm trying to achieve too much here, by trying to reason with somebody who's not following.

So you might think you're making a point to me, but it might not be the point you think you're making.

First, since you cannot objectively prove the existence of the Christian God

Let me see if it's even possible for you to be convinced: what would you regard as sufficient rational evidence for the existence of God?

If you've got an answer, let's see if I can meet that challenge (assuming it's a reasonable one).

If the answer is, "Nothing," then again, the problem is not with the argument, but with the fact that you've chosen not to be persuadable. For there isn't any set of conditions you can specify under which you would be willing to be convinced.

Second, and equally important, why is an "objective morality" the necessary sin qua non of morality?

That's easy. Because a "non-objective" morality is binding on nobody. So it fails to function as a moral precept at all. The very minimum we might expect of something we call "moral" would be that it would give at least one person at least one binding moral duty. If it can't even do that, then in what sense can we use the term "moral" to describe it at all?