Is open sexism getting worse here?

[Age]

Godelian is an outlier, he views all interactions with other people as purely transactional status games.

I am indeed 100% transactional.

You get from me what you want, if I get from you what I want.

Do you want things from others?

If yes, then what are those things, exactly?

Transactionalism is the core foundation of all trade and business. It is also the basis of labor employment. In fact, it is the basis of all contractual arrangements.

Obviously. And, just as obvious is trade, business, and contracts are not needed at all.

I am indeed also 100% transactional in intergender relationships.

You won't keep getting from me what you want, if I don't keep getting from you what I want.

Talk about an example of greed and selfishness in a purest form.

Why exactly would transactionalism be sexist? Where do I unduly discriminate based on gender? Seriously, I am as transactional with men as with women.

Everybody -- no exceptions -- must justify what they are getting from me by showing what exactly I am getting from them in return.

So, human babies HAVE TO 'justify' what they get from "godelian".

Talk about an example of the ego in the most evil and/or the most Wrongest of forms.

[godelian]

Godelian is an outlier, he views all interactions with other people as purely transactional status games.

I am indeed 100% transactional.

You get from me what you want, if I get from you what I want.

Do you want thi ds from others?

If yes, then what are those things, exactly?

Transactionalism is the core foundation of all trade and business. It is also the basis of labor employment. In fact, it is the basis of all contractual arrangements.

Obviously. And, just as obvious is trade, business, and contracts are not needed at all.

Transactionalism is 100% supported by the laws of the Almighty:

Quran Al Baqarah 2:275. Those who consume interest will stand ˹on Judgment Day˺ like those driven to madness by Satan’s touch. That is because they say, “Trade is no different than interest.” But Allah has permitted [tit-for-tat] trade and forbidden interest.

As far as I am concerned, what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong, all of this, is to be decreed exclusively by the Lord of both worlds.

All morality emanates from the laws of the Almighty.

[Age]

I am indeed 100% transactional.

You get from me what you want, if I get from you what I want.

Do you want thi ds from others?

If yes, then what are those things, exactly?

Transactionalism is 100% supported by the laws of the Almighty:

Who and/or what is some so-called 'Almighty', exactly?

Quran Al Baqarah 2:275. Those who consume interest will stand ˹on Judgment Day˺ like those driven to madness by Satan’s touch. That is because they say, “Trade is no different than interest.” But Allah has permitted [tit-for-tat] trade and forbidden interest.

As far as I am concerned, what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong, all of this, is to be decreed exclusively by the Lord of both worlds.

What are these 'two different worlds', exactly?

All morality emanates from the laws of the Almighty.

If a 'law' of some so-claimed 'Almighty', for example, is that you will not feed a human baby, unless you get some thing in return, then that so-called 'Almighty' is a Truly insane lunatic, and thus Its 'laws', like above, are best completely ignored and left where they should be.

[godelian]

Who and/or what is some so-called 'Almighty', exactly?
What are these 'two different worlds', exactly?

Morality is a theory. We may have the same theory or a different one. It's a lot of work to explain to you the moral theory that I have adopted. Furthermore, conclusions, aka "rulings", in my moral theory are not necessarily valid in your choice of moral theory. Hence, the very first thing to assess when talking about morality, i.e. good or evil, is the question: Are we even on the same page? As you can imagine, conclusions drawn from another moral theory than mine, are usually irrelevant to me.

If a 'law' of some so-claimed 'Almighty', for example, is that you will not feed a human baby, unless you get some thing in return, then that so-called 'Almighty' is a Truly insane lunatic, and thus Its 'laws', like above, are best completely ignored and left where they should be.

A very first condition for me to feed a human baby, is when I have reasons to believe that it is mine. I am certainly not interested in feeding someone else's baby. It is not my job. It is probably not even appreciated. In fact, it should be fed by its own parents. Furthermore, even if it is mine, there is still the mother of the baby, who may or may not be cooperative. Hence, feeding a baby is a very conditional thing.

You may or may not like the moral theory that I have adopted, but that won't make any difference as to what conclusions I accept in morality. Furthermore, if you have zero formal training in applying this moral theory, I am even more likely to dismiss your views as uneducated and ignorant. I only listen to people who have years of training in the domain of applying the moral theory of my choice. Everybody else will have to first do their homework.

[FlashDangerpants]

Godelian is an outlier, he views all interactions with other people as purely transactional status games.

I am indeed 100% transactional.

You get from me what you want, if I get from you what I want.

Transactionalism is the core foundation of all trade and business. It is also the basis of labor employment. In fact, it is the basis of all contractual arrangements.

I am indeed also 100% transactional in intergender relationships.

You won't keep getting from me what you want, if I don't keep getting from you what I want.

Why exactly would transactionalism be sexist? Where do I unduly discriminate based on gender? Seriously, I am as transactional with men as with women.

Everybody -- no exceptions -- must justify what they are getting from me by showing what exactly I am getting from them in return.

You are agreeing with me. I was saying that you aren't really a sexist by way of actual sexism, you are a psychopath and the appearance of sexism in your case is simply a manifestation of that in your relations to women. Your relations with other men are likely no less chilling than your relations with women, certainly they are just as purely transactional, you just would write about them in a different subforum.

[Age]

Who and/or what is some so-called 'Almighty', exactly?
What are these 'two different worlds', exactly?

Morality is a theory. We may have the same theory or a different one.

Who cares?

It's a lot of work to explain to you the moral theory that I have adopted.

I NEVER asked you to.

I just asked you the two questions above, here.

Furthermore, conclusions, aka "rulings", in my moral theory are not necessarily valid in your choice of moral theory.

What you even on about, here, now?

I asked you who and/or what is some thing, which you, laughingly, call 'the Almighty'? I am still waiting for your response, and clarification, for that question.

Hence, the very first thing to assess when talking about morality, i.e. good or evil, is the question: Are we even on the same page?

If there were two universes, then you do not even appear to be in the same universe, here.

LOL you NEVER even used the words 'moral theory' in your post where I asked you about some so-called 'Almighty' and some claimed 'two worlds'. So, how you got to 'now' be talking about some 'moral theory' is Truly baffling.

As you can imagine, conclusions drawn from another moral theory than mine, are usually irrelevant to me.

Every word that you have used in this post of yours, so far, are absolutely irrelevant to absolutely any thing that have said, and written, so far, here.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN by our words above, here.

If a 'law' of some so-claimed 'Almighty', for example, is that you will not feed a human baby, unless you get some thing in return, then that so-called 'Almighty' is a Truly insane lunatic, and thus Its 'laws', like above, are best completely ignored and left where they should be.

A very first condition for me to feed a human baby, is when I have reasons to believe that it is mine.

If you need 'conditions' and/or want 'transactions' to feed a human baby, then you are more deluded and demented than your so-called 'Almighty'.

How much more Wrong, and/or selfish, could one get to believe that they have to have a 'reason' to believe that 'another' is 'mine', before they would just begin to care for 'the other'?

I am certainly not interested in feeding someone else's baby.

Just how greedy, selfish, and utterly CRUEL the adult human beings had become, in the days when this was being written, could not have been more BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS in this one little remark, here.

This, 'I am CERTAINLY NOT interested in feeding nor caring for other human beings, and even for the most delicate and vulnerable of them', had become, VERY SADLY, a very common attitude in the adult population, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

But, if those same people could make a monetary profit out of feeding and caring for others, then they would. They had, literally, become SO SELFISH and SO GREEDY that they had put 'money' above and over even baby human beings.

It is not my job. It is probably not even appreciated. In fact, it should be fed by its own parents. Furthermore, even if it is mine, there is still the mother of the baby, who may or may not be cooperative. Hence, feeding a baby is a very conditional thing.

you, OBVIOUSLY, MISSED the POINT, here.

You may or may not like the moral theory that I have adopted, but that won't make any difference as to what conclusions I accept in morality.

But it does not matter one iota what I do not like, nor like.

Furthermore, if you have zero formal training in applying this moral theory, I am even more likely to dismiss your views as uneducated and ignorant. I only listen to people who have years of training in the domain of applying the moral theory of my choice. Everybody else will have to first do their homework.

LOL you are SO IGNORANT that you could not work out that 'your' nor absolutely anyone else's 'moral theory' had absolutely any thing to do with any thing I asked you above, here.

But, then again, maybe you did, but just wanted to 'try to' DEFLECT, because you KNEW that if you were open and honest, then you would only end up contradicting "yourself' or being inconsistent, here.

[godelian]

You are agreeing with me. I was saying that you aren't really a sexist by way of actual sexism, you are a psychopath and the appearance of sexism in your case is simply a manifestation of that in your relations to women. Your relations with other men are likely no less chilling than your relations with women, certainly they are just as purely transactional, you just would write about them in a different subforum.

Sexism is about unduly discriminating between men and women. My "chilling" manifestations don't do that. My approach to interpersonal dealings is as purely transactional with men as it is with women. I am indeed a firm believer in quid pro quo transactionalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo

Quid pro quo (Latin: "something for something"[2]) is a Latin phrase used in English to mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; "a favor for a favor". Phrases with similar meanings include: "give and take", "tit for tat", "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours", "this for that,"[3] and "one hand washes the other". Other languages use other phrases for the same purpose.

The Latin phrase quid pro quo originally implied that something had been substituted, meaning "something for something" as in I gave you sugar for salt.

In common law, quid pro quo indicates that an item or a service has been traded in return for something of value, usually when the propriety or equity of the transaction is in question. A contract must involve consideration: that is, the exchange of something of value for something else of value. For example, when buying an item of clothing or a gallon of milk, a pre-determined amount of money is exchanged for the product the customer is purchasing; therefore, they have received something but have given up something of equal value in return.

In the United Kingdom, the one-sidedness of a contract is covered by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and various revisions and amendments to it; a clause can be held void or the entire contract void if it is deemed unfair (that is to say, one-sided and not a quid pro quo); however, this is a civil law and not a common law matter.

In the United States, if an exchange appears excessively one sided, courts in some jurisdictions may question whether a quid pro quo did actually exist and the contract may be held void.

In classical legal tradition, contracts that are not quid-pro-quo are in fact even legally void.

Modern western law, however, is a travesty of its own legal traditions. For example, civil marriage is clearly not quid pro quo. Therefore, I completely reject civil marriage, as it is not compatible with quid pro quo transactionalism.

[godelian]

But, if those same people could make a monetary profit out of feeding and caring for others, then they would. They had, literally, become SO SELFISH and SO GREEDY that they had put 'money' above and over even baby human beings.

I will indeed not feed anybody else unless I get paid for doing that. In fact, you cannot even pay me for doing that, because I do not operate a business that specializes in feeding other people and I do not intend to.

Furthermore, I generally do not "care for others", unless there is justifiably some form of long-term reciprocity involved. Seriously, why would I? What's in it for me?

[Age]

You are agreeing with me. I was saying that you aren't really a sexist by way of actual sexism, you are a psychopath and the appearance of sexism in your case is simply a manifestation of that in your relations to women. Your relations with other men are likely no less chilling than your relations with women, certainly they are just as purely transactional, you just would write about them in a different subforum.

Sexism is about unduly discriminating between men and women.

And, all of 'your discriminating', here, is not unduly, right,

My "chilling" manifestations don't do that. My approach to interpersonal dealings is as purely transactional with men as it is with women. I am indeed a firm believer in quid pro quo transactionalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo

Quid pro quo (Latin: "something for something"[2]) is a Latin phrase used in English to mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; "a favor for a favor".

Like you would never ever help nor support a human being unless you could get some thing from them.

Phrases with similar meanings include: "give and take", "tit for tat", "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours", "this for that,"[3] and "one hand washes the other". Other languages use other phrases for the same purpose.

In other words if a human baby was laying in the side of the road bleeding to death or starving to death, then this one would not provide absolutely any help, support, nor food, unless this one could get some thing from that one.

The Latin phrase quid pro quo originally implied that something had been substituted, meaning "something for something" as in I gave you sugar for salt.

Just because terms or phrases exist, they do not necessarily have to 'justify' a Truly unjustifiable behavior.

In common law, quid pro quo indicates that an item or a service has been traded in return for something of value, usually when the propriety or equity of the transaction is in question. A contract must involve consideration: that is, the exchange of something of value for something else of value. For example, when buying an item of clothing or a gallon of milk, a pre-determined amount of money is exchanged for the product the customer is purchasing; therefore, they have received something but have given up something of equal value in return.

What has this got to do with sexism or any other Wrong behavior?

In the United Kingdom, the one-sidedness of a contract is covered by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and various revisions and amendments to it; a clause can be held void or the entire contract void if it is deemed unfair (that is to say, one-sided and not a quid pro quo); however, this is a civil law and not a common law matter.

In the United States, if an exchange appears excessively one sided, courts in some jurisdictions may question whether a quid pro quo did actually exist and the contract may be held void.

One again, here 'we' can clearly see another prime example when one will 'try to' say and use just about any set of words when 'trying to' back up, support, or justify one their BELIEFS

In classical legal tradition, contracts that are not quid-pro-quo are in fact even legally void.

'We' were, once, talking about 'sexism' here, and some like you were, once, even talking about 'morality', but this was, obviously, before.

Modern western law, however, is a travesty of its own legal traditions. For example, civil marriage is clearly not quid pro quo. Therefore, I completely reject civil marriage, as it is not compatible with quid pro quo transactionalism.

And, once more, 'we' are back to the actual issue, and BELIEF, that this one wanted to raise, here.

[Age]

But, if those same people could make a monetary profit out of feeding and caring for others, then they would. They had, literally, become SO SELFISH and SO GREEDY that they had put 'money' above and over even baby human beings.

I will indeed not feed anybody else unless I get paid for doing that. In fact, you cannot even pay me for doing that, because I do not operate a business that specializes in feeding other people and I do not intend to.

Furthermore, I generally do not "care for others", unless there is justifiably some form of long-term reciprocity involved. Seriously, why would I? What's in it for me?

Here is the primest example of greed and selfishness in one of it's most evilest and cruelest forms.

[godelian]

In other words if a human baby was laying in the side of the road bleeding to death or starving to death, then this one would not provide absolutely any help, support, nor food, unless this one could get some thing from that one.

I would call emergency services. However, I would not touch anything as to avoid legal liability.

What has this got to do with sexism or any other Wrong behavior?

I do not unduly discriminate based on gender. Quid pro quo transactionalism is solely about the question: What's in it for me? It does not matter whether it is about a man or a woman. I always want something in return.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are agreeing with me. I was saying that you aren't really a sexist by way of actual sexism, you are a psychopath and the appearance of sexism in your case is simply a manifestation of that in your relations to women. Your relations with other men are likely no less chilling than your relations with women, certainly they are just as purely transactional, you just would write about them in a different subforum.

Sexism is about unduly discriminating between men and women. My "chilling" manifestations don't do that. My approach to interpersonal dealings is as purely transactional with men as it is with women. I am indeed a firm believer in quid pro quo transactionalism:

Sure, from your perspective the important distinction between male and female is that you want one thing from one group a different, less sexy, thing from the other. And because you are entirely transactional and unmotivated by most of the emotions that move normally aspirated people, that is about as far as it goes.

It's really much more interesting that Immanuel Can was so quick to sign up to the same world view in that educating children thread. You don't really need a lot of unpacking.

[FlashDangerpants]

But, if those same people could make a monetary profit out of feeding and caring for others, then they would. They had, literally, become SO SELFISH and SO GREEDY that they had put 'money' above and over even baby human beings.

I will indeed not feed anybody else unless I get paid for doing that. In fact, you cannot even pay me for doing that, because I do not operate a business that specializes in feeding other people and I do not intend to.

Furthermore, I generally do not "care for others", unless there is justifiably some form of long-term reciprocity involved. Seriously, why would I? What's in it for me?

Here is the primest example of greed and selfishness in one of it's most evilest and cruelest forms.

He just sees the world in a different way than other people do because his brain is wired a certain way that the rest of us aren't. It's a lot like your autism which makes you see the world in a unique way yourself.

[godelian]

Sure, from your perspective the important distinction between male and female is that you want one thing from one group a different, less sexy, thing from the other.

I have asked ChatGPT about this problem and asked it whether it is a form of sexism:

ChatGPT: Does a man whose sexual orientation exclusively selects women for sexual intercourse engage in a form of sexism?

A man whose sexual orientation exclusively selects women for sexual relationships is not inherently engaging in sexism. Sexual orientation refers to an individual’s natural and intrinsic pattern of sexual and romantic attraction. It is a personal characteristic, not a conscious or discriminatory choice.

Understanding Sexual Orientation vs. Sexism

* Sexual Orientation: A deeply ingrained aspect of human identity, encompassing preferences that aren't typically chosen or based on prejudice. For example, heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

* Sexism: A system of beliefs or behaviors that discriminate against or devalue people based on their gender. It involves treating one gender as superior or inferior, often manifesting in unequal rights, opportunities, or respect.

Why Sexual Orientation Isn’t Sexism

If a heterosexual man is only attracted to women, this is a reflection of his natural inclinations, not an evaluative judgment that one gender is superior or inferior. Sexism would involve actions or attitudes that devalue individuals of a particular gender, such as unequal treatment or stereotyping.

Nuances to Consider

However, preferences can become problematic if they are based on or reinforce harmful stereotypes. For example:

If a man is only interested in women because of rigid gender roles (e.g., "Women should be submissive"), that could indicate sexist attitudes.
If he respects and values women equally as individuals but is exclusively attracted to them, that is simply his orientation.

Thus, being exclusively attracted to women is not inherently sexist; what matters is the attitude and behavior surrounding gender.

I also believe that sexual orientation is not an undue form of sexual discrimination.

[accelafine]

I will indeed not feed anybody else unless I get paid for doing that. In fact, you cannot even pay me for doing that, because I do not operate a business that specializes in feeding other people and I do not intend to.

Furthermore, I generally do not "care for others", unless there is justifiably some form of long-term reciprocity involved. Seriously, why would I? What's in it for me?

Here is the primest example of greed and selfishness in one of it's most evilest and cruelest forms.

He just sees the world in a different way than other people do because his brain is wired a certain way that the rest of us aren't. It's a lot like your autism which makes you see the world in a unique way yourself.

Is that all you have to say about it? He just said that he would let a baby die horribly from starvation and thirst i.e. murder it unless someone was paying him to feed it, and all you have to say is, ''Aww, poor man can't help it. He's just wired that way'. Doesn't surprise me though. The woke are as deep as they are sincere. You didn't even have the decency to say 'different 'from' ', instead using the obnoxious American abomination of 'different 'than' '.