A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

[Sculptor]

7gq0le.jpg



7gq0zv.jpg

You are a moron
You would not know what a Marxist is if it hit you in the face like a wet fish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8XeDvKqI4E

[Immanuel Can]

People born into wealthy surroundings usually don't sacrifice the nice opportunities afforded to them...

Marx didn't. For his entire life, he sponged off others. He wrote all sorts of misguided and errant stuff about the poor, but happily lived off the rich.

However, there was one who was as rich as God, but actually made himself lowly in order to show mercy to the poor and suffering. But it wasn't Karl Marx: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich." (2 Cor. 8:9)

One of these has proved to be the greatest conduit of death in the entirety of human history; the other has proved to be the greatest Light in human history. If one is to speak of those who love the poor, to which one, therefore, shall we point?

I think we should use the very criterion you suggest: which one of them really made the sacrifices?

[Gary Childress]

People born into wealthy surroundings usually don't sacrifice the nice opportunities afforded to them...

Marx didn't. For his entire life, he sponged off others. He wrote all sorts of misguided and errant stuff about the poor, but happily lived off the rich.

However, there was one who was as rich as God, but actually made himself lowly in order to show mercy to the poor and suffering. But it wasn't Karl Marx: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich." (2 Cor. 8:9)

One of these has proved to be the greatest conduit of death in the entirety of human history; the other has proved to be the greatest Light in human history. If one is to speak of those who love the poor, to which one, therefore, shall we point?

I think we should use the very criterion you suggest: which one of them really made the sacrifices?

...

[Immanuel Can]

Put yourself in the shoes of Marx. What would you do?

Get a job, earn my own way, not humiliate and impoverish my own family, and not write a whole bunch of things that cause murder and disaster every time they're applied to the real world. And to be compassionate to the poor, I'd go and help them, not sponge off my relatives and Engels and do them no good at all.

It's like being a missionary for a church

Marx? A missionary?

I know many missionaries. They are extraordinary people of courage and self-sacrifice. They go into dangerous places to find people in need and help them -- jungles, wildernesses, jails, slums, homeless shelters, medical outposts -- they don't stay living comfortably in middle-class Trier and London, writing pamphlets about problems they never personally touch.

You go live in Uganda for a while...

How ironic. I've done that.

...did you ask for donations from the people you were helping?

Never. Not even once.

Anything more, Gary?

[Gary Childress]

Put yourself in the shoes of Marx. What would you do?

Get a job, earn my own way, not humiliate and impoverish my own family, and not write a whole bunch of things that cause murder and disaster every time they're applied to the real world. And to be compassionate to the poor, I'd go and help them, not sponge off my relatives and Engels and do them no good at all.

It's like being a missionary for a church

Marx? A missionary?

I know many missionaries. They are extraordinary people of courage and self-sacrifice. They go into dangerous places to find people in need and help them -- jungles, wildernesses, jails, slums, homeless shelters, medical outposts -- they don't stay living comfortably in middle-class Trier and London, writing pamphlets about problems they never personally touch.

You go live in Uganda for a while...

How ironic. I've done that.

...did you ask for donations from the people you were helping?

Never. Not even once.

Anything more, Gary?

...

[promethean75]

"You are a moron. You would not know what a Marxist is if it hit you in the face like a wet fish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8XeDvKqI4E"

Why u bloody bastard

[promethean75]

"What exactly did you do for them that was "helpful"

oh oh i know! stuff like give Caesar his due, turn the other cheek, love your enemies and remain passive, complacent and disorganized so the Ugandan government can keep the wealthy at the top and the rest of the people in third world, violence ridden poverty for decades to come. oh and pitch in anything u can out of your $113 a week paycheck to help us keep the church up. Oh and god don't lay with your brother whatever u do! Moses wuz never in a Ugandan prison but I'm sure he'd agree.

[Gary Childress]

"What exactly did you do for them that was "helpful"

oh oh i know! stuff like give Caesar his due, turn the other cheek, love your enemies and remain passive, complacent and disorganized so the Ugandan government can keep the wealthy at the top and the rest of the people in third world, violence ridden poverty for decades to come. oh and pitch in anything u can out of your $113 a week paycheck to help us keep the church up. Oh and god don't lay with your brother whatever u do! Moses wuz never in a Ugandan prison but I'm sure he'd agree.

It's impossible to win a battle against pacifists, and Christians (at least in theory) are pacifists. I give up. But I can definitely see why Marx was angry. And, unlike IC, I can't think of much more sacrifice that can be made than permanently living in squalor among those whom you are trying to help and seeing your own child die in that squalor as a result of that choice. It makes me mad to see the name of someone who suffered sacrifices like that-- someone who didn't have to suffer those sacrifices had he accepted more lucrative opportunities that were available at the time to someone of his learning and intelligence--dragged through the mud.

Yes, Marx was angry and bombastic, but he didn't know any other way of solving the problem of exploitation. It was a tremendous problem at the start of the Industrial Revolution and is still a problem for much of the world. But it's not a problem that is easily solved or quickly solved. It has to be rectified through hard work one step at a time.

I can't undercut the work of missionaries doing service for the poor. But I still don't see where the tribal god of the Hebrews is anything more than someone else's god. It doesn't feel godly or "divine" to me. I hope there's a higher authority out there somewhere that can somehow justify this world. Marx may have given bad advice or created the wrong solution but he had a conscience, unlike some of his wealthier contemporaries. I wonder how IC feels about those people? Does he devote as much scorn for those contemporaries of Marx who profited off the squalor they helped make as he does to Marx himself--someone who tried their best to solve the problem where he could have instead profited off of it? But I guess that's just the way economies and institutions that support and make them run can be when they aren't tempered by the truth being openly reported and a human conscience present to react to that terrible truth in a way that will seek to solve it.

[Immanuel Can]

Marx may have given bad advice or created the wrong solution

Bad advice? Wrong solution? How about being essentially culpable for the murders of over 100 million in the last century alone? Just how "bad" and "wrong" does one have to be?

but he had a conscience,

Have you any evidence of it? Is how he treated his maid, Lenchen, or Helene Demuth, if you prefer, the one poor woman with whom he actually had any dealings, evidence of a man with a "conscience"? Or was it the abandoning of the son he fathered by her that strikes you as "conscientious"?

I wonder how IC feels about those people? Does he devote as much scorn for those contemporaries of Marx who profited off the squalor they helped make as he does to Marx himself

The factory owners and such, you mean? Yes, I have contempt for what they did to their workers.

But if you can say one thing about them, it's that their evils were less than Marx's. Nobody in history has been Marx's equal. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Maduro, Ceacescu, Tito, the Kim Jongs and Mugabe, among others, all quoted Marx as the chief ideological motivation for what they did. That's one heck of a contribution to human misery.

Even though he never lifted a finger to help the poor, and hurt the only one he knew, that is not the worst that Marx did. By any fair account, he was a truly contemptable human being, one who we can all plainly see left nothing but misery, disaster and destruction in his wake. His dark equal does not exist among men, in that regard.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Marx may have given bad advice or created the wrong solution

Bad advice? Wrong solution? How about being essentially culpable for the murders of over 100 million in the last century alone? Just how "bad" and "wrong" does one have to be?

but he had a conscience,

Have you any evidence of it? Is how he treated his maid, Lenchen, or Helene Demuth, if you prefer, the one poor woman with whom he actually had any dealings, evidence of a man with a "conscience"? Or was it the abandoning of the son he fathered by her that strikes you as "conscientious"?

I wonder how IC feels about those people? Does he devote as much scorn for those contemporaries of Marx who profited off the squalor they helped make as he does to Marx himself

The factory owners and such, you mean? Yes, I have contempt for what they did to their workers.

But if you can say one thing about them, it's that their evils were less than Marx's. Nobody in history has been Marx's equal. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Maduro, Ceacescu, Tito, the Kim Jongs and Mugabe, among others, all quoted Marx as the chief ideological motivation for what they did. That's one heck of a contribution to human misery.

Even though he never lifted a finger to help the poor, and hurt the only one he knew, that is not the worst that Marx did. By any fair account, he was a truly contemptable human being, one who we can all plainly see left nothing but misery, disaster and destruction in his wake. His dark equal does not exist among men, in that regard.

You are blaiming Marx for human nature? Give me a break. His radical ideas for his time are largely responsible for the relatively cushy life you have no doubt enjoyed.
You remind me of those young, brainwashed female handmaidens in the 'transmovement' who have a rabid hatred for older women. They are too thick to see that it's hated 'older women' who fought for all the rights that they take for granted and which they are now desperate to take away. Too stupid and brainwashed to see that they are aligning themselves with a 'movement' that has no goals, no 'rights' to fight for (apart from stomping on the rights of others) and whose sole purpose is to satisfy misogynistic rage and envy and erase that which it despises.

[Gary Childress]

Marx may have given bad advice or created the wrong solution

Bad advice? Wrong solution? How about being essentially culpable for the murders of over 100 million in the last century alone? Just how "bad" and "wrong" does one have to be?

but he had a conscience,

Have you any evidence of it? Is how he treated his maid, Lenchen, or Helene Demuth, if you prefer, the one poor woman with whom he actually had any dealings, evidence of a man with a "conscience"? Or was it the abandoning of the son he fathered by her that strikes you as "conscientious"?

I wonder how IC feels about those people? Does he devote as much scorn for those contemporaries of Marx who profited off the squalor they helped make as he does to Marx himself

The factory owners and such, you mean? Yes, I have contempt for what they did to their workers.

But if you can say one thing about them, it's that their evils were less than Marx's. Nobody in history has been Marx's equal. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Maduro, Ceacescu, Tito, the Kim Jongs and Mugabe, among others, all quoted Marx as the chief ideological motivation for what they did. That's one heck of a contribution to human misery.

You basically say one thing and then proceed to do the opposite here. I asked if you have as "much" scorn for the contemporary powers that were who exploited the conditions of workers for profit. Your answer was, "yes", however, then you proceed to accuse Marx of a greater evil. You need to look at that contradiction and understand that you did INDEED pay lip service to the belief that Marx is a greater criminal for the mistakes he made trying to fix a bad situation as those who deliberately profited off the squalor of others.

YES, AT LEAST MARX HAD A CONSCIENCE. AND NO, MANY OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES DIDN'T. Why would you dare to accuse (what is arguably a fool) of the same level of wickedness as you would unrepentant criminals? Is it only because Marx didn't approve of Christianity? Again, is this God of yours more concerned with being worshiped than s/he is for the fates of the poor? Did some of those wicked capitalists make it to "heaven" should they have proclaimed belief in Christ? You need to seriously give your religious convictions more thought. They seem pretty disgusting on the face of it.

It's even a bit like blaming Christ for the inquisition committed by some followers of his. Marx didn't advocate for death and destruction of innocents. He basically stated that his prediction of a coming revolution and classless society were "scientific" predictions based on his own adaptation of Hegel's ideas of thesis/antithesis/synthesis version of reality (and the "real is rational" according to Hegel) In that effect, it could also be taken as a warning by Marx to his contemporary elites. But Marx was right, something had to be done that didn't involve exploiting the powerless and vulnerable. Anger doesn't pay off but it's better than making a tidy profit off of creating and orchestrating the misery of others, regardless of whether one goes through the ceremony and pomp of being a "Christian".

Even though he never lifted a finger to help the poor, and hurt the only one he knew, that is not the worst that Marx did. By any fair account, he was a truly contemptable human being, one who we can all plainly see left nothing but misery, disaster and destruction in his wake. His dark equal does not exist among men, in that regard.

So literally you are saying Marx is worse than a serial killer, or than Stalin and Mao, the actual perpetrators of the atrocities you attribute to Marx. You would blame Marx for what amounts to rants and bombastic language more so than the men who basically "pulled the trigger" in those crimes? I don't think you understand Marx at all. All you have is a synthetic caricature of a full human being that you viciously denounce. Wake up!

There's something about your religious convictions that are profoundly messing with your common sense.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Actually the whole 'trans' movement is literally driving the human race insane and it's going to cause enormous problems.The reason for this is that humans (and everything else) have evolved to 'categorise' everything, as a way of making sense of our world and making it as simple as possible for us i.e. without unnecessary complication. Our very existence depends on it. One of the most fundamental aspects of this is the concept of binary male/female. When you have an ideology that turns this upside down, making the irrational 'rational', adding unnecessary complication, humans are simply not able to process it. It goes against everything we have evolved to do, making it impossible to function properly.
An analogy would be if suddenly we were all told that blue is yellow, black is white, orange is purple etc. etc., and not only that, but that colours can be anything an individual wants them to be, and no one was allowed to disagree or they would be severely punished. There would be chaos. Functionality would disintegrate and we would no longer be able to make sense of the world.
People are free to call themselves what they want to in their own lives. Dress as they please. Delude themselves till the cows come home. The difference now, of course, is that populations are being forced to 'believe' what they know to be untrue. Scientific fact is being over-ridden by extreme political ideology.
The Prime Minister here a couple of days ago was asked to define 'woman'. He turned into a terrified, tongue-tied, blithering mess and simply couldn't do it, and that wasn't the first time the leader of a country has done the same thing recently.
It's probably too late to go back now. The damage has been done. We can only sit back and watch the downward spiral.
Ideology can never be allowed to overpower science. Imagine what it's doing to children's fragile developing minds, being told that there is no such thing as 'boys and girls' and that they can be either, but to be one or the other they will need to be sterilised and mutilated.
And the resident village wokie has the nerve to talk about 'contradictions'? Fuck him.

[Immanuel Can]

You are blaiming Marx for human nature?

Nope. I'm blaming Marx for what Marx did, and for the ideology he created. That's fair.

His radical ideas for his time are largely responsible for the relatively cushy life you have no doubt enjoyed.

Sorry, no.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Sorry, yes.

[Gary Childress]

Actually the whole 'trans' movement is literally driving the human race insane and it's going to cause enormous problems.The reason for this is that humans (and everything else) have evolved to categorise everything, as a way of making sense of our world and making it as simple as possible for us i.e. without unnecessary complication. Our very existence depends on it. One of the most fundamental aspects of this is the concept of binary male/female. When you have an ideology that turns this upside down, making the irrational 'rational', adding unnecessary complication, humans are simply not able to process it. It goes against everything we have evolved to do, making it impossible to function properly.
An analogy would be if suddenly we were all told that blue is yellow, black is white, orange is purple etc. etc., and not only that, but that colours can be anything an individual wants them to be, and no one was allowed to disagree or they would be severely punished. There would be chaos. Functionality would disintegrate and we would no longer be able to make sense of the world.
People are free to call themselves what they want to in their own lives. Dress as they please. Delude themselves till the cows come home. The difference now, of course, is that populations are being forced to 'believe' what they know to be untrue. Scientific fact is being over-ridden by extreme political ideology.
The Prime Minister here a couple of days ago was asked to define 'woman'. He turned into a terrified, tongue-tied blithering mess and simply couldn't do it, and that wasn't the first time the leader of a country has done the same thing.
It's probably too late to go back now. The damage has been done. We can only sit back and watch the downward spiral.
Ideology can never be allowed to overpower science. Imagine what it's doing to children's fragile developing minds, being told that there is no such things as 'boys and girls' and that they can be either, but to be one or the other they will need to be sterilised and mutilated.
And the village wokie has the nerve to talk about 'contradictions'? Fuck him.

I agree completely, between batshit crazy "Christian" fanatics and the moronic "woke" movement, the world is falling apart. Common sense is going out the window. People are more interested in paying allegiance to some mythical cranky old man wearing a bronze-age shepherd's robe in the sky or worried about someone with a penis who wants a vagina. They need to be more worried about doing something to solve some of the real problems that plague or face the world, ecological decline, possible destruction by militarists maliciously misusing the products of science, or any number of other tangible threats.