Philosophy Now Forum

godelian wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:02 pm I only have sex with virgins.

As a sex tourist in SE Asia by the sound of it. Nothing to be proud of.

godelian wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 2:31 am I think that it is time for a new war, because that should allow us to surreptitiously get rid of them. In the heat of the action, that kind of feminized simps keep getting "accidents". Seriously, the friendly fire was an honest mistake!

Are you threatening me?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 1:39 pm

godelian wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 5:24 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 4:12 am
Yeah, yeah, yeah...not wrong, but why don't you just ignore them?

It is necessary to train yourself in order to become battle-hardened.

I don't see "battle hardenedness" here. There's no "battle" except with somebody who's a genuine threat. These people of whom you speak -- they are not threat to me. Why are they a threat to you?

There are also modern women in SE Asia. I can pick them out of the crowd on sight. They do not even need to open their mouth. I can see it from subtle details, from facial expressions, from body language. It is so obvious to the discerning eye. You learn to do that by studying the subject. In SE Asia, I do not want dealings with modern women any more than in the West.

Okay, there are women you don't like, in this world. That's fine: you don't have to like them.

But you also don't have to fear and hate them, unless, maybe, you are also drawn to them and are afraid they're going to fool you, pull you in, and abuse you... Then, maybe, an attitude of constant vigilance, fear and loathing would be warranted, because you'd be trying to keep yourself from being tempted to give in to them...However, you claim you don't admire them, so I can't figure that.

In any case, I don't have those anxieties. If you've got your own relationships in order, why become fascinated with the wickedness of the foolish and corrupt? And, as you say, you find those women pretty easy to detect: and it's true, they have a look, a style, an attitude, and even an age range that marks them as TikTok fodder and exemplars of bad life-decision making.

But there are still good people in this world. Be with them.

So what are you anxious about? I'm not seeing the reasoning there.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 4:12 am The problem is if you start believing that what you see there is average, normal or universal. It's not. You're not looking at a normal demographic there. You're looking at cherry-picked extreme cases.

Of course, but it is an excellent training ground.

For what?

I can see little value in looking constantly at the worst examples of the fairer sex behaving like cats. It's not the sort of preoccupation that's going to make you a good person.

Someone needs to write a book, titled "How to judiciously ridicule modern women"

Why don't you just ignore them? Why are you spending time so preoccupied with the misdeeds of people for whom you admit you have total contempt? Why would you want your life to be full of thoughts about them, or about hating anyone? How is that going to make you a happy and balanced person.

Maybe I should indeed reevaluate my morbid fascination with manosphere videos. Maybe five years is enough for that kind of hobby. The difficulty is, my friends also like these videos. We regularly exchange links with each other. I get them automatically recommended on my youtube home page. That algorithm is really smart. It knows exactly what title is going to make me click on a video to watch it.

godelian wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 2:29 pm Maybe I should indeed reevaluate my morbid fascination with manosphere videos. Maybe five years is enough for that kind of hobby. The difficulty is, my friends also like these videos. We regularly exchange links with each other. I get them automatically recommended on my youtube home page. That algorithm is really smart. It knows exactly what title is going to make me click on a video to watch it.

I think you're wise to rethink it, anyway.

I'm not dissing the "manosphere" or your friends for being on it. In some ways, it's healthy for men to be talking about their experiences and sorting out common patterns of problems. Relationships are tricky things. And I think that if men have been too slow to share information with one another, the manosphere is one way in which they make up for lost time. All well and good.

It seems to me that the best outcome of the "manosphere" is that they help you realize how messed up things are out there, and realize that the world is full of games you just don't have to play. And once you've "seen through" the games, the twists, the nonsense and so forth, that can be very, very helpful and useful. But I think things get toxic when one camps there: you start to feel as if all women are whiny, middle-aged leftovers, with two illegitimate kids in tow, a huge sense of entitlement and a "MyFans" account. That is, to be sure, a demented subset of the female population -- one to be avoided at all costs, no doubt. But it isn't the good people. And isn't the point of making yourself wise about these things to be able to make wise decisions about women?

But what's the use of wisdom if you imagine all women are self-indulgent, gold-digging bimbos? What is there to be "wise" about, except to stay completely away from all of them, and live as a celibate hermit? And is that the plan, ultimately?

I'd say a more positive use of such insight is to pay closer attention to all the women who are NOT like those TikTokkers, and spend more time thinking about establishing a proper relationship with them. In fact, the next step in wisdom might be to ask yourself, "If good women are not found on TikTok and MyFans, where do the good ones hang out?" Spending some time there would put you in a much better demographic of women. Maybe it's time to talk less about the losing side of the game, and more about practical strategies for a winning game.

That seems a more positive route, to me. And maybe that's a thought your friends need to have, too. You could talk about it with them, anyway, and see if they get it. If they don't, then I'd still say it's probably time for you to move on to something that stands to make your life better.

I doubt that being totally cynical about all women is actually a form of wisdom, anyway. It seems more like overreaction, to me.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 2:46 am

godelian wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 2:31 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:31 pm
commonsense is a guy and he ain't (I think) queer, so...

Really? What a feminized simp!

Nope. Generally a reasonable person, even when one doesn't agree with him.

Commonsense isn't an enemy...just somebody who thinks differently in some ways. And if he's wrong, he's allowed to be, without his masculinity being questioned.

I don't find him a threat to my integrity; I can't see why you do. I'd say relax.

Sometimes when I am wrong, I admit it and even thank the person who has changed my mind.

That reminds me, I wanted to thank you, IC, for helping me to accept it that abortion from a legal aspect is clearly unconstitutional.

And the mandate of SCOTUS is to provide legal opinions.

There’s still one point that you or others may be able to dissuade me from. I hold that abortion is not unethical. My belief is that a human being’s rights, when in conflict with a potential human’s rights, have primacy.

Have at it, if you will.

P.S. HQ’s anti-abortion position also had influence on me. As such he deserves some credit as well.

HQ’s anti-abortion position also had influence on me. As such he deserves some credit as well.

No, if you still believe a person becomes a person only when he takes his first breath, I deserve no credit.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 11:43 pm

HQ’s anti-abortion position also had influence on me. As such he deserves some credit as well.

No, if you still believe a person becomes a person only when he takes his first breath, I deserve no credit.

Well, you had something to do with my changing to adopt the position that Roe was unconstitutional.

But on the business of the fertilized ovum being accorded the rights of a human being, we continue to disagree. Here’s why:

It’s a living thing but it isn’t a human. It can’t open a bank account. It can’t search the Internet. It can’t ride a pony or a motorcycle. It can’t hold down a job. It can’t go to a magnet school. It can’t have a favorite breakfast cereal.

It’s alive but it isn’t a human person.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:28 pmon the business of the fertilized ovum being accorded the rights of a human being, we continue to disagree. Here’s why:

It’s a living thing but it isn’t a human. It can’t open a bank account. It can’t search the Internet. It can’t ride a pony or a motorcycle. It can’t hold down a job. It can’t go to a magnet school. It can’t have a favorite breakfast cereal.

Well, right after his first breath, Junior can't do any of those things either, but you say, after his very first breath, he's a person.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 5:52 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:28 pmon the business of the fertilized ovum being accorded the rights of a human being, we continue to disagree. Here’s why:

It’s a living thing but it isn’t a human. It can’t open a bank account. It can’t search the Internet. It can’t ride a pony or a motorcycle. It can’t hold down a job. It can’t go to a magnet school. It can’t have a favorite breakfast cereal.

Well, right after his first breath, Junior can't do any of those things either, but you say, after his very first breath, he's a person.

You must be able to see that fact that a foetus is actually attached to the womb and can not even get oxygen by themselves as an indication that something just happened?
Before birth the foetus is part of the mother's body and as such is nothing to do with anyone else but her.
To say other wise is a form of bodily control like slavery. Its a fundamental question of sovereignty.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 5:52 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:28 pmon the business of the fertilized ovum being accorded the rights of a human being, we continue to disagree. Here’s why:

It’s a living thing but it isn’t a human. It can’t open a bank account. It can’t search the Internet. It can’t ride a pony or a motorcycle. It can’t hold down a job. It can’t go to a magnet school. It can’t have a favorite breakfast cereal.

Well, right after his first breath, Junior can't do any of those things either, but you say, after his very first breath, he's a person.

He’s a minor, with limited abilities and limited rights.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 5:56 pmYou must be able to see that fact that a foetus is actually attached to the womb and can not even get oxygen by themselves as an indication that something just happened?
Before birth the foetus is part of the mother's body and as such is nothing to do with anyone else but her.
To say other wise is a form of bodily control like slavery. Its a fundamental question of sovereignty.

Well, he's attached to her, but he's not part of her. He's his own. Mama invited him into the world. Where's the slavery? And, yes, I've acknowledged the special circumstances of rape and dangers to health or life, in other threads. We can rehash them, but it comes down to: no woman ought be forced to deliver the product of her violation, and no woman ought be forced to die for any other. These, however, are distinctly different from the circumstance of a woman who consented to sex and then wishes to abort the natural result of sex becuz he is inconvenient.

So, when does non-person become person? As a peculiar deist I have a particular view, but it's not provable. What is provable: everything, in terms of substance, that makes any one of us a person is in place in Junior by the end of the first trimester. If you are a person becuz of a particular assortment of organs, then Junior, at the end of his 12th week inside Mom, is a person too.

Now, you might say, yeah, but he's dependent and that makes the difference. Okay, if that's so, then every person who becomes disabled and dependent becomes a non-person. That's the logical conclusion. Do you agree with that conclusion?

As I recall, you, skep, believe a person is a person only when others say he is. In other words, there's nuthin' inherent about personhood. If we go with that, then no one can object if TPTB or The State declare a portion of any population to be non-persons, or to be only partial persons. Does this sit well with you?

Now, I concede the possibility personhood is a fiction, that human life has no intrinsic value, but as I sit in my own skin it does not seem to me I am anything but a person, and it seems to me I'm a person becuz my personhood is inherent. As I watch my 15 year old work the PS4 not five feet away from me, and as I recall him as a tiny, squggly thing with bright eyes, it does not seem to me he is, or has been, anything but a full person and that his personhood is inherent.

And I think about all the people in my life -- loves, hates, friends, strangers -- and it does not seem to me any of them are anything but persons, inherently, with the same natural right to themselves that I believe I have to myself.

And I think about all the Juniors in their womb sleep and I wonder how any of us can consider them and see them as anything other than persons.

As I say up-thread: none of us are any closer to agreein' on any of this today than we were in '19 when I asked person or meat?, and it doesn't appear we'll ever reach an accord.

And so I wonder about all the babies that'll never take that first breath Common is sure attaches personhood to a non-person, and I wonder about the reckoning that, as a deist, I'm sure will never come, and I'm beginning to think that mebbe it should.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:34 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 5:56 pmYou must be able to see that fact that a foetus is actually attached to the womb and can not even get oxygen by themselves as an indication that something just happened?
Before birth the foetus is part of the mother's body and as such is nothing to do with anyone else but her.
To say other wise is a form of bodily control like slavery. Its a fundamental question of sovereignty.

Well, he's attached to her, but he's not part of her. He's his own.

That, my friend is utter bollocks.

Mama invited him into the world.

Not necessarily.
"HE" might be a parasite of a rape, or a mistake.
It is interesting that you see the foetus as a "HE". Freud would have a field day with you.
You obviously see your role as protecting the male of the species in some way.

Where's the slavery? And, yes, I've acknowledged the special circumstances of rape and dangers to health or life, in other threads. We can rehash them, but it comes down to: no woman ought be forced to deliver the product of her violation, and no woman ought be forced to die for any other. These, however, are distinctly different from the circumstance of a woman who consented to sex and then wishes to abort the natural result of sex becuz he is inconvenient.

Why the fuck not?
If you were raped up the arse and had a bug growing in your rectum would you not want to get rid of it.
If the foetus is not wanted then it has the status of a tapeworm.

So, when does non-person become person? As a peculiar deist I have a particular view, but it's not provable. What is provable: everything, in terms of substance, that makes any one of us a person is in place in Junior by the end of the first trimester. If you are a person becuz of a particular assortment of organs, then Junior, at the end of his 12th week inside Mom, is a person too.

A person is a person when they understand what the fuck a person is.

Now, you might say, yeah, but he's dependent and that makes the difference. Okay, if that's so, then every person who becomes disabled and dependent becomes a non-person. That's the logical conclusion. Do you agree with that conclusion?

As I recall, you, skep, believe a person is a person only when others say he is. In other words, there's nuthin' inherent about personhood. If we go with that, then no one can object if TPTB or The State declare a portion of any population to be non-persons, or to be only partial persons. Does this sit well with you?

Now, I concede the possibility personhood is a fiction, that human life has no intrinsic value, but as I sit in my own skin it does not seem to me I am anything but a person, and it seems to me I'm a person becuz my personhood is inherent. As I watch my 15 year old work the PS4 not five feet away from me, and as I recall him as a tiny, squggly thing with bright eyes, it does not seem to me he is, or has been, anything but a full person and that his personhood is inherent.

And I think about all the people in my life -- loves, hates, friends, strangers -- and it does not seem to me any of them are anything but persons, inherently, with the same natural right to themselves that I believe I have to myself.

And I think about all the Juniors in their womb sleep and I wonder how any of us can consider them and see them as anything other than persons.

As I say up-thread: none of us are any closer to agreein' on any of this today than we were in '19 when I asked person or meat?, and it doesn't appear we'll ever reach an accord.

And so I wonder about all the babies that'll never take that first breath Common is sure attaches personhood to a non-person, and I wonder about the reckoning that, as a deist, I'm sure will never come, and I'm beginning to think that mebbe it should.

I suggest you get a vasectomy or cover your little fellow in rubber. Aside from that you do not get to bully women into carrying a foetus.

utter bollocks

He ain't part of her...

If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.

In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.

In (many) pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, (meaning -- obviously -- even the sex of the child is different from the mother).

When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body," there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.

You can, if you like, think of him as a parasite. I prefer to see him as a temporary and -- in most cases -- invited guest. Either way, he is attached to the woman, but is not part of her.

If you were raped...and had a bug growing in your rectum would you not want to get rid of it(?)

Sure, becuz that would be a legit parasite.

Anyway, as I say: no woman ought be forced to deliver the product of her violation, and no woman ought be forced to die for any other. These, however, are distinctly different from the circumstance of a woman who consented to sex and then wishes to abort the natural result of sex becuz he is inconvenient. He bein' a person, not a tapeworm.

It is interesting that you see the foetus as a "HE".

Oh, I could use she if you prefer. I won't, though, use, they, her or she, or it.

A person is a person when they understand what...a person is.

Can you meet that measure? Do you understand what a person is? If so: will you describe or define person in your response?

you do not get to bully women into carrying a foetus.

And you ought not end a person simply becuz she's inconvenient.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:58 pm My belief is that a human being’s rights, when in conflict with a potential human’s rights, have primacy.

Have at it, if you will.

It's an artificial category, this "potential human being." What we don't know is at what point a "potential human being" as you call her, is a real human being.

Fortunately for the anti-abortion people, they don't have to know. They're not going to kill anybody, even "potentially."

But the pro-abortionists"? Even they have to admit that potentially they're killing a human being. So it's on them to show that they're not, and to show it in such a way that no reasonable person can doubt they've got it right. Moreover, they know darn well that the "potential human being" they're killing would, within the 9 months, BE a full "human being" in every possible sense. In fact, that's the payoff they want -- to kill an entity that otherwise would be 100% possessed of the rights and reality of a human child, rather than to bring it to term and adopt her out. That's what they actively WANT. There would be no reason to kill anything if it did not prevent that eventuality.

So the need to explain themselves as not being murderers rests 100% on the shoulders of the pro-abortionists. The anti-abortion folks could, and should, sit back and wait for them to prove that case.

But they cannot, and they know they cannot...not just because the nature of the child is concealed from us in the womb, but because the whole "value" of abortion, it's whole reason for being is, in fact, the ending of the life of a human being.