Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:34 pm

Henry did you go to the Trump rally in Lousanna ?

I watched it live on TV. Trump was in good form, as usual.

He said that Louisiana has the highest murder rate in America !!!!

Is that true? And if it is, how come Lousanna is so violent ??


Dachshund

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:04 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:29 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFwP2huyNzg

-Imp

It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world

You are missing an obvious advantage Lola has. The truck driver can tell Lola to F herself and she can do it.

"Henry did you go to the Trump rally in Lousanna ?"

Oh, hell no. I'm not much for crowds. Also: the 13 year old needed me home.

#

"I watched it live on TV. Trump was in good form, as usual."

I'll catch it in replay on CSPAN.

#

"He said that Louisiana has the highest murder rate in America !!!!"

If not the highest then damn close. It's New Orleans (and mebbe Baton Rouge). That crapsack city is chockablock with scum.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:30 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:04 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:29 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFwP2huyNzg

-Imp

It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world

You are missing an obvious advantage Lola has. The truck driver can tell Lola to F herself and she can do it.

HA!

-1- wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:33 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:05 am of course all XYY are males, more male than me an assumed XY.

And the YYYs are Yes Men.

ya

and of course the XXXs are Yes Women.

i say yes to women, so i must be an XXX .

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:29 pm FDP

I see you are claiming that as proved in other discussion, as predicted, just like Veritas does with the bad argument proving there's no God. To dave anyone the bother of reading that odious thread.... a tiny recap is in order.

Atheists should congratulate you for the argument. It proves that a fork can not change category to be jewellery, a boy cannot change category to be a woman, a chair canot be converted into a table ... and therefore it entails that sinners can not be saved, or vice versa.

Just out of curiousity do you believe it is possible for a woman to become a man as described in the Gospel of Thomas?

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

yes it is possible.

do you understand the quote of the Gospel of Thomas you referenced?

I've read it years ago and have quite a decent amount of knowledge of Christian Gnostic as a layman with in interest since the 1990's.

your quote is about the archaic world's culture veiwing men as more "fully formed" toward God than women, the latter were viewed as less formed and so (sadly) farther from God's image.

your quote is saying - Jesus will make Mary a man (not biologically- but in understanding) "a man" and so worthy of farther instruction/wisdom.

- BTW yes archaic middle eastern culture (judiac/and the polythiestic) - both view women as "lesser men" - physically.

but i do not think your Gosp of Thomas was so banal to view your reference in that physical way - Jesus will give Mary Mag some balls - , instead i assume that work was refering to the culture of that time (get some balls, man up!) - but mary did not have to physically become a man in order to gain wisdom. per my view of that texture reference.


but yes, women are weaker than men physically (and morally - i think that was the old social cultural view of 2000 yrs ago in the Middle East).

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:46 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:35 pm Nope. One is valid, the other is hooey. Never mind, Flash, as you (essentially) say 'you got better things to do'.

Indeed, I am now off to the pub, see you guys later.

enjoy!

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:09 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:33 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:05 am of course all XYY are males, more male than me an assumed XY.

And the YYYs are Yes Men.

ya

and of course the XXXs are Yes Women.

i say yes to women, so i must be an XXX .

I should have thougth XXX meant a winner in tic-tac-toe.

But I fully condone your yes-man-ness to women. Life has become simple, beautiful, and worry free since I leaned the ancient Chinese secret of saying "yes, Honey, you're right" to my girlfriend.

So what if she is not right? I still say it. It's more important to keep the peace than to argue whether Obama was more of a Marxist and less of a Trotskyite or the other way around.

That's funny, in a way, because police never say to perpetrators of crime, "that's right, Honey", instead, they beat them with billiclubs. To have the identical effect: to keep the peace.

I guess each has his or her own idea how to keep the peace, and it's on a scale like autism is, from "yes honey" to "Fuck you asshole, take this on your teeth" and wham with a bull whip.

-1- wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:19 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:09 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:33 am
And the YYYs are Yes Men.

ya

and of course the XXXs are Yes Women.

i say yes to women, so i must be an XXX .

I should have thougth XXX meant a winner in tic-tac-toe.

But I fully condone your yes-man-ness to women. Life has become simple, beautiful, and worry free since I leaned the ancient Chinese secret of saying "yes, Honey, you're right" to my girlfriend.

So what if she is not right? I still say it. It's more important to keep the peace than to argue whether Obama was more of a Marxist and less of a Trotskyite or the other way around.

That's funny, in a way, because police never say to perpetrators of crime, "that's right, Honey", instead, they beat them with billiclubs. To have the identical effect: to keep the peace.

I guess each has his or her own idea how to keep the peace, and it's on a scale like autism is, from "yes honey" to "Fuck you asshole, take this on your teeth" and wham with a bull whip.

Hate to tell you this -1-, but I don't think you manage to keep you girlfriend for very long.

Why ?

Because women inherently disrespect and rapidly become contemptuous of "Yes men" who passively capitulate to all of their opinions, desires, demands and other wilful behaviours; and, in short, let them do and say whatever they wish to do and say for "the sake of peace".

It is in the eternal nature of women (normal women) to desire having clear rules and boundaries and punishments set by their husbands/boyfriends in a
domestic relationship. Women are innately mischievous/deceptive/devious and will always test their man with trying/antagonistic behaviours purely to see whether or not he will have the moral fortitude to "draw the line" and rebuke or discipline them regarding errant conduct. This is what women expect from what they view as a worthy, decent, strong (morally) man and if they don't get it, they will very soon disappear en route to finding a male companion who can satisfy they requirements for them.. They (women) are, in many ways, like naughty children (said Nietzsche correctly) who are thankfully reassured when a parent points out and corrects or punishes their intentional misbehaviours. The trick is that the discipline the husband/boyfriend applies to his errant wife must be eminently PATERNALISTIC and genuinely intended to promote their welfare. Such discipline often needs to be firm (sometimes very firm) but always just. Violent of any form (verbal or physical) is, of course, unacceptable; it is also profoundly and inevitably counterproductive.

Regards

Dachshund

Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:44 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:19 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:09 pm



ya

and of course the XXXs are Yes Women.

i say yes to women, so i must be an XXX .

I should have thougth XXX meant a winner in tic-tac-toe.

But I fully condone your yes-man-ness to women. Life has become simple, beautiful, and worry free since I leaned the ancient Chinese secret of saying "yes, Honey, you're right" to my girlfriend.

So what if she is not right? I still say it. It's more important to keep the peace than to argue whether Obama was more of a Marxist and less of a Trotskyite or the other way around.

That's funny, in a way, because police never say to perpetrators of crime, "that's right, Honey", instead, they beat them with billiclubs. To have the identical effect: to keep the peace.

I guess each has his or her own idea how to keep the peace, and it's on a scale like autism is, from "yes honey" to "Fuck you asshole, take this on your teeth" and wham with a bull whip.

Hate to tell you this -1-, but I don't think you manage to keep you girlfriend for very long.

Why ?

Because women inherently disrespect and rapidly become contemptuous of "Yes men" who passively capitulate to all of their opinions, desires, demands and other wilful behaviours; and, in short, let them do and say whatever they wish to do and say for "the sake of peace".

It is in the eternal nature of women (normal women) to desire having clear rules and boundaries and punishments set by their husbands/boyfriends in a
domestic relationship. Women are innately mischievous/deceptive/devious and will always test their man with trying/antagonistic behaviours purely to see whether or not he will have the moral fortitude to "draw the line" and rebuke or discipline them regarding errant conduct. This is what women expect from what they view as a worthy, decent, strong (morally) man and if they don't get it, they will very soon disappear en route to finding a male companion who can satisfy they requirements for them.. They (women) are, in many ways, like naughty children (said Nietzsche correctly) who are thankfully reassured when a parent points out and corrects or punishes their intentional misbehaviours. The trick is that the discipline the husband/boyfriend applies to his errant wife must be eminently PATERNALISTIC and genuinely intended to promote their welfare. Such discipline often needs to be firm (sometimes very firm) but always just. Violent of any form (verbal or physical) is, of course, unacceptable; it is also profoundly and inevitably counterproductive.

Regards

Dachshund

'yes dear' = de-balled

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:58 pm 'yes dear' = de-balled

So THAT'S how a "man" can "turn into" a woman.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:03 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:58 pm 'yes dear' = de-balled

So THAT'S how a "man" can "turn into" a woman.

HA!

Nah, just a eunuch.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:30 am

It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world


You are missing an obvious advantage Lola has. The truck driver can tell Lola to F herself and she can do it.

But how's this...

Nick_A is just speeding away
Thought he was Simone Weil for a day
Then I guess he had to crash
Valium would have helped that bash
Said, "Hey, Nick,
Take a walk on the wild side
I said "Hey Nicky,
Take a walk on the wild side"
And the coloured girls say
Doo do doo do doo do do doo


Regards


Dachshund

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:03 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:58 pm 'yes dear' = de-balled

So THAT'S how a "man" can "turn into" a woman.

IC,

Henry is right, and its not "rocket science", is it ?!

I know it is terribly Politically incorrect to say this, but for all the non-stop demands for gender/sexual equality that women in the modern West the INSANE irony is that as far as their interpersonal (husband/wife, long-term boyfriend/girlfriend) relationships are concerned equal (masculine) treatment from their husbands or boyfriends is actually THE VERY LAST thing that women really want.

To cut to the chase, even if they have been brainwashed by the gender feminist dogma that is pumped through the mainstream media/liberal political establishment, what they INNATE desire is for the male in the relationship to play the LEADERSHIP role, while they play the role of supporter and helper for their man. Women expect men to be decisive - to call the shots - (the important shots) in their relationship. In Genesis 3:16 it says that the man (husband is to "rule" his women. The translation "rule" had unintended militaristic trappings, because what God had in mind was for man to carry out a loving paternalistic supervision and guidance of woman. 3:16 also states that woman is to be the comforter and helper of her man. This is not intended to declare males a "superior", and women lesser or "inferior", human beings. An harmonious complementarity is the goal God has in mind.

Most common or garden women do not want to play the role of "boss" at home. They want to be loved and treated with respect for their femininity (which has myriad unique and admirable aesthetic, cognitive and moral, etc qualities male totally lack) , but they don't have any desire to be the chief organizers, disciplinarians of children, defenders and protectors of the family from dangerous harms (real or potential) or "Sergeant Majors" of domestic life. A husband and wife are equally valuable, they are just naturally disposed to carry out different functions in the married household.

For example, here's a fact that will provoke dissent, but it is nonetheless true; this fact is that women (according to a large, reputable survey, that was conducted 2 years ago) tend to lose respect for stay-at-home male partners. I'm referring to the set-up where the wife is the chief bread-winner who goes out to work in Corporate USA or whatever from 9 -to - 5 each day while the husband stays home and looks after the children, does the domestic chores, etc. I mean , there no need to do sociological survey to confirm this. OF COURSE women are going to rapidly lose respect for a stay-at-home spuse because it is not a natural arrangement. And what is not in accordance with nature has a very strong tendency to self-destruct.

All of what I am saying is stuff that the ancients (Aristotle and Co.) understood implicitly 2,500 years ago. OK, they didn't get it perfect, they could have treated their women/wives with more respect, ditto the ancient Romans; but they did NOT violently subjugate them. Rather, clearly understood the fundamental principles of how civilised, basic male-female/husband-wife relationships should operate. And all things considered they did a pretty good job. Whereas today, both women and men are increasingly confused about how they should relate to each other romantically, and not just confused, but constantly criticising and bitterly antagonising each other (?!)

What is the root cause of this disharmony and hostility ? The answer is cultural Marxism which includes Critical Theory, Radical and Socialist feminism, philosophical movements like postmodernism which have overwhelmed schools and Colleges in the US, relativist social constructivism and so on. In a word the fundamental tenets of old-school Marxist communism.


Regards


Dachshund

Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:49 pm What is the root cause of this disharmony and hostility ? The answer is cultural Marxism which includes Critical Theory, Radical and Socialist feminism, philosophical movements like postmodernism which have overwhelmed schools and Colleges in the US, relativist social constructivism and so on. In a word the fundamental tenets of old-school Marxist communism.

Or to put it another way, simple selfishness and jealousy, coated with a moral sheen by being framed as concern for "the oppressed."

It's interesting that the vast majority of Social Justice Warriors are white, middle-class, Western and educated -- in short, very privileged, and on a world scale, well within the top percentiles of the world's rich. And it is these people who propose to speak for the poor, the downtrodden, the ethnic minorities, and the sexually deviating. Funny that they never think to ask these communities if they need privileged, white, Western children to speak for them.

For other constituencies, such as the politically or morally conservative, the sexually normal or the pre-born, Social Justice children not only have no compassion or empathy at all, but rather practice an active animosity, and in the case of the latter, actual murderous intent. For the mentally ill, particularly those who imagine themselves to be another "gender," they have zero mercy -- because while providing sufferers with counselling or treatment would yield no opportunity to preen at all, pretending to normalize that pathology yields for the Social Justice types exactly the posture of "crusader for the oppressed" that they crave. So gender-dysphoric people must be left miserable and confused, being told that they're not miserable and confused at all, so that Social Justice Warriors can congratulate themselves on their compassion.

Neo-Marxism is just their excuse. The motive is much simpler, and far less intellectual, and much less "moralizing." It's just that privileged children want to do what they please. And they want free stuff. And they want to be told they're wonderful and good and delightful for wanting it. That's all.