AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
Theosophy is hilariously goofy
"Woke" Franchises
- Thread starter Seth Vatamaris
- Start date
Theosophy is hilariously goofy
King Arts
Well-known member
LOL true, that is also a big issue. I should not have said Mrs. Beaver, but I should have just pointed to her and said a life form just like her that is not married. Maybe her twin sister. lol.
I came up with it that you are talking about below. I was just saying that natural law arguments can be done without religion.
Ok it's not carving out a rule for infertile groups. Let me put it like this natural law deals with what is moral and what works for societies. To see what is natural we look at humans in nature, and we look at as many different groups as possible. A high tech civilization has removed itself from natural law and it has problems since humans are part of nature at the end of the day. So we can't look at corrupted modern western society. We have to look at history where things have not been corrupted, we look at tribes and early city states, or we estimate what values WOULD work on the basic level like that. We can also look at animals especially those close to us.
So here is the thing, for all we know without modern tech we don't know that women are infertile or not. All we know is that sometimes they have kids after lovemaking and others don't. Maybe the gods disfavor them, or they are cursed, or whatever. But they did not have gene tests to find out beforehand. So this means the stable way a society would do it would have a man marry a woman and if it was found that there is no fertility either he divorces her or he gets a second wife.
If you make love to a man under no circumstances will you have a baby, the same goes for other species(Besides the Asari and other fetish bait we talked about earlier) Again we look at how nature handles it.
Do you know why you think my arguments are gross. There is a good biological reason for it.
I mean yes they are, animals can be bad or good. Also destroying property is nothing, yet harming an animal is different than destroying a bullet.
What a stupid argument. I'm sorry dude, you are the one who is bad at arguing.
Let me show you what you did. You gave a statement that is true. "Having sex with minors is bad" which is correct
"because the minors can't consent" which is wrong. It's both irrelevant and not factually true. Here is another analogy
"Slavery is wrong" true "because the Chinese invaded the British in the 1800's." Not true also not related
First off when talking about NATURAL LAW it is a universal that means it applies to ALL humans from the African tribal in 5000 BC, to the European in the 1500's AD, to the modern day America 2024 AD, to yes the year 2500 AD humans living on a space colony at the L3 Lagrange point.
That means you need to be precise with your words and what they mean. If we are talking biologically once a person completes puberty they are no longer a "child"(unless you'd call those 15 year old migrant youths in Europe rioting and raping children)
Now sure a person can still be considered a child socially and legally until they meet the criteria to be a man or woman society imposes and there are many good reasons for those rules.
But your argument did not say any of those reasons you just said "They can't consent." like a liberal mantra without any thought. Obviously yes those who are very young can't consent and don't know anything. But grown teenagers that want to have sex, and know what it is can. But we as a society put rules to restrict that because we know that teenagers and young adults are impulsive and can make mistakes and do things that they would later come to regret. They are able to make small choices "Do you want to buy this food or that food." but we don't let them make big choices "So do you want to take out a home loan? Do you want to engage in this risky activity"
They can know what it is and want to do it which is consent but we don't trust them to act wisely.
When society says they can't consent we are talking about legal fiction. To simplify it we put these rules for the protection of people. Here is another instance of us removing consent from people to help prevent abuses.
Do you think a 30 year old prisoner can consent to have sex with a 28 year old prison guard? Legally we say no they can't because we realize that the prisoner is in a place where there is a great balance of power in favor of the prison guard and the prison guard can easily coerce the prisoner to do things they may not want to do.(Let's ignore any corruption issues just limit it to consent) Thus we say legally the prisoner does not have the ability to consent. Do you really think that the prisoner is too stupid to know if he wants to be in a relationship or not?
Same argument applies to the teens. They may have matured biologically but we as a society have seen them act irresponsibly and know that they could get taken advantage of by older partners who have more knowledge and can manipulate them.
The thing is this is all irrelevant because none of these arguments are directly dealing with natural law. We can use natural law to see that there is a problem teens/young adults being irresponsible with sex and then looking for ways our society can solve it without damage. The looking for solutions part is not natural law though.
Again natural law is supposed to be UNIVERSAL that would mean it's the bare minimum for human society to live, it's not your specefic culture and making things better. Also you can look again at the varying jurisdictions with different ages of consent to see it's not based on natural law. Will a 17 year old who is considered of age in one jurisdiction "magically" become incompetent when they go to another? What about if an 18 year old from a place where you aren't considered of age till they are 20 goes to a place where they are of age. Are they now competent?
Again there are arguments to defend it but the way you did it was just bad.
Poe
Well-known member
That is not theosophy, nor is that poster correct about him "loving the antichrist." Steiner specifically left Theosophy, and formed his own alternative anthroposophy, because the theosophists blasphemed by claiming an indian kid was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
You don't understand what natural law is. Natural law is not the "law of the jungle." Nor is it the law of evolution. It has completely zero to do with how nature works. It's basically a term that's just used for statements a certain morality system views as axiomatic (obvious basic truths). Things like "attacking another for no reason is wrong"
If you do define a law based on how nature works (in contrast to natural law), gay relationships become moral, as they happen in nature. Men killing each other becomes moral, because that's what happens in nature.
If you look to animals close to us, you get bonobos doing gay sex and prostitution, and apes in general doing mass killings and war.
Also, humans have known for millennia roughly when women were infertile: when they went through menopause/were not having a period. They didn't know exactly why, but they knew the two were related. A woman not being fertile anymore wasn't used as a reason to not have sex.
No, you aren't understanding what I'm saying. They do not have a moral attribute. You can't hold a rock as morally wrong for falling upon someone and crushing them. It would still be a bad thing, and you could hate the rock, but the rock has no moral agency. It's not the rocks fault. So a rock cannot be morally bad (or morally good). The same holds for a tornado or other natural disaster, and the same holds for an animal. They do not have any morality to them, they are amoral.
You can perceive them as bad or good, but you cannot ascribe morality to them.
Also, as a side note, nowhere did you refute your argument that you justified pedophilia. Because your argument does this. You definitely attacked my argument, but you didn't defend your own.
The reason a prisoner can't consent is not because he isn't mentally capable, but because he is under threat. It's coercion, for the same reason you can't consent to giving someone your money when they put a gun to your head. Oh, you can certainly give them your money, but it was hardly a consensual exchange. This doesn't prove your point.
Basically, there's three scenarios when your consent is violated: One: you refuse and the other person proceeds (sometimes it's phrased as the person proceeding without you saying yes). Two: you say yes, but you are not capable of consenting at the time. This happens if you are drugged against your will, underage, mentally incapable, threatened, etc. Three: fraud. A person sleeps with his identical twin's wife, for example. Or a trans person sleeps with someone without telling them they are trans.
Now above this, you say 'it's all just legal dressing'. It isn't. It's legal recognition of the concept of consent. Of course, real consent is a muddy thing that defies clear rules other than "I know it when I see it", so the law imperfectly puts it into practice by just picking an age. The age for consent could be 16 or 18 or 25 for all I care, the point isn't the law, the point is that the law is based on an underlying morality about children's inability to consent.
This concept of consent applies to all things, not just sex, btw. Which is why it's not a liberal idea: it applies to their taxes, their government trying to force communism, etc. This is in fact the strongest argument against communism: communism is to trade what rape is to sex.
If you get a liberal to agree that consent is why sex isn't rape, you've already won on communism, they just don't know it yet. You want to toss that for a batshit idea about fertility that doesn't actually have history backing it up (menopausal women had sex just fine, and yes they lived that long often enough) nor does it have nature backing it up, nor does it actually condemn pedophilia.
Vyor
My influence grows!
That would imply God is fallible. The body is fallible, He is not. These imperfections are washed away upon death and, more, have a physical basis for them. IE: we can point to the general genetic sequences that show a predisposition to being born without a limb or having autism.
We can not do so for trans bullshit, because such a gene sequence doesn't exist.
Just FYI, if we allow for possibility of the body to be fallible, then we could just as easily say, logically speaking, that a soul being born with the wrong body is a failing of the body, as opposed to a body being born with the wrong soul being a failing of the soul (and by extension, God).
The logic there is not air-tight. In order to fully absolve God of any mistake, like you are trying to do, you would have to stipulate that the body is infallible in the moment of conception but accrues defects in the womb, for instance.
Last edited:
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
Vyor
My influence grows!
Then where is the mode of failure for trans bullshit?Just FYI, if we allow for possibility of the body to be fallible, then we could just as easily say, logically speaking, that a soul being born with the wrong body is a failing of the body, as opposed to a body being born with the wrong soul being a failing of the soul (and by extension, God).
The logic there is not air-tight. In order to fully absolve God of any mistake, like you are trying to do, you would have to stipulate that the body is infallible in the moment of conception but accrues defects in the womb, for instance.
There isn't one.
That is where your argument fails.
Because you rely on bullshit.
There are lots of failure modes for trans bullshit:
- If gender is separate from sex and is just an arbitrary set of performative behaviors and norms that society has decided are masculine or feminine over thousands of years, then why modify your body to match?
- Actually, this is a matter of ongoing and vicious debate among transgender people.
- If gender differences between men and women are arbitrary and both sexes should be able to pick and choose which stereotypically feminine or masculine behaviors they like the most, then why are trans people obligated to perform an exaggerated form of masculinity or femininity to prove their trans-ness?
- Why don't non-binary people affirm their gender by undergoing surgery to become nullos?
- Actually, they do, but this is very rare. Most elect for no surgery at all.
- By extension, why aren't there specific gender-affirming surgeries for the dozens of other supposed genders that are purported to exist? Where do you go to get Third Gender, Demiboy, or Genderfluid surgery?
- If gender has physiological predicates (for example, if it's possible for one sex to have some manner of developmental abnormality that grants them the opposite sex's brain wiring), then this implies that brains are sexed and that this dictates behavior. Therefore, how can gender be treated as separate from physical sex?
- This is also highly debated, naturally, since it implies that brains can be sexually dimorphic to begin with.
- If someone can be transgender, then why can't someone else be transracial, or assume any other sort of identity on a whim? Why is race a protected category, but not man or woman? Why is blackface bad, but womanface or manface is perfectly fine?
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Unfortunately, it is not.
Leftist goal is nothing more or less than destruction of Western society. Mass immigration is a tool for that, and since immigrants tend to have more children than the Westerners... demographic victory may well be Leftist.
DarthOne
☦️
The thing is that a lot of migrants tend to end up in cities, which are already liberal strongholds. Which could work to the Rights advantage if a conflict breaks out. Simply cut off food and power, sit back and watch them eat themselves.
‘War is hell.’
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
What makes you think the immigrants would be leftists?
DarthOne
☦️
You are joking, right?
Even if they might not agree with leftist talking points, the left goes out of its way to benefit immigrants, especially illegals ones. As the illegal ones know that if MAGA-style right wing politicians win, they won't stand for the sort of easy treatment and benefits that the Left gives out.
That's about the gist of it.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
What makes you think they will not?
Leftists are people without roots. Immigrants are people without roots. Individual exceptions exist, but by and large immigrants cannot be anything but leftist.
And we see this quite clearly:
Giving vote to women, minorities and immigrants is the greatest mistake any voting-based system can make.
Basic studies, such as research on immigrants views vs citizen views on certain topics.
It highly depends what they are leaving/going towards.
For example, people fleeing communism? They are going to lean right (hence the cubans in florida, but that's not the only example). But people coming for stuff (economic opportunity to welfare)? They frequently do have roots, they send money back, etc, but they support the cause that helps them. The dems being pro immigration and immigrants responding to it is just incentive matching, nothing complex about rootlessness or anything.
Ixian
Well-known member
Gender implies cultural distinction, and not anything deeper. Certainly not some free floating psyche... thing.No, they are separate and distinct. The idea of gender identity implies the existence of a psyche separate from the soma, which, in turn, implies that the human body is just a type of vehicle that the psyche pilots, and that the two are not necessarily of the same essence. As a matter of fact, transgenderism is very common among people with autism, because people with autism have deficits in proprioception and interoception that make their minds feel more separate and distinct from their bodies than most people. Most neurotypical people don't feel like a mind trapped in a body that doesn't belong to them. They feel like they are their bodies, hence the lower rates of dysphoria and distress.
Largest study to date confirms overlap between autism and gender diversity
People who do not identify with the sex they were assigned at birth are three to six times as likely to be autistic as cisgender people are.www.spectrumnews.org
Autism and Interoception
There is a strong link between Autism and interoception difficultuties--which could be impacting your health. Learn more here.neurodivergentinsights.com
Frontiers | Gender Brain Structural Differences and Interoception
Interoception, the ability to perceive inner body sensations, has been demonstrated to be different among genders, with a stronger female attention toward in...www.frontiersin.org
In western culture, blue is commonly associated with boys and pink is commonly associated with girls. It doesn't mean a girl who likes blue is a boy.
It is fairly common that dresses are associated with girls in western culture, that doesn't mean that Scottish men who wear kilts are more feminine.
Gender is cultural associations with Sex, but Gender is also inherently linked to sex. A person can be more or less masculine and feminine, but they can't change their gender, because they can't change their sex.
At most they can ignore or subvert cultural expectations. Ignoring the cultural trappings of gender doesn't magically change their sex.
Bassoe
Well-known member
I think we're all overthinking it on the gender cultural wars front. You don't need a complex conspiracy about trying to prove God fallible when a simple one about wanting to get filthy rich will do.
Transhumanism in the hands of the same rent-seeking parasites play out exactly the same way. Their end goal being for everyone else to have to pay them for doing and be able to kill anyone at any time by backlisting their access to repairs.
Transhumanism in the hands of the same rent-seeking parasites play out exactly the same way. Their end goal being for everyone else to have to pay them for doing and be able to kill anyone at any time by backlisting their access to repairs.
Vyor
My influence grows!
W H A T
Skitzyfrenic
Well-known member
Things like that are why ownership actually needs to mean ownership and the right to repair need to be fought to exist.
But these fucking lefty transhumanists are like 'lets give the gubbermint power over out very bodies and trust them to target people we don't like!'
Fucking retarded.
But these fucking lefty transhumanists are like 'lets give the gubbermint power over out very bodies and trust them to target people we don't like!'
Fucking retarded.