Modern morality & social development
It is my contention that many recent declarations about morality [It MUST be completely equal for everyone ] are getting waaaay ahead of the necessary fundamentals for that to happen .
Such equality does not happen in a vacuum . There are certain infrastructures and social landmarks which need to happen to make that a reality . To not recognize those bases is to be arrogant to a fault .
Here are a couple of examples :
1] Saying that women should be completely equal to men cannot be extended backwards in time . The reason for this is quite simple . A society requires a certain population base in order to progress . Before that population base is reached [not enough people] no futher progress on that front can be had .
Women are essential to serve the social function of expanding the population . Once the population has attained sufficient level things can then change to accomodate "women's rights" . Why do I mention this ? Because rabid female libs are still certain that the "patriarchy" was the essence of evil from the dawn of time . It should not be too surprising that this viewpoint has been roundly rejected by a majority for its short sighted view of history . And for that same reason having current women attempt to get revenge on the male population for supposed past injustices is also a skewed view of history . The history that happened was inevitable .
2] Saying that gays should be completely equal to straights also requires a basis to bring it about . That basis is scientific progress in microbiology . And not to shock you or anything but science is letting you down . There still is no way to vaccinate against the majority of viral STDs let alone to cure them once infected . So stop screeching about discrimination . Accept your limitations . Also accept [no matter how distasteful] the wisdom of older religious warnings that certain sexual acts should be avoided . Maybe you can reject the language used of calling them "sins" but the reality of the potential danger is very real and does not appear to be diminishing with time .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OK you can relax now . I'm off my soapbox . As Mort Sahl said many years ago : '' Is there anyone I haven't offended yet? " If so please speak up so that I can get to you too . I don't want you to feel left out ...
Tags
Who is online
643 visitors
One thing that seems to be sorely lacking in most discussions about morality is the historical perspective . This article is my attempt to provide that perspective . Can I do that for other issues ? Dare to test me !
Regarding item #1...
There are obvious physiological differences between men and women... those differences and the necessarily different roles women must play in the reproductive process does not justify unequal respect or unequal reward for their contributions to society... past or present.
I think the present day human population is sufficiently expanded.
Whether women have any concern about "patriarchy" at or about "the dawn of time" or not, I think it is pretty safe to say their primarilyconcerns are related to how they are treated right now.
It seems to me most women are actually seeking respect and equality. Your view that those efforts are motivated by a desire for "revenge" says something about your "skewed views." Why not try treating women equally, and THEN see how many of them are out for revenge.
It is my view that women have no more duty to spawn progeny than do men... in fact, given the state of the human impact on the planet, I would say we all have a duty to restrain whatever reproductive desires we may have. In spite the physiological differences, there is no basis for suggesting that women deserve less than men.
The idea you seem to be proposing in item #2 is that gay sex is somehow more prone to proliferate STDs than straight sex. I would be interested to see if you can back that up with data (assuming I have correctly interpreted yourassertion). You might be trying to argue that gay people are morepromiscuousand morerecklessin their sexual behavior than are straight people. I think there are plenty of sexually reckless and promiscuous people of all sexual stripes. However... the application of the STD issue to this topic is a BIG FAT RED HERRING!!!!!! Theconsequencesfor bad behavior by any individual should redound only to that individual, and shouldnever be used as basis for discriminating against other well behaved individuals who may share some of the benign characteristics of the bad behavior person.A person's sexual preferences (provided those preferences don't infringe on the rights of others) should have no bearing whatsoever on the rights granted to that person.
I'm not really offended... disappointed, yes... because I find your arguments surprisingly weak for someone I have come to know as a proponent of sound logic.
1) In the days of old, when a woman died giving birth to a child, did the child automatically die because there was no mother there to keep it alive?
2) Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are attempting a non-religious approach to justifying discrimination against gays. That's a hefty load to bear .... which you quickly dropped on your toe. Fail. The reason that argument is unique to you, is that everybodyelse understandsthat STDs don't have a gender or sexuality preference.
Since you are comparing 2 different critters how is this past "inequality" measured ?
But that is not the game they are talking up . That was the point I was making .
Are women a minority or a majority ? By law they are a minority . By numbers they are a majority . Does that tell you anything about unequal treatment [under the law at least] ?
There is little doubt that anal sex is inherently more prone to spread STD infections . If you are so blind as to ignore decades worth of careful data on that , there is no point in having a discussion . But if you are actually interested I suggest using google ... or even better google scholar for the actual studies .
When you come down to what I said you will see that I was making a case for the sexual restraint supported by certain religions . And the vehement verbal attacks on those religions is what I am especially opposed to .
You lost me . What's your point ?
I could expand on this and discuss the far more populous group of bisexual males [compared to strictly gay males] .
Their behavior can have far more extensive consequences than the latter .
I agree . So what ? There is more than just tradition involved in having women do the early rearing of children .It starts with breast feeding but there are other factors ...
I'm happy to clarify any confusion . Questions need to be asked first though .
And yet :
Sounds like I'm not the only sexist in this convo ! BTW most doctors also advocate breast feeding as superior to formula .
You just don't get it . I am not taking a religious approach to this issue [no pun intended] . A religious approach claims to have a "way" that everyone can follow . I make no such claim .
This sentence makes no grammatical sense. First off; a) what recent declarations? b) where? c) who? and d) what was said?
Your bracketed statement without such context becomes a dangling participle.
All of that makes the last part of the sentence, gibberish.
A sentence introducing an essay needs to clearly and unambiguously inform the reader what you are going to be writing about. This fails.
Sets the tone for the rest of it nicely, though...
My bad... I never should have asked for data... all that did was give undeserved attention to the STD RED HERRING. STD proliferation is not relevant to the issue of equal rights.
Regarding revenge... I have met some women that seem to have a chip on theirshoulder... Just because they may be out for revenge (justifiablyor not) does not justify denying them rights. For the record, I have also met plenty of men with a chip on theirshoulder, and even a few marsupials who seem to carry a grudge... that should not disqualify any of them fromreceivingtheir rights.
Hmmmm, I wonder why this discussion, in particular about women's rights and equality, is so male-dominated? Where are the women????
But that didn't stop you from saying :
Hypocrite !
I'm not anti-homosexuality . However I am opposed to its promotion for everyone .
If you bothered to read my article you would realize I was making a point that "rights" do not occur in a vacuum .
The sociological context determines what is taken seriously or not . But "progressives" loudly and endlessly declare that they have the moral high ground because "the only thing that matters is equal rights for all " . No . It is not the only thing that matters ... PERIOD .
The issue is simple . Must every squeaky wheel be greased constantly or is it time to replace those faulty parts with cheap imports ...
Here's another point you are missing . Women seem to view the gender relations as a 0 sum game . That is an extremely dangerous attitude ...
Very well Ms. Grammer . I have corrected the case of my first sentence . Is there anything else you would like to bring up ?
If it was just defense it wouldn't be a problem . But attacking religions because their strictures are disapproving is not defense . I realize this is the era of "proactivity" but there are consequences to that .
What religion is that ? How many members ? Does this banishment also apply to self-hating homosexuals ?
Righto !
Avoid the practices you feel present a risk to you.Allow others to make their own choices.Do what you can to educate others about the dangers you see.Do not penalize others simply because you do not approve of the choices they and their willing partners make... choices which cause no harm to you or anyone other than possibly themselves.
The least you could do is prefix thatsentencewith the word "some." If you truly believe "all" women or even "most" women hold that view then... well... then I am sorry for you, because you must feel terribly besieged. I will grant that some women DO "view gender relations as a zero sum game"... as do some men. By far, the greatest "danger" of such an attitude is presented to the persons who hold that view.
Are you familiar with the principle of the "law of the commons" ?
Well ... I did use the word "seem" .
Yes ... the men are often divorced !
I need to make one more observation here, Rich...
On the one hand you condemn same sex relations... on the other hand you suggest all women have it in for you... If you really feel this way... please forgive my candor... that sounds like a very lonely place to be.
Here is just one problem I have with gender law . I am repeating part of a prior comment :
Want more ?
More clarity would be nice... Please forgive my simplemindedness, but that statement is difficult for me to understand.
You have railed often about equal rights ... but you are consistently ignoring unfair treatment of men . You are also ignoring serious violations of the "law of the commons" .
As I understand it, it is...
Thedepletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, but acting contrary to the group's long-term best interests by depleting the common resource.
If this is what you are talking about, then I wonder, in the context of your assertions, what the "common resource" is?
If it's not what you are talking about, then you will need to educate me about "the law of commons."
With all due respect, Rich... BULL SHIT! You have absolutely no evidence to substantiate yourassertionof what I may or may not ignore.
How so?
Actually I do . I have seen a great many of your comments . Never once have I seen one in which you rail against violations of men's equality . However , feel free to correct me if I'm wrong . Post a link to at least one such comment on any article , past or present ...
Them womens are In the kitchen cookin' up Saturday supper because their husbands can not cook equally as well.
Watch you grammar ! Aeon is in da house ...
My grammar died a while back. She's dead and buried. Bless her heart.
First... This is not a topic I take up very often, so whatever you may have seen on this topic cannot have been much.
Second... You started this discussion, and your emphasis in part one of your essay was on women and their "rabid" quest for "revenge"... cloaked (as you see it) as a quest for equality.
Third... (and I am surprised you fail to see this) I think it would be fair to say that some of what I have said in this very thread is a defense of men's rights... or what you call "railing against violations of men's equality"... in this case, gay men's equality.
And last... It is not my duty to make sure you are privy to everything I may think. Because I have not mentioned something where you could see or hear it does not mean I have ignored it.
Once again, I am very surprised by yourill-foundedassertions...
Lol, Mike. I guess most of us women don't think it worth our time! I am enjoying reading men write about women, though. Let's see where it goes........
Grammar is a she too, see? Mother Nature is a she, and she is all powerful! No one can contradict her, I tell ya.
First off, your thesis statement:
It is my contention that many recent declarations about morality [It MUST be completely equal for everyone] are gettingwaaaayahead of thenecessary fundamentalsfor that to happen.
What, pray tell, is the It that you are talking about? Morality? Rights? Social Development?
What are the necessary fundamentals that we are getting ahead of? Seems something important enough to underline ought to merit a definition so we know what you are talking about.
Secondly, your arguments are ridiculous non-sequiturs.
To wit; Saying whether something should or should not be has no bearing on the fact of whether or not they actually are or are not. So, saying, "Women should be equal," or, "Gays should be equal," neither negates nor proves true womens' or gays' status as equals in society.
Further, this statement: Saying that women should be completely equal to men cannot be extended backwards in time. The reason for this is quite simple. (Yes, the reason is simple: We don't have a time machine that can travel backwards in time.)A society requires a certain population base in order to progress. Before that population base is reached [not enough people] no futher progress on that front can be had.
Bring me a shrubbery! Just reaching out here, but are you claiming that the number of people in a society should determine whether women are treated as equals? Really?!?! Oh yes, you actually say that in the next sentence.
Women are essential to serve the social function of expanding the population.(Psst... So are men.) Once the population has attained sufficient level things can then change to accomodate "women's rights".
There are over 150 million Women in the country, several billion in the world...Exactly what is a sufficeint level? If you are arguing for proportion, well, that does not do it either. The proportion of women to men is greater than 1 to 1. How will creating more population increase the chance of "women's rights" (and why is women's rights in quotes?)?
Why do I mention this ? Because rabid female libs are still certain that the "patriarchy" was the essence of evil from the dawn of time. It should not be too surprising that this viewpoint has been roundly rejected by a majority for itsshort sighted view of history.(Would that be the same history that has women in the subservient roles and treated as the property of their husbands?)And for that same reason having current women attempt to get revenge on the male population for supposed past injustices is also a skewed view of history.(Does not really have anything to do with history, per se, it has to do with some women's views and attitudes and certainly does not reflect upon all women.)The history that happened wasinevitable.
No. The history that happened, happened. It was not inevitable. Change a few of the main players ever so slightly and you would have something maybe quite different, maybe quite similar. The truth is we cannot tell either way, so for you to make that contention is illogical.
"Saying that gays should be completely equal to straights also requires a basis to bring it about."
Nah. Making it happen requires that attitudes shift, as they largely already have, and for people to realize that it is not within the constitution to discriminate against gays because they are people, first and foremost. That basis is definitely not
"That basis isscientific progress in microbiology. And not to shock you or anything butscience is letting you down. There still is no way to vaccinate against the majority of viral STDs let alone to cure them once infected."
Just what does this have to do with whether gays should be treated as equals? Oh. That's right. Absolutely nothing. Straight people get STIs all the time.
"So stop screeching about discrimination. Accept your limitations. (yeah, like the suffragettes did...) Also accept [no matter how distasteful] the wisdom of older religious warnings that certain sexual acts should be avoided. Maybe you can reject the language used of calling them "sins" but the reality of the potential danger is very real and does not appear to be diminishing with time."
I guess that you are ignoring the population of lesbians, probably because they are all uppity women and you have already stated that they should be making babies if they want to be treated equally. All I have to say to that is ,"La-La-La-La-La-La......" If you don't get it, then you don't. If you do get it, don't tell!
Happy Holidays to one and all. A special shout to those of you celebrating the winter Solstice tonight. Stay safe and stay warm.
The problem I am having is the focus on equal rights above all else especially when they are not accompanied by equal responsibilities . In addition men are being denied certain rights as well .
Actually men used to be essential for that . But not anymore . That is another problem .
Not recognizing the strong correlation between certain sexual practices and the infection rate of STDs is where the problem is . Are you denying that correlation ?
Pretty much . One could practically say that lesbians & male homosexuals are 2 different species . Grouping them together is unjustified .
Too late !
Exactly . You have a distinct bias . Thanks for making it obvious . You are only for men's right to give up their hetero ways . That's not a right . That's an imposition .
Petey said:
"The problem I am having is the focus on equal rights above all else especially when they are not accompanied by equal responsibilities"
Equal responsibilities? To whom? From whom? I mean, it is (supposed to be) assumed that all human beings have the same rights, regardless of whether or not they do anything for the society. These rights are granted to all because of the fact that they are human.
Unless you have identified a new species walking among us, I don't really see how you could not grant them equal rights. And, even if you did identify a new species walking among us, I am quite certain that if they have the sentience and IQ similar to that of a human and, as such, have previously been defined as part of the people, that the country could legitimately hold them to some other standard than the people.
"In addition men are being denied certain rights as well."
Where?
Not really . Most people contribute to society by the work they do . If they don't work [or at least earn income] they really are not guaranteed much .
So ... that means all the citizens of Mexico are granted all the rights of US citizens ? They are human after all . Reality ... get some .
As I said in other prior comments at least twice :
Rich,
I would really appreciate it if you would stop making these baseless assertions. Because I happened to be defending gay men in this case and I did not happen to offer a defense for straight men (due in part because you were not denigrating straight men), does not in any way suggest that I am "onlyfor men's right to give up their hetero ways." I said nothing suggesting that anyone should "give up their hetero ways."That is not true, and I am guessing you know it is not true.
I DO have a bias. A bias for fairness and equality for everyone. Men, women, straight, gay... everyone.
You are either trying to play some sort of twisted logic game with me, or you have breathtakingly low self-understanding. I hope it is the former, because it would be a very sad situation indeed if it is the later. In any event I have no more patience for whatever it is you are doing.It seems like it is especially important to you to "win" thisexercise. If that is what you want, fine. I declare you the winner.
Yes, hold on to your daytime job. Op-eds are not your forte.
I had to read this essy a few times just to get the gist of what the author was trying to say. I assure you, reading such a mess can be painful.
I was thinking that the author was on a rant about women, but the essay was so full of irrationality, clichs, unrealistic analogies and unconnected idea that I thought Id wait for others to interpret it before jumping in.even then, it is so full of false premises, I just did not know where to start.
Take this line for example;
WTF is the author trying to say? Theres no connection of thought and the analogy of rights to a vacuum is in itself, nonsensical.
The next line is just as cryptic;
Now thats deepand explains nothing.
By this line
I came to the conclusion the author was high when he wrote it. It just does not make sense unless you look at it that way.
Its Christmas time and most women have more mundane concerns than to spend time trying to figure out the esoteric meanings of someones view of what constitutes gender relations or equality
That was not an analogy ! Since when are you liberal arts types taking language lessons from engineers ?
Let me simplify it for you . In hunter-gatherer times women stayed fairly close to the home . Was this to take away their rights ? Of course not . It was to offer protection from dangers that existed in the wild . That protection allowed tribes to increase in population because more dead women brings about less children .
There . Was that so hard ?
I'm talking about looking at the origins of our society :
That is no reason to ignore our roots ... or worse ... act as if they never happened .
Are you saying that morality and legal equality are the same?
If that was directed at Broliver , you should ask that question under his comment ... If that was directed to me then no .
Thanks for the criticism . I will take it under advisement . Meanwhile , here is a little entertainment for you since you appear incapable of following my logic :
You make absolutely no sense, whatsoever.
I am fully aware that not all people are granted rights by their governments. That does not mean they should not have them. I will reiterate
You conflate rights with money: You say that the more money that one has and gains access to, the more rights that person has. While this might seem to be the de facto state of the nation, it is not that of the society or the country de jure . This difference seems to elude you, or you are being purposefully obtuse to generate comments.
The much vaunted and hallowed document called the Declaration of Independence contains the following sentence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Preamble to The United Nations Charter , of which the USA is a signatory, contains these words:"... to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small ..."
Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
So, could you tell me again how it is that all human beings are not supposed to have equal rights? Explain, if you would, the mechanism for achieving parity of human rights, if the ones who do not have them in fact do not agitate for those equal rights?
You said: " Are women a minority or a majority ? By law they are a minority. "
You said it. I call bullshit. Now it is up to you to prove your assertion. Before you do the conflation thing yet again, know that the inclusion of women in legislation regarding equal rights does not, in any way , equate them with a minority, but does equate them with groups that have been denied equal rights. If you can't see the difference, then there is really no point in continuing this conversation.
Oh. From your previous post, in which you said: " Not recognizing the strong correlation between certain sexual practices and the infection rate of STDs is where the problem is . Are you denying that correlation? "
What, exactly, does the transfer of diseases have to do with equal rights? What is the problem ? That correlation, made by you, I am calling a conflation. I am not denying a correlation between certain acts and the transfer of disease, I am denying the correlation of sexual acts and diseases with human rights. There is absolutely no connection between the two ideas.
Human is human. All have the same rights. That the governments of the world want to abrogate this principle is not a sign that we should let up the pressure on them to uphold it. Quite to the contrary. We should maintain pressure, if not increase it. IMO, of course.
( If I were directing my question to Broliver, I would have so posted. )
Ok, just wanted to get that clear. Your first two sentences would seem to indicate that they, morality and legal equality, are the same. So I'm going to go with legal equality. It would seem that you are not willing to assent to, or do not believe we can have, that equality because we have not progressed to the point where we as a society can afford that equality.
Is there a point in time where a society can assent to that view?
Definition of "minority" per Merriam Webster:
You can always tell when there is no point in continuing a discussion . When someone says :
that point has been reached . The next time you say it will mean any further conversation is over . Period .
That's not what I said . If that is what you got from what I said that's unfortunate .
Using Latin phrasing does not settle an argument to me . I don't speak that language .
That document is quite an idealistic one . Idealism has inevitably had a problem putting its principles into practical form . The practicality can include financial limitations as you suggested but it also include difficulties in legality . The law has its limitations like anything that is real world .
Here's something to think about instead of speaking in grandiose generalities . The UN is a complete failure when it comes to supporting actual human rights . If you don't agree with that there is NOTHING left to talk about .
Women were included as a class under legislation intended to advance the cause of minorities . The fact that they are NOT a minority means that CURRENTLY they can , as a class , outvote the so-called majority .
Men are now the minority but have no protective legislation . Men are now forced through taxes to support women they have nothing to do with . Here's what I suggest : Try to NOT support the group called women . You won't be able to . You are part of an exploited minority with no protection . But your head is so completely clouded with idealism you won't see that . What is it going to take ?
It has to do with reality . Telling the next generation there is NOTHING wrong with anal sex is passing on damaging info . If you want the disease status of young people on your mind then keep doing what you're doing .
But they don't matter to you . They are only our future . How many of them have to die to satisfy your idealism ?
Mexicans have the right to move into the US and take over the land ? So do all other countries ? Does your meaningless idealism have no practical limitations ? I guess not .
As I said in my opening sentences :
There are certain infrastructures and social landmarks which need to happen to make that a reality .
Having a society based on revenge for perceived past injustices is a sure recipe for failure . That is why I brought up the issue of past women's rights . There were definite specific functions for past female "inequality" . It served society to do things that way . To refuse to recognize such past benefits does not change the past . But it does have very negative effects on the future .
I understand the difference and interplay between what should be and what is. You seem to think in the vein of "that is the way it is" and conflate that with what should be. It is not at all a dichotomous adventure with polar opposites and nothing in between. I suspect you know that, but from your written word that fine of a distinction can not be drawn, especially since you continue to paint the world in terms of absolutes. The terms de jure and de facto are used to recognize this difference, to draw the distinction between what the stated goals are and what the situation on the ground, at any given time, is.
Here is a statement of principle: Rights are not granted by government. Government is granted authority by the governed (i.e., the people).
This is one of the principles that the USA was founded on. One can argue the point as to whether we have moved towards or away from this ideal, but we have, as of yet, to reach it. Does this mean that we should or should not endeavour to attain this principle, this ideal?
Women were included as a class under legislation intended to advance the cause of minorities
Really? What was the legislation entitled? I believe it more to do with enforcement of rights that have been denied certain groups than the sum total of their populations. As a matter of fact, I am sure of it. It does not matter if you think the legislation was intended to advance the cause of minorities: thinking it does not make it so. Your insistence that made up thoughts can somehow morph into reality taints your image as that of someone not fully connected with reality, no matter how much you try to tell me that I am the one who does not realize reality.
Try to NOT support the group called women
Why on earth would I want to not be supportive of women? I like women. But, if I did so wish, I could be non-supportive of them, up to and until that lack of support crosses the line to where it then turns to the denial of rights and discrimination against.
You are part of an exploited minority with no protection
Now that is really funny. Feel persecuted much? Your writing says that you do. I mean, if granting equal rights to all you feel somehow lessens your rights... well, I guess you don't really understand anything that I have said.
"Telling the next generation there is NOTHING wrong with anal sex is passing on damaging info....How many of them have to die to satisfy your idealism?"
See that statement? You said it as if I were saying to tell the next generation something which I never would say or intimate anything. I feel you should give the factual information and let whomever decide for themselves how they are going to live their life. I don't tell anyone how to live, why the hell should anyone else be able to either?
Mexicans have the right to move into the US and take over the land ?
Who said that? I did not. Are you just making up more foolish assertions? I guess so.
Happy Christmas!
As far as I can tell you are talking about issues that are settled in courts while I am talking about biology . Which one trumps the other ?
Have a nice Christmas too ...
There are five to ten employees for every job even management jobs have hundreds reply all with the credentials and education to do the job. They all vie for one or two jobs. Companies are hired to wade thru all the early interviews and reading theknee deep stacks of applications to weed it down to 4 or 5 for Corporate interviews. Lower income jobs have often thousands of applications. Most of the factory workers have seen their jobs go overseas while the Corporate headquarters are in many cases still here.
Would you mind connecting your comment with my article ? What is the relevance ?