The Gender Debate

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
34,399
Pro-lifers don't care about living ones
I sincerely doubt that. Most prolifers are probably conservative. Conservatives give more to charity than lefties which suggests they care more about everyone than lefties do.
 

STS

Mafia Detective
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
30,689
I sincerely doubt that. Most prolifers are probably conservative. Conservatives give more to charity than lefties which suggests they care more about everyone than lefties do.
Why are righties always whining about welfare, handouts, foreign aid and affirmative action if they care about quality of life so much?
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
7,718
I sincerely doubt that. Most prolifers are probably conservative. Conservatives give more to charity than lefties which suggests they care more about everyone than lefties do.
Don't go down this road with him, Nick. It's not worth the time.
 

Aquila ka Hecate

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
4,697
I sincerely doubt that. Most prolifers are probably conservative. Conservatives give more to charity than lefties which suggests they care more about everyone than lefties do.
This may even be true - that Conservatives give more to charity (on a per person basis or what? It's not clear) - but the reason for that could be other than what you are suggesting.
It's possible that Cons are more bugged by guilt and try to redress it by handing out money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: STS

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,312
Why are righties always whining about welfare, handouts, foreign aid and affirmative action if they care about quality of life so much?
Are you talking about individualist righties or alt-"righties" or conservatives?
 

STS

Mafia Detective
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
30,689
Are you talking about individualist righties or alt-"righties" or conservatives?
I am just replying with a retort that is in line with his generalising, I realise people are individuals with their own ambitions and morality regardless of political leaning
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
34,399
This may even be true - that Conservatives give more to charity (on a per person basis or what? It's not clear) - but the reason for that could be other than what you are suggesting.
It's possible that Cons are more bugged by guilt and try to redress it by handing out money.
Guilty for what?
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,312
I am just replying with a retort that is in line with his generalising, I realise people are individuals with their own ambitions and morality regardless of political leaning
It doesn't appear to be two sides of the same coin as you're alluding to. For example one can't speak of individualism and left-wing in the same breath as far as I'm aware. I've never seen that happen. Generalization appears to be THE left-wing mantra upon which their collectivist ideals/ideology/religion etc... are enforced.

Lefties are in favor of taxation, socialism and government threat or some type of enforcement thereof - usually on the basis of some collective identity such as race or class or gender or ideological position. Righties are associated with charity, freedom and believe coercion is immoral irrespective of individual identity or association.

All ideologies are amoral until put into social/political practice.
As collectivists - lefties use social/political power to enforce their views irrespective of outside views.
As individualists - righties seek voluntary collaboration and defend this ideal (i.e. fighting for independence).

So welfare, handouts, foreign aid and affirmative action all require coercion. That's why righties whine about it. They prefer charity which is voluntary. It's got nothing to do with guilt either (as the thread mentions later), which appears to be another left-wing tactic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: STS

STS

Mafia Detective
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
30,689
It doesn't appear to be two sides of the same coin as you're alluding to. For example one can't speak of individualism and left-wing in the same breath as far as I'm aware. I've never seen that happen. Generalization appears to be THE left-wing mantra upon which their collectivist ideals/ideology/religion etc... are enforced.

Lefties are in favor of taxation, socialism and government threat or some type of enforcement thereof - usually on the basis of some collective identity such as race or class or gender or ideological position. Righties are associated with charity, freedom and believe coercion is immoral irrespective of individual identity or association.

All ideologies are amoral until put into social/political practice.
As collectivists - lefties use social/political power to enforce their views irrespective of outside views.
As individualists - righties seek voluntary collaboration and defend this ideal (i.e. fighting for independence).

So welfare, handouts, foreign aid and affirmative action all require coercion. That's why righties whine about it. They prefer charity which is voluntary. It's got nothing to do with guilt either (as the thread mentions later), which appears to be another left-wing tactic.
The same could be said for right-wing views, as I am "right-wing" myself and favour individuality, merit on actions, associating with whom you wish, personal freedom, etc - but you will find a lot of right wing people harbour very anti-individual views such as racism, intolerance to different beliefs, belief in gender roles, etc.

Point is there is no clear-cut generalisation that will work for either group, and it is only fair to treat people as individuals unless they give us reason not to. There are certainly more common traits amongst certain groups but it isn't fair to judge someone on the actions of another
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
4,016
Who knows? Existential guilt?:D
It's just a thought that there may be many reasons why people give money to charity.
Your intuition is actually borne out by science. Conservatives tend to be high in conscientiousness, and people high in conscientiousness have a high aversion to any kind of feelings of guilt and modulate their behaviour accordingly. Though I don't think that's actually why they give to charity.
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
4,016
It doesn't appear to be two sides of the same coin as you're alluding to. For example one can't speak of individualism and left-wing in the same breath as far as I'm aware. I've never seen that happen. Generalization appears to be THE left-wing mantra upon which their collectivist ideals/ideology/religion etc... are enforced.
There is no meaningful description of private activity in economic terms. Thus, all economic activity is inherently social. It's very easy to speak of left-wing and individualism once one comes to terms with this brute fact.

Lefties are in favor of taxation, socialism and government threat or some type of enforcement thereof - usually on the basis of some collective identity such as race or class or gender or ideological position. Righties are associated with charity, freedom and believe coercion is immoral irrespective of individual identity or association.
You are confusing conservatism and libertarianism when you say this. It should be pointed out that the initial division of left vs. right was liberals(left) versus royalists(right). The right also has a strong anti-individualist bent.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,312
The same could be said for right-wing views, as I am "right-wing" myself and favour individuality, merit on actions, associating with whom you wish, personal freedom, etc - but you will find a lot of right wing people harbour very anti-individual views such as racism, intolerance to different beliefs, belief in gender roles, etc.

Point is there is no clear-cut generalisation that will work for either group, and it is only fair to treat people as individuals unless they give us reason not to. There are certainly more common traits amongst certain groups but it isn't fair to judge someone on the actions of another
Well firstly you have to be 100% sure they are individualists or just another ideological enforcer/collectivist of another creed. Sometimes we create false dichotomies. For example, a feminist is left wing but a male chauvinist is apparently right wing?? A black nationalist (black power) is left wing but a white nationalist (white power) is right wing?? I find that curious.

Secondly, beliefs don't necessarily equate to political association. It can be quite tricky to deduce, but freedom of association does allow for want of independence of any group in existence. So, for example, I have no issue with those dutchies in Orania :p They aren't seemingly aggressing anyone and are entitled to their cultural independence if they want. The only aggressors in my view are those who encroach on their space. I do have an issue with white supremacists though who actively seek power over other groups.

Belief in gender roles, as another example, if adequately justified and if all proponents agree to it is not a moral issue in my view. I think gender roles can be highly practical in many circumstances even in modern times, but I don't enforce this view on anyone - that's the difference. If it is truly valuable it should be able to speak for itself.

I suppose the best way to deduce is to try understand the active action vs. passive action in any circumstance.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: STS

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,312
There is no meaningful description of private activity in economic terms. Thus, all economic activity is inherently social. It's very easy to speak of left-wing and individualism once one comes to terms with this brute fact.


You are confusing conservatism and libertarianism when you say this. It should be pointed out that the initial division of left vs. right was liberals(left) versus royalists(right). The right also has a strong anti-individualist bent.
Conservatism is amoral and thus doesn't belong on the political spectrum in my view. It is merely an ideology that can entail any form of upholding traditional values and institutions - though is often conflated with Christianity as far as I'm aware. Libertarianism is however a synonym of individualism and is directly proportional to social/political practice, it is literally a social position itself - morally speaking.

I really think we got it all wrong. But I see a meaningful relationship with terms such as morality, social and political and it only makes sense to focus on those if we're to discuss the spectrum thereof :)

But if I'm confusing anybody or confused myself then please ignore. lol :) But I dare say it is less confusing than the terms we use and apply today. The alt-right FFS lmao. One day we will have more labels and permutations than music genres.
 
Last edited:

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
4,016
Conservatism is amoral and thus doesn't belong on the political spectrum in my view. It is merely an ideology that can entail any form of upholding traditional values and institutions - though is often conflated with Christianity as far as I'm aware. Libertarianism is however a synonym of individualism and is directly proportional to social/political practice, it is literally a social position itself - morally speaking.
This is blindness. Conservatism is origin moralised. This makes it the opposite of progressivism, which is destiny moralised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arche

Arche (/ˈɑːrki/; Ancient Greek: ἀρχή) is a Greek word with primary senses "beginning", "origin" or "source of action" (εξ’ ἀρχής: from the beginning, οr εξ’ ἀρχής λόγος: the original argument), and later "first principle" or "element", first so used by Anaximander (Simplicius in Ph. 150.23). By extension, it may mean "first place, power", "method of government", "empire, realm", "authorities" (in plural: ἀρχαί), "command".[1] The first principle or element corresponds to the "ultimate underlying substance" and "ultimate undemonstrable principle".[2] In the philosophical language of the archaic period (8th to 6th century BC), arche (or archai) designates the source, origin or root of things that exist. In ancient Greek philosophy, Aristotle foregrounded the meaning of arche as the element or principle of a thing, which although undemonstrable and intangible in itself, provides the conditions of the possibility of that thing.[3]
"In the beginning was the word" in ancient Greek = "èn arche en logos.". Tribalism can be rephrased as a conflict over origins. Consider how the absence of rule is anarchy.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,312
This is blindness. Conservatism is origin moralised. This makes it the opposite of progressivism, which is destiny moralised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arche
I think both are amoral politically/socially speaking. They are merely separate ideologies. Both seem to have their place and neither warrants aggression/coercion to seek their ends.

S&M isn't immoral if all agents agree to the act. Communism isn't immoral if everyone agrees to take part (assuming the definition of the term isn't an issue). Tax isn't immoral if it isn't coerced (assuming the definition of the term isn't an issue). Murder isn't murder if its euthanasia (Agreed to). Religious practices and institutions aren't immoral if all agree to abide by it and there's no enforcement thereof.

I get the chaos/order aspect, but I don't see proponents of either as being an agent of individualism as an impossibility.

"In the beginning was the word" in ancient Greek = "èn arche en logos.". Tribalism can be rephrased as a conflict over origins. Consider how the absence of rule is anarchy.
The absence of rule can also be true collaboration. The destruction of rule is perhaps anarchy. But it is difficult to nail down those terms completely, I've seen various applications. Again it probably depends on the proponents.

Collectivist rule appears to be oppression. Individualist rule appears to be unification.
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
4,016
I think both are amoral politically/socially speaking. They are merely separate ideologies. Both seem to have their place and neither warrants aggression/coercion to seek their ends.
Well then I don't know what you are talking about when you talk about morality.

S&M isn't immoral if all agents agree to the act. Communism isn't immoral if everyone agrees to take part (assuming the definition of the term isn't an issue). Tax isn't immoral if it isn't coerced (assuming the definition of the term isn't an issue). Murder isn't murder if its euthanasia (Agreed to). Religious practices and institutions aren't immoral if all agree to abide by it and there's no enforcement thereof.
So morality is reduced to the sphere of life that can be voluntarily engaged in? None of us chose to be born, none of us chose to need to constantly eat in order to sustain ourselves. You are naively proceeding as if it is a fait accompli that civilised behaviour is a non-optional given without bothering to look at the behavioural requirements (i.e. moral prescriptions) people must be bound to in order to make it a possibility in the first place.

I get the chaos/order aspect, but I don't see either proponent as not being an agent of individualism as a possibility.
You appear to be operating under the presumption that one can be good by doing nothing, and that doing nothing is in fact a reasonable option at all times.

The absence of rule can also be true collaboration.
Any example of true collaboration will also be describable in terms of a ruleset that is being observed, at least insofar as that collaboration is undertaken by animals capable of speech.

The destruction of rule is perhaps anarchy. But it is difficult to nail down those terms completely, I've seen various applications. Again it probably depends on the proponents.

Collectivist rule is oppression. Individualist rule is unification.
Right, society no longer operates as if birthright is what determines who is fit for authority. A different ethos was adopted.
 
Top