If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
That dumb pos needs to get off Twitter for a good detoxing period, because his brain is soup.
True. This is because the man was financially responsible for his family regardless of whether the family split up, and since children could earn money it made more sense that they be with their father so their earnings could be pooled with the father's for the benefit of the household. Then the Tender Years doctrine was introduced and essentially changed everything.
Safe spaces are filled with rubes that use gun/uterus slogans so I think it's safest if I just stay out of them.
Feel free to prove me wrong and I'll happily concede. Name some things men can do that women cannot.
True. This is because the man was financially responsible for his family regardless of whether the family split up, and since children could earn money it made more sense that they be with their father so their earnings could be pooled with the father's for the benefit of the household. Then the Tender Years doctrine was introduced and essentially changed everything.
Need a safe space there, champ?
Safe spaces are filled with rubes that use gun/uterus slogans so I think it's safest if I just stay out of them.
Feel free to prove me wrong and I'll happily concede. Name some things men can do that women cannot.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
To an extent I understand his train of thought; he was probably raised from birth being told he was a victim, raised on Hollywood movies which promote Nazis as the ultimate unparalleled evil that has ever existed in history, and then as an adult took college classes which teach that language is violence and some of it should be banned. On a primal, animalistic level it must feel amazing to him.
SentinelSlain
Suck my joined date.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 151
- 63
We need to just accept the existence of the full spectrum of political and philosophical thought and then move forwards. Deleting words and making people unpersons, having 3 minutes of hate etc, that reduces the cultural level of our societies and inevitably results in the governing political ideology becoming more and more retarded, because it has nothing to bounce ideas off.
Einherjar86
Active Member
That's not really hurting my point.
Be president.
Sorry, couldn't resist...But seriously, you specifically said that women have more rights than men:
Asking me to name some things men do that women cannot is not the same thing. Even if I failed to do so, it would only prove that women have as many rights as men do.
So, to counter, I should ask you to prove me wrong: name something that women can do that men can't.
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
Oh I know, I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your point, I'm not someone that thinks the early women's movement was unwarranted. Just expanding on why it was so, as it happens to be something I am actually read up on.
Be president.
But seriously, you specifically said that women have more rights than men:
Okay, very fair point.
The first one off the top of my head is circumcision.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Oh I know, I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your point, I'm not someone that thinks the early women's movement was unwarranted. Just expanding on why it was so, as it happens to be something I am actually read up on.
Yeah, I caught that Tender Years reference.
Men can't be circumcised? I'm not sure I follow.
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
What I mean is, male babies are denied the right to an intact body, female babies don't have this issue in the west. I'd say that's a pretty big difference between the two.
Einherjar86
Active Member
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
Are you being purposely dense? Why is male circumcision not illegal but female circumcision is? That's the point. Laws are in place to guarantee women are born with their genitals in tact, no such law exists for men.
Dak
mentat
Are protections from the acts of non-governmental actors "rights" though? The language is much too fuzzy.
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
If the government only protected one group from murder but it was legal to kill the other group, but it wasn't the government doing the killing, sure I would consider that a right or a lack of a right.
Bodily autonomy is probably the most important right a state could protect too.
Bodily autonomy is probably the most important right a state could protect too.
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
It's really a semantical point of contention though, happy to supplant rights with privileges or something.
After all, this all started from a sign that claimed guns have rights, which is obviously stupid.
After all, this all started from a sign that claimed guns have rights, which is obviously stupid.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Okay, you started this. You can't be so theoretically illiterate as to assume that the absence of legal protection/regulation entails the infringement of some elemental right.
The point is that there is no regulation on male circumcision - they are free to either have it performed, or not (or rather, their parents are). The regulations are, in fact, stricter for women: it cannot be performed. If we're talking about rights between men and women, men actually have more of a right in this scenario. The government is actually admitting their bodily autonomy. Get it?
rms
Active Member
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
So women are further oppressed because it's not okay for adults to violate their bodily autonomy in their infancy? Huh.
That makes absolutely no sense since women can get circumcised as an adult the same as a man can, what I'm pointing out is actually a protection female children have that male children do not.
Irrelevant. It's a permanent action taken unnecessarily against a child. There are men who have disabilities as a direct result of being circumcised as an infant.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I never said that. I'm working with your admittedly frustrating notion of "rights."
Invoking oppression necessarily opposes it to something else, that something else being freedom. In terms of legality and governmental regulation, male children have a wider range of "choices" (scare quotes b/c of parental oversight) than their female counterparts do. So, in this ridiculous conception of rights and freedom, yes - women are "oppressed."
Parents of male children have a greater amount of freedom when it comes to circumcision: they can either choose to have it done, or not. For female children this isn't an option. Even granting your proposal that the "right" in question is that to a "complete body," that would be the only right being protected here for women. When it comes to the male child, there are two rights: the right to have a circumcision performed, or the right not to have it performed.
You can reverse that to be a freedom that male children have that female children don't. See? This is why "rights" don't play by the same rules that you want them to.
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
Choice has no meaning without the ability to consent so framing this as the male infant having more choices available to them is illogical.
Einherjar86
Active Member
This entire premise/topic is illogical because you're dictating what the right to be focusing on is! I could say sure, female girls are guaranteed the right to a complete body, but male children are guaranteed the right to a healthier physiology. I could say that male children are guaranteed the right not to be embarrassed in the gym locker room because their foreskin hangs over their dick like a Jedi robe (although who knows, maybe your dick being a Jedi would be kinda cool - lightsaber jokes to follow).
You're arbitrarily choosing what right is important, and how that right is constituted.
You're arbitrarily choosing what right is important, and how that right is constituted.
Similar threads
