The dearth of self-awareness

#61
(Feb 7, 2019 08:32 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Feb 7, 2019 06:44 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
Syne Wrote:1,000 deaths compared to over 600,000 is easy math for the morally sane.

It's a 1,000 "actual" deaths compared to 600, 000 "potential" lives.

No, science clearly classifies them as actual human life. Not having realized any significant potential does not mean it is not a life.

Is an embryo [LIFE]? It has all the components that it needs to develop into a human being.

(Feb 3, 2019 06:40 AM)Syne Wrote: The moral answer to the trolley problem is always the same...at least if you have a consistent morality. You obviously save the five-year-old first. Embryos will not reach any potential at all unless implanted and gestated, whereas a child is already a realized potential.

I don’t know, Syne. That sounds pretty inconsistent to me because we all know that there are plenty of people willing to adopt an embryo. If you really feel this way, you should have saved the embryos.

(Feb 5, 2019 09:06 PM)Syne Wrote: Otherwise, you'd be pushing all the other choices women have, like the pill, the sponge, the patch, the ring, the shot, the implant, the morning-after pill, adoption, and even anonymously leaving the newborn at a fire station.

We do push contraceptives, and they have reduced the number of abortions, but why don’t we check in with your incel mentor, and listen to what he said about it.

A question raised to Jordan Peterson…

What do you make of the manosphere’s claim that woman’s liberation has led to our weakened ability to pair bond, the breakdown of the institute of marriage, and sexual inequity in favor of alpha men?

"I guess probably I would say that to the degree that all of that is true, I wouldn’t say that the women’s liberation movement is what’s done it. I don’t believe that the women’s liberation movement is the primary driver of women’s liberation. In fact, I think that it’s a secondary consequence of a far more radical biological revolution and that’s the invention of the birth control pill. The birth control pill essentially allowed females for the first time in evolutionary history to gain voluntary control over their reproductive function.

With the birth control pill women become more like men. Now they’re not destined at an early age to transform themselves into mothers or to allow themselves to be transformed by nature into mothers."

He thinks that women are suffering more now because we have to work. As far as favoring the alpha male is concerned, he thinks that anything that breakdowns pair bonding and the institution of marriage causes it because that’s part of the reason that society is set up as monogamous. It's in order to control this proclivity.

"It’s not good for the men that aren’t being chosen because that’s a recipe for resentment and aggression. So don’t underestimate the significance of the birth control pill. It’s like the hydrogen bomb or the computer chip. It’s a world revolutionary technology, and for all we know, it might do us in. Our population is declining."

He even says some more crazy shit about masturbation leading to self-contempt.

I mean…it is funny but it’s also scary because tons of men are buying into his bullshit. You being one of them.
Reply
#62
(Feb 8, 2019 01:46 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Feb 7, 2019 08:32 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Feb 7, 2019 06:44 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
Syne Wrote:1,000 deaths compared to over 600,000 is easy math for the morally sane.

It's a 1,000 "actual" deaths compared to 600, 000 "potential" lives.

No, science clearly classifies them as actual human life. Not having realized any significant potential does not mean it is not a life.

Is an embryo [LIFE]? It has all the components that it needs to develop into a human being.
I've already answered that:
https://www.scivillage.com/thread-6184-p...l#pid23935

Quote:
(Feb 3, 2019 06:40 AM)Syne Wrote: The moral answer to the trolley problem is always the same...at least if you have a consistent morality. You obviously save the five-year-old first. Embryos will not reach any potential at all unless implanted and gestated, whereas a child is already a realized potential.

I don’t know, Syne. That sounds pretty inconsistent to me because we all know that there are plenty of people willing to adopt an embryo. If you really feel this way, you should have saved the embryos.
There are plenty of people willing to adopt born children. Donor embryos are an excess from IVF, which already uses many to improve the odds.
The life of an embryo cannot be further realized without an available womb for gestation. So even if I choose to save the embryos, there's no guarantee that ANY of them will ever be as realized as the child. I don't have a womb to offer.

Being a woman, maybe you'd be willing to gestate many of those embryos yourself? O_o

Quote:
(Feb 5, 2019 09:06 PM)Syne Wrote: Otherwise, you'd be pushing all the other choices women have, like the pill, the sponge, the patch, the ring, the shot, the implant, the morning-after pill, adoption, and even anonymously leaving the newborn at a fire station.

We do push contraceptives, and they have reduced the number of abortions, but why don’t we check in with your incel mentor, and listen to what he said about it.

A question raised to Jordan Peterson…
You only hear about it as loud, like #ShoutYourAbortion, when women are demanding free contraceptives...again trying to dodge their own personal responsibility.
If you really believed in contraceptives, the morning-after pill, and that women aren't children, you wouldn't be so invested in abortion.

Peterson is married. Rolleyes

Quote:

What do you make of the manosphere’s claim that woman’s liberation has led to our weakened ability to pair bond, the breakdown of the institute of marriage, and sexual inequity in favor of alpha men?

"I guess probably I would say that to the degree that all of that is true, I wouldn’t say that the women’s liberation movement is what’s done it. I don’t believe that the women’s liberation movement is the primary driver of women’s liberation. In fact, I think that it’s a secondary consequence of a far more radical biological revolution and that’s the invention of the birth control pill. The birth control pill essentially allowed females for the first time in evolutionary history to gain voluntary control over their reproductive function.

With the birth control pill women become more like men. Now they’re not destined at an early age to transform themselves into mothers or to allow themselves to be transformed by nature into mothers."

He thinks that women are suffering more now because we have to work. As far as favoring the alpha male is concerned, he thinks that anything that breakdowns pair bonding and the institution of marriage causes it because that’s part of the reason that society is set up as monogamous. It's in order to control this proclivity.

"It’s not good for the men that aren’t being chosen because that’s a recipe for resentment and aggression. So don’t underestimate the significance of the birth control pill. It’s like the hydrogen bomb or the computer chip. It’s a world revolutionary technology, and for all we know, it might do us in. Our population is declining."

He even says some more crazy shit about masturbation leading to self-contempt.

I mean…it is funny but it’s also scary because tons of men are buying into his bullshit. You being one of them.

So, you don't think birth control had a significant impact on women joining the workforce? O_o
You think all these women whining about the gender pay gap, the gender gap in STEM, sexual harassment in the workplace, the unrealistic expectations of having a career and being a mother, etc. are signs of happiness?
Okay, bless your heart.

Where has he said that "anything that breakdowns pair bonding...causes" "favoring the alpha male"? Favoring the alpha is a basic of evolutionary psychology across many species. Rejected men can become resentful and aggressive. Incels are actually proof of that fact. And Peterson is arguing against it...if you can comprehend English.

And where's this "masturbation leading to self-contempt".
Seems you're lacking any citations for all the real bullshit.

You're scared of men buying into the reality that they have to step up and make something of themselves INSTEAD of becoming resentful, aggressive incels? So you prefer incels?
I knew you were screwed up, but damn. O_O
Reply
#63
Syne Wrote:Otherwise, you'd be pushing all the other choices women have, like the pill, the sponge, the patch, the ring, the shot, the implant, the morning-after pill, adoption, and even anonymously leaving the newborn at a fire station.

I’m not sure how Stryder has it set up but "The Possibly Related Threads" led me to one of C C’s old topics.

The Future of Birth Control Means Facing Up to Its Sexist Past

Quote:The "male pill" is within reach. Why does the burden of contraception still fall on women?

Last year, a lot of people were disappointed when a male hormonal contraceptive trial was abruptly halted due to unpleasant side effects. Despite my desire for a viable male contraceptive, I don’t want men who decide to shoulder the physical burdens of birth control to endure the same suffering women did when their side effects were ignored.

Laury Oaks agrees. "Equal opportunity suffering is not the goal," she says. Instead, she wonders, "How can we have reproductive sexual and reproductive issues combined with the contraceptive technology issues to work for everyone?" A lot of experts think that it is a mistake to even attempt a hormonal approach on men — that it’s seductive to try to repeat the history of something that’s worked, even if it doesn’t actually work that well.

RISUG may or may not be truly viable, but I hope we get the chance to find out. I would be lying if I said this drug didn’t excite me just as much for its symbolic power as its biological power. It would be a break from medicines developed in the U.S., tested on poor brown women to be marketed to rich white women; a break from hormonal contraceptives with histories rooted in eugenics. That would really be radical.

Male Birth Control Explained

Quote:…"Still, getting a male pill to the market won’t be easy, she told Vox.

"When the female pill was introduced, the doses of hormones were higher than they are now and the side effects were much greater," she said. Today, the pill has very mild side effects for most women. "So the bar is higher in terms of where we need to be to get something into the market. ... The goal is to develop something for men that is essentially side effect-free."

… "Still, in the next decade, the male contraceptive landscape should look more like the female contraceptive landscape — and it’s about time, said Page. Men, like women, should have choices."

More choices would also benefit women. Researchers who have modeled the impact of a new male contraceptive estimate that even if only 10 percent of interested men took up the novel method, we’d see unintended pregnancies fall by up to 5 percent in the United States and South Africa and by as much as 38 percent in Nigeria.

"The more choices we have, the less likely we are to have unplanned pregnancies," Page added. "And I think that’s what everyone wants."


Secular Sanity Wrote:We do push contraceptives, and they have reduced the number of abortions, but why don’t we check in with your incel mentor, and listen to what he said about it.

A question raised to Jordan Peterson…

What do you make of the manosphere’s claim that woman’s liberation has led to our weakened ability to pair bond, the breakdown of the institute of marriage, and sexual inequity in favor of alpha men?

"I guess probably I would say that to the degree that all of that is true, I wouldn’t say that the women’s liberation movement is what’s done it. I don’t believe that the women’s liberation movement is the primary driver of women’s liberation. In fact, I think that it’s a secondary consequence of a far more radical biological revolution and that’s the invention of the birth control pill. The birth control pill essentially allowed females for the first time in evolutionary history to gain voluntary control over their reproductive function.

With the birth control pill women become more like men. Now they’re not destined at an early age to transform themselves into mothers or to allow themselves to be transformed by nature into mothers."

He thinks that women are suffering more now because we have to work. As far as favoring the alpha male is concerned, he thinks that anything that breakdowns pair bonding and the institution of marriage causes it because that’s part of the reason that society is set up as monogamous. It's in order to control this proclivity.

"It’s not good for the men that aren’t being chosen because that’s a recipe for resentment and aggression. So don’t underestimate the significance of the birth control pill. It’s like the hydrogen bomb or the computer chip. It’s a world revolutionary technology, and for all we know, it might do us in. Our population is declining."

He even says some more crazy shit about masturbation leading to self-contempt.

I mean…it is funny but it’s also scary because tons of men are buying into his bullshit. You being one of them.

Syne Wrote:You only hear about it as loud, like #ShoutYourAbortion, when women are demanding free contraceptives...again trying to dodge their own personal responsibility.

Syne Wrote:So, you don't think birth control had a significant impact on women joining the workforce? O_o
You think all these women whining about the gender pay gap, the gender gap in STEM, sexual harassment in the workplace, the unrealistic expectations of having a career and being a mother, etc. are signs of happiness?
Okay, bless your heart.

Wow! You're really, um...I was going to say narrow minded, but close minded is more appropriate. I knew you were screwed up but DAMN!  After reading that little "barefoot and pregnant" bit, I think you'd have to put me on the list of not trusting men to take it.  Confused  

Syne Wrote:Where has he said that "anything that breakdowns pair bonding...causes" "favoring the alpha male"? Favoring the alpha is a basic of evolutionary psychology across many species. Rejected men can become resentful and aggressive. Incels are actually proof of that fact. And Peterson is arguing against it...if you can comprehend English.

And where's this "masturbation leading to self-contempt".
Seems you're lacking any citations for all the real bullshit.

It's in the link that I provided. What? Do you want me to wipe your ass, too?

Sorry, Syne, but I just don’t have the time to expand your mind. You’re going to have to go it alone for a while. A friend asked me to help with her daughter’s wedding and I’ve been wanting to discuss an optical question for some time now. I think that C2 might be able to help me answer it, but it’s complicated, and it’ll take time to put it into words. 

See ya later, little buddy.
Reply
#64
(Feb 8, 2019 03:28 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
Syne Wrote:Otherwise, you'd be pushing all the other choices women have, like the pill, the sponge, the patch, the ring, the shot, the implant, the morning-after pill, adoption, and even anonymously leaving the newborn at a fire station.

I’m not sure how Stryder has it set up but "The Possibly Related Threads" led me to one of C C’s old topics.

The Future of Birth Control Means Facing Up to Its Sexist Past

Quote:The "male pill" is within reach. Why does the burden of contraception still fall on women?

Male Birth Control Explained

Quote:More choices would also benefit women. Researchers who have modeled the impact of a new male contraceptive estimate that even if only 10 percent of interested men took up the novel method, we’d see unintended pregnancies fall by up to 5 percent in the United States and South Africa and by as much as 38 percent in Nigeria.
That's a joke, right?

Zero "burden of contraception" falls on women, as they have additional options men do not, like the morning-after pill and, currently, abortion.
OTOH, even if a man uses a condom, he is held responsible for any resulting pregnancy.

More choice for men only reduces unwanted pregnancies because women are currently irresponsible. If they took personal responsibility for their own contraceptives, they wouldn't be relying on men to do so. And that works both ways, for guys who don't wear condoms, but in this case, the man has no choice in whether he faces the consequences or not, so there's more incentive.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:You only hear about it as loud, like #ShoutYourAbortion, when women are demanding free contraceptives...again trying to dodge their own personal responsibility.

Syne Wrote:So, you don't think birth control had a significant impact on women joining the workforce? O_o
You think all these women whining about the gender pay gap, the gender gap in STEM, sexual harassment in the workplace, the unrealistic expectations of having a career and being a mother, etc. are signs of happiness?
Okay, bless your heart.

Wow! You're really, um...I was going to say narrow minded, but close minded is more appropriate. I knew you were screwed up but DAMN!  After reading that little "barefoot and pregnant" bit, I think you'd have to put me on the list of not trusting men to take it.  Confused  
There is no "barefoot and pregnant" bit, so you're just desperate enough to start outright lying.

And apparently because one simple question caused far too much cognitive dissonance to not only avoid answering but also feeling the severe need to distract from.

Bless your heart. Angel

Quote:
Syne Wrote:
Quote:He thinks that women are suffering more now because we have to work. As far as favoring the alpha male is concerned, he thinks that anything that breakdowns pair bonding and the institution of marriage causes it because that’s part of the reason that society is set up as monogamous. It's in order to control this proclivity.

He even says some more crazy shit about masturbation leading to self-contempt.
Where has he said that "anything that breakdowns pair bonding...causes" "favoring the alpha male"? Favoring the alpha is a basic of evolutionary psychology across many species. Rejected men can become resentful and aggressive. Incels are actually proof of that fact. And Peterson is arguing against it...if you can comprehend English.

And where's this "masturbation leading to self-contempt".
Seems you're lacking any citations for all the real bullshit.

It's in the link that I provided. What? Do you want me to wipe your ass, too?

You're just lying, or having trouble comprehending, again.  Rolleyes

He said: "In terms of increasing sexual inequity in favor of alpha men, well anything that breaks down pair-bonding matrimony is going to do that."
"Increasing sexual inequality" is not the same as "causes" "favoring the alpha male". The alpha male is favored whether or not there is sexual inequality. Marriage just means that a woman can find a beta male to support her and her children as a trade off for monogamy.

He said: "it leads to a certain kind of perhaps contempt it leads to contempt I mean I don't ever think you guys can ask yourself this question I mean have you ever met anybody who can finish masturbating and then was proud about it and who stood up straighter because of it but you felt that they've really conquered life as a consequence me I just don't believe that"
A "certain kind of contempt...I mean...anybody who can finish masturbating and then was proud about it" isn't "self-contempt". I'm not proud when I don't exercise, but I don't hold myself in contempt over it either. Big difference.

Personally, even when sex is available, sometimes masturbation is more relaxing. Sex, done right, can be a lot of work.

You just seem to let things rattle around in your head until they seem to say things they don't. Why are you so threatened by Peterson, anyway?
Again:
Quote:You're scared of men buying into the reality that they have to step up and make something of themselves INSTEAD of becoming resentful, aggressive incels? So you prefer incels?
Reply
#65
"According to a YouGov/Americans United for Life joint survey conducted last week, even 66% of those who consider themselves "pro-choice" oppose third-trimester abortions. YouGov is a popular non-partisan polling firm, and Americans United for Life describes itself as America's first pro-life organization. YouGov and Americans United for Life surveyed 1,145 American adults, overall.

Other notable findings from the survery include:

80% of Americans reject abortion the day before a child is born, 79% of Americans reject abortion in the third trimester, and 82% of Americans reject removing medical care for a viable child post-birth;

68% of "pro-choice" Americans oppose abortion the day before a child is born;

66% of "pro-choice" Americans oppose abortion in the third trimester;

77% of "pro-choice" Americans oppose removing medical care for a viable child; and

53% of Americans identify as "pro-choice" and 47% of Americans identify as "pro-life.""
- https://www.dailywire.com/news/43385/sur...osh-hammer
Reply
#66
Tim Kaine Suggests He’ll Oppose Ban on Infanticide

“This bill would establish new requirements for health care practitioners in the case of a fetus who survives an abortion,” Kaine writes. It’s an intriguing turn of phrase: A fetus, after all, is what the Left has chosen to call unborn children in an effort to dehumanize them. If a fetus survives an abortion, presumably it is no longer a fetus but a newborn infant.


So he's stretching the term "fetus" to include children born alive so he can justify infanticide, and seems to be impugning the bill brought by Ben Sasse to require doctors to actually provide full medical care for any child born alive after a failed abortion.

Between Senator Kaine, Gov. Northam, and delegate Tran, there's a ton of unapologetically evil Democrats in Virginia.
Reply
#67
The price for dogmatic certainty is an isolating and self-devouring moral fanaticism.
Reply
#68
Infanticide is evil. Period.

Are you immoral enough to argue otherwise?
Reply
#69
(Feb 22, 2019 07:17 PM)Syne Wrote: Infanticide is evil. Period.

Are you immoral enough to argue otherwise?

The fetus is only aborted if it endangers the life or health of the mother. That's just common sense. Such decisions are best left up to the mother and her doctor, not the state. This has already been explained to you.
Reply
#70
(Feb 22, 2019 07:49 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Feb 22, 2019 07:17 PM)Syne Wrote: Infanticide is evil. Period.

Are you immoral enough to argue otherwise?

The fetus is only aborted if it endangers the life or health of the mother. That's just common sense. Such decisions are best left up to the mother and her doctor, not the state. This has already been explained to you.

Apparently you haven't bothered to read what these Democrats have said.

“This bill would establish new requirements for health care practitioners in the case of a fetus who survives an abortion” - Democrat Senator Tim Kaine

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” Democrat Governor of Virginia Ralph Northam


Question: “So where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth, she has physical signs that she’s about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could still request an abortion if she was so certified? She’s dilating?”

Democrat Virginia legislator Kathy Tran: “My bill would allow that, yes.”


The bill Tim Kaine is talking about is to protect children BORN ALIVE, even after a failed abortion. IOW, they tried to abort, they failed, the baby was born alive, and they still want to be able to kill it. That is infanticide.

Deciding if a child BORN ALIVE should be resuscitated is infanticide.

Killing a child moments from being born ignores ever argument any leftist ever made about non-viability being a justification for abortion.


And when the "health of the mother" includes temporary subjective mental stress, there are no limits to abortion.
And you're either immoral or willfully ignorant if you don't know these facts.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)