Litmus
Verified User
I said the concept of nuclear family is not necessarily inimical to working women. It's not about my opinion, gargoyle.
I mention sharks because you bring up some phantom absolute about constant change.
Name something good religion has caused
- Thread starter robdastud
- Start date
I said the concept of nuclear family is not necessarily inimical to working women. It's not about my opinion, gargoyle.
I mention sharks because you bring up some phantom absolute about constant change.
Yeah, I've read about that. It's an anamoly happening with younger, well-off woman. (in their 20's) They are going to bump that divorce rate up within ten years. Most of them claim to be running some kind of business from home and so don't claim to be non-working. I don't know how many of them really are though.
It's causing quite a stir in the feminist community. I consider it over-reacting. It won't last. These are educated woman. They'll go to work. But they are going to negatively affect the divorce rate before it's all said and done.
But is it consistent with a 25 percent drop in the marriage rate? With a ten-fold increase in cohabitating couples?
Get real. Your ideal is fading fast.
Litmus
Verified User
"Captain, it appears to be an anomaly." No shit, spock.
Maybe the younger generation has rejected your man-hating, feminist crap.
I don't know if they will. My wife has chosen to be a stay at home mother until the kids are full-time in school. Taking a five-year break isn't going to cause us divorce. This is unnecessarily pessimistic, IMO.
A five year break is one thing. A choice to not enter the professional world at all, quite another. And if that is the choice they are making, as some feminists fear, then they will negatively affect the divorce rate as well as, unfortuntely, the standard of living for educated women.
But I personally, doubt this is what is happening. I know no woman who has not entered the workforce, even having taken a break for child-bearing. But that of course is, anecdotal. We will see.
I don't hate men.
I think that women, or I should say girls actually, who feel comfortable in placing the entire burden of making a living for their entire family on the man's shoulder for his whole life, thus leading to a shortened life span for the male, might have some issues though.
I prefer partnerships and shared burdens as well as shared fruits.
Litmus
Verified User
They don't have issues. You have issues with them. They've rejected your social programming.
It seems to me you like to gloat about old women leaving old men.
Actually Damo, I just realized I do know one woman who never entered the work force. My sister-in-law.
If I described the state of that marriage to you, you'd swear I was making it up to prove a point. Total shudder. Absolute power does corrupt absolutely though. Even if it is only absolute economic power.
If I described the state of that marriage to you, you'd swear I was making it up to prove a point. Total shudder. Absolute power does corrupt absolutely though. Even if it is only absolute economic power.
LOL. I'm far more privy to their conversations than you are. What a mark you are though. Burden sharing is not a mark of hatred. It is a mark of true respect.
I'm not gloating. Stating simple facts. That is what an economically empowered woman does. And she thinks 50 is just the beginning. With that kind of confidence and economic power, perhaps it is. I'll let you know when I get there, I look forward to it!
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
I have already said that he does much earlier in this conversation, you have a right to break the laws and edicts of society, society has a right to enforce those laws and edicts with punishment. However society has the right to create consequences. Rights/Freedoms of others and society as a whole overlap. In this case most people would use reason to not partake in such activity, but others would not and thus reason would bring them to the consequences of their action. This is, of course, one of the reasons why I said also 'almost' entirely interchangeable as well.
Prudence teaches us to regulate our lives and actions agreeable to the dictates of reason. One must exercise their right to do as they will alongside prudence.
So, anything that you are capable of doing is a right? I have the right to break the law - doesn't that just mean I can break the law, I have the capacity to break the law? Is that really a right, or simply a capability?
Prudence teaches us to regulate our lives and actions agreeable to the dictates of reason. One must exercise their right to do as they will alongside prudence.
So, anything that you are capable of doing is a right? I have the right to break the law - doesn't that just mean I can break the law, I have the capacity to break the law? Is that really a right, or simply a capability?
Litmus
Verified User
LOL. you mean when you're going to the bathroom together? In there talking about tampax and boys? LOL.
you were gloating.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Morality is not necessarily based on religous authority. It can be based on reason.
That's exactly what both Damocles and I stated. In ethical philosophy, 'Do unto other's' is known as 'the golden rule'.
Morality based on religious authority is weak, because it relies on absolutes that don't exist. Morality is relative.
That's exactly what both Damocles and I stated. In ethical philosophy, 'Do unto other's' is known as 'the golden rule'.
Morality based on religious authority is weak, because it relies on absolutes that don't exist. Morality is relative.
Litmus
Verified User
No. Just because it's not based on religious authority doesn't mean it's relative. It's based on behaviors and codes which contribute to the success of the group.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
No. Just because it's not based on religious authority doesn't mean it's relative. It's based on behaviors and codes which contribute to the success of the group.
Try to keep up.
I didn't state that religious morality was weak because it is relative, but that it is weak because it is absolutist, whilst in reality morality is relative. It is absolute because it is deemed to be dictated by the 'great law-giver in the sky' and thus infallible.
That's why you get so many religious bigots campaigning against things like homosexuality, because they believe that their moral perspective is absolute. That and a smug sense of righteous indignation that you exhibit with such relish....
Try to keep up.
I didn't state that religious morality was weak because it is relative, but that it is weak because it is absolutist, whilst in reality morality is relative. It is absolute because it is deemed to be dictated by the 'great law-giver in the sky' and thus infallible.
That's why you get so many religious bigots campaigning against things like homosexuality, because they believe that their moral perspective is absolute. That and a smug sense of righteous indignation that you exhibit with such relish....
Litmus
Verified User
I didn't say you said that. You have provided no evidence to prove morality is relative.
Behaviors which promote cooperation and mutual benefit are consistently the same. Truth telling, honesty, fidelity, not stealing etc... these consistently lead to group success. you couldn't just change this list to cruelty, elitism, dishonesty, wanton murder and have the group's success rate remain the same.
I started by stating that it was the same thing. Why are you only now beginning to freak about this? Hence my assertion that freedom and rights are largely interchangeable. The concept that the limitation of freedom changes your "rights" is a false construct. That limitation is false to begin with. You can do what you are capable of, it is the consequences that change your action, not the idea that you don't have the freedom to make that choice if you will it so. Of course you do, but as humans we have a larger understanding that society too can press their rights on us, take from us the capability to act on the will to do what has been determined to be negative action. As well as we are able to reason through the fact that others will act to end what conflicts with their own freedoms, up to and including ending your capabilities entirely.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
You have provided no evidence to prove morality is relative.
Absolute moral rule.... Thou shalt not kill.
In truth, it can be deemed morally right to kill in defence.
Morality is relative to the person adjudicating.
Absolute moral rule.... Thou shalt not kill.
In truth, it can be deemed morally right to kill in defence.
Morality is relative to the person adjudicating.
Litmus
Verified User
We're not talking about religion here. the actual moral code or law we've enacted has exceptions for self defense etcetera. That cannot be extrapolated to 'morality is relative'.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
I started by stating that it was the same thing. Why are you only now beginning to freak about this?
Freaking? No, just baffled as to why you would describe simple ability to do something as a right to do something. The term 'right' loses all meaning, it simply is ability.
A lion has the right to attack and eat a zebra, the zebra has the right to try to escape.
Hitler had the right to exterminate the Jews????
Hence my assertion that freedom and rights are largely interchangeable.
As is the term ability and rights???? If rights are merely the ability to do something, the term 'rights' has no meaning.
Freaking? No, just baffled as to why you would describe simple ability to do something as a right to do something. The term 'right' loses all meaning, it simply is ability.
A lion has the right to attack and eat a zebra, the zebra has the right to try to escape.
Hitler had the right to exterminate the Jews????
Hence my assertion that freedom and rights are largely interchangeable.
As is the term ability and rights???? If rights are merely the ability to do something, the term 'rights' has no meaning.