Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.

[Greatest I am]

Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.

Seeking and demanding sanctityis one of the main five best rules of morality. Those rules shown below closelyresemble most religious rules. For humankind to give an idea sanctity they mustgive sacrifice to it. The sacrifice that we must all do is deny women equalityand give men a lower position in rulership. Men must bend the knee to women andelevate them to our ultimate sovereign. Those women and men who do not demandthis are not in the best moral state of mind and should try to move to it.

We are all natural animalsand follow the hierarchical rules of those species which have Alpha males. The mainsurvival strategy of such a species is that the Alpha males will fight to thedeath to insure that the Beta females live.

Females, as the incubators oflife and the most important within that species, must have the highestprotection to insure that they will survive to continue the life of thatspecies. Men, being the most physically powerful and having a more naturaltendency to rule, must take a leadership role to insure this continuity. TheAlpha of any species fights to insure that the Beta always has the highestposition. The Kings and all other men IOW, must rule as the power behind the thronebut the Queen is the one who must always sit on that throne and rule over theKing.

The research done by Mr.Haigt shows that the right wings of religions and politics show more concern withtribalism than do the left wings. It appears then that if we are to move to themost advantageous moral position then it is to the right wings to promote it. Asan esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian, I am the left of center and not inthe best camp to sell the view that women should rule even as I recognize thatthey should. The right has been given a wakeup call thanks to president Obamabeing re-elected. FMPOV then, the right needs a new platform if they are tosurvive, as they should to balance the political spectrum.

Generally speaking only; womenare the weaker of the sexes and are better places to know what the requirementsof survival are and should thus rule. Women should then demand the full protectionand sacrifice of the Alphas males as that is the natural order of hierarchicalspecies and must be to insure survival. This sacrifice gives sanctity to ourspecies and insures it’s longevity. The religiousand political right seem better suited to lead towards this end.

In my opinion, men and womenwho do not agree with this premise are not taking the best moral position forfamilies or for society at large. This issue is more in the hands of men thanwomen and in that sense men would be more immoral than women if they do notdeny women equality and place women above themselves.

Should the religious andpolitical right take up this best moralposition and demand that equality be denied to all women and demand thatthey be given their rightful and natural position above men?

Please see the research andlogic behind this premise.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHc-yMcfAY4

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

Had to do a search on Haidt because I've never heard of him before.

This popped up, which is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_intuitionism

excerpt>

Jonathan Haidt (2001) greatly de-emphasizes the role of reasoning in reaching moral conclusions. Haidt asserts that moral judgment is primarily given rise to by intuition with reasoning playing a very marginalized role in most of our moral decision-making. Conscious thought-processes serves as a kind of post hoc justification of our decisions.
His main evidence comes from studies of "moral dumbfounding" where people have strong moral reactions but fail to establish any kind of rational principle to explain their reaction. Haidt suggests that we have affective heuristics which are unconscious that generate our reactions to morally charged situations and our moral behaviour. He suggests that if people reason about morality, it is independent of processes causing moral decisions to be made

An example situation in which moral intuitions are activated is as follows: Imagine that a brother and sister sleep together once. No one else knows, no harm befalls either one, and both feel it brought them closer as siblings. Most people imagining this incest scenario have very strong negative reaction, yet cannot explain why.[

What makes this scenario interesting is that with your arguments to legalize drug abuse and addiction for recreation......morality perceived through intuition while under the influence of drugs and even the aftereffects, would likely be all over the map with contradictions likely.

That might just explain the bizarreness of the opening post.

 

[Stone]

Hmmmm?


http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9320899&postcount=2


Indeed

 

[Stone]

I see you've started using a new screen name else where.....French Patriot......how's that working out for you?

 

[Stone]

............................................ Asan esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian..................................

Seriously?
If the word 'ecumentist' means what I think it means, and what dictionaries list for 'ecumenism', how in the world can you apply it to yourself, one of the most divisive debaters I've read when it comes to promoting unity between religions.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ecumenist?ref=dictionary&word=ecumenism#

Movement toward unity or cooperation among the Christian churches.................

And 'esoteric'?.........good one

 

[Stone]

....................

Seeking and demanding sanctityis one of the main five best rules of morality...................................

Interesting.....you've just demoted the moral compasses of agnostics and atheists.

If you haven't realized it, you've just claimed that agnostics and atheists don't follow all 'the best rules' of morality ......and associating that logic with Haidt, would likely only achieve moral values of a lesser nature/value by not following all the 'best rules' and focusing more on intuition.

GIA....that's an argument to exclude agnostics and atheists from moral decision making....do you really want to go there?

And to top it off.....I do remember you stating that your line of reasoning often paralleled agnostic/atheist logic.
So....in this argument of yours, you've discredited your own value system at the same time.
In addition.....
The intuition of a subject that claims to achieve a god like/holy status in 5 or 6 seconds is not likely to be as rational as the rest of us......IMO.


GIA........the more you post, the more confused and conflicted you appear.

Should the religious andpolitical right take up this best moralposition and demand that equality be denied to all women and demand thatthey be given their rightful and natural position above men?

Please see the research andlogic behind this premise.

It seems you are arguing the least moral position has the greatest social value......incredible.
Incredible sophistry, that is.
I suspect you'd make an interesting subject for a psychological paper in a medical journal.


And I really don't see how legalizing drug abuse and addiction improves the above scenario.

 

[Greatest I am]

Thanks for the usual.

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

Thanks for the usual.

Regards
DL

You're welcome.............

 

[darkcgi]

The Islamic are trying to demolish silently

 

[Minor Axis]

Thanks for the usual.

Regards
DL

Stone is desperate for attention... maybe you made his day.

 

[Stone]

Stone is desperate for attention... maybe you made his day.

Well get off your arse and take me off ignore and find out just how pleased I am.....

 

[Stone]

...........................
The research done by Mr.Haigt shows that the right wings of religions and politics show more concern withtribalism than do the left wings. It appears then that if we are to move to themost advantageous moral position then it is to the right wings to promote it................................

Your second sentence is a non sequitur.
Haidt stated that a 'righteous' mind is often a harsh judge .......not necessarily as open to reality in achieving 'advantage'. Haidt proposed the most moral position would be 'with both eyes open'.....not blinkered by claiming moral power through an association with God's will.
Haidt claims we are born to be hypocrites.
Now associate that with an inability for critical thinking or at least the lack of it.

Haidt also addressed consensual hallucination, which is so blinkered of reality, that critical thinking is heretical.
But Haidt's comments also included the ability of the right wing to convince the general public that it owned the 'righteous' moral position as an absolute.
This was the trap of your argument and it's fallacy.


Your argument failed early on.
Haidt is arguing against demonizing opposing thought on the basis of it being an opposing position.
And as I've mentioned many times.....not enough critical thinking to your conclusions. Insanity is not rational......



BTW....that was an interesting video and I recommend anyone reading this thread to consider watching it.