PatrickC

Well, they are often a backlash to the previous wave. In most cases they have been ratcheting the rhetoric up a notch each time. Although, some might say there were two parts to the third wave. One of which is referred to as 'sex positive', which arguably was less militant than the other. Wiki gives a brief overview which I broadly agree with. Feminism despite cries of foul elsewhere, has largely been led by cultural marxists. With each wave they have done quite the job of dominating opinion to date and have effectively neutered any potential male opposition to them. However, we are now at a point or coming close to it, where some feminist demands are looking so absurd that their credibility is sinking fast. Not to mention the internet and the rise of the MRA. So it's really just my opinion that a fourth wave is on it's way and it makes sense from a marxist point of view to steer towards egalitarianism, as a means to divert people away from questioning the feminist movement as a whole. To a large extent this is mostly unconscious for many of them I think. Insofar as I don't think it's a deliberate conspiracy as such. But cultural marxism or it's euphemism, 'political correctness' has done a great job at keeping society focused on perceived antagonisms with each other and not with our overlords.

The Pope only says this kind of crap because he knows he can get away with it with little or no protest. In fact with an ever dwindling church going population, anything to get bums on seats again. Capitalists are all to blame of course, rather than men in strange dresses and hats spouting, scary fairy tales to little children. Even bishops in England were complaining recently, that if they don't do something radical, the church of England would be extinct by the middle of the century. They are desperate and they know it.

Yes I agree with this, which is why it makes me very suspicious of it. Values are not prescribed, they are lived and should be done amongst family firstly. We display values by our actions. If teachers were to do anything, they would understand those values and reflect them in their own actions. But many teachers I've met consider themselves as having higher values than most of the parents they meet. This most likely to be some kind of ideology they picked up at university of course, which is less about values and much more about indoctrination.

Hi, and welcome to the boards. One of the problems with this statement, is that it assumes gathering resources and using land is some kind of zero sum game. Even with six billion humans living on this planet, there is still enough space for more to inhabit it quite peacefully. Some people will gather more, some less. The more productive will naturally become the richest and those less productive will manage probably quite happily. You would need to explain why you consider homesteading immoral. If the principle is 'not sharing', 'violence' or 'hoarding' for example. Although you may have others. You would need to then explain why those principles are immoral. Any theory you have, must be more than just adjectives, you would need to show how let's say hoarding actually makes people starve. I just have to wonder with these kinds of objections to property ownership that it's partly because of what we experience already. The state just commandeers or regulates resources and property to such degrees, that these resources often become unreasonably expensive and a very few get very rich from it. Take the energy companies in the UK, they just hiked their prices up by 20% on the consumer, then publish a net increase in profits from the previous year of 22%. Naturally this just annoys people. Whilst in theory it's still plausibly possible, the removal of a central authority handing out special privileges will eliminate much of it with competition.

Yes, lets not have yet another long thread about this topic, without some new insight. There are so many great ideas and thoughts this community is capable of, that I would prefer to read about.

Perhaps the hidden posts of those past -30 could be lifted little higher perhaps, say to -45 before they get hidden. Just a thought.. But generally I think it's working pretty well for the most part. Without pointing out specific reps that have been unfairly treated, it's really difficult to gauge what might be happening on an individual level.

Yes, the egalitarian approach is what I call the fourth wave of feminism. It's very much the ideology of the left, who seem hellbent on making us all equal whether we like it or not. This fourth wave may well not refer to themselves as feminist. They may well be critical of the previous third wave of feminists. But egalitarianism will be the focus, which is interesting because that does seem to be the natural vent for most women and not men. Competition being frowned upon, as unfair or an example of dog eat dog. The egalitarian approach is the only critcism I have of Dr Farrells position in his otherwise polemic, 'The Myth of Male Power'. I find it funny that this panel of men (bar Jordan) do not consider feminsim as having had much of an impact on mens lives. But I see it as symptomatc of how egalitarianism has seeped into the collective consciouness and has become 'self evident' to many. Which is why you see Russell Smith making exasperated adjectives every time Jordan rebuts this ideology. They truly believe the egalitarian approach as being the most virtuous approach to life. Anyway, sorry went off on a tangent there, but I find this topic quite fascinating.

You are conflating. The lady in question had no intention of dying. If she had, it would have been entirely noticeable that she was deliberately walking into oncoming traffic.. As it was, I was conscious she wasn't investigating her environment properly. These are split second decisions that you take of course, which in a 'material world' you attempt to make a correct assessment of in the moment. Attempting to suggest that I broke the NAP, is all types of annoying to me. Get into the material world and stop conflating the experiences of others you have no experience of.

Then you need to let go of the NAP and start studying UPB, which is a much better explanation.. My actions were akin to a surgeon using a knife to save someones life during an operation. The fact that she wasn't aware in the first instance of my attempt to help her, is neither here nor there. She was certainly aware of them afterwards. Any violation that I did, was entirely understandable on the part of this lady. I neither broke the NAP or violated UPB. To have done so would have resulted in possible charges being levied against me. She was in fact most thankful, which I would have been myself, if it had been her doing the same for me. You are trying to square a round circle with this argument.

So you suggest that I should have just left her to her fate? You got to realise how 'effed up' that opinion is.

Tell that lady it was false, as she narrowly missed a ton of metal at high speed.. If you don't get that situation, then I have no idea what you are talking about. There is a point 'sometimes' with empathy in which you have to make sharp decisions. I never use 'force' in my life, but I certainly understood the benefits of it in that moment. As did that lady. This is similar to a surgeon using a knife on a patient.

No, it was the best decision for 'HER', I have no doubt. Or more importantly perhaps, she didn't doubt it.

Interesting, since I had this experience recently of an older lady rushing out into the road as a speeding ambulance suddenly decided to switch lanes. She was very thankful that I saved her, as her nose narrowly missed a tragic event. I do recall my cortisol being filled and was very uneasy with my decision to grab her so roughly after the fact. But for her it was the best decision I could have taken.

An interesting perspective on 'virtue'. I'll be straight up and honest, that I'm not entirely sure of his perspective. But I like that he sees virtue as being attached to material reality. Be great to hear other peoples thoughts on this talk.

I thought this was a particularly well placed thought when it comes to dealing with abusers, whether they are conscious or not of their actions.

Got to say I was a little surprised by this response and agree with MMD. Given the rather lack lustre responses she has already given you to date (at least from what you have written). Why would you want to date her. Cute I get, but quiet and getting along better with foreigners? Those just don't make sense as reasons to like her. Maybe she is shy or maybe she is being polite and engaging you for a little in an attempt to field you away from her, who knows. Either way, it doesn't sound like a great prospect for a date.

You made an interesting observation about Michael. He has swallowed the egalitarian pill. His science head tells him men love competition, but he considers failure as disadvantage. I wouldn't want him teaching any sons of mine. Failure is something men and boys can embrace as a means to later success elsewhere. Having griped on Michael, he was not as bad as the novelist Russell. Man, who neutered that chap!

Jordan Peterson is a light for men that understand the importance of masculinity. I'd like to see him interviewed by Stefan. If he's interested in doing that, he is clinical psychologist of the University of Toronto.

Then I think you misunderstand UPB. You are adding unknowable attributes to the following of another person. Anyway, making threatening gestures is not a violation of UPB. It's certainly unpleasant behaviour that has consequences, but it's not intrinsically immoral in of itself. This behaviour would fall under the category of APA.

I really have to wonder about the cyberbullying claim. Not saying it doesn't happen. But why aren't those organisations that highlight this issue not teaching parents the tools to lessen the impact, such as block features. I get the impression they are more interested in censoring the internet than they are about helping children. Sorry if that went a bit off topic.

I often find teaching values of tolerance to be an excuse for using bigotry itself. Hey whitey don't be racist! Or, you boy, don't be sexist! This is probably propaganda from some leftist ideologues. One day people will learn to keep their children away from these Marxist dogs.

Great stuff Kevin. Lot of this knocking around on the board of late. Being nice to bad people, is just bad advice

Yeah, the trouble is that the bullies get to decide what bullying actually is of course.

Yes, I tend to agree with you here. It's why I see reciprocity as a better way to make that fit. Since I cannot negotiate with a lion not to eat me or other livings creatures. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your definition of 'sentience'. Agreed, unnecessary violence towards other living creatures exhibits a particular type of cruelty in a person that is likely to show up with other humans eventually.

With respect, you don't get to pick and choose UPB as it pleases you. Either the test confirms UPB or violates it. Clearly following a person does not violate UPB. If it were then I would be assaulted every day on my way to the tube station each morning for following my fellow commuters. Magnus explanation highlights the point rather well about guilt having to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. To do it any other way would be to potentially punish innocents.