Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
The hidden key to the birthrate issue no one wants to acknowledge is that the numbers are *per woman* not *per mother*.
Its actually harder to get women who have had the number of kids they want to have more through pure economic incentives. However, what it would ultimately take to make women into mothers cannot be politically broached, even among the far right.
- Bread up, Bro likes this.
-
Embed this notice
@mkultra @Victor_Emmanuel Then we just need to get our the correction bat
-
Embed this notice
@Victor_Emmanuel
Mainstream WNs will turn into racist feminists very quickly.
-
Embed this notice
@Victor_Emmanuel
You'd be surprised.
-
Embed this notice
@mkultra I'm pretty sure everyone here is on board with repealing the 19th.
-
Embed this notice
@nierenstein @mkultra @Victor_Emmanuel "This premise is both flawed, retarded, and contrary to the conceit that women are moral actors as presented by the Christian premise that they can be damned."
christian premise that they can be damned means they have control over their actions ( e.g. they can be punished for it )
Does it then follow that agency means they should be given political power.
-
Embed this notice
@mkultra @Victor_Emmanuel I'm actually not certain what either of you is trying to say here
-
Embed this notice
@Victor_Emmanuel
no, I've implied nothing close, lmao
-
Embed this notice
@mkultra So you think, from a catholic stand point, since women can sin then they should have political power?
-
Embed this notice
@Victor_Emmanuel
Beyond this it truly amazes that the tradcath of all people wishes to draw some arbitrary line betwixt worldly and heavenly conduct/governance.
-
Embed this notice
@mkultra We were speaking of politics so I was speaking in that realm. Or do you value women's input when it comes to politics?
-
Embed this notice
@Victor_Emmanuel
input is irrelevant, women as a class, and voters, are not political actors by any realistic analysis.
But they do have individual agency, in fact their agency is heightened at the personal and physiological detriment of others within liberal society.
-
Embed this notice
@Victor_Emmanuel
This premise is both flawed, retarded, and contrary to the conceit that women are moral actors as presented by the Christian premise that they can be damned.
If you grant that women do not have agency you stand against the literal word of God and ought to repent.
-
Embed this notice
@mkultra They seem explicitly adverse to the idea that women have agency.
-
Embed this notice
@FreedoingVlad @wgiwf @Victor_Emmanuel @mkultra Many people have limited ability to conduct themselves in a politically useful way.
This is why even historically "democracies" were limited as to who got a say and they found no contradiction in this.
We may look at them and see them as hypocrites, but we are in fact the hypocrites, as we try to take the words they made and change the definitions to suit our modern conceits.
-
Embed this notice
@FreedoingVlad @Victor_Emmanuel @mkultra Not really, because women are by their nature (and according to the bible) subject to the authority of men. They may act independently, but this is in the form of a social framework handed down by men, essentially Aristotle's slave by nature who is only capable of action within their master's framework. Feminism is allowed by men in the west, whether willingly or not, so women act within that framework. The slave by nature is capable of spiritual and moral choices but cannot assert true power and authority independent of their superior.
-
Embed this notice
@wgiwf @Victor_Emmanuel @mkultra You introduce religion and historical context and I won't deny that, nor was I planning to do so.
However, possessing both physical and spiritual agency doesn't preclude one from politics. That's the point I tried to explore.
Right now the "Natural Slave" vs "Natural Law" is put forward - a comparison I didn't intend to happen. My original comment might have been misunderstood in that respect.
-
Embed this notice
@Victor_Emmanuel @mkultra Women have spiritual and physical agency; they should have no political authority because that is contrary to nature.
-
Embed this notice
@wgiwf @Victor_Emmanuel @mkultra Interesting point there. Isn't ethics the more relevant issue here?
Observing the US implementation of the constitution, it appears they go by the Natural Law Theory - I remember something like that vaguely. I could be wrong.
So making decisions and acting in spiritual and physical realms is a part of human nature.That doesn't conflict with having political power.
-
Embed this notice
@mkultra I think I lost what point your were trying to make when you called me a tradcath. ( not disagreeing with that assessment, it just happened in that post)
-
Embed this notice
@mkultra now it sounds like you are ok with women voting
-
Embed this notice
@Victor_Emmanuel
this is idiotic.
-
Embed this notice
@mkultra then I don’t see why taking away women’s political power contradicts them having spiritual agency.
-
Embed this notice
@Victor_Emmanuel
one can have spiritual agency and physical agency
Women choose what they do.
-
Embed this notice
@jimmybuffettfanaccount revocation of the past IDK, 4,000 years of feminism or so.
-
Embed this notice
@mkultra @jimmybuffettfanaccount If you are looking at nuking 4,000 years of history, then your problem is with human nature, and the goal is to work with human nature to produce optimal results, not directly oppose it because it is annoying
-
Embed this notice
@mkultra What would it take?
-
Embed this notice
@mkultra damn even Homer’s gotta go
-
Embed this notice
@jimmybuffettfanaccount
And yes I mean 4,000.
Müngoose Kikimora
Bread up, Bro
Victor_Emmanuel
Nierenstein: "Funny" (Self-Described)
Wolfgirl in Wheatfield
FreedoingVlad
Jimmy Buffett Fanatic
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the