Thank you. Our thinking is very different and I am curious about why that is so. You speak of a reality that is nothing like life was before the 19th century. Education before the 19th century would be liberal education and only a few men had a chance of being well educated, with a few exceptions. Some Protestant groups focused on the technological skill of reading so people could read the Bible for themselves but from there females were taught the domestic skills by their mothers, and males learned their father's trade or were sent to live with a man who would teach them a trade. However, the Quakers took a much stronger stand on empowering women than any other branches of Christianity and I think it was more influenced by the classics, playing a very strong role in forming the values of the US by participating in government at the Capital. The foundation of the culture was predominately Christian and the man was the head of the house, with God's authority that women did not have except for Quakers. That is patriarchy with Quakers and empowered women, playing a stronger role in shaping democracy than say the Mormons. — Athena

Im not sure your point here. It doesn't seem like any of that is controversial but neither does it seem relevant….I thought you were asking a question regarding which is better not for a history of either.

.

Throughout history, the division of gender roles was based on our different natures. Do you think nature made males and females the same? — Athena

No of course not, but male/female gender roles are not the same as leadership roles.
It seems like we have different ideas of what patriarchy and matriarchy mean. I take it to mean something like “when society is ruled or governed based on one gender”. I would call gender roles a sub category of society. If the society is modelled after one gender role or another then my criticism would be the same. Gender roles are not good metrics by which to build a society, rather they are components within a society.

When the giver of life was a goddess, women held the highest position and the society was organized by family order. Do you have any notion how this was different from patriarchal societies? Can you think of reasons for a matriarchy becoming a patriarchy? Do you understand I am not arguing one is better than the other but I am warning there are serious problems with insisting we all be like men and the homemaker is not an important social role? — Athena

Im not sure who you imagine would disagree with this. Not me.
Im saying it is foolish to insist a society “act like men”, where we disagree perhaps is that I also think it is foolish to insist society act like the homemaker as well. As others have mentioned, it is the “insisting” part that is problematic in the two “archy”’s.
If your going to insist, insist on people being responsible, productive members of society which isnt the purview of gender but rather the individuals within the society.

When the state becomes responsible for childcare, increasingly the paid childcare provider will have to prove merit by showing a degree in childcare education, and the pay will go up. This is a huge improvement over leaving a 12-year-old responsible for children. But no amount of technological education, and pay, will make the caregiver equal to a mother or grandmother. Can you think of any reason why this might become a social nightmare along the line of The Brave New World? — Athena

Again the relevance is lost on me. You’ll have to provide a better trail of logic for me to follow cuz Im not seeing the connecting tissue.

Like, is your main point “patriarchy bad”? Cuz yes, it is. So is a matriarchy. Men and women bring different tools, we should use all the tools at our disposal not one set or the other. Right?

How are both patriarchy and matriarchy flawed? If you can answer that, it would be the discussion I was hoping to have. — Athena

I would say because they are based off gender, and that is a poor metric by which to base societal structures upon. I don’t think one gender is better as leaders of society than another, the better structure will be determined by traits that do not rely on gender like education, integrity, fair and equal laws etc. I don’t think any of those traits rely on a specific answer.
Do you think one or the other (patriarchy or matriarchy) is better? I just din’t think I can agree. Male or female, politicians are all the same variety of lying, game playing scum we all hate.
Society is best run by a system where both genders get a seat at the table, where the “talent pool” of society running folks is at its widest. Why exclude someone based in gender?

Well, that is an interesting comment. Before you decide who is a fool you might want to have more information. But I am pondering what you said and wondering why you said it. It kind of reminds me of the movie Brave New World. The way technology has impacted our consciousness is fascinating, but that is a different discussion I would love to have. — Athena

I can be clearer that was muddled.
What I meant was the merits/demerits of a gender based society would match the merits/demerits of the genders themselves. I’m not making a commentary about what those gender merits/demerits are Im just pointing out the society would reflect them, whatever you think they might be.
The second point I intended to make was that gender is not a very good metric by which to appoint rulership or or who makes good leaders. I stand by what I said, that it is foolish to think a particular gender better equips one to lead or ideas by which to base society. Patriarchy and matriarchy are both flawed ways of structuring society.

I imagine benefits and problems of a gender based social structure would match pretty closely to the benefits and problems of the genders themselves.
Of course a problem common to both a patriarchy and a matriarchy is that it ignores merit in favour of an accident of birth. Anyone who thinks gender is more telling of leadership or social order than individual merit is a fool imo.

He fit the posting profile of the commonly banned folk, no surprise here.

Well stated for once Baker :wink:

Thats the problem principal based ethics, when certain actions are prohibited (ethically speaking). Lying, killing, stealing…as soon as you suggest a particular action is “wrong”, its trivially easy to come up with clear exceptions to the rule.
In the nazi scenario above the person who tells the truth about the jews because its “the ethical thing to do” is a moral monster. These principal based ethics, by which I mean “so and so action is ethically wrong”, lead to logical contradictions and therefore should be rejected imo.
I would add further that principal based ethics are lazy (or hopelessly ambitious) as well. A proper ethical consideration should be case by case, the specifics of each moral situation logged and analysed. While Its understandable that that isnt always practical and ethics will inevitably lose out to practicality at times I would say that in general these sorts of dogmatic servitude to whatever principal don’t even qualify as an ethical principal. In the nazi example we all imagine the truth teller to be quite the opposite of an ethical person and Im not sure the vast majority of ethical principals people have function any different logically speaking/

Nah, Ill keep doing what Im doing. I dont mean to come off as snotty…not all the time anyway. I save my insults for those deserving, like anyone else.
Also, I said I was fine with the mocking. You acted like I was complaining. I wasnt.
Where were you “straight up” with me in the most recent exchange?

You are mistaken, again. Neither agitated nor angry, just not into wasting my time. You’ve decided not to engage and so mock instead, thats fine, it was amusing but inevitably boring.

I never pegged you as the dishonest type, here is the actual sentence:

“So I find your criticism weak, and it has the wiff of prejudice, like its a cherished opportunity to push back with some sort of disdain for psych terms or something.“

Why did you cut the front and back ends off? Am I allowed to call that cherry picking or is that jargon too? Is that your thing? Just commit logical fallacies, dishonestly cherry pick and ignore points and questions in favour of flip dismissal of criticisms as “jargon”?
The parts you omitted provide important context that differentiate my statement between an accusation and an estimation. Do you understand the difference?

Anyway, you didnt respond to argument nor clarifying questions so no reason to suspect you will start now. Good day.

It is bullshit because 1) it is often, usually, used to add a patina of reason to a poorly-thought-through criticism. 2) Many people who use the term don't even know what it means. 3) The prime sign of jargon - the term's meaning can be easily and clearly, more clearly, expressed in everyday language. — T Clark

All of that was noted and rebutted in my initial comment.

I think, perhaps, you overestimate your own ability to understand the motives for my opinion, which, by the way, are not relevant to my argument and shouldn't be part of your response. So, maybe, you also overestimate your ability to reason effectively. — T Clark

You think wrong. I never offered an estimation of your motives for your opinion therefore no overestimation could have been detected. Your response attacks my “ability to understand the motives of my opinion” rather than the two things I offered in my comment: the wiff of prejudice and the accusation of pushing back against psych terms “or something”. Do you know what that's called? Is there a term one might use to describe attacking someones ability to understand rather than what they have said/claimed?
As for relevance, well it is entirely relevant to bring those things up if they are in-fact true, which they may not be. Are they? You can dispel them with a proper response instead the the…what are those called again? Whats the word?
And lastly, this:

“So, maybe, you also overestimate your ability to reason effectively.“

Is the last step in completing a logical fallacy, so what is a person supposed to do? You want to dismiss the “jargon” of that logical fallacy but here you are making one so whats a guy to do? Am I not supposed to correctly point out a logical fallacy because ignorant people on the internet dont know what they are and misuse (or fail to identify :wink: ) a specific logical fallacy?
Again: your problem isnt with those terms, its the people misusing the terms and we should never, ever concede language to the clowns among us.

Just because it is a term abused by some doesn't mean the concept is bullshit. Also, of course it is a way of saying “I think you are wrong”, it is one of the ways in which people can be wrong, what else would you expect it to be? Thats like complaining “youre contradicting yourself” is just another way of saying “I think your wrong”. Yes, yes it is.
You aren’t describing a problem with the term, you are describing its problematic use by problematic people. Jerkoffs will be jerkoffs, but we should never concede language to them.
Also, it is more than the appearance of insight. If used accurately insight is exactly what the concept is describing, insight into why a person is in error, the nature of their mistake.
So I find your criticism weak, and it has the wiff of prejudice, like its a cherished opportunity to push back with some sort of disdain for psych terms or something.

Oh just shut up and get shot.

I cant believe you two knuckleheads (meant playfully!) this long to figure out he’s full of shit. I suppose you also think it a coincidence this “atheist” is dishonest and disingenuous in precisely the same way as every other religious clown that stumbles in here looking to prove some pet theistic point. Leave him be, he will find his place among the turds of this site. :naughty:

Im sorry to say that the question doesn't make much sense, there is no difference in “if statements” logic when it is applied to agency or human intent. The logical principals remain unchanged, only what is “X” or “Y” would change and again that really doesnt effect the application of a logical principal. Hence why I asked what you had in mind…

Im not sure how the logic would be different with agency or human intentions. Di you have something good n mind?

Same thing.

Wiccans are not comparable to Nazi’s. Your boss IS being stupid. Someones wrong, ignorant idea of what a Wiccan is or the different meanings of a pentagram is not the same as someone actually having some heinous, genocidal ideology. The uppity catholics are offended by their own misconception and ignorance rather than something real, while in the case of the Neo Nazi a person would be offended for very real reasons, very real evils.
So you hold contradiction, no two faces, no hypocrisy.

Good thing they aren't predicted on an unsustainable trajectory then, or you might have a point there.

Pretty confident, i would stake lives on it sure.

The future is unknowable. But according to our best predictive efforts, it will be quite bad indeed. — hypericin

Thats not true. Our best predictive models are based on the patterns of the past and present. Those patterns indicate that the world is and has been getting better, not worse. Poverty, well being, infant mortality, disease, murder and every metric of a better life except 2 which escape me at the moment. Look into Steven Pinkers work, all these things are better than ever. Taken as a whole, mwnkind has never been safer or better off.

Is this a situation that you would prefer to avoid? That you would do anything, at all costs, to avoid? Then how is it ok to impose this situation on any child, let alone your own? — hypericin

No, dealing with climate change or any other adversity along with the rest of life is not something I wish to avoid “at all costs”.
Ergo, I would never use that reason to not have kids and would have no problem bringing a kid into the world.

Im not a moderator. I think the up vote feature has been disabled.

Dont worry about it, it just brings a post to mod attention so they will have seen my flagged post and most likely ignore the flag after reading the post and seeing no rules breaches.

The flag is used to bring a post to the attention of a moderator, for when you notice someone breaking forum rules.

Ah. Yes, I would agree. Classic baiting question really: asking a question looking for a specific answer so that the questioner can then play “gotchya”. Frustration ensues when their narrow parameters come up short in restricting responses to the one they are looking for.
OR
A person learning about utilitarianism would naturally notice the obvious weakness of ends justifying the means or act, and these sorts of questions stem from exploring that weakness.

Hard to tell which at this juncture.

I dont know to what you are referring. What seems like bait?

Well I have no problem using rape as the example, hence I answered you in that context. Perhaps its you who regret using rape as the example since it didnt get you the answer you are looking for.
It doesnt change my answer whether you use rape or not. There is still a calculus being made whatever moral equation you posit.

Thats a pretty broad question but I right away thought if logical fallacies.
Fir example, the expression “comparing apples to oranges” is and everyday way of stating a “category error” logical fallacy.

Actually the quote is:

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”.

His inclusion of “sufficiently” negates most of your post.
To answer your question, the “world of science” can only be convinced of “supernatural” explanation for something if they were first convinced that anything supernatural actually existed in the first place. In order to do that there would have to be scientific evidence of something being supernatural. There isnt, ergo the “scientific world” would never posit a supernatural explanation.

Its the thought that counts.

I guess to apply reason, draw conclusions by taking small steps and to maintain an open mind but not so open your brain falls out.
And to just stop and think. Stop and think often.

I think its any kind, on any aspect of life. Its not about one particular path or goal or set of goals, its about taking the time to examine carefully whatever goes on in life, whatever preferences one might have. Its about not coasting on autopilot but instead taking the reins by arming oneself with knowledge and wisdom in the pursuit.

I think its pretty straight forward, “unexamined” means thoughtless, unreflective…life isnt worth living unless it is given thought, contemplated, otherwise you might as well be an inanimate object.

No because utilitarian ethics would include more than just sexual pleasure or displeasure in its calculus. You would have to consider how allowing gang rape like that would effect the friends and family, the way the rape would cause enduring suffering for the person after the fact, the effects of rape gangs having free license to gang rape on the society and community, the terror people would be living in everyday etc etc
Then after you consider all of that then utilitarianism would still require that the gratification of the gang rapers be greater than the suffering of the people they rape. I can’t see how that wouod be the case. Their gratification would last moments, days at best, while the suffering of the rape victim would not only be worlds apart trauma wise (can you even compare the trauma of not getting off to that of being gang raped?) but it would also have all kinds of potential negative consequences for years or decades and most likely for the rest of their lives.

So I think the answer is no, utilitarianism doesn't justify rape as you describe. It would say the opposite, to not do it because the negative far outweighs the positive.

I think change feels like collapse to people sometimes, but all the data points to things steadily getting better. The success rate of predictions of societies collapse is quite terrible.
We’re fine. Societies not going anywhere unless people do.

Thanks, I appreciate the correction.

I think that the idea of loss of self is extremely interesting because it involves thinking beyond the most usual boundaries, and, of opening up to the idea of going beyond. There is a danger of fragmentation, in which identity may collapse detrimental, but, also, a possibility of opening up to aspects of experience which offer new possibilities. — Jack Cummins

I wouldn't describe it as beyond usual boundaries so much as a liberation. The self is no a longer burden.
Actually looking at that written out i think I mean the same thing you do. Lol
What danger of identity collapse do you mean? Is it collapse or change? How fo you tell the difference?

Indeed, a term being hijacked and slaved to a specific position or argument. Par for the course round these parts.

You can lose your sense of self, and in so doing you will learn more about what the self is. Many who experience this loss of self refer ever after to the self as an illusion.

What threads like this show is that folk have odd notions of infinity. — Banno

To be fair infinity is an odd notion to start with. I learned that one infinity can be bigger than another infinity and that was even stranger. Its a niche concept imo, but yes, odd.