Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.

[French Patriot]

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

 

[EagleSmack]

Whats with the double youtube clips in each of FP's post. Does anyone else see that?

 

[The Old Medic]

Pure unadultered bull manure.

 

[DaSleeper]

Whats with the double youtube clips in each of FP's post. Does anyone else see that?

There's a secret message in there....but to get it, you have to start one clip... then exactly 7 seconds later, no more no less, you start the other one....;-)

 

[karrie]

While there is a certain truth in your premise that men are stronger and thus the natural protectors, that only applies in a world where survival is based in physical strength. Our world no longer operates in that fashion. Currently, denying men equality and making them subservient to women would serve only to further strip men of their usefulness and aggrevate and already skyrocketing stress levels in males, who have all the testosterone of days long past, and nowhere to express it.

Much more logical would be that all people be treated equally, and the life choices of each individual be respected.

 

[coldstream]

Seems some defintion of terms is required. What is meant by 'equal' rights... the right of a mother to murder her unborn child, for instance. It seems in this country.. led by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.. and the SCOC.. the term 'right' has been separated from any commensurate responsibility to community at large or its constituent parts.. like the family.. or other individuals. With disastrous results.. the deformation of marriage.. the breakdown of neighbourhoods and families... the loss of any regard for traditional institutions and social structures. Specifically with the role of men and women this has impoverished the identity of both and compromised the relationship between the two.. and seems to have produced little of real value.. certainly not any authentic freedom.

 

[damngrumpy]

I thought this might turn into an abortion debate before long at some level. History has moved on
through history we are not cave men and women anymore except in some parts of the world and
we all know one in particular where the men are so insecure in some places they would deny little
girls an education even.
Then there is there is the meaning of freedom and rights. Again men in some cases are so insecure
they don't want to accept real equality if they did and guaranteed equal access to success and of
course equal participation in caring for and rearing of children many abortions would not happen.
We have also created a society where the burdens are placed on one parent or both in some cases
by the way we structured society. Maybe when we equal those societal issues out we can speak
about the abortion issue again. See the abortion issue has passed into history by the mainstream of
society it is now entrenched in law and is part of the society. If we want to encourage women to have
children and bring them into the world, we must do the following

1 create a society where both family members share the responsibilities
2 ensure that women are treated equally when it comes to employment and advancement
that way they won't have their careers limited
3 we must also create the society where women have enough security financially to stay home
if they wish to, that means companies have to adjust their thinking too
4 when everyone has choices equality is easier to structure.
In short we have women not choosing to have children or not bringing them to term because their is no
advantage to doing so in simple terms. The society suffers in the long run.
Therefore we can change the equation to make it more advantageous to encourage women to have
children, but then, hey, we would have to create some form of equality and that would never do would it.

If people are so hepped up about the abortion issue, what would you personally do to ensure there was
equality enough to encourage women to have children and make it a fair society? Hint, it involves attitude
change more than changing the laws.

 

[L Gilbert]

Seems some defintion of terms is required. What is meant by 'equal' rights... the right of a mother to murder her unborn child, for instance. It seems in this country.. led by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.. and the SCOC.. the term 'right' has been separated from any commensurate responsibility to community at large or its constituent parts.. like the family.. or other individuals. With disastrous results.. the deformation of marriage.. the breakdown of neighbourhoods and families... the loss of any regard for traditional institutions and social structures. Specifically with the role of men and women this has impoverished the identity of both and compromised the relationship between the two.. and seems to have produced little of real value.. certainly not any authentic freedom.

You are granted the right by society, to snivel about what other people do in terms of how it affects their lives.
Personally, little of how others lead their lives has affected my life and the relationship I have with my wife and kids. And we've done it without the assistance of some pile of self-righteous, "moral" jackasses and their interpretations of whatever dogma and other such nonsense their faiths suggest.
But why bother whining about others when your sadistic, immature, and unintelligent god is purported to judge people anyway? If it were me that believed in gods n other nonsense, I'd leave people alone to their own devices and let the gods decide what to do with them.
Anyway, I'm all for equal rights. People are people regardless of gender, skin color, political bias, religion conviction, etc. Same rights for everyone would be nice.

 

[JLM]

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.

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

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

Regards
DL

Where is all this sh*t carved in stone?

While there is a certain truth in your premise that men are stronger and thus the natural protectors, that only applies in a world where survival is based in physical strength. Our world no longer operates in that fashion. Currently, denying men equality and making them subservient to women would serve only to further strip men of their usefulness and aggrevate and already skyrocketing stress levels in males, who have all the testosterone of days long past, and nowhere to express it.

Much more logical would be that all people be treated equally, and the life choices of each individual be respected.

That is very seldom possible too.

 

[darkbeaver]

Where is all this sh*t carved in stone?

Mesopotamia

 

[French Patriot]

Whats with the double youtube clips in each of FP's post. Does anyone else see that?

Not my doing. That is the way the system here does it.

Regards
DL

Pure unadultered bull manure.

No. This is.

Women Part 1 - YouTube

Women Part 2 - YouTube

Regards
DL

 

[L Gilbert]

Not my doing. That is the way the system here does it.

Regards
DL

Apparently, it only works like that for you.

 

[lone wolf]

Apparently, it only works like that for you.

...and it's selective....

 

[French Patriot]

While there is a certain truth in your premise that men are stronger and thus the natural protectors, that only applies in a world where survival is based in physical strength. Our world no longer operates in that fashion. Currently, denying men equality and making them subservient to women would serve only to further strip men of their usefulness and aggrevate and already skyrocketing stress levels in males, who have all the testosterone of days long past, and nowhere to express it.

Much more logical would be that all people be treated equally, and the life choices of each individual be respected.

Then there would be no sacrifice to give sanctity to our systems.

Imagine equality on a sinking ship. Do you think it good if women, children and men would have to flip a coin for the seats in the lifeboats?

Regards
DL

Seems some defintion of terms is required. What is meant by 'equal' rights... the right of a mother to murder her unborn child, for instance. It seems in this country.. led by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.. and the SCOC.. the term 'right' has been separated from any commensurate responsibility to community at large or its constituent parts.. like the family.. or other individuals. With disastrous results.. the deformation of marriage.. the breakdown of neighbourhoods and families... the loss of any regard for traditional institutions and social structures. Specifically with the role of men and women this has impoverished the identity of both and compromised the relationship between the two.. and seems to have produced little of real value.. certainly not any authentic freedom.

Show anything ever written that says a mother has the right to kill her child.

Thanks for the deflection.

Regards
DL

 

[L Gilbert]

Then there would be no sacrifice to give sanctity to our systems.

Imagine equality on a sinking ship. Do you think it good if women, children and men would have to flip a coin for the seats in the lifeboats?

Regards
DL

That's an extreme. How many times in a lifetime do people have to decide things like that in comparison to deciding on something like equal pay for equal work, for instance?
There will always be mitigating circumstances but most people follow general rules of thumb.

 

[French Patriot]

You are granted the right by society, to snivel about what other people do in terms of how it affects their lives.
Personally, little of how others lead their lives has affected my life and the relationship I have with my wife and kids. And we've done it without the assistance of some pile of self-righteous, "moral" jackasses and their interpretations of whatever dogma and other such nonsense their faiths suggest.
But why bother whining about others when your sadistic, immature, and unintelligent god is purported to judge people anyway? If it were me that believed in gods n other nonsense, I'd leave people alone to their own devices and let the gods decide what to do with them.
Anyway, I'm all for equal rights. People are people regardless of gender, skin color, political bias, religion conviction, etc. Same rights for everyone would be nice.

Let me repeat a question and statement.

Then there would be nosacrifice to give sanctity to our systems.

Imagine equality on a sinkingship. Do you think it good if women, children and men would have to flip a coinfor the seats in the lifeboats?

Regards
DL


JLM

It is not carved in stone but in nature. All you need do is look.

Regards
DL

That's an extreme. How many times in a lifetime do people have to decide things like that in comparison to deciding on something like equal pay for equal work, for instance?
There will always be mitigating circumstances but most people follow general rules of thumb.

So for the important things we do the right thing but for the everyday, we should not. Ok.
Nothing like being consistent in our policies.

Regards
DL

 

[karrie]

Then there would be no sacrifice to give sanctity to our systems.

Imagine equality on a sinking ship. Do you think it good if women, children and men would have to flip a coin for the seats in the lifeboats?

Regards
DL

There doesn't need to be sanctity to our system. Our system is not based in religion.

As for equality on a sinking ship, we don't live on a sinking ship. We live in a world where the main things that kill us are stress and old age. When talking about how life should be, stick to what life is. Like I said, when it comes to survival scenarios, I agree that men are stronger and gneetically designed to protect women, but that doesn't translate into every day life.

 

[JLM]

Mesopotamia

It may just as well be in Persia!

 

[L Gilbert]

Let me repeat a question and statement.

Then there would be nosacrifice to give sanctity to our systems.

Imagine equality on a sinkingship. Do you think it good if women, children and men would have to flip a coinfor the seats in the lifeboats?

Regards
DL


JLM

It is not carved in stone but in nature. All you need do is look.

Regards
DL



So for the important things we do the right thing but for the everyday, we should not. Ok.
Nothing like being consistent in our policies.

Regards
DL

Sanctity is irrelevant and importance is relative and subjective at times.

I guess you don't quite understand what "mitigating" means.

Obviously we have to use discretion when applying equality. And it serves no purpose to concoct little straw men as arguments against rules of thumb.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

1 Corinthians 14, 34-35: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; for they are commanded to be under obedience, also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Ephesians 5, 22-24: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
1 Timothy 2, 11-14: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1 Corinthians 11, 7-9: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman but the woman of the man.

I could hardly be any clearer than those words from Paul the hysterical misogynist: women are inferior, are to be subservient to men, women are responsible for Original Sin, and one of those citations goes on to point out that women's only salvation is in childbearing. That view has permeated and poisoned the culture and the legal codes of every nation where Christianity was once the power, and Judaism and Islam are no better. The problem is monotheism, it's been the largest single barrier to establishing women's legal, social, and political equality for as long as it's been around. More broadly, it has resisted legal, social, political, philosophical, and scientific progress every step of the way, and continues to do so. There is, for instance, no conceivable objection to marriage equality but the religious one, no objection to stem cell research but the religious one, no objection to contraception but the religious one, no objection to teaching evolution to children but the religious one, and on and on and on... It's toxic, arrogant, and reactionary, and deserves to be mocked for its follies.