No where in the above quote did I declare you are evil, nor did I declare what your ethics are.
You have on two separate and very recent occasions in this particular thread stated that my ethics are evil. I will quote them for you to refresh your memory.
For example, CC’s ethics are actually evil. He wants to control men because he thinks they will father children they can not support. But this results in a clusterfucked totalitarianism. Man can not defeat nature.
ecash 11 Nov., 9:03am
Religion was an attempt to control nature. And it necessarily leaks/fails, because nature abhors a perfected, non-existence.
ecash 11 Nov., 9:06am
For example, CC’s ethics are actually evil. He wants to control men
I am not interested in debate or looking to "win" a charge was leveled against me that is both serious and false. This demanded a public rebuttal.
I have now replied to the falsehood and have no further interest in the matter.
Nevertheless I have not lied. Note the word “above”. You had misquoted me in the prior message by trying to apply this different context now quoted above by you, wherein I was talking about your stance towards men, to this more recent context wherein I was talking about disregarding the fact that God is provably (per the logic I explained on this page and our private message follow-ups) an issue of faith and can’t be proven with reason and logic. This btw is I believe the reason Jesus spoke in parables which he alluded to in scripture.
As for the context of your ethics about putting a double-standard on men by accusing them of not treating women fairly if we do not allow the State to destroy marriage and funding/encouraging hedonism by allowing the woman to take control over the man’s financial life, then yeah I do not like leftists in that respect and I think that is a very evil ideology with grave implications leading to totalitarian war and megadeath (as well as many other aspects of a decadent civilization such as collapsing birthrate):
The actions of females can be better understood and explained once their subconscious mind is taken into account. I am confident that the cited psychologist will agree with me after he reads what I wrote and researches the facts. I have no problem with allowing females to be in a meritocracy where they must compete equally. In that case, end all divorce laws, end all affirmative action, end all identity politics/subsidies/distorts of the free market. That means do not force men to pay for the children! Let women compete with their biology as it is, and stop subsidizing them. Stop putting a double-standard on men. If a man does not want to support his offspring, that is his decision to make, not society. Otherwise you're subsidizing hypergamy. You and I will never agree on this.
[…]
End egalitarianism. You can't have it both ways. Complaining about something while continuing to do what causes that something is not a very coherent state-of-mind.
When I wrote that, I do actually think your stance towards men is despicable and evil. And you think that men who refuse to support their wife/kids are despicable and immoral (yet we do not know if that man had a valid reason why he did not want to encourage the behavior of that woman/kids by supporting them). In fact, it has caused a great rift between what was formerly viewed as a sincere friendship between us. But I also recognize in a calmer reflective mindset, that I’m not omniscient enough to be able to judge whether you’re truly evil. I personally dislike men who are under the skirt of their woman, and I avoid them for the same reason I avoid dogs with rabies. (And frankly I do not think you’re intentionally intending to not be upstanding. It appears to be your extreme desire to be upstanding that makes you what I judge to be a zealot, so afaics it’s sort of a trap you are in that you are incapable of grokking from another perspective) Heck I have even told you before either publicly or privately that I don’t view myself as above evil. We have imperfect information because the universe we comprehend is the antithesis of a total order as we discussed upthread already. In fact, my entire argument with you about superrationality has been about that we are arbitrary and there is no universal truth, juxtaposed versus your (and Charlton's) illogical stance being that we can seek to be non-arbitrary and that there is a universal truth.
Afaics, the entire ideological chasm that separates us is because you (like a typical Westerner leftist/progressive/zealot ideologue) have a worldview that man can improve himself and that we are on a monotonically increasing path towards betterment of ourselves ethically. Whereas, I prescribe more to the Asian perspective (not surprising given I arrived in Asia in when I was 26 years old and have spent nearly half my life here, and I was raised in the Old South of the USA, and I have Cherokee native American blood), that we are on a cycle and nature repeats over and over again, e.g. the Asian religions reflect this such as Buddhism. Asians are more pragmatic and understand the nature of humans is an invariant. Yet even the Asians manage to achieve megadeath also via collectivism.
What really super ticks me off, is when zealots go around telling everybody else what they should do, while not allowing themselves to be called out individually for the great harm they are doing to society. I want to tell them to mind their own fucking business and stop sticking their nose in other people’s business, otherwise do not be surprised if you will get kicked in the face by men who very pissed off about you mofos trying to destroy us with your insane concept of putting females on some pedestal wherein they can have their cake and eat it too. I understood your stance to be that great sacrifice is a great virtue for a man to have, so the implication being that this role should be put on the shoulders of men. But I argue that men are already sacrificing by competing as hard as they can, as nature wants men to do. And women are sacrificing by being the one who bears the children and feels the most responsibility to feed them (even when the man does not feel it because he can make many more kids than a woman can). This is all natural and both are sacrificing. Why meddle?
For you it was a very simple conceptualization that some men are irresponsible fathers thus men need to regulated by the State. I have since over the past months laid out a very complete argument for why you’re incorrect about society being able to make nature perfect and about there being any positive benefits of society attempting to do so. Stop meddling with nature, lest you will create a civil war in the USA and worse. I warned you it is coming, but you fucking ideologues have nearly destroyed the USA and the West. You fell right into the trap and plans of the Zionists, who promulgated all that ideological propaganda. Y’all fell right into the zealot trap.
Note even James A. Donald is advocating the State enforce K strategy, i.e. that men must support their wives and children, but that as a consequence women have no right to divorce or otherwise leverage the regulation of men to fund their leftist and hypergameous tendencies. Even Matthew 19 and the commandment against adultery indicates that females should not be allowed to divorce. The point is that we can’t allow women to have their cake and eat it too. If a group of men want to enforce K strategy, then they need to enforce on both the men and the women, not just on the men as the insane, self-destructive West is currently doing. And that men rather than beating their wives for being incorrigible/irrational bitches, and who can afford to be polygamous (i.e. more than one wife), should thus be allowed to be. Women usually are not super sexually attracted to men who are under their skirt, which means they will constantly shit test her cuckolded husband. But the key here is actually supporting all your wives and children, i.e. making the society more successful. IOW, the most productive men and their culture of high productivity rises to the top and dominates the society thus improving the culture of the society. But nature is never going to allow a perfect K strategy. The R strategy will always seep in, because nature requires it for maximizing resilience of the species. Thus there isn’t any one correct way to organize society. Entropically we need a wide diversity of sociological strategies. Thus I conclude that the evil of the idealists is they want to spread a mayonnaise on diversity. But again I am not omniscient.
So yeah, we’re like oil and water and we are not going to ever understand each other. Period. I have unfortunately resigned myself to this realization.
It’s impossible to not end up attacking each other personally in an ideological debate. For example, the implication of your stances is that I am unethical and a bad person. And ditto vice versa. There’s no avoiding that. So it seems it is best for us to both go back to our separate spaces.
About truth and God, I will only reiterate that the truth can be different for each person and that is okay.
The source of my greatest disagreement with you is your proclamation of absolute truth. All of us are trying to find that, but none of us I think should be so cocky to boast to others that we possess absolute truth. That is why I argue for allowing diversity and allowing for individual paths. Even though you might see great harm in allowing diverse experiments, nature does not agree apparently. For example, if you like the atheist Scandinavian model of socialism or the theistic Israel model of it. The USA is split between northern progressive ideologues, southern Bible belt ideologues, and the pragmatists who straddle some where in between. The USA was glued together by the pragmatists, but now they are being pushed out or forced to choose. That is one reason I left the USA and not sure if I want to come back. I am still trying to analyse if the pragmatists have any constituency anymore.
To the extent any group could achieve any organization of K strategy and not insidiously leak leftism effects out on others outside their group, I would I think probably be very supportive. I’d also be interested in hearing about how they had accomplished it.
Afaics, the most important power of a K strategy grouping is the power to influence the philosophy of the offspring. But the problem is that is leaky, thus K strategy either is fleeting because of being leaky or is has to be zealous mind control. This is a power vacuum, which is why we find the Zionists are in control of it ultimately. Unfortunately I think there is no universal solution. Nature is a chaotic soup.
The only thing I'll say for now is that my faith was pursued due to a conscious and rational decision; once that decision was made, the rest fell into place as though it were there all along and was simply being revealed.
Conscious maybe, but rational impossible. I would like to see a proof that it was rational. Sorry I refuse to lie to myself about such a decision being rational.
If I choose faith, I should not lie to myself about the basis of my faith, for the deceived are not truly faithful in a true sense of faith. Faith is an understanding that the decision is purely based on faith. Everything else is self-deception.
Let us get into Pascal’s wager in the future. Not now. That is an interesting angle to analyse, but I think I can reason that his argument has no basis.
I also want to contemplate this dilemma (or not being able to reason about faith) more.
There’s something there in terms of (intentional and perhaps unintended) limitations (of both intended scope and perhaps unintended inherent limitations) of the scripture and 10 commandments. Remember Jesus was put to death by the State and the established religion.
On the faith issue, I would agree with CoinCube on the desire to better ourselves and treat mankind better, but I have to pragmatically base in the reality of nature and not let ideological extremism cause me to participate in the totalitarianism. I do not want to raise princesses which are like Ivana Trump (although caveat I have not truly studied nor interacted with her) and who are leftist/progressive leaner wolves in sheepskin.
The sociological issue is a very difficult one to get correct. So far, I just conclude we choose a direction and there is no perfect ideological stance to choose. But I wish I had a better analysis. Will apply more effort to it when I have more free time.
Almost like a child's attempt to build a machine without understanding exactly what he is doing.
Yup.
EDIT: I hope to end my participation in this thread for a while because this can consume too much time. I want to add that for example it is a wonderful feeling to walk down the aisle with the woman you love, lift her veil, kiss her and say “I do”. That is very noble and to fulfill her emotions w.r.t. to the institution of marriage is to sustain the motivation and inspiration of young single ladies and provide confirmation happy feelings to the elder ladies. The social institution. As I said, this seemed to perhaps work for men when the society was enforcing the institution of marriage on women and the man could be proud at least that his wife was truly his and that he was the leader of his household and finances to which he was largely responsible.
However, not one size fits all. And others have other ideals and ideas. And times are a changing.
I just wish the world could remain a place of diversity where different ideas and ideals aren’t suffocated by some mayonnaise of universality or totalitarianism on the way to finding out that seeking such universality is futile.
