Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
White Patriarchy...
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat does not change the fact that the vast majorities of tribes are patriarchies. And no, rare exception don't necessarily have to be on anyone's radar.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostExceptions, being exceptional, tend to be more widely known - so anyone who isn't aware of them clearly doesn't know a great deal.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostRight, going through that list - these mostly are recent (the last century), the older ones are exceptions to the rule. Relatively few.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThere will always be exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...erican_leaders
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
I am speaking of males or men being in charge of the group. For instance I know a good deal about American Indians and as far as I know Chiefs and tribal leaders were always male.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostThe progressive movement wants to destroy/dismantle patriarchy because they don’t believe in objective truth. They’re postmodernists. Therefore, they believe that any thesis is a product of social constructions. If all theses are social constructions, then any political faction that promulgates such a construction is promulgated to affect a power structure over an oppressed class of people. Social justice is the idea that we need to put down historically oppressive power structures and prop up historically oppressed power structures. The process can’t be objected to by those who are members of the historically oppressive class because social justice is attempting to place that class into an ideal social equilibrium. It is justified to cheer on the propping up of a historically oppressed class because that class is ascending to its own social equilibrium. There is no truth; there is just a concatenation of social constructions appropriated by oppressed and oppressive classes that are related to each other in various internally coherent social justice relations. Hence, postmoderns typically opt for a coherence theory of truth. What is particularly insidious is their adoption of a philosophy that has been historically appropriated by revolutionaries leading to mountains of skulls according to which individuals in a society have their identity, not by virtue of who they are as individuals, but by virtue of class/group membership. Therefore, you are not ‘seer’; you are a white, heterosexual, Christian, male, social-class designations that shove you into the scheme of social-hierarchical-power-structures, which justify the projects (along with the implementation of social policies) of social constructionists (like those who adhere to Critical Race Theory) to engage in their attempts at social justice without the slightest regard for the individualistic, conceptual nuances that might undercut the categories that shove you into the aforementioned scheme. For me, it all hangs on your theory of truth. If there is objective truth, then it could be argued that the scheme is objectively false and the highest form of insidious oppression because it oppresses who are as an individual with liberty. It’s basically in direct contradiction with the philosophy undergirding the U.S. Constitution.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd worldviews. OK I was recently watching feminists on C-Span, and they were adamant that the progressive movement must dismantle or destroy white patriarchy and patriarchy in general, yet... Yet it was largely this patriarchal system that created the universities that they presently haunt, the modern medicine that helps keeps them alive, the farming and infrastructure that puts food on their table, every other modern convenience that they enjoy and created the very system of government that they see to exploit. Never mind the fact that it was largely the white patriarchal system that gave women the vote. What was really interesting was the claim that patriarchal system was a contrivance, a mere social invention. But that does not make sense, male dominance has been inherent in human history, and in our closest primate cousins. It is more biological than mere contrivance.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post
“Feminazis” as you characterize them, are not representative of average woman any more than "sexist pigs" are representative of the average man.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostThe progressive movement wants to destroy/dismantle patriarchy because they don’t believe in objective truth. They’re postmodernists. Therefore, they believe that any thesis is a product of social constructions. If all theses are social constructions, then any political faction that promulgates such a construction is promulgated to affect a power structure over an oppressed class of people. Social justice is the idea that we need to put down historically oppressive power structures and prop up historically oppressed power structures. The process can’t be objected to by those who are members of the historically oppressive class because social justice is attempting to place that class into an ideal social equilibrium. It is justified to cheer on the propping up of a historically oppressed class because that class is ascending to its own social equilibrium. There is no truth; there is just a concatenation of social constructions appropriated by oppressed and oppressive classes that are related to each other in various internally coherent social justice relations. Hence, postmoderns typically opt for a coherence theory of truth. What is particularly insidious is their adoption of a philosophy that has been historically appropriated by revolutionaries leading to mountains of skulls according to which individuals in a society have their identity, not by virtue of who they are as individuals, but by virtue of class/group membership. Therefore, you are not ‘seer’; you are a white, heterosexual, Christian, male, social-class designations that shove you into the scheme of social-hierarchical-power-structures, which justify the projects (along with the implementation of social policies) of social constructionists (like those who adhere to Critical Race Theory) to engage in their attempts at social justice without the slightest regard for the individualistic, conceptual nuances that might undercut the categories that shove you into the aforementioned scheme. For me, it all hangs on your theory of truth. If there is objective truth, then it could be argued that the scheme is objectively false and the highest form of insidious oppression because it oppresses who are as an individual with liberty. It’s basically in direct contradiction with the philosophy undergirding the U.S. Constitution.
Leave a comment:
-
The progressive movement wants to destroy/dismantle patriarchy because they don’t believe in objective truth. They’re postmodernists. Therefore, they believe that any thesis is a product of social constructions. If all theses are social constructions, then any political faction that promulgates such a construction is promulgated to affect a power structure over an oppressed class of people. Social justice is the idea that we need to put down historically oppressive power structures and prop up historically oppressed power structures. The process can’t be objected to by those who are members of the historically oppressive class because social justice is attempting to place that class into an ideal social equilibrium. It is justified to cheer on the propping up of a historically oppressed class because that class is ascending to its own social equilibrium. There is no truth; there is just a concatenation of social constructions appropriated by oppressed and oppressive classes that are related to each other in various internally coherent social justice relations. Hence, postmoderns typically opt for a coherence theory of truth. What is particularly insidious is their adoption of a philosophy that has been historically appropriated by revolutionaries leading to mountains of skulls according to which individuals in a society have their identity, not by virtue of who they are as individuals, but by virtue of class/group membership. Therefore, you are not ‘seer’; you are a white, heterosexual, Christian, male, social-class designations that shove you into the scheme of social-hierarchical-power-structures, which justify the projects (along with the implementation of social policies) of social constructionists (like those who adhere to Critical Race Theory) to engage in their attempts at social justice without the slightest regard for the individualistic, conceptual nuances that might undercut the categories that shove you into the aforementioned scheme. For me, it all hangs on your theory of truth. If there is objective truth, then it could be argued that the scheme is objectively false and the highest form of insidious oppression because it oppresses who are as an individual with liberty. It’s basically in direct contradiction with the philosophy undergirding the U.S. Constitution.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI was talking about why we have patriarchies in the first place, Tass. Why most societies are patriarchies now.
no, actually many are trying to claim equality physically too. That is why they want the same jobs, even the military, why they insist on being able to compete with men in sports, why they don't want men to help them out in any way. I freely admit that there are some women out there that actually ARE the physical equal to some men. But in general they are not. The average woman is not the physical equal to the average man. and I don't have any problem with women having equal rights to men. Just with the feminazis that hate men and call them all rapists and such.
Virtue signalling acknowledged.
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
160 responses
509 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 07:28 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
|
88 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-01-2024, 09:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
133 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Leave a comment: