public unions versus the public

[BaalChatzaf]

So if a man argues for a point on the general consideration of decency and compassion, you say that is feminine?

[Brant Gaede]

Actual question from Anthropology course mid-term in 1975 or thereabouts, paraphrased from memory: "Explain how Nanook's battle with the walrus represents the deleterious impact of capitalism on humanity."

I argued several pages of the exact opposite. The course instructor, a flaming marxist radical, actually hissed at me when he handed back my paper: "If you do this on the final, I will fail you."

Hissing is highly appropriate behavior as leftism is a feminine ideology. While it's natural for females to belong to the left, it becomes a different story when that same nature resides within males who failed to become men. Movies subliminally reflect this principle in that male antagonists are routinely portrayed as possessing feminine traits.

How did you come to this conclusion? Give some examples, please.

Ba'al Chataf

Sure, Baal.

Consider the political stands of the left, they all have to do with aversion to risk and seeking the security of being cared for like a decent woman wants a decent man to love her and to take care of her. In lieu of a decency, by default the government becomes husband and father to the female and her spawn.

The feminised left is afraid of firearms, while the masculine right regards them as useful tools for protection.

The left is libertine... while the right is liberty.

The left is emotional... while the right is reasonable.

There are also many other examples of how the left and right represent the male and female archetypes. This is why it is normal for females to be leftists. The destruction to America done by the left is primarily the result of that same nature residing within males who failed to become men.

As a woman, Ayn Rand ran counter to the female norm of leftism.

This is a lot better, although it doesn't match up all that well with your original it's close enough to work off of.

--Brant

[moralist]

So if a man argues for a point on the general consideration of decency and compassion, you say that is feminine?

It's the masculine right which promotes standards of decency, and is highly protective of the rights of those who deserve compassion.

In contrast, the feminine left promotes every form of libertine perversion, and its phony imitation of compassion is reserved only for those who do not deserve it.

[Francisco Ferrer]

The danger of leftism is not in any tendency towards the feminine. The allegation is a grotesque smear of womanhood.

[Frediano]

Would one say someone was an ardent advocate of free association, if they opposed forced association? Nothing wrong with being either ardent or fervent, but could one say that as a criticism without also, at the same time, not being an advocate of its opposite: forced association? Could that be done without at least attempting to justify forced association?

Otherwise, one's advocacy of free association, ardent or not, would seem quite reasonable.

Would one say someone was an ardent advocate of free markets, or economic freedom in general, if they opposed forced association in commerce? Nothing wrong with being either ardent or fervent, but could one say that as a criticism without also, at the same time, not being an advocate of its opposite: command and control/the economy running public totalitarianism? Could that be done without at least attempting to justify economic totalitarianism?

The criticisms of free markets often include the argument that 'they are not free markets.' I agree with those criticisms. IBM running to the guns of government by way of Moynihan for special treatment, subsidies/crony capitalism/corporatism is not 'free markets.' But the remedy cannot be the institutionalization of crony state capitalism-- of granting even more power to make crony deals to the always will be naked sweaty apes who make up not only commerce but self government. Self government should be policemen(plural), who 'make regular' commerce, not by directing it, but by enforcing laws based on principles (such as free association.)

Even clean air and water laws regularly follow from the principles of free association vs, forced association. (Foul air and water is an example of forced association with the uninvited commerce of others; the state has an interest, based on a principle, to enforce against acts of forced association.) I don't speak for all libertarians or even any libertarians, but it is not my opinion that libertarians are in favor of anarchy. They espouse laws based on principles, and one of those principles is 'free association.'

So the thought remains; I've asked this of folks many times, never get an answer. Why is free association insufficient, and what is the argument that justifies forced association over a national, state, county, or local scale? (And, are those justifications the same across each of those scopes?)

That isn't an argument against the Civil Rights Acts; in fact, I've argued elsewhere that the CRAs were necessary and an example of enforcement against forced association(with the racist ideas of bigots in the public commons, where a unique responsibility to peers sharing our same freedom exists.)

That is a very, very precious argument. Under segregation whites were "forced" only to associate with whites, \and blacks with blacks. Geddit.

Yes, exactly: segregation was an example of forced association in the public commons. (or maybe, forced -disassociation, it's evil twin.)

The CRAs did not end discrimination; they ended discrimination in the public commons, in public commerce and public education. There is no acceptable way (nor justifiable reason)in a free nation to end discrimination in private matters(who we marry, who we admit into our families and homes, who we lend to money to privately, not as matter of public commerce-- who we admit into our private socius; discrimination in the selection of our private socious is alive and kicking in every race and religion and creed. Jews still predominantly marry other Jews. Blacks still predominately marry other blacks. Whites still predominantly marry other whites. Not exclusively so, but there is the key: under rules of free association.(Who or what is 'forcing' any of that?) In matters of choosing our private socious(except, briefly, for a crackpot law pushed by theocratic Republicans and signed into law by Clinton)we are perfectly free, as free people, to discriminate using any basis we choose including race, religion, sex, and age under rules of free association.

However, our obligations to each other on the public commons are different; as citizens of a free nation, we enter the public commons as peers living in freedom. We are not -forced- to enter the public commons(except in the most trivial of sense, to travel from one private context to another, and while traveling, our freedom to travel is not impeded by tribesmen demanding to see our travel papers.) We choose to enter the public commons for commerce, as a convenience or expedient. We are not forced to attend desegregated public school(else, how to explain private schools and the home schooled? Our mandates are for education, not public education.) We are not forced to conduct public commerce; we do so for the advantages that offers(access to the broadest possible markets.) If we chose -- and many do -- to not conduct our commerce in public -- many of every race and religion -- we are perfectly free to discriminate using any basis we choose. We invite who we select into our private homes. We conduct what private commerce we might inside our private homes. We privately lend and even give money to those we choose. We do not live in the kind of a police state (yet) that could possibly prohibit any of that. But it is self limiting(the market by definition is not broad.) Our tribe still -- barely, yet -- distinguishes that which is public behavior and obligations from that which is private behavior.

Consider free, rational people on the public square, each with their own destinations. Do they all sprint headlong, in a straightline, directly to their destinations, without regard to other peers on the same public square? No. They instead -navigate- to their respective destinations, mindful of the trajectories of others; they as peers avoid unnecessary collisions. We see this principle all the time on the Interstates, where both large and small vehicles share the pubic commons, and each gets to its destination. It is a Western principle. (I guarantee you, the same sense of traffic laws do not exist in places like Chittagong, Bangladesh, where only physics rules: biggest vehicles goes where it will, turns when it will, and smaller vehicles must look out for themselves and give way in the presence of a larger vehicle, all the way down to the 3 wheel Cushman taxis and finally poor souls being pulled in rickshaws. There was not a single trip I ever took through the streets of Chittagong or Dhaka where I did not witness, either in real time or the direct aftermath of, a rickshaw and its occupants sailing through space like ragdolls.) In the West, when there is a traffic accident, folks call 911 and send for ambulances. In Chittagong, the local crowd descends on the wrecked rickshaw and mangled bodies and berates them fro causing an accident, by not getting out of the way of the larger vehicle in time. When I was first there doing business and witnessed all the single and double amputees lining the streets, begging, I asked the agent if these were the result of some recent conflict, and he nonchalantly told me "No, those are former rickshaw drivers.")

The Western sense of freedom isn't like that; that is anarchy. It is(or maybe better said, should be) tempered by reason. Sometimes we are in the smaller vehicle. Sometimes, the most effective way to defend our freedom is to defend the freedom of our peers.

The CRAs are not 'forced association.' They are the repeal of forced public disassociation, coupled with a polite reminder of the difference between our obligations to our peers living in freedom on the public commons vs. our still existing rights in choosing our private socious.

And yes, I Geddit. Do you? Or, is the innate need to lurch to the single word argument "RaceGenderClass" so innately programmed in back at the factory that there is never any hope of not blurting it out on queue?

[moralist]

The danger of leftism is not in any tendency towards the feminine. The allegation is a grotesque smear of womanhood.

There is a moral distinction between females and women...

...just as there is for males and men.

[Francisco Ferrer]

There is a moral distinction between females and women...

...just as there is for males and men.

Unless you can make the case for the existence of non-female women, your statement is an unsubstantiated smear of approximately half of humanity.

[Selene]

Greg:

Out of curiosity, how old are you?

A...

[anthony]

Well, this does highlight one thing. (Mis)perceptions DO create their own reality.

If only for those many who unquestioningly accept the popular, prevailing ideas.

Allowing for some small (arguable) distinctions, there should be no cause in reality for women to have the monopoly of emotion and caring, or for men to hold the monopoly on reason, fortitude and conviction.

[moralist]

There is a moral distinction between females and women...

...just as there is for males and men.

Unless you can make the case for the existence of non-female women, your statement is an unsubstantiated smear of approximately half of humanity.

It's moral values which uniquely distinguish a woman from the sea of females. Same as for a man and males. This is not an issue of mere gender or genetics, but of character and personal responsibility. I would never smear the dignity of women by lumping them in with females just because of a shared gender.

[Francisco Ferrer]

There is a moral distinction between females and women...

...just as there is for males and men.

Unless you can make the case for the existence of non-female women, your statement is an unsubstantiated smear of approximately half of humanity.

It's moral values which uniquely distinguish a woman from the sea of females. Same as for a man and males. This is not an issue of mere gender or genetics, but of character and personal responsibility. I would never smear the dignity of women by lumping them in with females just because of a shared gender.

Presumably, then, the "sea of females" would be forbidden from entering the "Women's Room."

You are simply redefining the word "woman" to suit your needs. This is a fallacy.

By comparison, if I rob a bank I can argue that I did not "steal" for I define that word to mean "taking something from Francisco, not from someone else."

[moralist]

There is a moral distinction between females and women...

...just as there is for males and men.

Unless you can make the case for the existence of non-female women, your statement is an unsubstantiated smear of approximately half of humanity.

It's moral values which uniquely distinguish a woman from the sea of females. Same as for a man and males. This is not an issue of mere gender or genetics, but of character and personal responsibility. I would never smear the dignity of women by lumping them in with females just because of a shared gender.

Presumably, then, the "sea of females" would be forbidden from entering the "Women's Room."

Possibly forbidden in the Women's Room... but definitely forbidden in the Ladies Room.

You are simply redefining the word "woman" to suit your needs. This is a fallacy.

It is essentially no different than the moral distinction between human and animal. Surely you don't also regard that as invalid?

By comparison, if I rob a bank I can argue that I did not "steal" for I define that word to mean "taking something from Francisco, not from someone else."

Oh, a clever convoluted deceitful intellect can be more than capable of justifying all manner of evil. But I am not doing that. Instead, I'm distinguishing good from evil.

[Francisco Ferrer]

You are simply redefining the word "woman" to suit your needs. This is a fallacy.

It is essentially no different than the moral distinction between human and animal. Surely you don't also regard that as invalid?

A distinction between human and animal is valid as long as it is not based on hasty generalization. It would be incorrect, for example, to define man as the only creature with language. Your task, if you are up to it, is to demonstrate with real world evidence that "leftism is a feminine ideology . . . it's natural for females to belong to the left."

By comparison, if I rob a bank I can argue that I did not "steal" for I define that word to mean "taking something from Francisco, not from someone else."

Oh, a clever convoluted deceitful intellect can be more than capable of justifying all manner of evil. But I am not doing that. Instead, I'm distinguishing good and evil.

If your purpose is to distinguish between good and evil females (i.e. women), have at it.

What you've not done is offer any proof that the distinctive characteristics of the female (i.e. the feminine) are aligned with leftism.

[Brant Gaede]

The danger of leftism is not in any tendency towards the feminine. The allegation is a grotesque smear of womanhood.

There is a moral distinction between females and women...

...just as there is for males and men.

Silly.

--Brant

and, of course, it makes no sense; "females" blows up the category of "women" and "males" does the same for "men": "women" and "men" are species specific while I have female and male birds in my yard

[moralist]

Greg:

Out of curiosity, how old are you?

A...

Old enough to be a grandfather.

[moralist]

The danger of leftism is not in any tendency towards the feminine. The allegation is a grotesque smear of womanhood.

There is a moral distinction between females and women...

...just as there is for males and men.

"women" and "men" are species specific while I have female and male birds in my yard

That's my point.

The terms "men" and "women" apply specifically to morally responsible humans.

Whereas male and female apply to all animals including amoral human animals.

The common term for a mass murderer is "animal". It is a perfectly appropriate usage.

[Francisco Ferrer]

That's my point.

The terms "men" and "women" apply specifically to morally responsible humans.

Whereas male and female apply to all animals including amoral human animals.

The common term for a mass murderer is "animal". It is a perfectly appropriate usage.

If a "woman" is morally responsible, presumably she is behaving in accordance with her nature--if you believe that rules of morality are derived from nature. ("The right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life."--Ayn Rand)

Yet you have made it clear that the nature of the female (the "feminine") is to lean towards leftism. ("leftism is a feminine ideology . . . it's natural for females to belong to the left.")

Thus, your argument boils down to this: the moral woman must rid herself of what is feminine in her nature.

To behave in accordance with her nature, she must act against her nature.

[Samson Corwell]

The danger of leftism is not in any tendency towards the feminine. The allegation is a grotesque smear of womanhood.

Uh, I recognize all but one of these people. What's the name of the guy in the top left picture?

[moralist]

You are simply redefining the word "woman" to suit your needs. This is a fallacy.

It is essentially no different than the moral distinction between human and animal. Surely you don't also regard that as invalid?

A distinction between human and animal is valid as long as it is not based on hasty generalization. It would be incorrect, for example, to define man as the only creature with language.

Of course.

However, it would be quite correct to define man as the only creature with a moral code of behavior

Your task, if you are up to it, is to demonstrate with real world evidence that "leftism is a feminine ideology .. . it's natural for females to belong to the left."

Ok. I'll use America as my example.

The evidence here is obvious. Far more females belong to the left than to the right. And most notably, single females for whom big liberal benefits dispensing government has become their default husband, and father to their delinquent wards of the state.

If your purpose is to distinguish between good and evil females (i.e. women), have at it.

To be more specific, I distinguish women as moral, and females as either immoral or amoral because they failed to become women.

What you've not done is offer any proof that the distinctive characteristics of the female (i.e. the feminine) are aligned with leftism.

Here is my proof:

Government welfare for single females, government funded food stamps, government funded section 8 housing, government funded child day care, government funded abortions, government funded school food programs... all of these female issues belong to the left, because they all cast liberal government in the role of husband and father to husbandless females and their fatherless spawn.

[moralist]

That's my point.

The terms "men" and "women" apply specifically to morally responsible humans.

Whereas male and female apply to all animals including amoral human animals.

The common term for a mass murderer is "animal". It is a perfectly appropriate usage.

If a "woman" is morally responsible, presumably she is behaving in accordance with her nature --if you believe that rules of morality are derived from nature

I don't, because that's a faulty premise.

A morally responsible woman chooses to act contrary to her nature. This same principle also holds true for morally responsible men.

This free, thoughtful, self reflective, and well reasoned choice to act contrary to our nature is what distinguishes humans from animals.

. ("The right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life."--Ayn Rand)

Well put. Note the highlighted qualifier. It is our rationality which allows us the free choice to act contrary to deceitful thoughts and transient irrational emotions.

Yet you have made it clear that the nature of the female (the "feminine") is to lean towards leftism.

Voting records are ample proof of that.

And it is decent women who overcome their nature. They, and the decent men who love them, comprise the moral backbone of this nation.

("leftism is a feminine ideology . . . it's natural for females to belong to the left.")

Yes.

And just as you will find most females on the left... you will find most of the women on the right.

Thus, your argument boils down to this: the moral woman must rid herself of what is feminine in her nature.

No.

Not "rid".

Simply temper her nature with her love of what is morally right. For that is from where the free choice to act contrary to her nature arises.

[BaalChatzaf]

No.

Not "rid".

Simply temper her nature with her love of what is morally right. For that is from where the free choice to act contrary to her nature arises.

Have a look at this:

[Brant Gaede]

The danger of leftism is not in any tendency towards the feminine. The allegation is a grotesque smear of womanhood.

There is a moral distinction between females and women...

...just as there is for males and men.

"women" and "men" are species specific while I have female and male birds in my yard

That's my point.

The terms "men" and "women" apply specifically to morally responsible humans.

Whereas male and female apply to all animals including amoral human animals.

The common term for a mass murderer is "animal". It is a perfectly appropriate usage.

This is like pulling teeth to uncover trite facts already known. Then there are non-fact facts suddenly championed--that is, that there are "amoral" human beings. (There actually are, but they are innocent brain deficient.) That animals are amoral cannot be visited upon people. That's a slight of hand. Because of free will all choices are moral choices and "moral" encompasses as subcateories "moral" and "immoral." "Amoral" is apart from "moral" is apart from human. One might posit that choosing one flavor of ice cream over another is "amoral." No, it is not. It cannot be. That a choice was made made it moral. The correct statement is the choice is not immoral, assuming it deserves any thought at all. That some humans act with gross immorality called "animal" is grossly unfair to all animals not human.

--Brant

next!

[moralist]

The danger of leftism is not in any tendency towards the feminine. The allegation is a grotesque smear of womanhood.

Uh, I recognize all but one of these people. What's the name of the guy in the top left picture?

Here's a more recent picture of the guy.

[Brant Gaede]

That's my point.

The terms "men" and "women" apply specifically to morally responsible humans.

Whereas male and female apply to all animals including amoral human animals.

The common term for a mass murderer is "animal". It is a perfectly appropriate usage.

If a "woman" is morally responsible, presumably she is behaving in accordance with her nature --if you believe that rules of morality are derived from nature

I don't, because that's a faulty premise.

A morally responsible woman chooses to act contrary to her nature. This same principle also holds true for morally responsible men.

This free, thoughtful, self reflective, and well reasoned choice to act contrary to our nature is what distinguishes humans from animals.

. ("The right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life."--Ayn Rand)

Well put. Note the highlighted qualifier. It is our rationality which allows us the free choice to act contrary to deceitful thoughts and transient irrational emotions.

Yet you have made it clear that the nature of the female (the "feminine") is to lean towards leftism.

Voting records are ample proof of that.

And it is decent women who overcome their nature. They, and the decent men who love them, comprise the moral backbone of this nation.

("leftism is a feminine ideology . . . it's natural for females to belong to the left.")

Yes.

And just as you will find most females on the left... you will find most of the women on the right.

Thus, your argument boils down to this: the moral woman must rid herself of what is feminine in her nature.

No.

Not "rid".

Simply temper her nature with her love of what is morally right. For that is from where the free choice to act contrary to her nature arises.

You are saying men and women are naturally immoral. I've already dealt with "amoral," so they aren't that in any respect. Defend that statement, if you can.

--Brant

[moralist]

That's my point.

The terms "men" and "women" apply specifically to morally responsible humans.

Whereas male and female apply to all animals including amoral human animals.

The common term for a mass murderer is "animal". It is a perfectly appropriate usage.

If a "woman" is morally responsible, presumably she is behaving in accordance with her nature --if you believe that rules of morality are derived from nature

I don't, because that's a faulty premise.

A morally responsible woman chooses to act contrary to her nature. This same principle also holds true for morally responsible men.

This free, thoughtful, self reflective, and well reasoned choice to act contrary to our nature is what distinguishes humans from animals.

. ("The right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life."--Ayn Rand)

Well put. Note the highlighted qualifier. It is our rationality which allows us the free choice to act contrary to deceitful thoughts and transient irrational emotions.

Yet you have made it clear that the nature of the female (the "feminine") is to lean towards leftism.

Voting records are ample proof of that.

And it is decent women who overcome their nature. They, and the decent men who love them, comprise the moral backbone of this nation.

("leftism is a feminine ideology . . . it's natural for females to belong to the left.")

Yes.

And just as you will find most females on the left... you will find most of the women on the right.

Thus, your argument boils down to this: the moral woman must rid herself of what is feminine in her nature.

No.

Not "rid".

Simply temper her nature with her love of what is morally right. For that is from where the free choice to act contrary to her nature arises.

You are saying men and women are naturally immoral. I've already dealt with "amoral," so they aren't that in any respect. Defend that statement, if you can.

--Brant

Good point. Only animals are amoral because they cannot choose to act contrary to their nature. Some people strive to emulate that, but they can only be immoral because they are still choosing to do evil.

You are saying men and women are naturally immoral. Defend that statement, if you can

There's no need to defend that statement. Just open your eyes and look at the world. Better yet look at yourself. What would you be if you indiscriminately acted upon every thought and emotion? You would be a monster, and would either be in prison... or dead.