Why Equality is Impossible

[Cognisant]

At least in the world as it is and the sensibilities that we have.

Rights are not natural, we are not naturally entitled to anything, not even our own lives, in the natural world if you're tied down rats will eat you alive and telling them they can't because you're higher up the food chain won't make any difference, even if they could understand you.

Sculptures of a vaguely defined goddess of justice often depict a woman wearing a blindfold, the meaning behind this being that justice is impartial, at least it's supposed to be, in truth "justice" and "impartiality" are polar opposites, in nature the "bad guy" can and often does get away, because reality itself is truly impartial, it does not favour the righteous and it does not punish the wicked.

So we see in actual fact morality is merely an expression of that which reality does favour, wisdom and power (arguably wisdom is a form of power). Quite simply might does in fact make right as there cannot be rights without the might to enforce them, which is the irony of equality, that any form of enforced equality is in actual fact a deviation from the true impartial equality of nature.

You may argue that men are not all born equal therefore natural impartiality is not equality, but in turn I argue that the lesser man, by definition of being the lesser man is objectively lesser to the superior man and therefore it is only natural and fair that he is at a disadvantage, given that in order for him to be on equal standing with the superior man either he must be given an advantage or the superior man be disadvantaged in some way.

In terms of a national economy this sorta makes sense, artificially levelling the field increases competitive pressure which in turn drives faster innovation and the pursuit of efficiency, which is good for the nation's industries. However it may put a nation at a disadvantage with another nation that doesn't level the field as their corporations grow into massive multiple industry spanning monopolistic commercial empires that can branch out and invade overseas markets.

Anyway I'm getting off track...

The point I was trying to get at was that proponents of equality are generally their own worst enemies because they lack a consensus on what equality actually is, for example: http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4563

Why can't Amanda go for a walk at night?
If it's for fear of sexual predation is the message that all men are sexual predators and therefore as a man I ought to be ashamed for existing? Is it that some men are sexual predators and even if I'm not it's somehow my responsibility to do something to protect women from them? Or maybe the point is that unlike a guy Amanda cannot risk going out at night because she's somehow inherently less capable of defending herself? And if she's inherently less capable of defending herself is that because as a woman she's discouraged from undertaking physical activities or learning martial arts, or because as a woman she's simply biologically less capable a fighter than a man? In either case what am I supposed to do about it?

That comic struck me because I quite enjoy going for long walks at night and it frankly bothers me that anyone would be unable to enjoy this activity as I do, so I would be happy to do the traditionally gentlemanly thing and accompany Amanda on her after-dark stroll, but apparently that's sexist, so I can't protect her, nor even acknowledge that she's unable to defend herself because that's sexist too, but I'm still responsible for protecting her (from the shadows?) or encouraging her to learn how to protect herself, yet without implying in any way that it's something she needs to train for.

I'm stuck between the conflicting opinions of several different groups of feminists, and there's nothing I can do that they would all deem acceptable, except maybe hating myself for being male.

Alternatively I could ignore all of them, go back to natural equality and say if Amanda can't go out at night then she doesn't deserve to, or more accurately speaking she's not entitled to have the world make it safe for her, lest not unless she in some way warrants it, arguably as a female of the species she could demand protection from her suitors or those seeking to gain brownie points with society in general, though that is sexist too and as snafu more-or-less said in another thread she would be objectifying herself (I'd say subjectifying, but anyway) as a walking talking sex object.

Unless it's her charming personality that so endears people to her, but those people are few and far between.

Finally I think equality could only ever be realised if people truly understood and accepted the contrivance of it, if we all came to terms with the idea that the world doesn't owe us anything, that we have no inherent rights, rather that like citizens of Rome our separation from slavery is a matter of degree, not distinction, so we all ought to be a bit nicer to each other.

Indeed I think we should bring back slavery for precisely this reason, I mean being imprisoned is one thing, being sold into slavery after having lost one's rights as a citizen is quite another.

 

[Minuend]

What's your definition of equality?

Going outside at night could be as dangerous for lone males as females. Both are vulnerble to surprise attacks. I don't see risk of crime in that way as an issue that has anything to do with equality

 

[Cognisant]

Going outside at night could be as dangerous for lone males as females. Both are vulnerble to surprise attacks. I don't see risk of crime in that way as an issue that has anything to do with equality

Indeed, and yet in my example it's made to be an issue of equality.
And that's just one example.

What's your definition of equality?

I don't have one, I think the notion is self indulgent, though I feel entitled to expect that if others are going to hold me to their moral standards then they should at least be consistent, work out the inconsistencies with each other, and leave me the hell out if it until they do.

More to the intent of your question, I deal with the inequality of reality by not expecting it to be fair, if might makes right and I don't like the way things are it's my prerogative to enact change, case in point me taking offence to the increasingly straw feminist Sinfest webcomic and bitching about it in the internet, y'know as one does, it's what forums are for

If I really cared I'd take it to the Sinfest forum, but I'd rather not do that until I have the time to commit to it and/or backup to argue the point in my stead.

 

[snafupants]

People actually respect the inequalities in their secret hearts. There's a reverence for genius alongside a profound skepticism towards its use. Who wants a retarded doctor? Also, nobody really wants completely feckless leadership, personally or nationally, so leadership abilities are also clandestinely prized. That said, folks are still conflicted; they want genius but not the arrogance, which is almost an impossibility. You can't sagaciously see the differences among people and not be affected by those observations. A dolt will, if she retains any insight whatsoever, dramatically feel her inadequacies at vulnerable moments; a genius will, if he has any honesty, feel his superiority. Modesty in light of greatness is deception, whereas modesty for modest abilities is honest. It is a very simple thing for a person of modest abilities to preach modesty, which is why religious folk are keen to get on soapboxes.

 

[Puffy]

The point I was trying to get at was that proponents of equality are generally their own worst enemies because they lack a consensus on what equality actually is, for example: http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4563

Why can't Amanda go for a walk at night?
If it's for fear of sexual predation is the message that all men are sexual predators and therefore as a man I ought to be ashamed for existing? Is it that some men are sexual predators and even if I'm not it's somehow my responsibility to do something to protect women from them? Or maybe the point is that unlike a guy Amanda cannot risk going out at night because she's somehow inherently less capable of defending herself? And if she's inherently less capable of defending herself is that because as a woman she's discouraged from undertaking physical activities or learning martial arts, or because as a woman she's simply biologically less capable a fighter than a man? In either case what am I supposed to do about it?

I'm not sure how you got all of that out of that. I'm assuming, like you, that she's referring to the fact that women are statistically more vulnerable to sexual assaults.

The fact women are more vulnerable doesn't need to be about how 'biologically capable' one is of defending themselves. If I'm surprise attacked by one or more people, likelihood is I'm fucked (and of course I know male friends who have been mugged). But the fact is women are more likely to be targeted for sexual assaults, ridiculous ratios, 100:1.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing. 'Might makes right'? So Amanda doesn't deserve to go outside, and if she gets attacked it's her own fault? Screw criminal law then! That's walking a fine line I think...

 

[Cognisant]

What do you think about slavery for society's criminally invalids?
Obviously it has the potential to get way out of hand if for example prisons become privately owned and criminals are sold to them as slave labour, giving people a value like that could create a slaver industry of increasingly corrupt police/politicians who conspire to enslave people for the profit to be made, for example by introducing increasingly strict laws and longer jail sentences.

On the other hand it seems like a good response to prison culture, apparentlu for some people being imprisoned isn't just an inconvenience, it's actually a badge of honor, a criminal finishing school is something I've heard US prisons called. Whereas if prisoners are forced to work in prison or hired out as cheap labour (with no rights, they have forfeited them after all) they might be more inclined to regain their status as an entitled citizen and maintain it.

 

[Cognisant]

The fact women are more vulnerable doesn't need to be about how 'biologically capable' one is of defending themselves. If I'm surprise attacked by one or more people, likelihood is I'm fucked (and of course I know male friends who have been mugged). But the fact is women are more likely to be targeted for sexual assaults, ridiculous ratios, 100:1.

Well what do you want me to do about it?

That's the message I'm getting, that if I'm not a part of the solution I'm a part of the problem, but how do I be a part of the solution? On one hand you're saying women are far more likely to be targeted for sexual assault, on the other I'm being told the notion of a gentleman escorting a lady is outdated and frankly chauvinistic, so I'm just a problem then and I get no choice in the matter.

 

[Puffy]

edit: posted before reading your last post.

I'm not sure this is what I have trouble with here, it's with the ordering of fault.

There's an interesting puzzle in one of the Silent Hill games that I'm just going to post here as I think it's relevant:

Spoiler

"Prince Wilhelm is passionately in love with Celestine. But she does not love him. One day, Wilhelm comes to the King and asks for Celestine's hand in marriage. Celestine begs the king not to marry her to Wilhelm, but the king ignores her pleas. Royal protocol means he must say yes to the match. They are married and Wilhelm takes Celestine back with him to his kingdom. That night, he attempts to consummate the marriage, but the distraught Celestine flees. She runs from the safety of the castle and across a field, ignoring the sign which warns of danger. In that field is a bull, who, seeing the girl, charges her. She falls under his hooves and is killed instantly."

The puzzle asks you to order who is most at fault for Celestine's death out of Celestine, the Bull, the King and Wilhelm.

I personally order it Wilhelm, the King, Celestine, the Bull. Though I'm ambiguous about the King and Wilhelm.

I'm obviously for humanitarian and ethically responsible treatment of criminals, Cog, I'm against the idea that the victim should be blamed when someone has set out to deliberately harm them.

 

[Cognisant]

I'm not really sure what you're arguing. 'Might makes right'? So Amanda doesn't deserve to go outside, and if she gets attacked it's her own fault? Screw criminal law then! That's walking a fine line I think...

That's what I'm presenting as a contrast to the way things currently are, I'm saying if the current state is considered inequality then the person who's saying that has no idea what equality is, I'm saying I don't have to do the outdated gentlemanly thing, if I came across a woman being sexually assaulted I'm not obligated to intervene just as I'm not obligated to offer my time as an escort, but that's the right thing to do, isn't it?

Because I'm told it's not, I'm told that not only does she not need an escort I'm being rude by offering because it implies that she might, well fine no escort, no offer, and if I'm asked to intervene I guess I should first ask "do you need it?"

Which is being a snide douche-bag but that's how I deal with hypocrites.

Although as I've said this comic was an example of Straw Feminism so I don't actually consider it anything more than the author's (or merely a character of the author's) misplaced personal opinion, I'm well aware that in the real world walking someone home is generally well received.

Yes I realise this is a storm in a teacup

 

[Cognisant]

The puzzle asks you to order who is most at fault for Celestine's death out of Celestine, the Bull, the King and Wilhelm.

If I must answer I'd keep them in that order, based upon who had most control over the events leading to her death, but I'd say it's more of a terrible accident than anyone's fault, neither Wilhelm or the King could have know what was to happen (regardless of circumstances) and the bull, arguably the most responsible for killing her, is just a dumb animal with likely no idea of what it was doing whereas it's explicitly stated she ignored the warning signs, therefore she did see and understand them, she didn't miss them, and to say she's not responsible for her actions because she was emotionally distraught, well what if it was Wilhelm that had killed her in a rage, would you hold him to the same standard?

Still even she wouldn't have known the bull was going to kill her, so it's not suicide, it's simply a terrible accident that she made, and to say the events prior contributed to it, well why not blame her mother too for not educating her daughter in the realities of medieval politics and marriage? Arguably that was primarily her responsibility.

I personally order it Wilhelm, the King, Celestine, the Bull. Though I'm ambiguous about the King and Wilhelm.

So running into a marked dangerous area even after having read the warning signs is understandable given that *smirk* she's an emotional girl?

Not just emotional, I'm sure we agree that if Wilhelm so much as struck her with the back of his hand that would be absolutely unacceptable regardless of how emotional he may be, so it's not the emotion that's relevant, it's the assumption that because she's a girl she can't control herself when emotional.

Well, frankly I disagree

 

[Puffy]

^ I don't think you are obligated to put yourself in harms way, though I hope you'd at least call the police.

You might find this an interesting case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese


The chauvinism here is if you assume she needs an escort because she's a woman, in my opinion. It's a little like that "holding the door" example given in a different thread. If I only held a door open for women, that would come across as a little chauvinistic. If I hold a door for everyone, it's because I perceive it as being polite.

Whenever a friend wants to walk back late, I'll offer to extend my own walk if it gets them back safe, male or female, because overall danger of attack is increased at night. In my case, I've been nocturnal for most of my life and don't really mind; I know the safest routes. I don't personally see this as conflicting with my own acknowledgement of women's particular vulnerability to sexual assault because I acknowledge the potential danger to everyone and so only do it for reasons of politeness.

Like yourself, I've found most are actually grateful for walking them back late at night anyway, male or female. A few people only go to the library late at night because they know I'll be there and that my home is in the same vicinity as theirs.

---

I don't use the bull example to say "there's a single right method", only because I think it's an interesting way of guaging each other's positions. I think I think of it from a criminal law perspective and say "what's the crime here?" The crime is the attempted rape, which by chain of causation lead to her death. She wasn't murdered, like you say, that's just the way I'd try and make sense of the concept of fault there.

 

[Cognisant]

It's only attempted rape by modern sensibilities, back then it was dereliction of duties, I mean you don't get a free ride through life even if your father's the king and frankly there's worse duties then being married off to someone wealthy enough to buy in to a royal bloodline, by the sensibilities of the time her running off like that would be absolutely disgraceful and being crushed to death by a bull would seem like karmic justice.

That's wrong by modern sensibilities, but there's nobody these days that represents such a heavy investment by their community, because that's what a princess was, an investment made for the good of the kingdom, to ignore that is to insult the entire kingdom that paid for her stately upbringing.

The princes had duties too, doesn't matter if he's gay, if he's got to bed her and if the couple is of sufficient prominence ministers of the court may be in the room watching to ensure he gets the job done right, royalty were bred like prized horses.

 

[Minuend]

This thread isn't about equality, the motivation is something else. I'm not sure what. Perhaps a desire to "provoke"?

This subject and the connections doesn't make sense.

 

[Cognisant]

Ohshutup I'm having fun

Okay okay I got too involved with my example, so getting back to the beginning of the OP, morality and therefore equality are contrived and what's worse there's no single accepted definition of either, particularly when it comes to equality, ultimately it's all dependant upon one's power to enforce it, hence the slavery thing, our power to enforce our definition of equality comes from our relative consensus of it as embodied by our society, so if someone doesn't respect the rights of others what entitles them to rights of their own?

The loss of freedom is involuntary, there's no option of banishment (though you may attempt to exile yourself) so why not take it a step further, if people scoff at a loss of freedom and immediately return to criminal activities upon release why not take more of their rights away, rather deny them the privilege of being given rights, because that's what it is, a privilege.

Likewise with the death penalty, we may find it horrifying but for centuries it's been a pretty standard way of dealing with serious crime, in the modern world we tend to forget how cheap life is, how un-entitled to it we are, and so we cage people for their entire natural lives, even trying to keep them healthy, for what purpose, so they live longer?
That's ABSURD, insane, just plain stupid.

 

[Cognisant]

the motivation is something else. I'm not sure what. Perhaps a desire to "provoke"?

Challenging sensibilities has that effect.

I'm not attacking anyone, not personally, though if I hit a nerve or two it's all fair game, I don't know what people's emotional investments are and if they're upset easily, well, they shouldn't be reading any of my posts

Of course I shall accommodate to the morality enforced upon me.
I'm a troll, but I'm house trained, and failing that you can always give my chain a yank.

Anyway getting back to equality I want an answer to this:

So running into a marked dangerous area even after having read the warning signs is understandable given that *smirk* she's an emotional girl?

There's no consensus on things like this, if women are more emotionally delicate creatures then men then it should be openly acknowledged, and if not then they should not be allowed to get away with acting as such, that's only fair isn't it? One can't have it both ways.

If I assume the former, is that demeaning? You tell me.
There's this weird notion that if men and women are objectively different that must mean one is superior to the other, that one must be judged by the other, but why, if women were twelve foot tall monsters and men were these weedy little things that rode on their shoulders would we not still be equal as people? This is a serious question.

Y'know what of we meet an alien race and they're not just like us?
If they're these dragon like things do we treat them special, y'know because they're big and scaly enough to eat us, or do we treat them like equals because we're all equal members of society, does this change if their intelligence is significantly greater/lesser than our own?

 

[Cognisant]

There's no consensus on things like this, if women are more emotionally delicate creatures then men then it should be openly acknowledged, and if not then they should not be allowed to get away with acting as such, that's only fair isn't it? One can't have it both ways.

What's the male equivalent of this?

Probably something ego related...

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Strange.
I never read much of it, but I don't remember sinfest being particularly feminist.
Quite the opposite in fact. Devil Girls. Maybe the author feels guilty.

Either way, it's confusing that you conflate yourself with the entire male sex. Most rapists are male, but not all males are rapists. This is basic. Why are you getting offended at accusations no one is making about you (the author certainly isn't, do you have something else more specific?) Who exactly is condemning you for rapes you didn't commit? Most feminists are trying to condemn the passive approval of rape which commonly perpetuates in male power fantasies. That is different.

You seem to be condemning yourself.


Y'know....
I've never really seen the ax-crazy, man-hating feminazi who advocates feminine superiority and mandatory dick chopping that everyone seems to complain about. Granted I'm not looking for them, but I do seem to stumble onto those terrifying masculinity/male-predator cult sites with some frequency.

 

[Cognisant]

Go read Sinfest, it's certainly changed, down with the patriarchy is a big theme now.

As I said going for a walk at night hit home with me because it's something I enjoy, if anything I'm confessing guilt that though I enjoy it I know I wouldn't do it (at least not to the extent I do) if I were female, which seems really unfair, but by the same token why should I feel guilty over something that isn't my fault?

You seem to be condemning yourself.

Yeah, I see that.

Most feminists are trying to condemn the passive approval of rape which commonly perpetuates in male power fantasies. That is different.

That didn't occur to me, still though he's expressed disapproval with porn in general that hasn't been specified... actually, I think it has, a while back though.

The character in question seems more aggressively feminist in general, there's a lot of condemning but very little detail given on what ought to be, so it seems like more of an outright attack on "The Patriarchy" which isn't really defined beyond being comprised of men.

I don't mind the attack, it's not me that's being attacked, not explicitly, but not-not explicitly either and when condemnation isn't followed up with constructive advice it seems increasingly hostile as time goes by. As I said earlier I don't have my own definition of equality, to me it's all contrived, a game, but games have rules and the rules can't conflict with each other, because then you break them no matter what you do.

Edit: Case in point the spiky haired dude, in the latest comic he's being nice and helpful (least he thinks he is) and she blows up in his face, giving him no explanation, one can hardly blame the fool for acting a fool when he hasn't been taught any better.
Isn't THAT what feminism is all about? Teaching.

 

[Jennywocky]

If it's for fear of sexual predation is the message that all men are sexual predators and therefore as a man I ought to be ashamed for existing? Is it that some men are sexual predators and even if I'm not it's somehow my responsibility to do something to protect women from them? Or maybe the point is that unlike a guy Amanda cannot risk going out at night because she's somehow inherently less capable of defending herself? And if she's inherently less capable of defending herself is that because as a woman she's discouraged from undertaking physical activities or learning martial arts, or because as a woman she's simply biologically less capable a fighter than a man? In either case what am I supposed to do about it?

　
Well, you could laugh. It's a cartoon. It's just making a particular point that you seemed to have grabbed and run away with like a brakeless locomotive.
　
You know, I personally would love it if I could just wander around the world at night without having to think twice about it, but I always have to consider it. It's just the reality. You probably don't understand how much care can come into determining where to park your car in the city at night, or where to live that feels safe, or what risk assessment must be done.
　
It's not like every man is a rapist or a potential mugger. Not even close. But you have to consider it. It only takes ONE man to be a rapist, for you to be a victim. If this were not the case, there would never be any rapes or murders of females. What you do is just give it weight for whatever the environment and context happens to be.
　
For example, I'm not going to fear a lion attack in the middle of Pennsylvania, because there's pretty much no chance for there to be a lion. But depending on where I am in the US, I might be careful at the thought of bears. Likewise, in a small town with a particular kind of environment, I will feel far less at risk than I would in a large city in a particular area, away from street lights. Finally, if I am in the middle of pure countryside and want to wander around a field late at night, I severely doubt I'd be at risk at all.
　

That comic struck me because I quite enjoy going for long walks at night and it frankly bothers me that anyone would be unable to enjoy this activity as I do, so I would be happy to do the traditionally gentlemanly thing and accompany Amanda on her after-dark stroll, but apparently that's sexist, so I can't protect her, nor even acknowledge that she's unable to defend herself because that's sexist too, but I'm still responsible for protecting her (from the shadows?) or encouraging her to learn how to protect herself, yet without implying in any way that it's something she needs to train for.

I haven't read the rest of her cartoons, so I don't know if she would be lambasting men who would offer to protect her. For my part, I'm very cool with a guy walking with me "just in case." That's not sexism, it's just reality. It certainly wouldn't hurt, and I think it's kind of sweet.
　

I'm stuck between the conflicting opinions of several different groups of feminists, and there's nothing I can do that they would all deem acceptable, except maybe hating myself for being male.

Well, don't do that. There's nothing wrong with you for being male. It's just a relatively few bad apples that create doubt, unfortunately. It's nothing personal against you, it's just women have to think about things we shouldn't have to think about in an ideal world. The best women know how to balance these competing needs.

 

[Jennywocky]

...the puzzle asks you to order who is most at fault for Celestine's death out of Celestine, the Bull, the King and Wilhelm.

I personally order it Wilhelm, the King, Celestine, the Bull. Though I'm ambiguous about the King and Wilhelm.

I'm obviously for humanitarian and ethically responsible treatment of criminals, Cog, I'm against the idea that the victim should be blamed when someone has set out to deliberately harm them.

I would say the death is unrelated to the earlier violation. There were two basic "crimes" here: Celestine's being married to Wilhelm against her expressed wishes, and Celestine's death.

However, the latter was an accident. Celestine was fleeing from perceived harm, inadvertently putting herself in the path of a bull who was merely following its own thoughtless nature. And the earlier incident merely puts Celestine in a position where her flight from the castle ends up harming her.

Meanwhile, Wilhelm shares the most blame for the former. Even if Celestine had not fled and died, he was still guilty of violating Celestine's will. The King's situation is more ambiguous, as he was the King and ignored Celestine's wishes, yet was bound by law to not prevent her marriage. So it depends solely on the interplay between King and law whether the King could have responded differently.

Only Willhelm really had the power to make or break Celestine's plight, and he chose to focus on his own desires rather than acknowledge her wishes.

 

[BigApplePi]

I once was equal, then met my better and he put me down. Being down, I looked up and a stranger reached down and lifted me up.

I continued on and met a someone in a hole. He said I was better. I lifted him up and set him at my level. He was grateful and remembered me. That lifted me up higher.

Now I am more equal than I was before.

 

[Cognisant]

Well, you could laugh. It's a cartoon. It's just making a particular point that you seemed to have grabbed and run away with like a brakeless locomotive.

I didn't find it the least bit amusing, and it wasn't directed at some symbolic evil, it was a story facing straight at the audience, for the audience, for the victim and the victimiser, and though I'm not the later the confrontational nature of it coupled with my personal connection to going for long contemplative walks at night certainly made it seem like it was directed at me, that I was enjoying something that someone else could not have, so to me it really seemed to declare that if I'm not a part of the solution I'm a part of the problem, given my seemingly ill-gotten freedom.

But yeah, as I said, storm in a teacup.

 

[Puffy]

Anyway getting back to equality I want an answer to this:

There's no consensus on things like this, if women are more emotionally delicate creatures then men then it should be openly acknowledged, and if not then they should not be allowed to get away with acting as such, that's only fair isn't it? One can't have it both ways.

In that specific example the reaction seems reasonable, given the circumstances. I'm not sure it's fair to say she's being an "emotional girl" there.

If you mean more generally, I'm just not sure I agree. Women certainly have come off the worst in terms of gender stereotypes, but even I feel it too sometimes. Everything pointed to as masculine when I was growing up were all things I was crap at. I've eventually come to accept my deviations, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of expectations over an individual. Are girls more emotional or are more girls comfortable expressing that side due to culture's permittance?

This forum's a perfect example of how malleable these definitions are, really...

---

^ That's a pretty fair analysis to me, Jenny.

 

[Turniphead]

There's an interesting puzzle in one of the Silent Hill games that I'm just going to post here as I think it's relevant:

Spoiler

"Prince Wilhelm is passionately in love with Celestine. But she does not love him. One day, Wilhelm comes to the King and asks for Celestine's hand in marriage. Celestine begs the king not to marry her to Wilhelm, but the king ignores her pleas. Royal protocol means he must say yes to the match. They are married and Wilhelm takes Celestine back with him to his kingdom. That night, he attempts to consummate the marriage, but the distraught Celestine flees. She runs from the safety of the castle and across a field, ignoring the sign which warns of danger. In that field is a bull, who, seeing the girl, charges her. She falls under his hooves and is killed instantly."

The puzzle asks you to order who is most at fault for Celestine's death out of Celestine, the Bull, the King and Wilhelm.

I personally order it Wilhelm, the King, Celestine, the Bull. Though I'm ambiguous about the King and Wilhelm.

I would order it: the Bull, Celestine, King/Wilhelm.

As soon, as you start backtracking in terms of finding fault, you have to blame pretty much everything. What about the farmer, or the Bulls mother. What about the lack of carrots in Celestine's diet(night vision).

--

Related to walking at night; I'm fairly certain that I(male appearance) feel less comfortable walking in the neighbourhood that I'm in than my partner does(female), but I am a more paranoid/anxious person than she is. It's not necessarily just a gender role thing.

I agree with the premise about rights being imaginary/invalid though.

 

[Cognisant]

If you mean more generally, I'm just not sure I agree.

There's nothing to agree with, I have no real opinion one way or the other, I'm happy to accept whatever answer I'm given, but once I have accepted an answer I will hold you to it, either men and women are held to the same standards or they are not, no going back and forth on convenience.

Contrivance is acceptable if it's consistent, if it's not then it's worth no more than a hypothesis.

Y'know what good hypothetical morality is? None at all.

 

[Jennywocky]

I would order it: the Bull, Celestine, King/Wilhelm.

As soon, as you start backtracking in terms of finding fault, you have to blame pretty much everything. What about the farmer, or the Bulls mother. What about the lack of carrots in Celestine's diet(night vision).

Not to mention Wilhelm's parents, for locating their home castle in a countryside rather than a hipster urban environment where she might have been crushed by a car or infected with anthrax instead of tragically trampled by a bull....

 

[Latte]

If you're attempting to illuminate a subset of the fact that there is no such thing as an objective "how things should be" then you're going about it in an awfully roundabout and "I want to mess with people's minds and make them feel uncomfortable about the contradictions of systems of ethics/morals that stem from such flawed assumptions as assuming there is an objective "how things should be like"" way.

Your floppings outside that subject seems to suggest illumination attempts of such nature is certainly not the only intent and likely not the main intent.

This might come out seeming like hostility and may be in the forum rule gray zone, but I will utter anyway:
If I didn't know better concerning how non-confrontational people can be and their concern about not falling into your emotional-provocative trap as far your narrative is concerned, I'd utter my amazement at how little you're told by people that they're "tired of your shit".

It's like watching a half-drunk person try to pick a fight in a bar with people who don't even think the thoughts the person thinks they think about the person.


Sure, there is no "how things should be". There is no unqualified should at all.

There is no "humane equality/rights", no "natural equality/rights", no outside-mind preference in regards to the way things go and the way things are at all. Nor is there any "fault".

And the lack of any of those things do not imply that "it is not OK to react to someone doing something that is against one's preference of how things should be", like in most minds is justified by a pseudo-objective ethical/moral framework.

It simply implies that whether it's OK is irrelevant, as there is no objective OK, there is only preference for how should be.

At this point, one gets around again to basically just act like one used to and have the same preference for the order of things one had but without the erroneous idea that they are objective "how things should be". The preferences being regarded as one's own preferences; oneself taking ownership of them and one's own acts at attempting to mold the world so it becomes more like those preferences.

Tired of your poo-poo, poo. What you're doing isn't good for you in the long run. It would serve you well being well to find a way to cease being so damn sensitive about how a subset of people might judge you with inconsistent or contradicting standards (and that particular comic alone didn't even imply the author was one necessarily holding the whole set of beliefs you mentioned).

You act like you're targeted by some giant illogical witchhunt of which you assume far more people are a part of than one could logically argue would be "reasonable" based on evidence.

it is highly to recommend to relocate your head to somewhere else than your self-righteous frightened(perhaps subconsciously) frantically ideologically self-protective buttocks and seriously consider the hypothesis that you're terribly underestimating a lot people and assuming they have specific thoughts and ideas based on way too strong associations of one belief with another belief in your own mind.

 

[Jennywocky]

If I didn't know better concerning how non-confrontational people can be and their concern about not falling into your emotional-provocative trap as far your narrative is concerned, I'd utter my amazement at how little you're told by people that they're "tired of your shit".

Well, it was more that I only responded to the stuff I found interesting, ignored the stuff that was crap, and didn't waste additional time berating him as it wouldn't change anything anyway.

It's kind of the forum tone to just do your own thing that way, I suppose...

 

[Deleted member 1424]

There's nothing to agree with, I have no real opinion one way or the other, I'm happy to accept whatever answer I'm given, but once I have accepted an answer I will hold you to it, either men and women are held to the same standards or they are not, no going back and forth on convenience.

There are too many variables in life for this to be a pragmatic methodology.
Nothing is black and white and there is little to gain in being needlessly inflexible.

Any answer you receive/devise will invariably be wrong when applied to circumstances beyond its scope. There are no solid answers. Why demand them?
Simplicity is convenient folly.

Adapt as new information becomes available. The solutions will not be perfect, but they will be far superior to any ideology irrationally adhered to; given the dynamic nature of human interaction.

 

[walfin]

I tend to think we're really little particles writ large. Attracting and repelling each other, forming bonds and breaking them, giving and taking, decaying...

You could probably simulate all of humankind in a particle simulator.

Now the particles may have a different atomic number or mass number, but they're all just particles. Some may exert a bit more force than others, but none has absolute dominance over all the rest, or at least, not for all time.

So equality is a useful fiction, like the ideal gas equation. No gas follows it perfectly but unless we assume all particles in a gas are the same we wouldn't be able to learn anything more about gases in general. It's the same with humans. We can pretend that men and women (let's just use that distinction though it is but one out of many) are held to the same standards insofar as it is useful, when doing so yields an absurd result then we'll just realise that the equation is inadequate and say now here is an exception.

What happens if we don't even use it as a fiction? There are many people who still do not. Somebody posted something about Stormfront recently. Those people probably actually believe that slavery should be brought back to the US (and not as a punishment for committing crimes).

It's a bit of a luxury to be able to say that equality is impossible, actually. The average chap who is at least managing to get by can discuss it as an abstract theory. To the struggling it becomes truth, a gripping sense of hopelessness, a limiting belief. That there will be no improvement in their miserable lot in life. For them, it is better to believe that equality is possible, otherwise life will no longer be livable.

 

[Minuend]

Challenging sensibilities has that effect.

I'm not attacking anyone, not personally, though if I hit a nerve or two it's all fair game, I don't know what people's emotional investments are and if they're upset easily, well, they shouldn't be reading any of my posts

I don't think your post is offensive to anyone, I was just wondering why the logic is so out of place, why completely unrelated things are desperately woven together to make a discussion. The real intent must be something other than the topic itself. In lack of logic and clarity, something else than truth-seeking is usually the driving force.

So, yeah, I guess it was kinda a "tired of all the subjects with hidden intent" =/

There's this weird notion that if men and women are objectively different that must mean one is superior to the other, that one must be judged by the other, but why, if women were twelve foot tall monsters and men were these weedy little things that rode on their shoulders would we not still be equal as people? This is a serious question.

There is no objective truth.

But at least in Norway the notion that everyone should be treated equally and have the same opportunity regardless of gender, age, appearance and so far possible physical and mental abilities.

Personally I prefer that kind of society over the ones where your entire life is determined by your starting point, whether you are rich, poor, what family you are born into, etc.

Because in the end, it's just pure chance that some starts off more fortunate than others.

As for the rape thing. I am generally a cautious person in any instance. This means I will be less likely to take risks. I don't consider myself less equal to anyone because of it.

Though, I actually live in a place where I can go for walks at night

 

[Cognisant]

@Latte
Fair call, I won't deny it, I was being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational.

I've made plenty of perfectly reasonable threads that received no replies at all.
But I got a debate out of this one

I'm aware that I walk a fine line sometimes.

 

[Minuend]

You must very dependent on atention of it you need it regardless of feedback.

Well, I'll just start ignoring you all together as one can never know your real intent and it lowers the quality of the forum

 

[snafupants]

Can anyone explain to me why diversity, as the impetus for affirmative action, is desirable?

Such a quest seems to have the untoward side effect of reverse discrimination and lowering the overall intellectual caliber of a school or work environment.

 

[crippli]

Not sure a I understood the issue correctly. But it seems you would want to protect someone, but they won't let you. Indicates to me, you also need to be protected. The protective need of a person, you will find that this person also have a need to protect, like a child. Some are like that, some not. Regardless of sexual attributes. But those who are will let themselves be protected, like being followed. So protect is what you want to do, but be protected is perhaps what you need. These aspects comes together automatically if the system is in balance. Maybe not equality will occur, but perhaps something better, equilibrium.

Maybe I'm way off, just a thought I got when reading the OP. So I complicated issue, could have a simple solution, unless I'm off course. If you bought that houseboat you can come across the planet so I can test my hypothesis. There is sea passage all the way, too 150m from my door.

 

[Cognisant]

You must very dependent on atention of it you need it regardless of feedback.

Well, I'll just start ignoring you all together as one can never know your real intent and it lowers the quality of the forum

I have been thinking about that since my last post.

If I'm not consistent why should anyone take me seriously?
By my own admission they shouldn't.

 

[Cavallier]

I have been thinking about that since my last post.

If I'm not consistent why should anyone take me seriously?
By my own admission they shouldn't.

Indeed. Often you beg us to not take you so seriously and then get pissed when we do just that.

As for the OP: I walk women home all the time, or rather, I did in college. I am a woman. Does that make me sexist? I also walk alone outside all the time in an urban environment. So, yeah. Equality is an idea but not a natural occurrence and certainly not a right.

Also, slavery introduces widespread beliefs such as "ownership" and "property" as they relate to humans. It makes the whole "try to be nicer" thing much more difficult and unlikely.

 

[Sorlaize]

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4563

Why can't Amanda go for a walk at night?
If it's for fear of sexual predation is the message that all men are sexual predators and therefore as a man I ought to be ashamed for existing? Is it that some men are sexual predators and even if I'm not it's somehow my responsibility to do something to protect women from them? Or maybe the point is that unlike a guy Amanda cannot risk going out at night because she's somehow inherently less capable of defending herself? And if she's inherently less capable of defending herself is that because as a woman she's discouraged from undertaking physical activities or learning martial arts, or because as a woman she's simply biologically less capable a fighter than a man? In either case what am I supposed to do about it?

Equality as I understand it requires that value systems change-- and as such, this is irrelevant. Equality can still be achieved if we assume that we can prove people should all be equal, with various philosophical and spiritual insights that already exist yet aren't shared because of the social nature of our world and its dependency on indoctrinating us with certain cultural values (e.g. nationalism and male chauvinism have a play in the meaning behind the symptoms here). And those are specific to the particular cultural values and other established structures in today's society: nothing more. There is nothing in there about a 'natural state of mankind': it's entirely social conditioning. And so it is with social issues.

Rights are not natural, we are not naturally entitled to anything, not even our own lives, in the natural world if you're tied down rats will eat you alive

While it's true that all human equality and peace can be seen as merely social constructs the human race needs for its survival, those values are also, objectively, what is the most beneficial survival mechanism. Surely, the worst enemy is the dumb one you can't even reason with. And so it is with equality as a social issue. If you are talking to something intelligent. (And humans should be intelligent, sure; indeed more intelligent than blind followers of a status quo of acceptable but not questionable nature.)

 

[Sorlaize]

If I'm not consistent why should anyone take me seriously?

Maybe it's best to ask, "what would Jesus do?"

yes really.

Here I think Jesus would again say, screw the (social) rules when they become wrong. Change yourself / your views because intelligent people change. People who can't change themselves can't change anything-- so, their stubborn & thus stagnant opinion isn't worth much, in truth. Instead appeal to their other values, for those people who demand the impossible of you in that regard.

 

[Cognisant]

Change yourself / your views because intelligent people change. People who can't change themselves can't change anything-- so, their stubborn & thus stagnant opinion isn't worth much, in truth. Instead appeal to their other values, for those people who demand the impossible of you in that regard.

That was insightful and constructive, thank you.

Maybe it's best to ask, "what would Jesus do?"

Drink my blood for it is wine, or something like that.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CnxibprVzB8

I am wrong in many ways, and of late I've been in a penatiant mood.
Still not religious though.

 

[Chad]

That was insightful and constructive, thank you.


Drink my blood for it is wine, or something like that.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CnxibprVzB8

I am wrong in many ways, and of late I've been in a penatiant mood.
Still not religious though.

Symbolism is a way to represent an intelligent idea to the masses.
Instead of saying hey you guys have all made mistakes and I wish to take the punishment for these mistakes please remember that.
He uses drink of Red Wine to symbolize a blood which is a symbol of his Sacrifice.
Yes, the symbology may seem weird but it was made for the benefit of people generally understand the difficult concepts through metaphorical references.

Drinking of wine at that time was a something people did at a daily bases. So, basically Jesus is saying use this daily symbol to help you not forget the sacrifice that was paid.

I understand that not everyone is religious and I am not trying to imply that anyone should be I was just responding to the reference so that you can grasp what it means. Rather it matters to you or not.

 

[Duxwing]

Symbolism is a way to represent an intelligent idea to the masses.
Instead of saying hey you guys have all made mistakes and I wish to take the punishment for these mistakes please remember that.
He uses drink of Red Wine to symbolize a blood which is a symbol of his Sacrifice.
Yes, the symbology may seem weird but it was made for the benefit of people generally understand the difficult concepts through metaphorical references.

Drinking of wine at that time was a something people did at a daily bases. So, basically Jesus is saying use this daily symbol to help you not forget the sacrifice that was paid.

I understand that not everyone is religious and I am not trying to imply that anyone should be I was just responding to the reference so that you can grasp what it means. Rather it matters to you or not.

Taking someone else's punishment assumes that doing evil unto others means that the wronged must do evil unto someone else; this is not justice, this is vengeance. And besides, punishment is but one means of discipline, and I bet that your infinitely wise God can think of a better way of convincing people to be good than having himself nailed to a stick, bled out like a pig at slaughter, and then instructing his followers to worship aforementioned torture stick, eat his flesh, and drink his blood.

*gags* I've gotta go puke.

-Duxwing

 

[Cognisant]

You did good, have a sandwich, it's turkey and mayo.

Spoiler

 

[Chad]

Taking someone else's punishment assumes that doing evil unto others means that the wronged must do evil unto someone else; this is not justice, this is vengeance. And besides, punishment is but one means of discipline, and I bet that your infinitely wise God can think of a better way of convincing people to be good than having himself nailed to a stick, bled out like a pig at slaughter, and then instructing his followers to worship aforementioned torture stick, eat his flesh, and drink his blood.

*gags* I've gotta go puke.

-Duxwing

I refuse to get in a religious debate with you. My point was not about rather Duxwing agrees with religion or not. My point is that Wine is used as a symbol to help remind people of a sacrifice. Because both the sacrifice and the wine remind people of blood. Rather you think a blood sacrifice is relevant or not is a different matter all together.

Also this is not a religious thread lets try to stay on topic. I was just commenting on a point someone else made. I wasn't trying to justify faith.

 

[Holy shit this makes sens]

Lampshade