Gender equality is well defined. It is the state in which access to rights, resources, and opportunities is not determined or limited by a person's gender.
OP isnt debating that. He is demonizing the term by attributing unserious biological comparisons, misunderstood issues, or ambigous debates where other factors play a role...
It doesn't really matter what it's called. If the argument is valid, it's valid. Objections to labels all to often favors the party with power, the aggressor, or the oppressor.
Is it possible that a perfectly loving God might be ambiguous in his existence?
I dont find that very plausible. A loving parent doesn't walk away if it can be helped.
Also I know it gets crickets a lot but I think near death experiences very reasonably point to god existing.
This is a tangent, but NDEs are heavily influenced by cultural and religious backgrounds and vary widely. I personally do not find NDEs a compelling argument for deities or the 'great beyond'.
I think reasonable unbelief could occur even with a perfectly loving god.
I think a perfectly loving god would choose to make itself known to its creations.
If you reply to my post, I will get a notification and we can have a legitimate back.and forth.
This isn't me saying that what people today call "gender equality" today is wrong, per se, just that what they're really advocating for is gender equality in cases when it makes sense, and at that point you may as well simplify things and just say "I support laws that make sense" rather than "I support gender equality."
Op is just a complaint about labels. Meh.
"Perfectly loving" refers to a love that is pure, flawless, and intrinsically unselfish; omnibenevolent
I like Bones argument more, tho actually, problem of evil has bunch of solutions,
Argument from Divine hiddeness =/= problem of evil.
If God exists, He is perfectly loving.
If a perfectly loving God exists, He would desire a personal relationship with every individual capable of such a relationship.
If God exists and is perfectly loving, He would ensure that all non-resistant individuals believe in Him.
There are non-resistant individuals who do not believe in God.
Therefore, a perfectly loving God does not exist.
I agree some of your criticism is valid. I will post another iteration in a new thread. Thank you for your input.
What are your thoughts?
Did you want to talk about religious texts or the apparent point of this thread (Benjamin Franklin)?
Men face a lot of abuse too, especially physical abuse which is most common towards boys.
Yes, but this isnt an apples to apples comparison. Men have societal advantages over women and much more ability to change it. For starters, they could hold other men accountable for pedophilia, child abuse, trafficking, etc. Thats not happening enough, and many abusers are being protected by the men around them.
As for inequality, men have it much more difficult to get sex, which is why much more men are involuntary virgins and lonely
Sex with other people isnt a right. What you're calling inequality has no significance to someone who doesnt enjoy the same rights as others.
these are small disadvantages
they still live longer than men, and generally have easier lives.
Right, because inequality and abuse is the hallmark of privelege. <sarcasm>
this is not a necessary truth. Women have higher standards than men. there are plenty of crazy women out there, and abusive women, who still get relationships. And funny enough, abusive men also get relationships if they are good looking.
It has nothing to do with man's mentality as much as it has to do with women's mentality. A standard of average woman literally excludes over 30% of men as potential partners, and for traits which are unchangeable or very difficult to achieve. Also, boys are about 4 times more likely to have autism or other conditions which make social interactions difficult, while women generally dont even need to try much in social interactions.
So yes, if women set standards which most men cant reach, its not really man's fault that woman controls access and sets standard which excludes him.
Most men (60%) AND most women (65%) are in relationships. If the problem were female mentality, then there would be a much greater disparity between these numbers. This also refutes those 'unreachable' standards.
Women have lower chance of being murdered. That's a privilege.
Thats not the whole picture. Chances of being murdered for man or woman are extremely low, but women consistently have to face gender wage gaps, underrepresentation in leadership role (corporate and political), and unequal unpaid expectation of care of others. Not to mention, nearly 1 out of every 2 women (44%) have experienced sexual assault.
A lot of men struggle with body dissatisfaction too, and penis size. But the difference is, women are generally more desirable than men.
A much lower percentage of men are dissatisfied with their body (as low as 20%). Men are happier with their bodies than women.
It's men who are most often incels.
Incels are *voluntarily* celibate because they value undesirable traits (like misogyny and entitlement to sex) over a relationship. That is simply cause and effect and has little to do with women. An abusive entitled partner isn't appealing to most healthy people.
In self-imposed part.
Okay. How does men being murdered more translate into female privelege? If anything this reflects one benefit of a decidedly negative paternalstic standard that women are weaker and less capable.
It is a privilege not to be undesirable.
Women face huge societal expectations regarding a contradictory 'curvy and fit' standard. Between 70% and 90% of women struggle with body dissatisfaction.
Then there's the child custody and child support bias women are favored
That is due to patriarchal standard which places women in a caretaker role.
Men being murdered more
Im not sure.how this translates to female privilege. Why are men murdered more?
It's not self-imposed if the men doing the murdering aren't the same as the men being murdered.
Okay, 'self-imposed' is not an accurate description, but clearly this is a male issue and not an example of feminine privelege.
And women can contribute to patriarchy, because it's just used to mean gender discrimination, regardless of who is doing the discriminating. Also, I don't think the term privilege has something to do with whose fault something is.
Yes, youre right.
SatanLucy wrote:
Everything you listed is generally caused by men, not women.
No, it is caused by some men to all other men.
Caused by man...where is the disagreement?
And the incel part is pretty much caused by women.
Being undesirable as a mate is a personal problem.
As for accidents, parents protect girls more than boys.
Boys are encouraged to be aggressive, tough, dominant, etc. As a result, boys are involved in more risk-prone behaviours and more accidents.
Being a female is a privilege by almost all statistics. Boys live shorter lives, have more suicides, are much more likely to die in accidents, are more likely to get murdered, are more likely to be incels, more likely to experience physical abuse, getting circumcised...ect.
Everything you listed is generally caused by men, not women. That's not female privilege, so much as it is self-imposed consequences of a patriarchal society.
If I shoot myself in the foot, my idiocy doesnt make you privileged.
I defer to your insight. I wish you well.
SatanLucy wrote:
You describe a solution to a 'problem' which exists mostly in the minds of people who aren't gay.
I guess we have to agree to disagree here.
If youre speaking as a gay man, I will defer to your firsthand experience. If not, my point stands.
SatanLucy wrote:
those arent feelings, but a way for gay people to avoid acting on their urges.
You describe a solution to a 'problem' which exists mostly in the minds of people who aren't gay.
No, not conversion therapy, but simply when gay man hides his homosexuality, tells no one ever about it, stops imagining men, stops looking at men, and looks only at women. Because attraction is based on looks, he must stop looking at things which attract him but which are not logical.
"Your feelings are of no importance".
SatanLucy wrote:
Willfully ignorant, then? Okay.
No, just rejecting fake experts.
Same thing just written in a different font.
Maybe, but I have no problem with gays who choose to never have sex and keep their gayness secret and never tell anyone about it...
I feel the same about bigots, but I also understand they exist in the great wide world which is outside my personal authority.
and also work to cure their sexual attraction.
Are you referring to conversion therapy? That's not a real therapy. Its a pretense ignorant people cling to that does nothing but cause harm. If you allowed reality to inform your opinions and had empathy for others you wouldn't suggest such a cruel and pointless torture.
So choosing to express homosexuality is still a choice.
Nope.
But being a homosexual is also a choice, because man can stop being attracted to men if he chose not to look at them ever and just focus on observing women. then his sexual attraction would adapt over years.
Nonsense.
Hey, buddy - comics are not reality.
an admitted Black Supremacist/Communist
I think you might be confusing fanfic for reality.
First, I don't care much about what your "experts" say, so you just wasted your time finding that link.
Willfully ignorant, then? Okay.
Second, yes being straight is a choice too. So is being gay. Person can choose not to act on it.
If you think being straight is a choice, then you're probably not straight. Fwiw, choosing not to have sex isn't the same as choosing sexuality.
But anyway, my question is why should person be gay?
Again, you wrongly assume a person can decide to be different than things completely outside their control prescribed.
But you seem to be insisting that being gay isnt a choice, which it is.
Did you choose to be straight? If not, why would you think anyone does? Are you relying on your own limited experience here or are you open to being informed by a consensus of experts? If the latter, the American Psychological Association does not endorse the notion that orientation is a choice. [X]
False, there is no reason for anyone to be gay.
There is no logical reason for you to make that claim.
So you concede that being gay is not logical. We agree there.
Being gay is not a choice and, as such, looking for a 'logical reason' is nonsensical. Its like looking for a logical reason to be 10 foot tall. Good luck with that!
So if anyone else wants to answer why should I be gay, they can try.
I am not arguing for you to change your preferences. Thats not how sexual orientation works. I do sincerely hope you find a way to be yourself, though.
What I don't like about LGBTQP+ is that it isn't logical.
Ignorance isnt logical either.
If there is no reason for me to be gay, then there is no reason for anyone to be gay.
That's not logical. Maybe you're not gay, but it doesn't follow to assume a universal standard because of that.
You simply cannot use logical deduction to deduce that you should be gay.
True. Sexual orientation is not a logical deduction or choice.
So not only that they can't logically deduce conclusion that they should be gay, but they are also racist against straight people.
As a straight person, Ive never felt threatened by gay people. If I were vocally anti-LGBTQ, I might find reason to be paranoid...not good reason though. By far, gay people have reason to be concerned about bigots though.
