Thordaddy said ...
Once again, it is the radical autonomist that is most ready to regurgitate the feminist meme in the most convoluted way. Wife is victim, husband is scumbag and mistress is fatal attraction. This meme is bust for the very simple reason that WIFEY IS ALMOST CERTAINLY A MODERN LIBERAL WOMAN and therefore stands spiritually and intellectually UNFAITHFUL to ANY MAN THAT SHE MAKES A "COMMITMENT" to. Therefore, CHEATING ON HER is suspect until we know her principled foundation.The assumption that she is physically faithful may be true, but so what if she is spiritually and intellectually unfaithful? These are far more detrimental examples of unfaithfulness to the long term viability of a marriage.
32 comments:
What is spiritually and intellectually unfaithfulness? To who?
Please just the 'to who' part first. I'm trying to grasp this.
Gee-Chee,
The spiritual and intellectual unfaithfulness of the radical autonomist is first an unfaithfulness to one's self and then to those one makes a "commitment" to.
DV...you give this boy waaaay to much props. Love how it has to use "commitment" in quotes.....nuff said...waste of breath..
Brother Gee-Chee
I appreciated TD's expansion of the conversation regarding ... "cheating" ... to include something other than what a man does with his penis.
I think 40 years of feminist indoctrination has distilled and oversimplified the concept of "cheating" down to only a fraction of what it really is.
Many women stray spiritually from their men. Many women stray intellectually from their men.
Is a woman who cheats intellectually as much a cheater as a man who cheats physically?
Could that type of cheating be just as damaging to a relationship as physical cheating?
Anon,
While a believer in The One True God is defined by his truthful relationship with reality, a radical autonomist is defined by his denial of reality. So it is somewhat misleading to suggest a radical autonomist is unfaithful to his commitments BECAUSE THE VERY NATURE OF RADICAL AUTONOMY IS ANTI-COMMITMENT.
What better evidence is there for such anti-commitment than the autonomist not only asking what "pro-choice" means, but refusing to define the term?
DV,
There is a reason that feminists have elevated sexual infidelity above all other types of infidelity. First, they know man is highly susceptible to sexual infidelity ESPECIALLY as compared to spiritual and intellectual infidelity. Second, THEY WANTED TO MAXIMIZE THEIR AUTONOMY including sexual autonomy. A cheating man is the BEST EXCUSE to exercise one's sexual autonomy. Furthermore, these feminists knew that there would be no equivalent mandate to rectify their spiritual and intellectual infidelity.
Well that's why I'm trying to get something solid.
I keep getting the intro to a thesis paper 'pop lock'n' all up on the thread when I'm trying to get some street corner jewels dropped.
I understand the maxim "Be true to yourself first" and all that. Joel Osteen already finger lick'n dollar bills with what folks already know.
So far what I'm interpreting is what I got from that 2001 or 2002 PSA commercial, that "drugs fund terrorism."
So then 'radical autonomists dope dealers' are 'consciously or unconsciously' performing acts of conspiracy and treason?
This is what I'm reading, if it isn't...then I need to get a solid breakdown, not a rewording.
Spiritual infidelity? What? What is spiritual infidelity? What?
Taking other partners besides God? What? Explain. Not following the sacred I Ching manual? What is this origin of code you are pulling from? Some examples brother (in 24 inch python Hulk Hogan tone).
Gee-Chee,
Radical autonomy is extreme liberalism. It is the process of taking nondiscrimination, tolerance and equality to its logical extreme. That logical extreme being a break from reality and drive towards self-annihilation.
I see. So what is the measuring stick that they are the extreme of or that reality they are breaking from. Is it the Bible, the United States Constitution, Seminole Indian traditions?
Are you saying they are the extreme of what they purport? That they claim a code yet violate that code?
Gee-Chee,
Liberalism has its own internal logic and doesn't require an outside reference point to see its extreme manifestations.
Think of the liberal principle of nondiscrimination that led to the murder of thirteen military personnel by a OVERT jihadist. In order to EXERCISE one's liberalism ONE MUST FIRST ENCOUNTER that which he wants to discriminate against BUT THEN DOESN'T thereby living up to his liberal principles. That fact that thirteen people died in an ode to the liberal principle of nondiscrimination is evidence of a radical autonomist paradigm. People so detached from reality that discriminating against a potentially murderous jihadist IS MORE WRONG than the nondiscrimination that resulted in the murder of thirteen people including a child in utero.
Gee-Chee,
If one proclaims to be pro-choice as most modern woman do then it is silly to suggest this doesn't mean anything. And the fact that those who drape themselves with the pro-choice label are reluctant to assert exactly what the label means doesn't mean it doesn't actually mean something particular.
Pro-choice MEANS ALL CHOICES ARE ON THE TABLE. And they aren't just on the table, but in fact some choices are more equal than others.
For one to arrive at the state of being pro-choice THEY MUST HAVE MOVED BEYOND THE RIGHT CHOICE. Being confined or confining one's self to the right choice IS TO REJECT THE NOTION OF PRO-CHOICE. Therefore, pro-choice becomes the act of embracing the false BECAUSE IT IS LIBERATING.
So in America, pro-choice is euphemism for a mother's "fundamental right" to kill HER CHILD in utero.
This means modern liberal woman's FREEDOM is contingent upon her ability to kill her child in utero. The radical autonomy is evidenced by her assertion that she exercised her "fundamental right."
Your radical autonomy is evidenced by the fact that your pro-choice stance MEANS IF YOUR MOTHER HAD ABORTED YOU SUCH WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD THING.
Can you see why such thinking should not determine the direction of society?
If DV thinks TD is making one 'helluva point' then it must be bec y'all been kicking it so long you get TD while others have to press him for clarification on what he means. I don't know why it's so hard to get a definition out of you TD, but up till now you've still not explained what you mean by a 'modern liberal woman' is. And could you give historical context to that and breakdown how race, gender and culture might operate as intersecting variables imapcting on how the modern liberal woman's identity/identities might be constructed.
If you're lost as to what I mean refer to how DV articulated the term Plantation N-. Although historically flawed thus woefully unable to make the ideological link between present and past; his ideas on the Plantation N- in present-day were well-constructed and agreeable with. Despite the flaws, at least he offered a definition that one could engage with him in intellectual conversation. With you, sorry dude no offence, but you talk as though peops live in your head.
Defining pro-choice as choosing what's on the table as choice when one has moved beyond what is right/wrong assumes that choice is primarily pre-determined by what is right/wrong. Big problem:
- How do you ascertain what is right/wrong?
- On whose moral meter is right/wrong determined?
- And how is that movement beyond right/wrong made? Is that movement inherently bad and why?
Pro-choice is never that simple as 'choosing what's on the table':
- What if that choice is between having a rapist's child and aborting the foetus?
- What if that choice is between having a safe abortion and risking death on some medical butcher's table?
- What if that choice is linked to larger questions of slavery and colonial labour where a woman would rather kill those seeds planted in her by Massa than let them grow up as labouring slaves in America's South? Or as half-caste British colonial labour in pre-independent Africa?
Seems to me that your approach to right/wrong is derived from absolutist moralism where one law is universally and rigidly applied. But adding contradiction to a rigid and singularistic mindset; you believe in freewill. (The mind boggles at that one)
If the resident favorite White boy makes one helluva point it's one that has helluva many holes in it - nothing personal towards the resident favorite White boy, just my opinion.
DV said:
"I think 40 years of feminist indoctrination has distilled and oversimplified the concept of "cheating" down to only a fraction of what it really is.
Many women stray spiritually from their men. Many women stray intellectually from their men.
Is a woman who cheats intellectually as much a cheater as a man who cheats physically?
Could that type of cheating be just as damaging to a relationship as physical cheating?"
IMO, these things are inextricably linked. The fundamental bond between man and woman is spiritual and emotional; when a woman cheats on her man bec she is physically attracted to someone its bec that emotional and spiritual bond has been interfered with. If she finds intellectual stimulation in another man it means she shares a bond with someone else and that's being unfaithful. How to deal with these types of infidelity is very much a personal thing - for me, intellectual infidelity would be more of a blow to my ego than my heart; I'd like to think the relationship would be salvageable than if my man shared a physical connection with someone else.
...one
konwomyn is truth.
What he's saying is you hard-headed feminist women are more dedicated to your jobs and to reading "US WEEKLY" than you are to your husbands and families and that you need to check yourselves.
Konwomyn,
You are playing radical autonomist. Acting as though you do not know what "pro-choice" means AND FAILING TO GIVE YOUR MEANING.
First, I believe in God-ordained free will which is different than the liberal free will you cling to.
Pro-choice MEANS ALL CHOICES ARE ON THE TABLE and CHOOSING the wrong, evil and destructive CHOICE is evidence of a liberated "free will."
In my way of seeing things, free will IS ONLY OBTAINED BY MAKING THE RIGHT CHOICE.
IWAIW,
It goes both ways. Let's not pretend like for every hard-headed feminist woman more dedicated to their jobs, there isn't a de facto homo/voluntary celibate or polyamorous non-committal male who gets a bigger hard-on at the thought of his rise up the corporate ladder and his six figure salary and shooting holes on the green rather than the prospect of finding a wife and having some beautiful babies.
Maybe them brothers need to check theyselves too.
Konwomyn,
It isn't single liberal males reaching their forties single and childless that are complaining about the lack of good women.
Kay Duuuuuuuuuub!!!
You are absolutely right. It does work both ways.
Any woman not acting right is usually a biproduct of her man not acting right.
It's part of a man's job to save a woman from herself.
"Konwomyn, It isn't single liberal males reaching their forties single and childless that are complaining about the lack of good women." TD
Nah Tee Dub.
They are not complaining because deep down inside, they don't even like girls anymore.
They like punany. But they don't like girls enough to be with one.
DV,
That's why I referred to them as single "liberal" males. They certainly recognize what their liberalism means while their female counterparts still don't get it.
Chosen,
Thank-you.
TD,
Are you playing relativist-undercover now as you're asking me for MY meaning of pro-choice?
Does the shift-focus tactic enable you to articulate yourself more clearly rather than answering how pro-choice is derived or right/wrong operates as relative; rather than clear-cut or when God-ordained freewill includes making some of those hard choices.
On women: DV said it.
Y'got that straight Magne. De facto homos buy into the illusory affirmation of self through the material so they don't believe in/even want a woman can offer whereas a de facto lesbo 'aint got no time for no man' but deep down inside she's longing for a brotha.
Konwomyn,
Is the pattern of radical autonomy not clear?
You disagree with the definition of "pro-choice" I put forward BECAUSE YOU WANT TO RETAIN YOUR AUTONOMY in defining such term.
BUT...
You refuse to define "pro-choice" and so AGAIN YOU RETAIN THE AUTONOMY to define such term as you wish and you may call it YOUR definition or the real definition.
AND...
You refuse to tell us whether you are "pro-choice" or not BECAUSE THEN YOU MUST DEFINE THE TERM and hence define yourself. Such is an impediment on your autonomy.
So we see that in your desire to be radically autonomous IT IS OTHERS THAT GET TO DEFINE YOU.
You are a pro-choice liberal...
Deny it if you wish... It would be most welcome.
TD,
What book of principles or religion do you follow that distinguishes the "right choices" from "all the choices on the table"?
If you yourself have no starting point, a set of principles, then you just stick'n your tongue in the atmosphere.
Here you are, all astonished by the 'radical autonomous' reaction of everyone to your "what chu talk'n bout'ness" but you're not being clear on what gave you your salvation making your argument of "the right choice" disingenuous.
You can't have a blue ball without a ball. The color blue is contingent on the existence of the ball.
What is this "right choice" contingent on?
Gee-Chee,
The very fact that you ASKED what the "right choice" is "contingent upon" IMPLIES that PRO-CHOICE is contingent upon nothing. Pro-choice is NON-Contingent and that is why it is the "principle" of the radical autonomist.
But to answer directly, the right choice is contingent upon the Absolute Truth of The One True God.
Thordaddy said:
"You disagree with the definition of "pro-choice" I put forward BECAUSE YOU WANT TO RETAIN YOUR AUTONOMY in defining such term."
Nah. Nah. Nah.
I disagree with you because your definition is flawed not because I want to retain the autonomy to define something. That I find your approach problematic, at best, is not a reflection of "my autonomy", but a reflection on the invalidity of your argument. I don't have to agree or disagree with you to affirm my ideas on pro-choice - same as you are not bound by my ideas to affirm yours.
And I co-sign on this by Gee Chee:
"What book of principles or religion do you follow that distinguishes the "right choices" from "all the choices on the table"?
Could you drop a link to where your ideas come from coz I'm really not getting you, man.
Gee-Chee and Konwomyn,
Both of you could facilitate this discussion by defining pro-choice...
Then telling us whether you are pro-choice...
And then tell us how this is relevant to my "book of principles?"
Are you two Pro-Choice or not?
PS In America, Pro-Choice is euphemism for choosing abortion which is euphemism for a mother killing her child in utero.
As you can see, pro-choice has many layers BUT STILL COMES DOWN TO CHOOSING THE FALSE, THE EVIL AND THE DESTRUCTIVE.
TD,
YOU are the one who preached the pro-choice gospel so the burden of proof is on YOU.
Its NOT my view under the spotlight therefore NO burden of proof is on me.
Asking for your 'book of principles' aids in understanding of YOUR gospel. Clearly, there is a problem with YOUR sometimes vague, sometimes repetitive articulation of the pro-choice gospel or a problem with the very pro-choice gospel itself.
Capisce?
Now, that's clarified; I don't believe there is such a thing as pro-choice but choices. Choices whose origins or outcome are determined by/determine whether something is morally right or wrong. Right/wrong is not based on some pie-in-the-sky moralizing by the oh-so-religious.
Konwomyn,
I've already defined pro-choice and you disagreed.
But you have not stated the nature of your disagreement?
And why do I need a "book of principles" to define pro-choice? All I need to know are the "principles" of liberalism.
Gee-Chee: Ok TD, what is a radical autonomist?
Thordaddy:A radical autonomist is defined by his denial of reality.
Gee-Chee: Word. Whachu mean "his denial of reality"?
Thordaddy: That's a radical autonomical loaded question Gee-Chee.
Gee-Chee: Oh shyt, my bad. Well, um, what...is not...a radical autonomists.
Thordaddy: Elementary Gee-Chee. The very nature of the radical autonomist is EVIL.
Gee-Chee: ...and they are evil because...
Thordaddy: ...they are pro-choice.
Gee-Chee: So that means...
Thordaddy: If you're pro-choice, your pro-everything, ALL CHOICES ARE ON THE TABLE.
Gee-Chee: ...I was going to say that. Cuz if it's on the table, they try'n to get their cake and eat it too right?
Thordaddy: No Gee-Chee...
Gee-Chee: Oh you thawt I meant that, naw I was just act'n a fool. I mean everyone knows that if all choices are on the table that...[clearing throat]
Thordaddy:...that THEY MUST HAVE MOVED BEYOND THE RIGHT CHOICE.
Gee-Chee:...THE RIGHT CHOICE. Exactly, that's that science.
Thordaddy: NOT science, the Absolute Truth of The One True God.
Gee-Chee: I be try'n to explain that to them boys at the job they ain't try'n to hear it though...
Thordaddy: If they are pro-choice they will not hear it because they support euphemism, a mother's "fundamental right" to kill HER CHILD in utero. Are you pro-choice Gee-Chee?
Gee-Chee: Hunh? Oh, me? Eff that. Ain't trying to up in nobody's utero. Save that shyt fo' Narvana or some shyt.
Thordaddy: You have therefore denied your AUTONOMY.
Gee-chee: Word. What? Who's on first?
Naw I'm kidd'n. You done wore ol' Gee-Chee out.
Gee Chee
Another one bites the dust.
Don't feel bad homie. You're just the last in a long line to realize that Odin's online presence never makes any sense.
Welcome.
Post a Comment