on the origins of inequality among men

[..]as there is hardly any inequality in the state of nature, all the inequality which now prevails owes its strength and growth to the development of our faculties and the advance of the human mind, and becomes at last permanent and legitimate by the establishment of property and laws.

A discourse on the origins of inequality in human societies by Jean Jacques Rousseau

Advertisements

On equality

By equality, we should understand, not the degrees of power and riches are to be absolutely identical for everybody ; but that power shall never be great enough for violence,  and shall always be exercised by virtue of rank and law; and that in respect of riches, no citizen shall ever be wealthy enough to buy another, and none poor enough to be forced to sell himself.

JJR in Social contract

Leviticus 12

I have skipped chapter 11 since all it talks about is what food is unclean and the what one does when they come into contact with them. Just dip whatever it is in water and after one day you are good to go.

I have written elsewhere that Christianity is life denying. This chapter is the embodiment of the christian dream.

Listen to the Lord’s command

The Lord said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.

You all must remember that this good book tells us this god created the universe and then created man and after doing that, he puts a curse on the only way man can reproduce. Any Christians who are here, have you felt the need to petition this god of yours to revise some of these curses? Now tell me, why should a woman be unclean after childbirth? What does this do to children being told their mothers had to be purified after childbirth!

Just listen to this and tell me you are not irked

On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

Here we have two problems; Moses god obsession with foreskin of little babies and a further punishment of women for extended days for giving birth. Where are those Christian mothers, do you touch your bibles after childbirth? Or the bible ain’t sacred, just asking. Worse still with this chapter, we have discrimination from the time of birth. A son she is impure for 7 days and a girl for 14 and waits double the time to be purified. Where are the ladies? Can I hear the Christian women clap :-D.

And the priests are real opportunists. It seems they haven’t moved far off, they have only changed the trade

“‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. He shall offer them before the Lord to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.

So unless this was used as a birth control measure, that is, only those with pigeons and flocks of sheep should have babies then it would make sense. Or else, this is the time to tell the priest to F-off!

And listen to more of this madness

“‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. But if she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”

Please tell me how this is life affirming! I need to know and real quick!

Will the sexes ever be reconciled

Fellow sufferers, a few days ago we looked at Arthur Schopenhauer’s views of the fair sex and most if not all of those who read the post found them to be wanting. Whether it was the dominant view then or are his personal views, it appears the general agreement is that he was wrong.

In a chit-chat with one of my friends, I was told, in majority of women’s opinion, men behave like 5 year olds or rather it appears to them that we reach maturity at age 5 and don’t get any better.

On the other hand, while having a similar discussion with the menfolk, some of them think women are mad or mature babies and should be handled with care.

Lastly, there is that group of men and women who hold the view that we are all equal.

Given the above, I have a few questions

  1. What is the extent of equality being sought or advocated?
  2. Are the sexes really equal in any sense?
  3. At what point does an observation or opinion made regarding the sexes become misogyny or sexist?

 

Equal rights for all

This is a response to Caroline’s post , equal rights for adulterers, where one would think she is arguing against adultery but it is her attempt attacking those arguing for the equal rights of LGBTs to marry.

Before we get to Caroline, let us define our terms, shall we?

(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same-sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons ;
c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially: the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
: an intimate or close union
Having defined our terms, please allow me to define traditional marriage then we will look at Caroline’s problem with the LGBTs in this light.

Let us hear what Caroline is telling her audience

The argument for same-sex marriage says that denying that right to gays is discriminatory and unfair. No…it’s not. No more than denying the right to have multiple spouses, have sex with a ten-year old, or marry your mother. Equal worth does not mandate equal opportunities.

How she sees that this isn’t discriminatory I don’t get. She is referring to a slippery slope that doesn’t even exist. I have got news for Caroline, one no one in their right mind is going to marry their mothers, no body wants to have sex with 10 year olds and you really must be naive to think that to grant a gay couple the right to marry will lead to any of the things you mention. With the rate of divorce across the board, many people marry several spouses in one lifetime that at the end it really makes no much difference.

No one is trying to stop gays from setting up house together. But redefining marriage should absolutely be off the table.

Did you look at the definitions I gave [they were from MW dictionary] so who is trying to redefine marriage? I bet it is Caroline who want marriage to be defined in Christian terms as if marriage is only a christian affair!

I believe the primary reason is that only then will they feel that their lifestyle has legitimacy and acceptance.

You got it all wrong. This is a bigoted stand and you know it. How is their marriage going to affect yours?

But legitimizing homosexuality by redefining marriage will inevitably result in my right to religious freedom being infringed on, as I will be forced to condone (or at least not oppose) and help support a lifestyle that I believe is a sin. Just as normalizing and destigmatizing polygamy would. I am NOT saying I’m less of a sinner than your average, law-abiding homosexual. I AM saying that redefining marriage and sin is like introducing an indestructible killer virus into society.

Now this got to me seriously! Her religious freedom my foot! Is she being asked to be gay? Well Caroline you will have to show us that your god exists and that your religious claims have a truth value before you can tell us of your religious freedom. A sin is an offense against god and it is this god Caroline and her ilk her failed to define to existence. How can she then claim this god will be offended? Caroline and your ilk, first ensure there are no divorces in your traditional marriage then and only then can you start talking about other people’s lives. And while you are at it, please tell me when you chose to be heterosexual, this information will help many generations in the future.

Am guessing Caroline is a citizen of the US of A and this is what the constitution says about religion

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I will say here that am not versed in law, but please tell me where in the above it says gays shall not be allowed to get married because it is this clause that deals with religious freedom? I am aware there is a petition before the SCOTUS on marriage. Here, here and here are some articles on what has been going on in the court and for a person like Caroline to argue as she does is to pretend ignorance of the facts.

Are you ready for same-sex marriage to be forced on you? Are you okay with sharing your spouse?

How many people have been forced to drink alcohol since it was made legal? How many people are forced to smoke because smoking is legal? Last time I checked no one was forcing anything on anyone and unless Caroline can support this claim it would be fair to consider her a bigot.

Polygamy is almost certainly next in line to be demanded as a human right. What defense would we have for prohibiting it once the traditional family unit is debased?

Don’t worry, just ask your husband not to love another woman and if he does, divorce him.