fschmidt wrote:Cattle also have a will of their own.
Yes, but while cattle's rights are not necessarily protected, women's rights very much are?
That women have a will of their own doesn't really matter.
Actually, it does. *lol* And it should be protected by laws.
What matters is that women are a scarce resource that can either be rationed (monogamy) or competed for (promiscuity).
Promiscuity is the better option for women, and I think they should have the right to do so.
The latter case is like theft in the sense that men get extra women at other men's expense,
No, I disagree. A successful business is not thieving on less successful businesses, either.
not by trading something other men want for the women.
Again, a successful business does not need to share its profits to less successful businesses.
Anarchism also allows for non-violent crimes like fraud.
How does fraud do damage?
Seduction of chaste women is a similar non-violent crime.
I don't agree that chaste women should have more rights than promiscuous women.
Not necessary at other men's expense, because women are still the ones deciding which men they prefer, that is if the laws I mentioned above are enforced.
It makes no difference whether women decide
What do you mean it "makes no difference"?
(or it may even be worse).
It is at other men's expense because a man takes a woman who would have chosen another man if not him.
Yes, that is the point. Free will for women.
at least for modern society where marriage law is designed to encourage women to seek divorce.
How do the laws of modern society encourage women to seek divorce?
For historical cultures, you need to study their laws.
Yes, you are right.
Traditional marriage is strongly discouraged because marriage contracts are ignored
Like I wrote above, I think moral values are not the problems of the government, but a personal matter. If marriage contracts are broken, then it just means the person does not value those morals enough, which is OK
and the government enforces anti-marriage laws like divorce laws.
Rape is only immoral when unjustified.
Most modern women actually deserve to be raped because of their provocative dress and behavior,
No, they don't. They have a right to dress however they want.
so I also consider this law a negative.
Freedom to choose the morals they consider beneficial should stay a right.
Yes, for possible facts, but not opinions (or in other words "personal impressions").
It is very hard to distinguish fact from opinion. For example, is women "going along with prancing steps, jingling their ankle bracelets," fact or opinion?
There is nothing wrong with this, whether it is fact or opinion. So, it doesn't really matter.
What are those historians saying?
I don't read them,
I think you should read them yourself, and not blindly trust what other people say.
but based on what other people who do say about history, it is slanted to the view of modern culture.
Why is that bad?
No one seems to understand the arguments for unpopular views
and people have very little awareness of social conditions in history
Might be true.
You are believing the opinions of people in the past. I think your view is just as subjective as that of other people.
No, I read first person accounts which are often contradictory and reach my own conclusions.
How does one reach a conclusion when one does not know which account to trust.
Modernists consider this a flaw, but actually it shows the open-mindedness of those who compiled the Bible, being willing to include different contradictory viewpoints.
Do you mean opinions when you say "viewpoints"?
They (CEOs) buy politicians who pass laws for their benefit at the people's expense.
That is punishable by law. Not all CEOs do this. Some might do it as a kind of thrill game, even though they don't need the money.
Here in America, it certainly isn't punishable by law.
Yes, it is, and it is called bribery.
All top CEOs do it.
That's an overgeneralization.
And they are like sharks, always wanting more money, so it doesn't matter what they need.
That might be true. Western society isn't that corrupt, though IMO.
I am an active investor and have business experience, raising venture funding and sitting on a board of directors.
Are you saying you are bribing politicians, too? You said all CEOs do it.
Society is very corrupt, but countries like America are better at hiding it than countries like Mexico are.
It will take time for the corruption to bankrupt society, but it will inevitably happen.
How do you know they are not intelligent enough to learn things in other ways when they are taught early in the childhood?
The average person doesn't even understand basic math.
They just have faith in science in the same way that a Christian has faith in Christ.
They have faith in people's opinions with educational degrees, who do
understand the science.
Some religions aimed a little high, like Confucianism which is really aimed at the elite.
Where exactly did they aim too high in your opinion?
Such religions have never worked for the masses.
Is there no evidence to support the evolution theory?
There is plenty of evidence, just no proof. Same as with God.
What evidence is there for the existence of God?
"force of morality"?
[...]Moses did much the same thing for societal decay which he saw in Egypt and knew of from other cultures,
What "societal decay" are you talking about?
When I said "no statement", I meant "no general statement".
General statements are opinions, not facts. Opinions aren't interesting, facts are interesting.
Isolated facts aren't very interesting.
Yes, they are. At least more than opinions, or "general statements".
General statements about history are interesting but unprovable.
If they are unprovable, they are not interesting. Or interesting as a starting point to find evidence for the theories. But not interesting themselves.
I think we can learn from history that democracy is the best kind of government. Also, free speech rights, no censorship. We don't need to read historical books to learn that.
What we learn from history is that the most productive cultures were democracies
And the cultures where the people have the most rights.
but they were short-lived and democracy often caused their downfall
Again, you did not give any evidence.
The Torah warns against democracy and in fact all democratic religions fail. Only religions with a strong priesthood (oligarchy/meritocracy) survive long. So I personally don't consider democracy to be the best kind of government.
OK, I disagree with you, because I don't think religions are absolutely necessary.
If I had to choose a system of government, I would do a hybrid where I would only allow the top 1% of Go players to vote.
So if I hate group X and you don't, then you call me a bigot, but if you also hate group X then you don't call me a bigot.
1) I don't call anyone a bigot.
2) Hatred is always bigotry, no matter who does it.