I don't believe you

[Mr Walker]

16 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

We'd never have guessed.

Take it as you will. I was both amused and horrified having spent several years in the ealry seventies studying with the newly formed women's studies movement at Flinders university. Also my studies of history politics sociology etc let me appreciate the nature of  and reasons for, the huge societal changes which began after ww2 accelerated in the 60s and burst into full flower in the seventies 

My point was not that i was a product of that  older age. but that i could see, appreciate and understand, the changes occurring around me, for women especially,  but also  for society as whole  On one side I still knew girls (young women)  sent away for 6 months or more to have an illegitimate child in secret which was then immediately  taken from them, so the y could return to their community with their repution intact and be still marriageable.

  On the other hand. the contraceptive pill meant that younger girls were enjoying a new sexual freedom, and making themselves available for sex for their own pleasure,  as no generation before had ever been free to do.  

Interesting and challenging times. 

[Farmer77]

29 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

How do you know this? 

So youre arguing that human nature has changed so much in just a hundred years that we as a species enjoyed being beaten?

 

[Mr Walker]

16 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

But they did to have to justify and or atone for it for themselves which illustrates the point I have been floundering to make. Regardless of the societal acceptance of the practice, be it slavery or spousal abuse, the individual in his core knows it is wrong even if only because he knows he wouldnt want to be on the receiving end.

 

Untrue from my understanding of human nature and history. How and why could the y know something was wrong when it was never taught to be wrong  We do not have some secret inner knowldge of right and wrong. These are learned values We construct that which is right and that which  is wrong, as societies and as individuals  

[Farmer77]

Just now, Mr Walker said:

How and why could the y know something was wrong when it was never taught to be wrong 

Because they would consider it wrong if it happened to them. Its really that simple. Any societal or psychological justifications are simply empty justifications.

 

 

[psyche101]

4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Foul

Ive explained my relationship with my wife and my attitude to women.It is based on love and respect,  honour and duty. 

Ive never raised my hand or voice to a woman or treated one with less than total respect   Ie never cheated on one, or broken any promise to one. That is how i was raised, very definitely and clearly  by my own parents who treated each other with nothing less than total love and respect  and honour   if you combine the marriages of my parents, and those of my wife, they totalled  over 120 years  My wife and i are up to 43 years and aiming to match our parents.  Successful marriages  require many things in the modern era but love, respect, equality, and friendship, are still important 

 If you choose to disbelieve that, fair enough but please don't post directly opposite points of view  and attribute them to me  

Justified is the wrong word.

Are you justified in thinking eating meat is ok or keeping animals as pets is fine? No; you don't need any justification. So far both are generally accepted as normal behaviour although a societal change is occurring so justification is not needed.    

My point is that values and moralities  actually change, and are not fixed.

What is seen as evil, horrendous and immoral now, was NOT seen as such, then.

  In reverse; steal a small amount of property and you could be executed or sent to Australia  for 7 or 14 years But forcing your wife to have sex, or beating your kids, was perfectly acceptable.  After all the y (boys more than girls)  were beaten by everyone, from  their teachers and  clergy,  and older school children,  to the police, as part of making them "better"  children, and toughening them up for adult life.  

I can't discuss the subject with you. I really don't think your brain can comprehend the issue of evil. 

I don't know your actions, and I don't care to hear about them, your words are enough. If you can mitigate rape through time then your not capable of understanding right from wrong there. 

Eating meat won't be seen as an evil. Keeping pets won't be seen as evil. These are your vegetarian fantasies and your egotistical approach regarding your own proclamations. Your analogies are dismissed due to their ridiculous nature. It's why you can't deal with the here and now very well. You need to refer to barbaric practises in the past, or make up any version of the future you like based on your arguments. 

Evil acts are evil acts. Always have been, always will be. 

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Because they would consider it wrong if it happened to them. Its really that simple. Any societal or psychological justifications are simply empty justifications.

Indeed. 

If one sees a handbag getting snatched, one does not have to consult God or cultural guidelines to instantly know it is wrong. 

[Mr Walker]

Just now, Farmer77 said:

So youre arguing that human nature has changed so much in just a hundred years that we as a species enjoyed being beaten?

 

As my post said UNLESS you had experience of it you would accept what society said, AND i can tell you from experience that indeed we saw physical punishment as both justified and necessary and  thus a good thing. . Not enjoyable (for most) but neither was it something to make you  angry or feel an injustice.

Indeed it represented justice, and law and authority  it was only resented when it was unjustly applied, and then it was the injustice not the punishment which rankled.   

it is much less than 100 years since we stopped beating school kids in the west and many modern societies still use corporal (and capital)  punishment.

Our state was fairly early among places in the world to  ban corporal punishment in schools and it was still being applied in some cases until around 1980 

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

As my post said UNLESS you had experience of it you would accept what society said, AND i can tell you from experience that indeed we saw physical punishment as both justified and necessary and  thus a good thing. . Not enjoyable (for most) but neither was it something to make you  angry or feel an injustice.

Indeed it represented justice, and law and authority  it was only resented when it was unjustly applied, and then it was the injustice not the punishment which rankled.   

it is much less than 100 years since we stopped beating school kids in the west and many modern societies still use corporal (and capital)  punishment.

Our state was fairly early among places in the world to  ban corporal punishment in schools and it was still being applied in some cases until around 1980 

Hang on man do you see what you did there? You went from slavery to spousal abuse to now corporal punishment of children.  Is that a tactic to inch towards agreement or do you truly not see the differences?

[Mr Walker]

7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Because they would consider it wrong if it happened to them. Its really that simple. Any societal or psychological justifications are simply empty justifications.

 

 

Why would they consider it wrong? 

i was physically disciplined as a child, and teenager, by parents and schools, and  never  once thought it wrong, (or got angry or resented it )  although i did find it unjust to be caned for not kicking a football far enough.

  It was the way society was, and i was a part of that society and bound by its laws, regulations and expectations  The idea that you can rebel, and be an individual, and get away without consequence, is a VERY recent thought bubble among human beings. In Australia  i can pinpoint its origins down, quite precisely, to the late 60s and ealry 70s.  

We learn what is right and wrong from  the structure and behaviour of our society and the people in it. 

[Farmer77]

Just now, Mr Walker said:

Why would they consider it wrong? 

Because they wouldnt want it to happen to them. You're trying to argue against human nature amigo.

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Hang on man do you see what you did there? You went from slavery to spousal abuse to now corporal punishment of children.  Is that a tactic to inch towards agreement or do you truly not see the differences?

The point is the same with all of them.

A society has values ethics and moralities  A hundred years later the same location may contain a society with very different vlaues and moralities and hence laws.

One set is not superior to the other except  though subjective  values OR where one  builds strength and resilience in a society,  while another  weakens it    

[Mr Walker]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Because they wouldnt want it to happen to them. You're trying to argue against human nature amigo.

There is no such thing as human nature when it comes to abstract concepts  like right and wrong or good and evil 

Sure no one wants to be hurt, but we all tend to agree on laws which will hurt us if we disobey them, because the laws are necessary . 

So it hurt when i was caned at school or home, but i saw it as right and just punishment for my breaking of rules. Not as anything wrong or evil 

I would have seen it as wrong and dangerous if i had been allowed to get away with certain behaviours Without being punished for them 

[Mr Walker]

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Because they wouldnt want it to happen to them. You're trying to argue against human nature amigo.

Maybe you were raised to think you had certain inalienable rights, and no one had the right to prevent you exercising them  

That is not human nature. It is learned  selfishness. (humans are not born selfish or selfless. Again, those values are taught and learned)  

[psyche101]

4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The point is the same with all of them.

A society has values ethics and moralities  A hundred years later the same location may contain a society with very different vlaues and moralities and hence laws.

One set is not superior to the other except  though subjective  values OR where one  builds strength and resilience in a society,  while another  weakens it    

We have that now. Shariah is practised today and isn't good despite some saying so. 

Yes some are superior. The ones that consider people as people rather than objects to fall into line. The above is a modern example of such. 

[Mr Walker]

19 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Indeed. 

If one sees a handbag getting snatched, one does not have to consult God or cultural guidelines to instantly know it is wrong. 

In our society where personal  property has considerable value, and we learn to try and get and keep as much as we can,  true, but this is not a universal response of human beings.

In some societies theft was considered a worthy skill and required of an adult  

Ive taught children whose parents taught them to steal  I've taught children whose parents made them "crack" pipes to bring to school to sell to get money for drugs. Those kids didn't know it was "wrong" until smeone else in authority re-educated them    

[Mr Walker]

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

We have that now. Shariah is practised today and isn't good despite some saying so. 

Yes some are superior. The ones that consider people as people rather than objects to fall into line. The above is a modern example of such. 

Only a person who lives under shariah law can judge it.  We live under christian based laws without even realising it. 

the west objectifies women far more than islam,  but both have failings 

[psyche101]

12 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

In our society where personal  property has considerable value, and we learn to try and get and keep as much as we can,  true, but this is not a universal response of human beings.

In some societies theft was considered a worthy skill and required of an adult  

Ive taught children whose parents taught them to steal  I've taught children whose parents made them "crack" pipes to bring to school to sell to get money for drugs. Those kids didn't know it was "wrong" until smeone else in authority re-educated them    

Even 3-year-olds have a sense of justice

 

[+Sherapy]

53 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

We do have a couple of posters here who do just let their brain vomit on their keyboard. I saw Walker post yesterday that a man who raped his wife before laws protected women was not evil. 

That's the mindset. If it doesnt directly land you in jail, it's OK. I have little doubt that men existed in that time frame who respected and loved their partners and would find forcing another against their will, and hurting them for personal gratification is ajways evil, regardless of laws or lack of them. Its not ignorance, its evil. 

I am with you Andy, it is comforting to hear a man call raping his wife evil. 

I do think there is an instinct called empathy, I don’t think everyone has it but for those who do they seem to be able to distinguish right from wrong. 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Sherapy

[psyche101]

19 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Only a person who lives under shariah law can judge it.  We live under christian based laws without even realising it. 

Utter rubbish. I don't have to live under Shariah to know that honor killings are barbaric and stupid. 

19 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

the west objectifies women far more than islam,  but both have failings 

We don't have honor killings. I see that as a big plus. 

Subdugation isn't better than objectification. 

[psyche101]

5 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I am with you Andy, it is comforting to hear a man call raping his wife evil. 

I do think there is an instinct called empathy, I don’t think everyone has it but for those who do they seem to be able to distinguish right from wrong. 

I can't fathom Habs and Walkers view there. 

I would say you are right. Hab and, Walker seem to be able to mitigate empathy via appeal to authority. I find that disturbing. Evil isn't mitigated by cultural values. It simply is. Time has no bearing on the attrocity of murder as the Cane and Able story illustrates. It should have no bearing on other evils. Rape is violation and deprivation. We don't need cultural values to understand that. I wonder if the jesus and or God story was concocted to get that point across to those who don't seem to be able to comprehend evil. Self preservation seems more important to people who appear to be unable to process evil. 

[+Sherapy]

55 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I can't fathom Habs and Walkers view there. 

I would say you are right. Hab and, Walker seem to be able to mitigate empathy via appeal to authority. I find that disturbing. Evil isn't mitigated by cultural values. It simply is. Time has no bearing on the attrocity of murder as the Cane and Able story illustrates. It should have no bearing on other evils. Rape is violation and deprivation. We don't need cultural values to understand that. I wonder if the jesus and or God story was concocted to get that point across to those who don't seem to be able to comprehend evil. Self preservation seems more important to people who appear to be unable to process evil. 

Habit doesn’t share the same position on rape as Walker does, to be fair to him.

You are right one doesn’t need to be taught that rape is an evil act. 

I  am stunned that Walker is arguing the merits of the rapist., not!

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Sherapy

[Golden Duck]

56 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Because they wouldnt want it to happen to them. You're trying to argue against human nature amigo.

I grew up thinking it was OK to practice your golf swing on cane toads - an invasive noxious pest in Australia.

After moving to Queensland I got to the top of my swing and couldn't go through with it.

Common sense hey? Societal prejudice isn't always right.

[+Sherapy]

22 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I grew up thinking it was OK to practice your golf swing on cane toads - an invasive noxious pest in Australia.

After moving to Queensland I got to the top of my swing and couldn't go through with it.

Common sense hey? Societal prejudice isn't always right.

Same here I couldn’t  ever hit a child,  I attribute it to my empathetic nature, and my early environment was very abusive, yet I knew instinctively my mom was sick and sought to protect my sisters. 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Even 3-year-olds have a sense of justice

 

As both of us have plenty of kid stories to support this. You bet they have a sense of justice. 

[Mr Walker]

58 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Utter rubbish. I don't have to live under Shariah to know that honor killings are barbaric and stupid. 

We don't have honor killings. I see that as a big plus. 

Subdugation isn't better than objectification. 

Actually you do Otherwise you are judging from outside of an entire historical and cultural perspective end saying that your culture is superior

You don't think hour killings occur in the west we had one in Adelaide not so long ago.

we all have flaws and faults but tend not to see our own. Many western  men kill their wives when their wives say the y are leaving them or have had an affair and  that is a form of honour killing.  

I would ask a woman if she feels subjugation is better or worse than sexual objectification and i would ask women from different cultures and beliefs  

Some women might not see or feel they are being subjugated, but rather cared for, loved, protected, and not having to face the dangers and hardships of a western woman.   The word and terrn is very value laden.  If the woman is doing what she  wants and values, and feels safe and happy, what is the problem ?

My wife has been abused by "liberated" women because she chose to stop working when we got married and allowed me to care for her and provide all her needs. Her  pov was that she did not need to work and so her job could go to a young unmarried woman, but the liberationist tried to tell her that work was where women became radicalised  and socialised, and that she  needed to work to establish her independence and dignity  I refrained form commenting and let my wife rip them apart.

she explained tha t she was freer (and happier( not working for money but doing what she loved) , than she had ever been in the 20 years she had worked, and tha t as we were equal partners half of everything i earned was hers  anyway.