∙ Allowing men to appropriate the status of women is good for women.
∙ Allowing women to murder their children is good for women.
∙ Socializing women to imitate men is good for women.
The reason we “do a 180˚” on “other women’s issues” is because you are 180˚ wrong on those also.
Conservatives care much more about women than feminists. We care about real women. Feminist care about abstractions which they are happy to harm real women over.
Feminists “care about women” is just the same way communists “care about workers” — they wouldn’t mind murdering them by the hundreds of millions in order to “smash Patriarchy” — which of course is the name for anti-natural imaginary utopian state.
Feminism sees its primary task as to liberate women from nature.
No one who acts contrary to their nature, as oppose to fulfilling their nature, actualizing their nature, can be happy.
Feminism is a war against women’s happiness in the name of “freedom.”
But of course the kind of “freedom” that necessitates misery is not worth having, and true freedom is coincides with the exercise of virtue, which involves the actualization of one’s nature. Freedom alone is ONLY a good insofar as it ALLOWS the pursuit of virtue/happiness.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As Putnam notes, the fact/value dichotomy fails because it never manages to actually distinguish the two entirely, due to a kind of necessary entanglement (or kinds) between putative "facts" and "values."
What we have is a situation of distinction where in some facts are not values, some facts are values, some values are facts, and some values are not facts.
What we do not have is a fact/value dichotomy which amounts to a metaphysical dualism.
This is one of my rules. I use language quite carefully. When someone response to something I have said by calling it "word salad," nothing is lost by blocking them.
There is no possibility they are being an honest interlocutor.
Anyone with more that a child's level of acquaintance with theology should understand that talk about God will always be quite unlike talk about anything else, unlike talk about any creature (which everything but God is).
This does *seem like* a huge incoherence in transgender ideology.
It seems as if it is absurd on its face to say that children can consent to medical "transition" and a lifetime of medicalization and sterilization, but not consent to smoking a cigarette or having a beer.
An honest atheist (if there were such a thing) might say that he does not believe in an uncreated creator. No!—he must pretend that the concept of an uncreated creator is nonsense!
As if everything that does an action need be susceptible to such an action!
A lot of picture-thinkers will form an image of what’s being talked about and then think something that only belongs to the image belongs to the idea itself. Which in turn causes them to miss/reject other cases that instantiate the idea but don’t fit their particular image.
Descartes gives an example of the limits of substituting pictures/the imagination from concepts/the intellect:
Consider a chiliagon, a thousand-sided figure with equal sides. Conceptually, this is easy to understand, but it is impossible to picture clearly and distinctly.