You seem to believe several false things, e.g.

∙ 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. ImageImage
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
 

Keep Current with Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن

Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EveKeneinan

10 Dec 20
Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen epitomizes the scientific attitude (re: the Comedian’s murder):

“A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally there’s no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?"
EVERY science begins with a number of foundational principles that are THEMSELVES non-scientific.

Physics begins from the idea that there is a material world, that it is uniform, that it is regular, etc.
Biology begins the the assumption that there are living beings.

This is of course not an irrational thing to believe. It is actually true.

But the point is that SCIENCE doesn’t know that it is true. Physics can’t tell a “living being” from any other being.
Read 8 tweets
10 Dec 20
”Can morality have a rational justification if atheism or naturalism is true?”

Let’s see how Ed Feser tackles this question and if it is (more or less) how I do.
Good so far

Morality understood as a system of rewards and punishments is JUST NOT morality.

Neither does the mere fact of God commanding something make it right, as if God were a cosmic dictator.

These ideas of the relation of morality to God get both God and morality wrong.
Also so far, so good.

The PROXIMATE ground of morality is NATURE, that is, the NATURES of things, and for beings with rational natures, as expressed in the NATURAL LAW.

This classical understanding of NATURE must be distinguished from the MODERN ONE, which has no moral force.
Read 25 tweets
10 Dec 20
One of the things that is most commonly misunderstood in arguments between theists and atheists is the extent to which they go “all the way down”: the disagreement extends far into the question of what the disagreement IS and MEANS and INVOLVES.

Here’s Alasdair MacIntyre:
One striking instance of not appreciating this is Keith Parsons the noted (former) philosopher of religion’s remark here.

“Both theism and atheism begin with an uncaused brute fact.”

This is wrong. Atheism MUST include brute facts. Theism MUST exclude them. They are OPPOSED.
The atheist cannot conceptualize God as other than a brute fact. That is, the atheist cannot conceptualize God.
Read 7 tweets
10 Dec 20
I’m on the 2nd page (numbered 4), and I have already identified Sobel’s Πρῶτον ψεῦδος / Grundirrtum, i.e. the foundational error at the beginning whence everything that follows goes awry. As St. Thomas says, “A small error at the beginning can lead to great errors later." Image
I thought Sobel’s contention that “God” was a proper name was just a basic error, one I could overlook—although when one is writing a book about God, one really ought to know the grammar of the word—but I was mistaken.

It is a part of a RHETORICAL STRATEGY.
As you can see, Sobel is able, in calling “God” a proper name, to claim that in order to find out what “God exists” means, we’d need to know the KIND of thing “God” is a proper example of, and of course he picks “god.”

“God” is a proper name for a god, just like “Thor.” Image
Read 4 tweets
9 Dec 20
David Bentley Hart makes some very similar points. ImageImageImageImage
Here is Hart: Image
The experience of God is the BEST POSSIBLE evidence for the existence of God. Any good faith effort to find out whether there is God or not will necessarily involve the methods by means of which one most opens oneself up to the experience of God.
Read 9 tweets
9 Dec 20
Since we can know that God is perfect, we can know that God is (perfectly) wise and just.

So we know that all God’s acts are perfectly wise and just.

Some of God’s acts may not seem to we fallen & finite beings to be wise and just, but that is because we are fallen & finite.
My general argument in this territory is that we are simply NEVER in a sufficient epistemic position to JUDGE GOD.

This is the teaching of the book of Job.
1 No human being is ever in an epistemic position to justifiably judge God
2 Many atheistic arguments depend on human beings being justifiably able to judge God
3 ∴ any atheistic argument that requires this is necessarily unsound.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!