Advertisement
by Ifreann » Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:48 pm
by United Muscovite Nations » Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:50 pm
Ifreann wrote:It seems to me that if something is open to the public, then it should be open to all the public. If people want to enforce silly sexist rules, then they can make a members-only club and lock the doors.
by San Lumen » Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:50 pm
Ifreann wrote:It seems to me that if something is open to the public, then it should be open to all the public. If people want to enforce silly sexist rules, then they can make a members-only club and lock the doors.
by United Muscovite Nations » Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:51 pm
by Estanglia » Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:52 pm
Great Old South wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:So, you're okay with forcing other people to adopt your ideology against your will? That seems like it's stepping over a line. I could understand private businesses, but these are groups with defined membership and beliefs that go back millennia.
Yea. I am. Including forcing it upon reactionary sexist Brahmin welfare queens.
All sorts of spooky inane shit has been justified over the centuries in the name of "tradition", including everything from institutionalized (racial) slavery, to (female) genital mutilation, and worse.
No, the intellectual legacy of the enlightenment shouldn't bow before barbarism. Even if it includes trampling upon a 'private' (see earlier posts) space. As long as these practices cannot be justified rationally, they have no place in civilized society.
Now, I could argue that I shouldn't care because religion (though not all religious people) is reactionary to begin with. But I won't. Because this stuff needs to be fought everywhere.
Hence, no exception for "private business". You either oppose racism and sexism on a fundamental level, or you're okay with it.
Great Old South wrote:Unithonia wrote:Know who else wanted to make everyone follow his ideology? Hitler
If you truly are advocating for forcing everyone to adhere to your ideology and/or its rules, you have reached a level of authoritarianism that can be only found in ideologies such as Stalinism, Fascism, Maoism, etc. Please, keep your 20th century dictatorial ideas away from me.
Yes, really, Hitler. The famous radical who wanted to eliminate sexism and racism...
No.
You know what the Nazis stood for? Treating women as second-class citizens, good for nothing but homemaking and birthing new settlers.
Not only were you barred from most jobs, but you would be fired even if you were capable. Hell, some of the shit reads like it came out of The Handmaid's Tale.
That said, I won't deny this is authoritiarian. Because you're right. It is. But progressives wouldn't have gotten very far if every time they were confronted, they would've waited for the other party to finally drop their reactionary views. (Slavery, Universal Suffrage, Marriage Equality, etc.)
And really, this is all very typical. A group expects to be treated as human beings judged only on their ability and content of their character, and reactionaries will cry it's a totalitarian dictatorship and their god-given rights are being infringed...
It also speaks volumes that no one that opposes this has so far tried to justify the temple's stance rationally. Only falling back on it being a "private" space (it isn't).
Torrocca wrote:"Your honor, it was not mein fault! I didn't order the systematic genocide of millions of people, it was the twenty kilograms of pure-cut Bavarian cocaine that did it!"
by Ifreann » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:53 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Ifreann wrote:It seems to me that if something is open to the public, then it should be open to all the public. If people want to enforce silly sexist rules, then they can make a members-only club and lock the doors.
Something like the Catholic Church and Mount Athos already is a members-only thing,
but the EU still says Mount Athos needs to be made to open to women.
by Kowani » Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:14 pm
by United Muscovite Nations » Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:17 pm
Ifreann wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Something like the Catholic Church and Mount Athos already is a members-only thing,
I've been to mass many times, in several different churches, and never once in my life was I asked to present my Catholic Church Membership Card. Several times I attended mass alone, in a church that was not my local church. I could have been anyone, walking in and sitting down. No one present was in a position to actually know my religious affiliation. In fact, I thought of myself as an atheist at that time, I was only attending mass because I was staying with my grandmother and she would have been upset if I didn't. I probably counted as technically Catholic as far as the Church is concerned, and probably still do today, but no one actually checked.
This is not how members-only organisations function. That church was open to the public. So was every other church I've been to.but the EU still says Mount Athos needs to be made to open to women.
From the sounds of it, Mount Athos is open to any man that might want to wander in, so I would submit that it is open to the public.
by Tobleste » Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:36 pm
Neutraligon wrote:Sure, as soon as they receive absolutely no financial support from the government whatsoever and start paying taxes.
by Conserative Morality » Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:56 pm
Kowani wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:You're supporting a sense of rationality over rational concerns, which would result in the conclusion that rationality is of no inherent benefit.
I’m back.
Essentially, it comes down to the slippery slope and the relativity of morality. If I am to push for the eradication of something on moral grounds, there is no reason that another cannot do the same. However, the ideas that they may present can be detrimental to the self, which is to be avoided. If they have to put forward their ideas on moral grounds, it’s easier to keep them out of the public sphere.
by Kowani » Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:16 pm
Point out that morality is subjective and ask for an objective reason not to do it.Conserative Morality wrote:Kowani wrote:I’m back.
Essentially, it comes down to the slippery slope and the relativity of morality. If I am to push for the eradication of something on moral grounds, there is no reason that another cannot do the same. However, the ideas that they may present can be detrimental to the self, which is to be avoided. If they have to put forward their ideas on moral grounds, it’s easier to keep them out of the public sphere.
If you don't push for the eradication of something on moral grounds, there's still no reason that another can't do the same.
Conserative Morality wrote:That being said, desire for the most beneficial (and what that is is an entirely different moral question) path for the self is most certainly a moral position.
by Sicaris » Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:21 pm
by Ifreann » Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:37 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Ifreann wrote:I've been to mass many times, in several different churches, and never once in my life was I asked to present my Catholic Church Membership Card. Several times I attended mass alone, in a church that was not my local church. I could have been anyone, walking in and sitting down. No one present was in a position to actually know my religious affiliation. In fact, I thought of myself as an atheist at that time, I was only attending mass because I was staying with my grandmother and she would have been upset if I didn't. I probably counted as technically Catholic as far as the Church is concerned, and probably still do today, but no one actually checked.
This is not how members-only organisations function. That church was open to the public. So was every other church I've been to.
From the sounds of it, Mount Athos is open to any man that might want to wander in, so I would submit that it is open to the public.
Just because they don't ask for it at the door doesn't mean that it's not a members only thing. Only members are allowed to partake of the Eucharist or Confession. Just because you live in a country where almost everyone is a member doesn't mean it isn't members only.
You clearly don't know anything about it because you have to go through a lengthy visa-application process.
by United Muscovite Nations » Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:39 pm
Ifreann wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Just because they don't ask for it at the door doesn't mean that it's not a members only thing. Only members are allowed to partake of the Eucharist or Confession. Just because you live in a country where almost everyone is a member doesn't mean it isn't members only.
I've also been to mass in England, where most people are members of a different club. I didn't need to do the secret Catholic handshake to get that sweet, sweet unleavened bread. If there's no checks to confirm membership then it's not really members only.You clearly don't know anything about it because you have to go through a lengthy visa-application process.
I guess not.
by Ifreann » Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:56 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Ifreann wrote:I've also been to mass in England, where most people are members of a different club. I didn't need to do the secret Catholic handshake to get that sweet, sweet unleavened bread. If there's no checks to confirm membership then it's not really members only.
I guess not.
Did you take the eucharist and go to confession while there?
And if you did, did they ask if you were baptized?
Because you do have to be a member to do those.
I disagree with the idea that, if there's no background check, there's no such thing as membership, they accept that you're a member based on your word.
by United Muscovite Nations » Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:03 pm
Ifreann wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Did you take the eucharist and go to confession while there?
I did take the eucharist, yes.And if you did, did they ask if you were baptized?
No.Because you do have to be a member to do those.
I know that those are ostensibly the rules. But there appears to be no effort put into enforcing the rules, so I submit that they are inconsequential.I disagree with the idea that, if there's no background check, there's no such thing as membership, they accept that you're a member based on your word.
If a members-only organisation does not restrict its activities to members, then it quite plainly is not actually members-only, regardless of what its rules say. If an organisation said that it was a charity but acted like a for-profit business, then it isn't really a charity, is it?
by Telconi » Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:05 pm
Ifreann wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Did you take the eucharist and go to confession while there?
I did take the eucharist, yes.And if you did, did they ask if you were baptized?
No.Because you do have to be a member to do those.
I know that those are ostensibly the rules. But there appears to be no effort put into enforcing the rules, so I submit that they are inconsequential.I disagree with the idea that, if there's no background check, there's no such thing as membership, they accept that you're a member based on your word.
If a members-only organisation does not restrict its activities to members, then it quite plainly is not actually members-only, regardless of what its rules say. If an organisation said that it was a charity but acted like a for-profit business, then it isn't really a charity, is it?
by USS Monitor » Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:14 pm
by Galloism » Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:17 pm
Ifreann wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Did you take the eucharist and go to confession while there?
I did take the eucharist, yes.And if you did, did they ask if you were baptized?
No.Because you do have to be a member to do those.
I know that those are ostensibly the rules. But there appears to be no effort put into enforcing the rules, so I submit that they are inconsequential.I disagree with the idea that, if there's no background check, there's no such thing as membership, they accept that you're a member based on your word.
If a members-only organisation does not restrict its activities to members, then it quite plainly is not actually members-only, regardless of what its rules say. If an organisation said that it was a charity but acted like a for-profit business, then it isn't really a charity, is it?
by The National Salvation Front for Russia » Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:19 pm
by Fahran » Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:28 pm
by Conserative Morality » Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:28 pm
The National Salvation Front for Russia wrote:Why would women want to go to Athos? If they're devout, they'd respect the rights of the monks to be apart from the wider world.
If they're not devout, that raises the question what the fuck are they doing there. Allowing women to "own deh monks" is hardly good policy.
by The National Salvation Front for Russia » Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:30 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:>> you can't go to holy places if you're not devout or else looking to denigrate them
:thonk:
by United Muscovite Nations » Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:31 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:The National Salvation Front for Russia wrote:Why would women want to go to Athos? If they're devout, they'd respect the rights of the monks to be apart from the wider world.
If they're not devout, that raises the question what the fuck are they doing there. Allowing women to "own deh monks" is hardly good policy.
>> you can't go to holy places if you're not devout or else looking to denigrate them
:thonk:
by Fahran » Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:32 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:It's not necessarily a holy place, it's just become a pilgrimage spot because it's a very unique place where monks live in mostly isolation from the outside world.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Asherahan, Big Eyed Animation, Corporate Collective Salvation, El Lazaro, Hidrandia, Ifreann, Jerzylvania, Kostane, Lycom, New Temecula, Port Carverton, The Lone Alliance, The Two Jerseys, Three Galaxies
Advertisement