Catholics Trapped by Feminism

[Kamaduck]

I’m thinking Dr. Spock would disagree.

Only young Spock; old Spock comes to accept that emotions are a neccessary part of who he is. Even when he was younger, the narrative always pitted him against Bones, who would usually appeal to basic human decency.

Most of the time, neither one of them is right. It’s usually Kirk’s approach that saves the day, and his approach is usually taking a third option. He uses a combination of resourcefulness, emotional appeals, and willingness to take stupid risks. His plans take into account human emotions like pride, anger, envy, and curiosity; consequently, they’re more reliable than Spock’s plans, since Spock generally refuses to take a third option or try things out of desperation.

Star Trek regularly appealed to both logic and emotions, and the best response was generally one that accounted for and made full use of both. Spock’s logic isn’t portrayed as superior to McCoy’s emotions and bedrock moral values- you’ll note that Spock undergoes character development to become a more balanced individual who can understand emotions, while McCoy never becomes particularly more logical. If anything, Star Trek shows us that logic on its own isn’t enough when dealing with real-life humans.

If you’re going to throw out fictional references, it’s usually best to make sure that the narrative actually supports what you’re arguing.

 

[severus68]

Glad you liked them. I used to have fun debating an Evangelical friend on stuff like this. For starters, he wanted his wife to call him “Sir” every time, and wanted a girl from a village (keep in mind the context is Indian, so he was talking about an arranged marriage) because “they’ll be less educated, and hence respect me more.” )

Easier to ‘handle’ I suppose. Low self esteem, huge complex.

 

[severus68]

A ‘thank you’ towards RPRPsych is certainly in order, seeing as how they gave you an ‘out’ in not having to respond to criticisms of your lacking points.

I guess one could make a koan of it: If a person doesn’t respond to criticism, are their points still valid?

How about first explaining how what you say are fallacies, are in your opinion, fallacies?

 

[RPRPsych]

Easier to ‘handle’ I suppose. Low self esteem, huge complex.

The good thing is that he got better, thank God, and is now happily married to someone who’s as educated and qualified as him.

I pray 57D also finds happiness, perhaps in the same way.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

True. I should probably go to my local public library; the books will be much less scandalous.

Sarcasm aside, I actually was told to avoid the internet when I had more contact with Evangelical Protestants. We were also frequently told to avoid any arguments that disagreed with our current viewpoints (at the time, this meant not watching documentaries that spoke of evolution- I was encouraged by some to avoid documentaries altogether to avoid the “bad” ones), lest they convince us with their “deception”. Given that the articles on the Fix the Family site remind me very much of my experiences with Evangelical Protestantism, it adds a whole other layer of troubling implications.

That’s not a direct response to the article’s points, of course. I’m just wondering how much of this attitude is anti-college education specifically, and how much is actually against knowledge and critical thinking in general.

The libraries are also filled with corrupting filth like the Brothers Karamazov and Lady Chatterley’s Lover

I think I went to the wrong college.

I was referring to the internet which was clearly invented by Al Gore to put pornography in the hands of every child and to indoctrinate liberal beliefs.

Note, this post is sarcastic

 

[EasterJoy]

OK, so it wasn’t feminism that ruined the family, after all. It was the GI Bill. Now we know…

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

OK, so it wasn’t feminism that ruined the family, after all. It was the GI Bill. Now we know…

No, it was Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse by Rousseau published in 1761 that has ultimately caused the ruin of the family, society and has made gay marriage not only thinkable, but legal in a number of Western states.

This post is only partially joking.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

OK, so it wasn’t feminism that ruined the family, after all. It was the GI Bill. Now we know…

I am so lost! Haha

 

[Kamaduck]

The libraries are also filled with corrupting filth like the Brothers Karamazov and Lady Chatterley’s Lover

While they were careful with their own collections, most of the Evangelicals I know encourage use of public libraries. Of course, it’s not the same as the internet, since reading material usually has to be approved by parents. And maybe that’s a good thing in some cases.

The author does say in the “6 reasons” article that libraries and the internet allow anyone to learn anything with ease- as someone trying to learn basic calculus from just a textbook right now, I don’t think I agree with him, but in any case, it’s good that he supports those things. Most of the Evangelicals I knew were really suspicious of the internet, but most of them also really liked libraries. There was an idea that knowledge gained from a book was “real” and always trustworthy compared to articles found online. Kind of a “new media are evil” thing that didn’t apply to most books.

 

[felsguy]

I’m thinking Dr. Spock would disagree.

Only young Spock; old Spock comes to accept that emotions are a neccessary part of who he is. Even when he was younger, the narrative always pitted him against Bones, who would usually appeal to basic human decency.

Most of the time, neither one of them is right. It’s usually Kirk’s approach that saves the day, and his approach is usually taking a third option. He uses a combination of resourcefulness, emotional appeals, and willingness to take stupid risks. His plans take into account human emotions like pride, anger, envy, and curiosity; consequently, they’re more reliable than Spock’s plans, since Spock generally refuses to take a third option or try things out of desperation.

Star Trek regularly appealed to both logic and emotions, and the best response was generally one that accounted for and made full use of both. Spock’s logic isn’t portrayed as superior to McCoy’s emotions and bedrock moral values- you’ll note that Spock undergoes character development to become a more balanced individual who can understand emotions, while McCoy never becomes particularly more logical. If anything, Star Trek shows us that logic on its own isn’t enough when dealing with real-life humans.

If you’re going to throw out fictional references, it’s usually best to make sure that the narrative actually supports what you’re arguing.

:tiphat: Wow, I’m very impressed with such an in-depth anaysis. I assume it’s original.

It’s the same with Logic. It works fine when you’re programming a computer. ** But it has little application when you’re talking about human life.**

Nontheless, it is my strongly held opinion that Mr. Spock would not agree with the statement above. Unfortunately the transporter is our of order at the moment or I would have Scotty beam me up so I could ask him.​

Apparently, I mistyped Dr. instead of Mr. Spock in my earlier post. Interestly though, Doctor Spock once stated the following: "Learning how to use natural and logical consequences may be one of the most important skills that parents can learn.”

 

[EasterJoy]

Only young Spock; old Spock comes to accept that emotions are a neccessary part of who he is. Even when he was younger, the narrative always pitted him against Bones, who would usually appeal to basic human decency.

Most of the time, neither one of them is right. It’s usually Kirk’s approach that saves the day, and his approach is usually taking a third option. He uses a combination of resourcefulness, emotional appeals, and willingness to take stupid risks. His plans take into account human emotions like pride, anger, envy, and curiosity; consequently, they’re more reliable than Spock’s plans, since Spock generally refuses to take a third option or try things out of desperation.

Star Trek regularly appealed to both logic and emotions, and the best response was generally one that accounted for and made full use of both. Spock’s logic isn’t portrayed as superior to McCoy’s emotions and bedrock moral values- you’ll note that Spock undergoes character development to become a more balanced individual who can understand emotions, while McCoy never becomes particularly more logical. If anything, Star Trek shows us that logic on its own isn’t enough when dealing with real-life humans.

If you’re going to throw out fictional references, it’s usually best to make sure that the narrative actually supports what you’re arguing.

McCoy didn’t lack logic. McCoy lacked boldness. You get the feeling he only went on the voyage to keep his friend Kirk from killing himself and everyone else with his rashness. He considered himself not so much the voice of emotion as the voice of practical reason.

Without the stubbornness exhibited in turn by Spock, Bones, and Mr. Scott as ballast (the same Scott who later admitted to habitually lying by underestimation in order to be able to do what Kirk would ask him to do), Captain Kirk would have gotten them all killed before the first year was out. The show did very nicely show how people with different points of view complement each other.

 

[on_the_hill]

OK, so it wasn’t feminism that ruined the family, after all. It was the GI Bill. Now we know…

It may predate the GI Bill. Ive heard the culprit was WWII, because so many American women went to work to replace the men.

 

[EasterJoy]

It may predate the GI Bill. Ive heard the culprit was WWII, because so many American women went to work to replace the men.

IMHO, there was far more evil that came out of the world wars than most of us comprehend. I don’t know that the recognition that women are capable of driving trucks was one of them–I am actually old enough to remember when there were debates about whether women were capable of operating fork lifts!–but those were cold and heart-numbing times in the history of humankind.

 

[Sarcelle]

Believe it or not, when pursuing my B.A. in Philosophy, I actually majored in Logic, Aristotelian logic, no less. (While I was not taught by Aristotle himself, it seems so long ago that my professor probably was.)

Anyway, one of the “isms” I rememeber is contarianism, which can be a philosphy of life or sometimes just a technique in debating.

Here’s just a snippet from a more recent magazine article:

‘Sometimes you argue back, thinking you’re defending your rights and leading to a good outcome for yourself, but all the other person wants is attention for their position. Even if you resolve issue A, issue B will follow and then C and D. You have to ask yourself if it is more about the process than about resolving an issue. The way to extinguish their behaviour, if you can’t live with it, is by ignoring it rather than reinforcing it.

www.psychologies.co.uk/self/three-cheers-for-contrarians.html

.

A thousand thanks.

 

[Angelsflight]

Classic sign of looking for excuses to do something selfish. :doh2:

Yeah…whatever you say.