Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: "Pluralist" vs. "Singularist" 71
Fustacrackitch makes a good point: the Left/Right "dichotomy" is content-free.
Commonplace, but not meaningful. Fusty, as usual, grouses without offering alternatives, except, perhaps, ignoring the no-kidding questions besetting society.
"The sun also rises," he seems to say, in his hemming and hawing way. (SWIDT?)
The very real divide in the discussion, AFAICT, is due to having reverted to a quasi-aristocracy. By which I mean a ruling clique of oligarchs and career bureaucrats.
You can say "Deep State" if there is an interest in trolling, but it's more a function of organizational behavior. Conspiratorial efforts are mostly implicit. The players all went to the same schools, snorted the same Marxist DranO, and think that they are ushering in some sort of "worker's paradise".
The Socialist mantra, pushed by these people, then, is some argument about the plural preceding the singular, individual, sovereign citizen.
It is a tyranny of the majority controlled by a minority vanguard. Since Socialism argues that the many precede the indicviduals, I will henceforth call this the "Pluralist" view. Those adhereing to Natural Law notions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will be called "Singularist". It must be stated that a radical individuality is putting too fine a point on my view. The human default is:
1. Life at conception, when the genetic information is complete. There is no magic in general, and especially _no_ magical post-conception moment when life, as such, is attained. It is a diabolical lie from the pit to claim otherwise, irrespective of whatever sophistries and credentials are piled onto the falsehoods to make them sound pleasant.
2. Birth with an immutable gender. Various errors, affectations, and illness may run rampant in society, but gender the idea that gender is a social construct is another diabolical lie from the pit. As Timcast points out, there is a trans genocide. It is pushed by these Pluralists normalizing falsehood, and sterilizing Gen Z. Only the Devil would claim to be helping someone with a knee problem by amputating a leg, but that sort of thing is what is miscalled "care" in our twisted day.
3. Form follows function. One is quite aware that other geometries are possible, but the unspeakable is better left unspoken. Because the future belongs to those who show up. And they show up by having families. Families are properly formed by an XXXY chromosome set. There are no legitimate alternatives, just a pack of lies, however transiently pleasant.
4. Tolerance of folly is not wisdom. Nor are accusations interesting. An alternative argument starting with absolute truth and refuting any of 1-3 is of interest. Change my mind.
To summarize, when I say "Singularist", I really mean that the preferred (though obviously not sole) base unit of society is the family. When I say "Pluralist", I mean those forces bent on replacing what is good with some ersatz, unsustainable garbage. Fusty's chief power seems to be dissatisfaction, so this post (a) will not meet whatever standard he may have, and (b) will not be met with any alternatives. But one tries, nonetheless.
Commonplace, but not meaningful. Fusty, as usual, grouses without offering alternatives, except, perhaps, ignoring the no-kidding questions besetting society.
"The sun also rises," he seems to say, in his hemming and hawing way. (SWIDT?)
The very real divide in the discussion, AFAICT, is due to having reverted to a quasi-aristocracy. By which I mean a ruling clique of oligarchs and career bureaucrats.
You can say "Deep State" if there is an interest in trolling, but it's more a function of organizational behavior. Conspiratorial efforts are mostly implicit. The players all went to the same schools, snorted the same Marxist DranO, and think that they are ushering in some sort of "worker's paradise".
The Socialist mantra, pushed by these people, then, is some argument about the plural preceding the singular, individual, sovereign citizen.
It is a tyranny of the majority controlled by a minority vanguard. Since Socialism argues that the many precede the indicviduals, I will henceforth call this the "Pluralist" view. Those adhereing to Natural Law notions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will be called "Singularist". It must be stated that a radical individuality is putting too fine a point on my view. The human default is:
1. Life at conception, when the genetic information is complete. There is no magic in general, and especially _no_ magical post-conception moment when life, as such, is attained. It is a diabolical lie from the pit to claim otherwise, irrespective of whatever sophistries and credentials are piled onto the falsehoods to make them sound pleasant.
2. Birth with an immutable gender. Various errors, affectations, and illness may run rampant in society, but gender the idea that gender is a social construct is another diabolical lie from the pit. As Timcast points out, there is a trans genocide. It is pushed by these Pluralists normalizing falsehood, and sterilizing Gen Z. Only the Devil would claim to be helping someone with a knee problem by amputating a leg, but that sort of thing is what is miscalled "care" in our twisted day.
3. Form follows function. One is quite aware that other geometries are possible, but the unspeakable is better left unspoken. Because the future belongs to those who show up. And they show up by having families. Families are properly formed by an XXXY chromosome set. There are no legitimate alternatives, just a pack of lies, however transiently pleasant.
4. Tolerance of folly is not wisdom. Nor are accusations interesting. An alternative argument starting with absolute truth and refuting any of 1-3 is of interest. Change my mind.
To summarize, when I say "Singularist", I really mean that the preferred (though obviously not sole) base unit of society is the family. When I say "Pluralist", I mean those forces bent on replacing what is good with some ersatz, unsustainable garbage. Fusty's chief power seems to be dissatisfaction, so this post (a) will not meet whatever standard he may have, and (b) will not be met with any alternatives. But one tries, nonetheless.
Again you don't pay attention (Score:1)
Authority always comes from the same direction. What you describe as "oligarchs" and "bureaucrats" are simple authoritarians, whose purpose is to impose their will. There's nothing "left" about them, it is simple "might makes right". Exactly how it works in all of nature. If you truly want to know, "left" is totally anti-authoritarian. Anarchists are the only thing you cab correctly describe as "left". Everything else is not.. Not "pluralist" or anything else of the kind. I have told you this many times, a
Re: (Score:2)
First breath is that magical moment, even some "philosophers" agree to that.
So, would you contend that someone in the womb is dead until extracted and animated by an application of magical atmosphere to the lung? Because this is a startling refutation the kicks of life that mothers feel from non-stillborn children.
Ah, the very root of patriarchal authoritarianism
Ah, I suppose that if you're clueless about when life begins, you have no concept of the mystical "one flesh" concept of marriage, and how that, as Christ sacrificed Himself for the Church, so the husband for the wife and children. I know, I know, I know: this model is de
Re: (Score:1)
So, would you contend that someone in the womb is dead until extracted and animated by an application of magical atmosphere to the lung?
Didn't say "dead", you are using emotion. The fetus is part of the mother until she delivers. Until then she shall be the sole decider of its fate, not the state, not your religion, not the husband
as Christ sacrificed Himself for the Church...
Again you proselytize your religion
so the husband for the wife and children
And you are putting the husband on the pedestal, establishing his dominion, even over the mother's fetus.
But "patriarchal authoritarianism" is a d_r-style argument.
More hand waving, I shouldn't expect anything less
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't say "dead", you are using emotion.
You said:
breath is that magical moment
...when "life" begins. What third category exactly are your mental gymnastics introducing into the boolean life/death dichotomy?
You are as truth-averse as d_r in your need to rationalize the monstrous.
Again you proselytize your religion
Again, you offer me nothing, nothing whatsoever, in terms of a positive alternative. You seem to assert that mothers have a hunting license to kill whatever grows in their womb. No wonder our society is so thoroughly jacked up, if we have abandoned the concept of family in favor of your chaos.
Re: (Score:1)
The "right" to life begins upon delivery, not before
You seem to assert that mothers have a hunting license to kill whatever grows in their womb.
Like d_r, you're just making things up. Please reread, leaving the emotional religion and patriarchal baggage aside. We shant let corrupt crazy baldheads [youtube.com] define "life". What grows inside her body is hers, not yours, or anybody else's.
you offer me nothing, nothing whatsoever, in terms of a positive alternative.
meaning conforming to your faith. My "alternatives" are very positive, even more than you, I am standing up for the autonomous individual. You want to exclude females from your definition of autonomous
Re: (Score:2)
The "right" to life begins upon delivery, not before
You're shifting the topic from: "when does life begin" to when "[t]he 'right' to life begins". This is indicative of a setup for mental gymnastics.
Re: (Score:1)
Life began a long time ago. We are just a link in a long chain. Your whole argument is about subjugating women, mental gymnastics indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Life began a long time ago. We are just a link in a long chain.
I had seriously thought you were arguing from a libertarian vantage. But this is pure collectivism. Did the Covid booster affect you?
Your whole argument is about subjugating women, mental gymnastics indeed.
You do violence to my position, both in general and in my own marriage. If you have any regard for truth, try Ephesians 5:21-33.
Re: (Score:1)
I had seriously thought you were arguing from a libertarian vantage.
Always.. I'm a "lefty"
But this is pure collectivism.
You fail to explain how so. Besides, your markets are a collective, so where's the beef?
You do violence to my position
I think I've that ruse before. "We're under attack!" is the war cry, right? Your life and relationships are anecdotal. You don't recognize the woman's right to choose, and threaten real violence against those who do
Re: (Score:1)
I think I've heard that ruse before.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't recognize the woman's right to choose
Of course women can make choices; the choice to murder remains immoral. You and d_r both reach for euphemism to cloak evil.
Re: (Score:2)
I refuse to recognize anybody's "right to choose" to do harm to their neighbor, which is why I'm against liberty and your violence-based freedom.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not murder
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much is. You lost that debate with the invention of the ultrasound machine. But that fits, because you're a "lefty" who is no different than any other genocidal maniac anarchist to throw a bomb since the 1890s. You're all authoritarian as long as you can define the humanity of somebody else as being not human.
Re: (Score:1)
Bad analogy.. A fetus is not a neighbor, it is part of the mother... you seem to prefer violence-based tyranny. How is that any better?
Re: (Score:1)
Monsters of the previous century cheer you on from Hell, probably.
So strange to hear stuff like that from a person that defends war
Re: (Score:2)
How much closer of a neighbor can you get?
Face it, your classifying a human being as NOT HUMAN is no different than any other authoritarian genocidal maniac.
Re: (Score:1)
'Round and 'round we go.. It's up to the mother, and nobody else to decide. Can't be any simpler, nothing to do with your "genocide" hyperbole. We can't let men decide what a woman can do with her body
Re: (Score:2)
We can't let men decide what a woman can do with her body
Are you a biologist? I didn't think "we" (as in, the culture at large) retained coherent definitions of male/female, life/death, right/wrong. Those categories are so much white supremacist bigotry, I had been informed by "experts".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, since everything is by degree around here, you don't assign the same evil to war as you do abortion...it's a back handed form of defense
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Abortion is war on truth.
Your truth, and defending real war with its wanton killing of living breathing humans is the same folly then, but folly or not, our final wage is death, we are all doomed to the same fate
You are united with damn_registrars
:-) Then we are a threesome.
Re: (Score:2)
All that the sane can do is protect their children from your predations, that they may grow, have families, and look back on the filth you spew with faint ho
Re: (Score:1)
This truth has nothing to do with me.
You are only expressing boilerplate religious hyperbole, your truth, and are quite selective about sanctity of life.
Re: (Score:2)
quite selective about sanctity of life.
I've made a simple, consistent claim that life begins at conception. Your "first breath" bollocks doesn't pass the baby kicking in the womb test. I daresay pretty much every actual mother understands this point. Objective truth remains that; but I support and defend your Constitutional right to your sophistries.
Re: (Score:1)
Life began before conception. Takes life to make life. You're just picking winners and losers. And first breath is a perfectly good metric
The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being (Genesis 2:7)
Re: (Score:2)
And first breath is a perfectly good metric
Survey mothers who have had a child kick in the womb with your nonsense. "First breath" is a pretext to support slaughter.
Re: (Score:1)
Survey mothers who believe the choice is hers, and not yours, with your nonsense
"First breath" is a pretext to support slaughter.
That's just your religious bias talking
Re: (Score:2)
So women get to commit murder, because you say so? Rather authoritarian that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I draw no satisfaction from watching humans act like the animals they are, in fact I'm quite disappointed in our slow pace of evolution, just shows that the brain stem rules over all and the cortex serves, that being the reason for its creation and existence
Re: (Score:1)
Not murder... Besides, men are allowed to commit murder all the time, just carry a flag and flash a badge, where's the fight against that? You can't have it both ways. If abortion is murder, then all killing of humans is murder
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I cannot tell if you are for or against evolution...
I cannot tell why you think it matters. Evolution happens with, or without our approval. And of course nature (reality) is totally amoral, indifferent, incorruptible, and it's electro-chemical. "Morality" is a human invention.
Re: (Score:2)
Anarchists are the most "might makes right" people I know.
Insult them and you get a bomb thrown through your window.
If your foot makes you sin, cut it off (Score:2)
I was confused by some things in this journal post.
"singular, individual, sovereign citizen"
"Life at conception, when the genetic information is complete."
Overzealous protection of the life of an unborn child has led to unfortunate patterns of violation of the mother's sovereignty. It has led to exposing mothers to substantial risk of death for days while a nonviable unborn child's heart is still beating. See "Because of Texas' abortion law, her wanted pregnancy became a medical nightmare" by Carrie Feibel [npr.org].
Re: (Score:2)
violation of the mother's sovereignty
This is a thoroughly novel, modern innovation.
Overzealous deference to neonatal professionals' determination of apparent sex at birth
I don't understand what this word salad means. Chromosomes determine sex. Period. Discussion over. No false, novel, modern innovations necessary unless pursuing Satanic ends.
De la Chapelle syndrome
Normalizing syndromes seems a Satanic inversion. God almighty have mercy on you peddlers of such evil filth, rationalizing the destruction of a generation, and then doing victory laps about how much you care. Way to carry forward the mostrosities of the previous century.
Re: (Score:1)
violation of the mother's sovereignty
This is a thoroughly novel, modern innovation.
Yes, to you it would be. You obviously don't consider females to be "sovereign", especially pregnant ones, Thus spoke the patriarchy
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously don't consider females to be "sovereign", especially pregnant ones, Thus spoke the patriarchy
In very much the same breath I don't consider a male of the species who has created life with a female to be "sovereign" and unaccountable before God for his actions.
Thus spoke an adult man who insists upon placing his family ahead of himself.
Your attempt to denigrate the family with slurs like "patriarchy" indicates that you're basically supporting d_r's Orwellian view of the government and "experts" as the shiny new parents.
Re: (Score:1)
Thus spoke an adult man who insists upon placing his family ahead of himself.
He is placing future of his DNA before all else, and he's perfectly happy to kill other families that don't contain his DNA. If you are going to be "pro-life" you have to respect all life, including postnatal
Re: (Score:2)
he's perfectly happy to kill other families that don't contain his DNA
I'm sorry: who is "He" here? Because you've entered the mind of a pronoun, read that mind, and discovered willingness to murder. Quite an astounding feat.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sorry: who is "He" here?
The "adult man", of course, as if you didn't know. And, war is murder, so hey...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Evasive"? How? You are confused. It was a direct answer to your question. How is that not so?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Like it or not the individual is the group.
"Pluralist" vs. "Singularist" strikes again.
Bunch of hokey nonsense. You're trying to use standard crowd psychology to justify bad choices made by the individual, as if one cannot choose not to follow the herd. Do you, or do you not believe in free will?
Re: (Score:2)
You're trying to use standard crowd psychology to justify bad choices made by the individual, as if one cannot choose not to follow the herd. Do you, or do you not believe in free will?
I am? Once again, your analysis astounds. I support the idea of individual liberty and free moral agency. As an editorial preference, I strive to use "believe" in the context of pointing to that which is ultimately true, i.e. the meaning of life.
Re: (Score:1)
I am?
Yes, you are. If people have "free moral agency", they can choose not to follow the marauding hordes. So, I remind you, all choices are personal
the meaning of life
More hogwash. Life doesn't need or have "meaning". We're here and should just make the best of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Life doesn't need or have "meaning". We're here and should just make the best of it.
Always with the bollocks. You reject "meaning" and in the very next sentence use the word "best", implying some spectrum of judgement. I cannot find a more representative sample of the amusement of interacting with you.
Re: (Score:1)
the amusement of interacting with you.
Always happy to oblige. But you have shown no "meaning". It is a construct of your conditioning and imagination. "Best" and/or "judgement" do not imply "meaning", but likewise, I am amused by your efforts to bring your deity into this
People with DSD are human beings (Score:2)
Chromosomes determine sex. Period. Discussion over.
Given that chromosomes absolutely determine sex, this means people with 46,XX SRY translocation [wikipedia.org] are female by your definition. This in turn means that females can produce sperm.
Given that chromosomes absolutely determine sex, this means people with 46,XY gonadal dysgenesis [wikipedia.org] are male by your definition. This in turn means that males can have a uterus, become pregnant with a donor embryo, and bear children.
Given that chromosomes absolutely determine sex, who pays for determining what chromosomes each newborn c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should people with serious DSD, whom you call "rare anomaly", have to live in hiding on pain of imprisonment for having violated "the rule"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
:-) So, you're not going to respond, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
the rare exception
It's called an "anomaly", and you should show the same respect to people who exhibit/display an anomaly as you would anybody else, as a general principle
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Absolutely no one has been disrespected in any way, shape or form.
Your denials do not make that so. Disrespect for the "exception" is total, mostly due to the religious evangelists in mass media, "she's a witch!"
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely no one has been disrespected in any way, shape or form.
Your denials do not make that so.
Possibly you could point to a specific name which has been rubbished? I haven't named any myself. Is the task here to call me a warlock and burn me at the stake for the sins of others? Given that you reject the idea of truth, such a wicked outcome should certainly be in scope, I suppose.
Re: (Score:1)
Given that you reject the idea of truth...
Not at all. Just yours, it is opinion, and a highly biased one, not truth, I mean, unless you can prove otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sovereignty is not worth protecting when it violates the sovereignty of somebody else. So no, this argument fails before it even begins.
NOBODY should have any freedom if it leads to murder.
Re: (Score:2)
If a mother dies of complications of a tubal pregnancy, both the mother and the unborn child will die. So if the unborn child is murdering the mother, it reduces harm to save one life, namely that of the mother, compared to saving no lives.
Re: (Score:2)
That requires a cesarian birth, not a chemical abortion- in fact, a chemical abortion will make the situation WORSE.
Therefore this is an argument *against* chemical abortions.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still a C-section while the unborn child's heart is still beating, a procedure that some hospitals in anti-abortion states have become afraid to do before the tube ruptures.
Re: (Score:2)
This despite the fact that c-sections remain legal even in anti-abortion states, which leads me to conclude, as I did during the great pandemic, that doctors don't understand ethics, politics, or mathematics.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand these bans, c-sections of babies old enough to have reached viability (circa 25 weeks gestation) remain legal if there is a medical indication, and c-sections of babies not yet viable are considered prohibited abortions.
The thing keeping me from being a full monarchist (Score:2)
Is the quality of the American nobility that has arisen. I don't care which family you cite- they're all equally horrible.