Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

[Greatest I am]

So man should rule for his own good then?

Rather self-centred wouldn't you say?

Is that moral?

Regards
DL

Man should not rule over women. It's not for anyone's good.

Not so if the ship is sinking.
Then I would suspect that most women would likely shut up and take the first seat in the lifeboat and would demand that men get out of it to let more women and children ride to safety.

If you and they would not, then yours and their morals are poor. Unless a decent moral reason is at hand.

Remember the Poseidon?

Regards
DL

[Losty]

Man should not rule over women. It's not for anyone's good.

Not so if the ship is sinking.
Then I would suspect that most women would likely shut up and take the first seat in the lifeboat and would demand that men get out of it to let more women and children ride to safety.

If you and they would not, then yours and their morals are poor. Unless a decent moral reason is at hand.

Remember the Poseidon?

Regards
DL

1) what you are describing is not man ruling over women. It's women demanding that their life is more valuable than the lives of men.
2) I don't believe in Poseidon any more than I believe in any other gods.

[Greatest I am]

Not so if the ship is sinking.
Then I would suspect that most women would likely shut up and take the first seat in the lifeboat and would demand that men get out of it to let more women and children ride to safety.

If you and they would not, then yours and their morals are poor. Unless a decent moral reason is at hand.

Remember the Poseidon?

Regards
DL

1) what you are describing is not man ruling over women. It's women demanding that their life is more valuable than the lives of men.
2) I don't believe in Poseidon any more than I believe in any other gods.

Oops. I meant the ship Poseidon. The one that sunk.

It is demanding that men do the right thing if they are to rule at all.

Or do you think the best thing to do is put the men and children in the life boats?

Why not just the men and leave the women and children to drown?

See the difference, ridiculousness, when you try to justify anything other than women and children first?

Regards
DL

[Losty]

Lol you're goofy.

---

Probably an even number of men and women is a good choice. Children cannot provide for themselves but can easily be reproduced later so long as there are both men and women available. Hehe

[Greatest I am]

Lol you're goofy.

---

Probably an even number of men and women is a good choice. Children cannot provide for themselves but can easily be reproduced later so long as there are both men and women available. Hehe

As long as I am correct.

Regards
DL

[Losty]

You are goofy and I have yet to see you give a good reason as to why your philosophy is correct.

[The Valkyrie]

1) what you are describing is not man ruling over women. It's women demanding that their life is more valuable than the lives of men.
2) I don't believe in Poseidon any more than I believe in any other gods.

Oops. I meant the ship Poseidon. The one that sunk.

It is demanding that men do the right thing if they are to rule at all.

Or do you think the best thing to do is put the men and children in the life boats?

Why not just the men and leave the women and children to drown?

See the difference, ridiculousness, when you try to justify anything other than women and children first?

Regards
DL

I'm assuming you mean the Titanic since the Poseidon, from the movies, was a fictional ship.

In this particular example, I would say that the best way to avoid such decisions is to avoid arrogance of "unsinkable" and not providing enough lifeboats to always preparing for the worst.

Also, in this example, it wasn't women demanding places on the ship but the insistence of the captain, crew, and many of the male passengers of, "women and children first".

I have no doubt that some women WOULD demand men make room for them in the lifeboats, as I have no doubt many men would do the same.

We don't truly know how we would react in such situations until we're in them, despite claims to the contrary we may make to make ourselves sound brave to ourselves and others.

[Tonus]

Why would a creator God have to threaten what he created with death?

He wouldn't have to. If he chose to --with no one capable of challenging him-- he is free to be as nice or as horrible as he desires. It's what makes so many of the deities that people worship so terrifying: they seem unpredictable and given to emotional outbursts, paired with the capability to completely disconnect those emotions. That's how you end up with a god who claims to love and care and then condemns people to an eternity of suffering because they worked exactly the way he meant them to.

[Darkstar]

To OP:

No. /thread

So man should rule for his own good then?

Rather self-centred wouldn't you say?

Is that moral?

Regards
DL

You know that isn't what I meant.

I probably shouldn't even bother trying to have a reasonable discussion, should I?

[orangebox21]

A command does not necessitate the commanded response. A command accompanied by a threat (like hell) is duress and it does/can take away your choice.

hypocrite. You forgot the threat.

But you did not say do them or I will die and that is what your God did.

If I would have added 'or you will die' to the command to do jumping jacks, does that necessitate that you did them?

That definitely annuls free and unhampered choice. Right?

To add 'free and unhampered' as qualifiers of choice is moving the goal posts. The argument here is: does a command take away choice. I have shown that it does not. You certainly can amend your claim to read: a command takes away free and unhampered choice. It is different argument.

This is just my opinion but I think this is why you and Losty are arguing that the command necessitates the commanded response. Both of you have a hidden premise in your argument. Namely that if there is a consequence to not making a choice that is extremely severe, it negates our 'free choice' and necessitates the commanded action. This may be true from an emotional perspective, in that we feel like we don't have a choice, but is not true logically, in that it necessitates our choice.

It doesn't technically take away your choice, but it introduces a factor that can't just be waved away. If god's offer is "do as I say or I'll take away the gift of life and you'll cease to exist" he may come across as harsh but reasonable. If his offer is "do as I say or I'll torment you forever" then he comes across as cruel and heartless. That cannot be rationalized away with "but you have a choice," as far as I am concerned.

This is where it gets tricky. We must establish that a command does not necessitate the commanded response. Then we can move on to God's moral obligation.

If I were to say to you, don't stick a fork in that wall outlet [a command] or you will die [a threat]. Does that necessitate you wouldn't stick a fork in the wall outlet? No (unless you're ShaMan). Is 'or you will die' a threat, or a warning of the consequences of your actions? If you were to stick a fork into the wall outlet and as a result die would you bear the responsibility of the consequences of your choice or would I?