Here we go again...

[Atom]

I know it's very easy to turn this kind of thread into a complete shitfest (it's like asking about politics or religion) so... Let's not do that, ok? Don't insult anyone please.
Probably one of the two things is going to happen: I will regret creating this thread or nobody is going to answer :D
I'm creating this thread purely to seek new ideas.

What is your personal point of view on living?

What morals do you think are right? What philosophies do you follow?
(Kantianism? Hedonism? Socialism? Individualism? Anarchism? Other?)
Or you would rather not associate yourself with any of existing teachings and philosophies? Maybe you rather not think about it and just go with the flow?

What should be the main goal of human existence?
Is it self-realization? Building a better future for our children? Or something else?

Maybe anything else you'd like to add?

[Vlerchan]

What morals do you think are right?
I'm an ethical nihilist.

When it comes to calculating the moral character of an action I judge from the position of a soft-utilitarian and ethical-consequentialist - the moral value of an action is found in its consequences and judged on how it impacts human kind as a whole. I use the term 'soft-utilitarian' because I believe that certain human rights should exist regardless of consequence. These are speech and body rights. I'm still a legal positivist though.

What philosophies do you follow?
I hold to Dialectal Materialism, Compatibilism and Marxist Humanism.

I also hold to Communitarianism and Structuralism and Radical Feminism.

What should be the main goal of human existence?
I'm an existential nihilist. I don't think there's a 'main' or 'set' goal.

[Miserabilia]

To me there really isn't one true goal or purpose or one truth out there,
for me personaly my goal in life is just to live untill I die, if that makes any sense.

[CosmicNoodle]

What is your personal point of view on living?

I'm a nihilist, there is no point in my opinion.

What morals do you think are right?

My own moral code that's far too long to type out and wouldn't make any sense, I have a somewhat twisted moral compass

What philosophies do you follow?

None

Or you would rather not associate yourself with any of existing teachings and philosophies?

I don't give a shit about any of them, if I happen to have similar views to them, great, but I refuse to identify with a single one.

Maybe you rather not think about it and just go with the flow?

No, I like to analyse every aspect of my existence.

What should be the main goal of human existence?

To be happy, not enough people are happy.



Answers!

[Karkat]

I'm somewhat of a hedonist, and somewhat of a nihilist.

I believe we make our own point in life, and we should enjoy what we have of it.

[thatcountrykid]

I don't classify myself under a group. I have my own code of ethics cause in the end they were my decision and I'll answer for it.

[Gamma Male]

I'm generally a ulitarian and rational hedonist.

I'm also an existential and ethical, but NOT epistemological nihilist.

I believe libertarian socialism/ anarchist mutualism / whatever you wanna call far left minarchy is the best government system.


I'm also a vegan and believe ethical consideration should be applied to all sentient beings.

Theologically I'm an agnostic atheist and an anti-theist.


Epistemologically I'm a sopolist, NOT a nihilist. The two are easy to confuse.


What should be the main goal of human existence?


Personally, I'd like to see us advance technologically and explore space.

But there isn't any set meaning or purpose to life. Meaning and purpose are both human inventions. If there was no intent behind something how can it have meaning? We're just as bunch of atoms on a blob of more atoms floating through spacetime.

Merged double posts. ~Typhlosion

[eli_w]

Utilitarian, socialist (given the government isn't shit)
anti-feminism, anti-masculinism, egalitarian
Agnostic of a sorts, was raised Christian but rather curious/confounded as of now
Overall goal of humans is to exist and then cease to exist

[Vlerchan]

anti-feminism, anti-masculinism, egalitarian
I have no idea why you don't feel that "feminist" suffices here.

Liberals just confuse me sometimes.

[eli_w]

I have no idea why you don't feel that "feminist" suffices here.

Liberals just confuse me sometimes.

Same reason that masculism does. Why didn't you mention that one as well?
Egalitarian is equality to its roots, something I am all for instead.

Feminism and masculism seem too blatantly biased for me. Why would a word that means equal rights for all, something that so many of any gender/ethnic/etc follow, have the root that translates literally and specifically to "female" (fem), vice versa

I'm all for equality as a philosophy, but don't support the modern social movements of feminism and masculism. They don't really seem to achieve much post-civil rights movements. Mostly just complaining on the internet about shit that's not really a big deal that spites the opposing gender.

Not really sure why you felt obliged to associate me with liberalism, supporting equality is not really a new and controversial political philosophy

[Vlerchan]

Same reason that masculism does. Why didn't you mention that one as well?
Because masculinism a faux-progressive form of post-feminism.

Feminism is a historical movement with cross-categorical equality at it's moving centre.

Why would a word that means equal rights for all, something that so many of any gender/ethnic/etc follow, have the root that translates literally and specifically to "female" (fem), vice versa
Because it recognises that patriarchal power-structures are the root of oppression.

Woman need to rise to equality with men.

They don't really seem to achieve much post-civil rights movements.
Modern feminism is concerned with eliminating the sex-based stereotyping that results in the social segregation of men and woman at both a horizontal and vertical level.

It has achieved lots in striving for this goal the last 40 years as evidenced in the continued breakdown of sex-based horizontal and vertical segregation.

Not really sure why you felt obliged to associate me with liberalism, supporting equality is not really a new and controversial political philosophy.
Most people who refer to themselves as egalitarians are just Liberal Feminists who take some weird moral issue with the use of the word Feminism.

[Babs]

What morals do you think are right?
This is sort of a broad question to answer. To keep it short, the morals I hold most are equality, I suppose.

What philosophies do you follow?
There's no specific philosophies I follow, per se. I believe in socialism, and feminism.

Or you would rather not associate yourself with any of existing teachings and philosophies? Maybe you rather not think about it and just go with the flow?
I don't really conform to a specific party, but I definitely identify with some more than others.

What should be the main goal of human existence?
I don't really believe in a goal for the entirety of humanity.

Is it self-realization? Building a better future for our children? Or something else?
It's different for each and every person.

Maybe anything else you'd like to add?
Feminism and egalitarianism are essentially the same thing and I don't quite understand why egalitarians are always bitching about feminism when they have the same goal.
"Well, it's specific to women! What about men?" The movement started because of the oppression women faced, and still face today. Women started the movement, women fought tooth-and-nail for our rights, I'm sure not having men included in the name of the movement isn't too much of an inconvenience for you.

[eli_w]

Because masculinism a faux-progressive form of post-feminism.

Feminism is a historical movement with cross-categorical equality at it's moving centre.

Already sounding biased. "A man is a male feminist, but a female is not a female masculist, because masculism is fake and dumb." Nice.

Feminism used to be about fighting for equality, before equality actually became a reality. Women have equal pay, equal opportunity in the work force, and home life is in favor of women 100% now. I think you're idea of what equality you're fighting for now is skewed. Equality is about equal opportunity, not equal accolades.

Because it recognizes that patriarchal power-structures are the root of oppression.

Woman need to rise to equality with men.

"Lets fight power-structures that cause oppression for all genders and sexualities by associating ourselves with a word that's inclined towards females!"

Modern feminism is concerned with eliminating the sex-based stereotyping that results in the social segregation of men and woman at both a horizontal and vertical level.

It has achieved lots in striving for this goal the last 40 years as evidenced in the continued breakdown of sex-based horizontal and vertical segregation.

Hardly. All feminists post-second wave have done is eradicate their own credibility, really. Most of what I see nowadays is feminists bitching about what men find attractive, or bitching about what men wear on their shirts (Matt Taylor), or bitching about mens' video games (Anita Sarkeesian). How can you reckon this is with equality in mind.

There's so much one-sidedness to it I just can't take it seriously.

[Babs]

Already sounding biased. "A man is a male feminist, but a female is not a female masculist, because masculism is fake and dumb." Nice.
Like Vlerchan said, masculism hasn't made any strides for mens' rights historically.

Feminism used to be about equality, before equality was a reality.
I think you'll find that men and women aren't as equal as you might think.



"Lets fight power-structures that cause oppression for all genders and sexualities by associating ourselves with a word that's inclined towards females!"
It's called feminism because women had rights taken away by, you guessed it, men. If the name wounds you so, then you might need to rethink your priorities.



Hardly. All feminists post-second wave have done is eradicate their own credibility, really. Most of what I see nowadays is feminists bitching about what men find attractive, or bitching about what men wear on their shirts (Matt Taylor), or bitching about mens' video games (Anita Sarkeesian). How can you reckon this is with equality in mind.
Have you thought about reading up on the many credible third-wave feminists, and not what you see on tumblr made by 13-year-olds?

[eli_w]

Like Vlerchan said, masculism hasn't made any strides for mens' rights historically.

The definitions are equally intentioned. It's not a competition of which is more established where the winner gets honorable mention.

I think you'll find that men and women aren't as equal as you might think.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=63
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo


It's called feminism because women had rights taken away by, you guessed it, men. If the name wounds you so, then you might need to rethink your priorities.


So that pretty much completely solidifies my original claim that the word is biased towards specifically women and not everyone else, yet the definition is "equality for all."

Strange, huh.



Have you thought about reading up on the many credible third-wave feminists, and not what you see on tumblr made by 13-year-olds?

Anita Sarkeesian is the head of the Feminist Frequency, has made tens of thousands of dollars from feminist backers, and is considered among the most influential and credible third-wave feminists out there.

That speaks for itself.

[Babs]

The definitions are equally intentioned. It's not a competition of which is more established where the winner gets honorable mention.
The intention is somewhat irrelevant. The result is more important.



http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=63
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo

Oh, so it's illegal. You know what else is illegal? Heroin, meth, marijuana, doesn't stop anyone from doing heroin, meth, and marijuana, does it now?




So that pretty much completely solidifies my original claim that the word is biased towards specifically women and not everyone else, yet the definition is "equality for all."

Strange, huh.


To reiterate, it started because women were institutionally oppressed. We're not about to change the name of what WOMEN fought for because it mildly hurts mens' feelings for trivial reasons.
Besides, today's sexism is result of a patriarchal society. Not matriarchal, patriarchal. It hurts men, too.



Anita Sarkeesian is the head of the Feminist Frequency, has made tens of thousands of dollars from feminist backers, and is considered among the most influential and credible third-wave feminists out there.

That speaks for itself.
What does this have to do with reading up on actual feminism?

[eli_w]

The intention is somewhat irrelevant. The result is more important.

Except the entirety of my original claim is definition vs. intention based. Oops.


Oh, so it's illegal. You know what else is illegal? Heroin, meth, marijuana, doesn't stop anyone from doing heroin, meth, and marijuana, does it now?

Shit happens. Not just to women. You know that right?
i.e. http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/innocent-boys-jail-nightmare/story-e6frg12c-1111113259916



To reiterate, it started because women were institutionally oppressed. We're not about to change the name of what WOMEN fought for because it mildly hurts mens' feelings for trivial reasons.
Besides, today's sexism is result of a patriarchal society. Not matriarchal, patriarchal. It hurts men, too.

Doesn't really hurt the feelings of men, just makes them take you about as seriously as a banana peel.


What does this have to do with reading up on actual feminism?

The fact that she's an actual credible third-wave feminist that I read up on.

[Vlerchan]

"A man is a male feminist, but a female is not a female masculist, because masculism is fake and dumb."
Right. I guess I'll use simpler words:

I don't consider masculinism a movement striving for egalitarianism regardless of what sex an identifying member might be.

It's not that you can't be a masculinist. It's that people with any interest in woman's liberation will immediately stop taking you seriously.

Feminism used to be about fighting for equality, before equality actually became a reality.
You'll find that when I use terms like "cross-categorical equality" I'm referring to equality beyond that of legal equality. In first-world countries social equality between men and woman doesn't exist. Both are still socialised differently, men to be masculine and woman to be feminine. This results in them acting differently and holding different life-outcomes as a result.

I find this most evident in sex-based disparities existing in different occupations. I like looking at STEM.

Women in STEM fields are often underrepresented, holding less than 25% of the jobs in the U.S. and 13% in the UK (2012). In the United States, studies have been conducted to explain this pattern, such as mechanisms in recruitment and hiring processes. On average, women in STEM fields earn 33% more than those in non-STEM professions. They also experience a smaller wage gap compared to men. However, women can be found as leaders in top professions around the country. These include the U.S. Department of Defense, NASA, and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEM_fields#Women

In general this vertical segregation with respect to occupation tends to benefit men.

Women have equal pay
Woman have equal pay in the same jobs in the same companies.

The fact remains that woman still predominantly end-up in lower positions in these same companies and lower-paying jobs on average.

This is part of the reason a wage gap exists.

[E]qual opportunity in the work force.
I'd like you to read the point I made about socialisation and then reconsider this statement.

and home life is in favor of women 100% now.
http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4635193/Screen_Shot_2014-06-18_at_12.56.18_PM.png

Mothers earn about 7 percent less per child than childless women. For women under 35 years of age, the wage gap between mothers and women without children is greater than the gap between women and men.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2012/04/16/11391/the-top-10-facts-about-the-wage-gap/

This is because when children are born it is expected that the mother either a) quit her job or b) find a more flexible (low-paying) job.

This is a main underlying factor in horizontal occupational segregation.

"Lets fight power-structures that cause oppression for all genders and sexualities by associating ourselves with a word that's inclined towards females!"
Please at least try address the point I made.

Most of what I see nowadays is feminists bitching about what men find attractive, or bitching about what men wear on their shirts (Matt Taylor), or bitching about mens' video games (Anita Sarkeesian). How can you reckon this is with equality in mind.
This is called the Fallacy of Composition.

Don't assume that we are all Tumblresque SWJs when we are not.

[Babs]

Except the entirety of my original claim is definition vs. intention based. Oops.

Then your original claim doesn't have much to do with the big picture.



Shit happens. Not just to women. You know that right?
i.e. http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/innocent-boys-jail-nightmare/story-e6frg12c-1111113259916

Never have I ever claimed that shit doesn't happen to boys. My point is that we still live in a patriarchal society.




Doesn't really hurt the feelings of men, just makes them take you about as seriously as a banana peel.
If it takes that little for men to dismiss something, then men are a little too dismissive. If men dismiss women getting credit for the movement women started and fought for in a society working against them, then yes, you're a bit too dismissive.




The fact that she's an actual credible third-wave feminist that I read up on.
"*names one feminist considered credible* success, I now know everything there is to now about modern feminism!" What I meant was make an effort to understand sexism and modern feminism.

[eli_w]

Then your original claim doesn't have much to do with the big picture.

Because the definition of the word you associate yourself with is VERY little in the big picture, right?

Never have I ever claimed that shit doesn't happen to boys. My point is that we still live in a patriarchal society.

Mind elaborating how this patriarchal society occurs where men are 10x more likely to face cruel and unusual punishment, are forced to be drafted if war sparks, and win custody of children about 15% of the time during divorce?
Society is just fucked overall, men and women alike. Sexism might still be a thing- it always will be, just like racism and similar. It always will be. but we do not still live in a patriarchal society.

If it takes that little for men to dismiss something, then men are a little too dismissive.

You're all about progression of equality but want to upkeep the sanctity of trivial advantages based off of accolades you contributed nothing in, much like cavemen wanted to upkeep their sanctity over women based off of their physical advantages.

"*names one feminist considered credible* success, I now know everything there is to now about modern feminism!" What I meant was make an effort to understand sexism and modern feminism.

That's like you saying you don't know anything about presidency because you've only studied up what Obama does.
Obviously I based my disagreement with feminism solely off of Anita Sarkeesian, not every other third-wave feminist I've also studied.

[Babs]

Because the definition of the word you associate yourself with is VERY little in the big picture, right?
The fact that it has done nothing to further society means more to me.




Mind elaborating how this patriarchal society occurs where men are 10x more likely to face cruel and unusual punishment, are forced to be drafted if war sparks, and win custody of children about 15% of the time during divorce?
Society is just fucked overall, men and women alike. Sexism might still be a thing- it always will be, just like racism and similar. It always will be. but we do not still live in a patriarchal society.
You're absolutely right. There's been too many female presidents. Why not have a male president for a change?


You're all about progression of equality but want to upkeep the sanctity of trivial advantages based off of accolades you contributed nothing in, much like cavemen wanted to upkeep their sanctity over women based off of their physical advantages.
You're missing the point entirely. Read it a few more times.



That's like you saying you don't know anything about presidency because you've only studied up what Obama does.
Obviously I based my disagreement with feminism solely off of Anita Sarkeesian, not every other third-wave feminist I've also studied.
No, it's not like that. You just said something about one feminist without making an effort to understand why feminism is necessary.

[Vlerchan]

[M]en are 10x more likely to face cruel and unusual punishment.
If you're talking about in trials:

It's the case that woman are taken less seriously in general.

[A]re forced to be drafted if war sparks.
In the US woman can also be called up to the draft.

[W]in custody of children about 15% of the time during divorce?
Woman on average spend more time with their children.

It's generally assumed that children have a stronger attachment to their mother.

---

Am I going to have my arguments addressed to?

[Lovelife090994]

I know people are going to hate my answer but I am speaking anyway. My views probably have many labels because I have some Christian morals, some Buddhist morals, some general Pagan morals, a lot. I look at humanity as tainted by evil or what we label as evil. I think people are responsible for their actions but can be influenced. I don't have a lot of hope for humanity but I see the human body as sacred, amazing, spiritual, and capable of doing many works.
I see love as love but don't see love as love when one or more people are getting hurt from it. I don't know if humans have a goal. Maybe knowledge, and preservation of the Earth.

[Arkansasguy]

I know it's very easy to turn this kind of thread into a complete shitfest (it's like asking about politics or religion) so... Let's not do that, ok? Don't insult anyone please.
Probably one of the two things is going to happen: I will regret creating this thread or nobody is going to answer :D
I'm creating this thread purely to seek new ideas.

What is your personal point of view on living?

What morals do you think are right? What philosophies do you follow?
(Kantianism? Hedonism? Socialism? Individualism? Anarchism? Other?)
Or you would rather not associate yourself with any of existing teachings and philosophies? Maybe you rather not think about it and just go with the flow?

What should be the main goal of human existence?
Is it self-realization? Building a better future for our children? Or something else?

Maybe anything else you'd like to add?

Aristotelian Thomism.