The late great MRA Angry Harry did a podcast back in 2014 on free will which I didn't notice until now. It is highly recommended by me:
So what do I think, do we have free will? Let's see. I definitely have a will, at least. I know that I am free to act in accordance with my will, within the limits of my willpower and physical constraints. My will appears to be determined, but so what? I can't want something I don't want, but I can want everything I want. So there is no problem, except willpower, which is a separate issue.
You want your decisions to be determined by the person that you are, because that is how you are most likely to make the best possible decisions for yourself. No one is better qualified than you to know what you want. The person that you are was determined by your genetics and the environment that you were born into, none of which you had a say in (you obviously can't design your own creation because you have to exist in the first place before you can do anything). As Angry Harry Points out, if there is such a thing as a soul, you didn't choose it either, and if God is responsible for your existence, then that is also beyond your control.
In any case, here I am and I take ownership of the person that I am and I want my will to be determined by it. I am therefore at peace with determinism. Your will is determined the only way you should want it to be determined, if you are a healthy human (and yes, that is a big caveat, but letting others mess with your will is fraught with extreme danger even if you are what is considered insane). Any other causation of your will would make it less rather than more free, or at least less of what you want it to be.
I agree with Angry Harry that wrongdoers (including feminists) still need to be punished even if they have no free will, because punishment is one of the best ways to influence behavior. The same applies to political activism. Maybe they couldn't have acted differently, but they and others will act differently in the future if we acknowledge personal responsibility. I also agree that perhaps we should have some more compassion with wrongdoers, particularly when they bear a heavy price. They have less reason to proudly take ownership of their soul or essence than I have, because it led to such disastrous results for them and others. Nevertheless, the lack of free will does not excuse their actions, and they should still be punished, but perhaps punishments should be more limited. Arguably there should be no death penalty or life in prison, at least if the person is willing to be rehabilitated.
Now I want to delve a little deeper into the metaphysics of free will, because it is by no means settled if it exists or if the hardcore determinist position is true. The fact that we feel free to make decisions cannot be so easily dismissed. Why did evolution give us the feeling of free will if it doesn't do anything? After all, it would be redundant to have an awareness or even the illusion of free will if it can't influence behavior, so it would not be maintained through natural selection. One possible answer is that your will definitely does do something important for behavior, but it may still not be free in the philosophical sense which demands indeterminism (which, as I have shown, is an unreasonable position to take). If philosophical zombies were possible and easy, nature would have made them instead of us. I believe zombies are possible given unlimited computation -- the path artificial intelligence is currently taking seems to lead there -- but the fact that we are conscious, including conscious of our own decision-making, shows that it is easier to make sentient creatures with the feeling of free will, at least with the resources that biology has to work with. Our emotions and experience of will are shortcuts to what would otherwise require unrealistic amounts of computation. But why is this so? That is the hard problem of consciousness, I guess, and I don't know.
Another possible answer is that consciousness is a necessary result of some forms of information processing -- the kinds optimized by biology, at least -- and free will is a necessary aspect of consciousness, particularly when we need to make plans about the future. Perhaps you can't have consciousness which takes the future into account without the feeling of free will (and if you only live in the moment, the issue can't arise in the first place). It has been proven that no being can predict his next action, which means that we all have free will from our subjective point of view. And that perspective is the only one which really matters most of the time. In that case, free will is a happy accident of biology and logic.
So I am mostly a compatibilist, while open to the possibility that there is something more to free will that we don't understand. I am living proof that people can choose to go radically against their environment without being insane or otherwise highly unusual, since I refused to internalize the sexual taboos of my culture and instead became a men's rights activist. To me it feels like I made a choice, and you have that choice too, if you are reading this. Even if determinism is ultimately true, you now have enough information to reject the feminist sex laws. I made a moral choice based on thinking about how the world ought to be versus how it is. Not some Utopian vision, mind you, just a strong desire to repeal certain profoundly unjust laws. We know this is humanly possible, because these laws were created by humans in the first place, most of them very recently.
Saturday, April 01, 2017
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
And there are aggressive demands of tolerance of drawn depictions of child molestation — created by and for pedophiles — because it is a “victimless crime,” never mind that the consumers are pedophiles who must restrain themselves from what all decent people regard as an awful crime. These abhorrent practices normalize pedophilia.
Drawings are never abhorrent practices -- they are just drawings and never deserve to be criminalized. Neither does any other form of information or speech except direct credible threats. I am far more horrified by the normalization of punishing people for pictures and drawings and texts than the normalization of pedophilia. Imprisonment for images has already been completely normalized, and that is a big reason why I am a men's rights activist.
You believe that the age of consent is unfair and that there’s nothing wrong with having sex with teenage girls. But when you find out that a teenage girl enjoys sex, you believe she’s the biggest slut in the world.
No, I have nothing against sluts and don't engage in slut shaming. You must be confusing me with somebody else.
100% of MRAs at RoK says that the minimum age to have sex with a woman is 18. you are not a MRA.
They would be the fake MRAs then, but I find it hard to believe.
I see 16-year-old feminists calling rapists to men who have sex with 17-year-old girls.
Only if they are brainwashed. That is not something girls come up with by themselves, and would never occur to anyone without feminist indoctrination. It still doesn't in most of the world. Why some men embrace this toxic ideology and even call themselves MRAs at the same time is beyond my comprehension.
In contrast to feminism, I'd like to extend an honorable mention to Samantha Geimer, who is refusing to accept the corrupt feminist definition of rape despite being Roman Polanski's "victim." There are plenty of idiots who think the fact that she was 13 is enough to consider it rape, but she isn't so dense. Of course, it could still be rape if it was forcible, but it wasn't. She was persuaded to take drugs in order to become more pliable, but did so willingly and was not raped. Here is how she responds to the hateful dimwits who want to define her as a rape victim:
"SPIEGEL: There are people whose lives are destroyed after an experience like that.
Geimer: I wasn't like that. I wasn't raised with that strange sense of shame. Sex wasn't evil. I knew what sex was. No one had ever drummed it into my head that sex was dirty or shameful. Besides, I wasn't afraid for my life. I wasn't afraid that he would hurt me."
She didn't resist and she wasn't even afraid to, so obviously it wasn't rape. Those who feel Polanski should be punished are wicked people and I hate their guts. Refreshingly, his supposed "victim" is not among them.
This case is also a good illustration of the fact that women aren't raped just because they say "no" or tell the man to stop, which she did twice. Any reasonable person understands that the feminist slogan "no means no" is just hateful drivel which has nothing to do with real life. Rape is intercourse resisted by the woman to the best of her ability unless she is seriously threatened, and having sex with her against mere verbal protests is never rape.
More details at:
Diferences between the ideologies of feminism and liberalism who are in conflict but they are the same evils
The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.
"Prostitution is sex slavery, should be banned to protect women and girls"
The goal of liberalism is to remove all constraints on adult sexuality while maximally restricting underage sexuality.
"If prostitution is between consenting adults is not your bussines"
Thanks to that evils and their role in it, it’s fair to say that liberalism has huge responsibility for destroying the lives of tens of thousands of men worldwide, denying ephebophiles and the social disabled the right to experience sexual pleasure with non social adults.
Lol. Feminists brainwash girls as young as 13 so they do not get hot and sexy for men, the pussy union of old hags at its best.
Hahahaha you are the best caamib
She will be meat of some rapefugee like Maria Ladenburger
Now Germany has banned marriage with minors? what the hell is going on? Does anyone know more?
Lol. Does anyone care if they forbid marriage under 18? Or does it only matter to men that the government will not let them get down the girls' panties?
Dissident MRAs: 'The only evil laws are those that prohibit putting your willy in underage girls, the rest of prohibitions to underagers do not matter.'
Even Norway hasn't banned marriage under 18 yet as far as I know. It is still possible to get married at 16 with parental permission. But perhaps this is just an oversight on the part of our feminist legislators, because it is propagandized as a great horror of "child brides" when it happens in other countries. I expect the law to be changed the next time it is used if it isn't already.
Marriage age isn't as important as age of consent because it doesn't function as a tool of oppression to put men in prison, but as an MRA, of course I support a reasonable marriage age as well.
Putting one's willy in underage girls is wonderful, but let's be clear about what MRA is: our focus should be on fighting back against the state for hurting us in unfair and oppressive ways. Where you want to put your willy is really a personal rather than political matter; it just happens that one of the leading causes of injustice against men is perpetrated via prohibitions on underage sex, along with a corrupted definition of rape and so on, and that is why we talk about sex with minors so much.
"that is why we talk about sex with minors so much."
dere snakker ikke om annet
The pathology in society continues - especially in the US. Heavy police forces and large scale man hunt against male teacher infatuated with female student:
Yes, I was just tweeting about that case. The girl eloped willingly and for that the man turns into America's most wanted criminal. I can understand that the parents got worried about her disappearance, but the couple wouldn't need to run away in the first place if this kind of romance wasn't so insanely persecuted.
"The only evil laws are those that prohibit putting your willy in underage girls, the rest of prohibitions to underagers do not matter"
The age of consent laws are the indicator or the overall men's siuation in the west. The lower they are the better the situation is (from the divorce to punishment of the psychogical injures caused by females).
Underages don't have any other proibition, eventually the have the age pass when they set up a crime:
Linda Wenzel, 16 from Pulsnitz (near Dresden, Sachsen) was captured by the iraqi army. She joined the Islamic State less than 2 years ago, when, younger than 15, she was able to fool:
1) her parents who gave her the money,
2) the german cops and customs
3) the turkey cops and customs
5) travelling alone to syria and iraq
6) join the Mosul female police corp
7) marry a russian submissive
8) became a female sniper elite (in fact she was captured while she was operating as sniper)
all this by speaking only german.
What the shit are we talking about? 14 yeas old women called "children" and "kids" like if they were 4 years old...?!? We should not even be talking about it! Imaginative children, wtf....
She was able to set an operation that many 30/40 yo need the material help from the ISIS to do it (fake documents, passeurs, so on...). She did everything alone. I can only admire her from this perspective.
But as I said, the age pass is coming with the pussy pass. Men have been genocided, this one womam is gonna be "de-radicalized".
(notice the terms: "german teen" instead of her name, and the abuse of the terms "child" and "children")
I'd like to see that "everyone deserves a second chanche" theory to a real child rapist and murder, for example...
Age pass + pussy pass.
In the near future, in the west there will be the right to vote (somehow there is already), the driving license at 16. I don't see prohibitions. I see privileges due to the fact that grown people are bein considered in a twisted way like if they were children.
And now you see why I never endorsed ISIS: they have a wrong respect of the women's role.
Linda should have spent her timens at home, hoseworking and cooking with her pregnant belly while caring her first (real) child; not playing the cop and the sniper. The MSMs described the guys of IS as serial rapists, sexual slavers and the all the rest of feminist propaganda; but it's so far from the truth.
After all they (ISIS - ISIL) were created by the US (Clinton) to overthrow the democratic president of Syria Bashar Al Assad in order to harass Ahmadinejad (before the election of the actual mangina, Rohani) and the partisans of Hez Bollah.
In which way I can fully believe to a movement with such an origin? They became the boogieman only after that they rejected the western values, and for that reason they were so loved by the muslims of Iraq, who welcomed them as liberators in Mosul and Fallujah.
A last note: did you notice how the west applies the double standards about underage women fighting? The Linda is the poor groomed child, manipulated to play a game bigger than her; the kurdish cunts are the heroic strong, indipendent women who fights for our freedom.
A note for everybody: usually, the wars were fought by people under 20... ya know.
Good points. The age of consent is a serious indicator of the state of men's rights, and it is also higher than it sounds like in a lot of places due to all the other ways to get in trouble with someone under 18, for example having a picture of them or being in some sort of position that the state uses as an excuse to criminalize you, like a teacher or coach and so on. And even in the absence of such a relationship, they have yet another hateful weapon at their disposal: In Norway the age of consent is not 16 but 18 if the teenager herself is deemed to be in an "especially vulnerable situation in life," which can mean anything.
Gotta admire that Linda for her resourcefulness. Like a modern-day Mata Hari. I also noticed that Kurdish women get idolized for fighting because their side is politically correct.
Post a Comment