There is a huge problem with the Ender's Game comparison. What Ender learned, too late, was that there was a way to coexist with the Buggers. He didn't know that when he destroyed them, and, indeed, they didn't know it themselves for most of the story. In the end their goals were not, at their roots, contradictory.
This is not the case with our current conflict. The goals are, at their roots, even more contradictory than they seem on the surface.
Agreed that the current conflict is not like a war. But it is possible to separate the principle of compassion for the enemy in order to understand them subjectively as well as objectively, which Card built his whole story around, from the particular plot twists of the Ender's Game story.
I’m not quite sure how that relates to my comment. What I was saying is that in some conflicts there exists away for both parties to end up surviving. Either physically or as in this case as a philosophy.
Not sure why that posted all by itself. But in this case, in the conflict with feminism. It is not possible for society to continue to exist and feminism to continue to exist. One of them must destroy the other.
Agreed that the Matrisensus, of which feminism is a major manifestation, is inherently toxic and pathological, and will kill society if it goes unchecked. But it is possible for the pathology to die without its adherents doing so.
Oh, yes. I don't think we need blood in the streets. I think we need for men to man up, and women to stay home. Or, as GK Chesterton said, "All we need is for men to be men, and women women." We started by saying, "If man has a vote, then woman should have a vote," and we have ended by saying, "If a boy has a penis, then a girl should have a penis.
There is a huge problem with the Ender's Game comparison. What Ender learned, too late, was that there was a way to coexist with the Buggers. He didn't know that when he destroyed them, and, indeed, they didn't know it themselves for most of the story. In the end their goals were not, at their roots, contradictory.
This is not the case with our current conflict. The goals are, at their roots, even more contradictory than they seem on the surface.
Agreed that the current conflict is not like a war. But it is possible to separate the principle of compassion for the enemy in order to understand them subjectively as well as objectively, which Card built his whole story around, from the particular plot twists of the Ender's Game story.
I’m not quite sure how that relates to my comment. What I was saying is that in some conflicts there exists away for both parties to end up surviving. Either physically or as in this case as a philosophy.
Not sure why that posted all by itself. But in this case, in the conflict with feminism. It is not possible for society to continue to exist and feminism to continue to exist. One of them must destroy the other.
Agreed that the Matrisensus, of which feminism is a major manifestation, is inherently toxic and pathological, and will kill society if it goes unchecked. But it is possible for the pathology to die without its adherents doing so.
Oh, yes. I don't think we need blood in the streets. I think we need for men to man up, and women to stay home. Or, as GK Chesterton said, "All we need is for men to be men, and women women." We started by saying, "If man has a vote, then woman should have a vote," and we have ended by saying, "If a boy has a penis, then a girl should have a penis.
I have offered my penis to many women who didn't seem the least bit interested in having one even for a minute and a half.
Well, the real hardcore adherents aren't exactly cranking out loads of little baby feminazis, anyway.