Even in the scenario Wilson presents, it would not be true that the rights of "females" are gained from the decisions of "men" not to kill them. Let's say that all the men did kill all the women. (Nice knowing you!) What would happen immediately after that? 50% of the men would kill the other 50%. So, these "rights" do not only protect women from violence, but also 50% of men. And then another 25%, and then another 12.5%, etc. Rejecting the mantra "might makes right" actually protects all but one person on earth. So not only the rights of women, but the rights of all but one person derive from this same source, whatever it is.
I don't believe you, and that's the whole problem with your party: you're the Democrats Who Cried Wolf, after awhile we just stop taking you seriously.
This is a complete strawman of the argument - and it is indeed a strawman because your emotional response to his argument clearly led you into a bad-faith line of logic here. Force Doctrine states that "might makes", not that it makes right. You yourself provided a quote agreeing with this sentiment in suggesting that force is a transient, but necessary, step towards success. Andrew's position is clearly one which promotes Christian ethics which would provide the next step to make things "right".
You're trying to disparage the internal critique approach when you so fundamentally misunderstood it. In order to correct the downward path that the West is on we have to destroy the malicious worldviews that pervade it and your sewing circle Christianity isn't going to do anything about it.
I appreciate you taking the time to read! I’m very confident I did not straw man the argument, but you’re welcome to quote the portion where you think I’m misrepresenting the position instead of merely asserting that I’ve done so.
Sure, allow me to steelman your argument with a quote from your article (this is summarized in my original comment but I can expound if it helps):
You say:
'The basic claim of “force doctrine” is “we [men] could kill all women if we wanted."'
'But insofar as Wilson attempts to make his argument purely descriptive and practical, I think it fails on its own terms.'
So from your perspective the lack of an ought claim or a philosophical position within Force Doctrine itself is the problem, and you continue to elaborate on this throughout the article.
But then you provide a quote from Tocqueville which is in complete agreement with Force Doctrine, that force is a transient but clearly necessary step towards success. Force Doctrine does not posit that force is the only way to reach it's enemies, referring to the second part of the quote, and that's where you've gone off the rails.
The argument is simply that "might makes" - that's it. The internal critique is separate from that, showing that Feminism or other worldviews besides Christian ethics cannot maintain logical consistency. Then and only then, once the worldview is destroyed, does the question of "how do we make things right?" come into play and the answer is clearly always Christian ethics.
Then you say:
'Instead, he is simply telling us a hard truth feminists are unwilling to stomach: that, apparently, might makes right[s]'
Once again you've misrepresented the argument; the idea of rights to quote directly is "an entitlement absent a duty" so the point is not to tie force into the worldview as a philosophical position. It is an observable fact that our concepts of society (including rights) boil down to enforcement and the bible agrees.
All of the above is a good-faith effort to attempt to show you that I've understood your position. The strawman is crystal clear in your conclusion when you conflate church doctrine with military doctrine:
'But as a “doctrine,” Wilson’s “force doctrine” seems confused at best and a dangerous tool at worst.'
Force Doctrine is a principle, that is a fundamental truth, not a belief or set of beliefs.
Sure, so when I say it fails on its own terms, I mean it doesn’t fully work as an internal critique. If it’s merely a factual description, it gives us no next step, because of the claimed lack of an “ought” packaged in. “So what?” is the appropriate response to the claim that men can do whatever they want because strength and competency etc. The Tocqueville quote is not, I would argue, compatible with the “force doctrine” he presents, because it speaks to the “so what” question force doctrine leaves on the table. That is, force is transient, one can only exercise it in imperfect ways that can always be subverted, and, most importantly, lasting power comes from the idea of right, not force itself. But it’s andrew’s contention that force itself lurks in the background of all claims of right, which is to fundamentally misunderstand the role of persuasion and principle in matters of policy and privilege. You say that force doctrine doesn’t say force is the “only” way, but it seems to be the only effective way on this account, even in societies presumptively operating on Christian ethics (where he still references force doctrine even when speaking of political situations that are closer to his ideal than not).
I think his definition of “rights” is strange and incoherent, but I phrased it that way specifically to make the pun that, quite literally on his account, might makes “rights” exist, because he says if they exist at all, they exist by virtue of and through the exercise of force.
I would love to see you distinguish between a “principle” or “fundamental truth” (in which you seem to believe) and “a belief.” I find your last comment incomprehensible because if you affirm it as a fundamental principle, you are suggesting it is 1. True, that is 2. You think it’s a fact about the world that you express assent to, in other words, that you *believe.*
I appreciate you explaining further but I think you’ve demonstrated disagreement, not that I’ve misrepresented Andrew’s position.
Why would an internal critique need to do anything but expose an inconsistency in the worldview?
If force can 'always be subverted', why is Afghanistan not able to overthrow the Taliban?
I did pre-suppose that as a self proclaimed 'Christian conservative' you believe in object truth, is that not the case?
If not then I certainly misunderstood your position and I see why you can't comprehend my last comment, but then you'd be in the untenable position of justifying anything right or any Rights from a subjectivist standpoint.
If your claim is that Christians believe in objective truth (they do), and that force doctrine is a fundamental, objective truth Christians ought to affirm, then we’ve moved well beyond internal critique. That’s why your last comment was completely incomprehensible to me.
My last comment was incomprehensible to you because I'm talking about something that's not part of the internal critique of feminism and wasn't meant to be?
You're going to have to help translate that for me because I don't actually know what you meant to say there.
Glad we have agreement though so let's try just one really simple question to help connect the dots:
Is it an objective truth that Christians ought to affirm that men are stronger than women?
Even in the scenario Wilson presents, it would not be true that the rights of "females" are gained from the decisions of "men" not to kill them. Let's say that all the men did kill all the women. (Nice knowing you!) What would happen immediately after that? 50% of the men would kill the other 50%. So, these "rights" do not only protect women from violence, but also 50% of men. And then another 25%, and then another 12.5%, etc. Rejecting the mantra "might makes right" actually protects all but one person on earth. So not only the rights of women, but the rights of all but one person derive from this same source, whatever it is.
Cmon thats bullcrap. Saying "what happens next!?" Isn't an argument for "it could never happen."
It's just a secondary question. Gosh, democrats are so silly.
I’m not a Democrat.
Cmon thats bullcrap. Saying "what happens next!?" Isn't an argument for "it could never happen."
It's just a secondary question. Gosh, democrats are so silly.
Wrong. You're saying because it isn't happening now his hypothetical could never be. That's bullcrap on the face of it.
You seem very emotional.
That's not a response but I didn't really expect one.
I would be happy to provide a real response as soon as you provide something for me to actually respond to.
The typical democrat non-response. This is why your party has the lowest congressional approval rating in history. Good luck to you.
I’m not a democrat.
Well thats a lie because this discussion is about gender issues so you fall in line with Leftist Ideology on the only topic I've seen you cover.
I don't believe you, and that's the whole problem with your party: you're the Democrats Who Cried Wolf, after awhile we just stop taking you seriously.
This is a complete strawman of the argument - and it is indeed a strawman because your emotional response to his argument clearly led you into a bad-faith line of logic here. Force Doctrine states that "might makes", not that it makes right. You yourself provided a quote agreeing with this sentiment in suggesting that force is a transient, but necessary, step towards success. Andrew's position is clearly one which promotes Christian ethics which would provide the next step to make things "right".
You're trying to disparage the internal critique approach when you so fundamentally misunderstood it. In order to correct the downward path that the West is on we have to destroy the malicious worldviews that pervade it and your sewing circle Christianity isn't going to do anything about it.
I appreciate you taking the time to read! I’m very confident I did not straw man the argument, but you’re welcome to quote the portion where you think I’m misrepresenting the position instead of merely asserting that I’ve done so.
Sure, allow me to steelman your argument with a quote from your article (this is summarized in my original comment but I can expound if it helps):
You say:
'The basic claim of “force doctrine” is “we [men] could kill all women if we wanted."'
'But insofar as Wilson attempts to make his argument purely descriptive and practical, I think it fails on its own terms.'
So from your perspective the lack of an ought claim or a philosophical position within Force Doctrine itself is the problem, and you continue to elaborate on this throughout the article.
But then you provide a quote from Tocqueville which is in complete agreement with Force Doctrine, that force is a transient but clearly necessary step towards success. Force Doctrine does not posit that force is the only way to reach it's enemies, referring to the second part of the quote, and that's where you've gone off the rails.
The argument is simply that "might makes" - that's it. The internal critique is separate from that, showing that Feminism or other worldviews besides Christian ethics cannot maintain logical consistency. Then and only then, once the worldview is destroyed, does the question of "how do we make things right?" come into play and the answer is clearly always Christian ethics.
Then you say:
'Instead, he is simply telling us a hard truth feminists are unwilling to stomach: that, apparently, might makes right[s]'
Once again you've misrepresented the argument; the idea of rights to quote directly is "an entitlement absent a duty" so the point is not to tie force into the worldview as a philosophical position. It is an observable fact that our concepts of society (including rights) boil down to enforcement and the bible agrees.
All of the above is a good-faith effort to attempt to show you that I've understood your position. The strawman is crystal clear in your conclusion when you conflate church doctrine with military doctrine:
'But as a “doctrine,” Wilson’s “force doctrine” seems confused at best and a dangerous tool at worst.'
Force Doctrine is a principle, that is a fundamental truth, not a belief or set of beliefs.
Sure, so when I say it fails on its own terms, I mean it doesn’t fully work as an internal critique. If it’s merely a factual description, it gives us no next step, because of the claimed lack of an “ought” packaged in. “So what?” is the appropriate response to the claim that men can do whatever they want because strength and competency etc. The Tocqueville quote is not, I would argue, compatible with the “force doctrine” he presents, because it speaks to the “so what” question force doctrine leaves on the table. That is, force is transient, one can only exercise it in imperfect ways that can always be subverted, and, most importantly, lasting power comes from the idea of right, not force itself. But it’s andrew’s contention that force itself lurks in the background of all claims of right, which is to fundamentally misunderstand the role of persuasion and principle in matters of policy and privilege. You say that force doctrine doesn’t say force is the “only” way, but it seems to be the only effective way on this account, even in societies presumptively operating on Christian ethics (where he still references force doctrine even when speaking of political situations that are closer to his ideal than not).
I think his definition of “rights” is strange and incoherent, but I phrased it that way specifically to make the pun that, quite literally on his account, might makes “rights” exist, because he says if they exist at all, they exist by virtue of and through the exercise of force.
I would love to see you distinguish between a “principle” or “fundamental truth” (in which you seem to believe) and “a belief.” I find your last comment incomprehensible because if you affirm it as a fundamental principle, you are suggesting it is 1. True, that is 2. You think it’s a fact about the world that you express assent to, in other words, that you *believe.*
I appreciate you explaining further but I think you’ve demonstrated disagreement, not that I’ve misrepresented Andrew’s position.
Bro just because you can't conceive of "the next step" doesn't mean it couldn't happen or isn't possible. Gimme a break with these goofy arguments man
Very compelling argument. My rebuttal: “no u.” Thanks for stopping by.
Why would an internal critique need to do anything but expose an inconsistency in the worldview?
If force can 'always be subverted', why is Afghanistan not able to overthrow the Taliban?
I did pre-suppose that as a self proclaimed 'Christian conservative' you believe in object truth, is that not the case?
If not then I certainly misunderstood your position and I see why you can't comprehend my last comment, but then you'd be in the untenable position of justifying anything right or any Rights from a subjectivist standpoint.
If your claim is that Christians believe in objective truth (they do), and that force doctrine is a fundamental, objective truth Christians ought to affirm, then we’ve moved well beyond internal critique. That’s why your last comment was completely incomprehensible to me.
My last comment was incomprehensible to you because I'm talking about something that's not part of the internal critique of feminism and wasn't meant to be?
You're going to have to help translate that for me because I don't actually know what you meant to say there.
Glad we have agreement though so let's try just one really simple question to help connect the dots:
Is it an objective truth that Christians ought to affirm that men are stronger than women?
I still cant fathom that Wilson is running a wannabe diploma mill with "DebateUniversity."
That's 100% shyster behavior lol.