Posts by Roger Hall15

Time & Tide.😁

You might want to check in at a local CVS or Walgreens. I think there’s some kind of topical solution out there for stuff like that—I remember hearing about it ages ago, though I couldn't tell you the name for the life of me. But honestly, if this is hitting you during those high-stress moments, it’s probably just a physiological reaction; some people get flushed in the face while others find their palms getting sweaty. You’d likely feel a lot better once you stopped letting it weigh on you so heavily. Just try shifting your perspective like this: my hands are sweating. SO WHAT? I've got some nerves, and I really want this to go well. I'm a little anxious. BIG DEAL! 🙂

If we’re talking about groups that are inherently disadvantaged—people living with disabilities, the sick, the elderly, and so on—then yes, shouldn't we be working to grant them rights and aiming for at least a semblance of equality? And I’m not talking about gay people, lesbians, pedophiles, or any of those other groups. Shouldn't the granting of formal rights follow the actual nature of things? These folks can't exactly parade through the streets. They are quiet, and they don't have the option of being loud. They don't infringe upon my privacy; if anything, they enrich it because they make me realize just how lucky I am, and I find myself feeling incredibly grateful to God. Aren't they our brothers who deserve us reaching out a hand to help them through laws, practical support, our attitudes, and by changing the way society views them?
I.L. — I actually took the exact opposite stance when it comes to those other groups.

And how does that actually relate to the equality of those very same rights? Who exactly should have fewer rights just so everyone else can be protected from their potential abuse?

Watashi!i!i!i
Your question is honestly so layered that I’m struggling to even find the right words to scribble down a response here. It’s one of those questions people have been banging their heads against for centuries, so it’s naturally difficult to pin down. Once you start meddling with the idea of granting or stripping rights from other living beings, you’re essentially walking into a minefield where nobody ever walks away satisfied. Nothing in this world is ever going to be perfect, mostly because humans are just fundamentally wired the way they are. But, if you hand out every single right to absolutely everyone, someone is inevitably going to end up getting the short end of the stick. It’s a paradox, really, but unfortunately, it feels like an unavoidable necessity. So, beyond just the formal legal rights—even if we could somehow ensure everyone remembered everything perfectly—there are also those unwritten social rules, customs, and general etiquette. Those two things don't always have to align. And when we look at different demographic groups, they might technically hold all the same legal rights, yet they aren't necessarily identical in practice. People aren't all the same, even if we all share the exact same legal rights or obligations under the Constitution. A minority group will organize itself, and frankly, I couldn't care less; I don't have anything to do with them. I have my own views, obviously, but I tend to keep my distance because I grew out of those adolescent arguments a long time ago, and life has taught me to be decent and not go pointing fingers at people. You just learn to accept certain things because they simply exist. Suddenly, I find myself surrounded by it all on every side. Just imagine, others don't follow the same set of rules that I do. On paper, before the law, we are all equal, but those other informal rules are much more fluid. You might play around with them a little bit, but you shouldn't take it too far.
Personally, I wouldn't focus on women or homicide; I'd rather talk about the disabled, the sick, the elderly, or the impoverished. Those are the groups I find much more compelling to discuss.

Fair enough. But if those massive rights aren't structured in a way that actually protects everyone from being exploited by those very same powers, then we’ve basically just handed them the keys to the kingdom and called it progress.

My whole point here is basically that equality should be measured by how much people abuse it—because when they do, it ends up chipping away at my own equal standing and my own rights—rather than being defined by things like where someone happened to be born, their religion, their circumstances, their mental state, or their gender.

Honestly, aren't we essentially saying the same thing? In principle, if someone abuses their rights to the point where they start infringing on yours, it’s pretty much the same situation as someone with rights stepping on someone who doesn't have any. Your rights are clearly laid out; there's a line between what you can do and what you shouldn't do, whether it's just plain unwise or simply isn't the right thing to do. And look, we don't always have to agree with everything that's been established. Why would we? I don't personally agree with every single right granted to people these days; I don't think it's always in their best interest. Now, when it comes to those who are truly disenfranchised, the way you described them, we should always lend a hand. BUT: what happens when people start grabbing rights for themselves whenever they feel like it? Just deciding on a whim: "I want this now," or "I want what you have." What then? Do we just hand over every single right because it wouldn't be "civilized" to deny them?

What a total joke. You can take that nonsense somewhere else!

Why are you getting so defensive and worked up? But honestly, let's just move past that.

Shouldn't the rights "granted" by society be—well, natural?*

So, based on the entirety of natural laws?

I'll figure out how to format a quote properly one of these days!!!

Based on the entirety of natural laws? Probably. Though, I wouldn't really focus on women's equality right now. But, obviously, I have to. And I’m going to be incredibly trivial about it. Forgive me, but this all feels a bit silly to me. It’s actually quite uncomfortable to argue over things like bloodletting (which I would never weigh in on) or stories about male physical strength or their supposed survival instincts in the wild. What is even the point of those arguments? When discussing women's equality, I could talk about my mother, myself, my friends... or things I've read. As for everyone else, I don't know; they can speak for themselves (if they think they have the right 😁—you didn't specify that this topic was exclusively for men). I don't have an issue with it, nor do I find myself questioning my own equality compared to men. I don't see where the problem lies. If someone is struggling with their status, I’d suggest they voice it so we can all try to help. No one has ever complained to me that I was pushing myself into places I don't belong. Perhaps because I haven't asked for it. If I didn't ask, I didn't want it. So, goodbye. There's a director at my office who constantly complains that she’s being targeted just because she’s a woman. Truthfully, she’s being targeted because she’s incompetent, rude, and a complete nightmare of a person! One of the people giving her a hard time is my direct supervisor and, believe it or not, he doesn't give me any trouble at all. But the two of us have equal rights (and I'm still several rungs lower than her on the corporate ladder). The thing is, I am equal, and she isn't. Is that a flaw in the entire system, or is it just her? And why should I even bother thinking about it? Quite frankly, I couldn't care less if someone thinks I'm just a submissive idiot. What kind of categories are those for a serious discussion?
Regardless, I still think the existence of extreme feminist groups and similar organizations is necessary, if only to serve as an example to the rest of us. Because rights and rules are defined by society, and if you're looking for a provocation—I think it smells terribly, absolutely terribly, of a decaying society fueled by sick, malicious individuals.

I hope I haven't agreed with you too much, because if I do, it gets boring—and you can't have a real debate when it's boring.

Who do you think actually stands a chance if you just drop them in the middle of a massive, pitch-black forest in the dead of night... totally lost... just some random guy off the street... versus... some highly educated professoress... all that "empowerment" and "academic knowledge" put to the test!

The reason I didn't say in the middle of a major city like New York is because professors there can always lean on those 'unofficial' assets... you know, using their sexuality... to manipulate people and climb the career ladder. But a forest... where there isn't a soul in sight... just animals... and raw nature... let's see how things go... when a woman has nobody left to "sell" her charm or her looks to!

Alright then, what kind of fantasies are you spinning here and who exactly are you playing these mental games with?

Nature didn't necessarily dictate everything, you know. In the wild, things just sort of land where they belong, but society? Society goes and decides things too. It seems to me that the legal rights and the actual equality—if we can even call it that—that our society has carved out don't really align at all. And that leads us down a rabbit hole: why do we have these rights, who are they actually for, and what kind of rights are we even talking about? Honestly, I wonder if we should even be allowed to have this conversation in the first place.

Yeah, okay—I guess I phrased that a little clumsily. I won't keep rambling on about it since you probably caught my drift immediately anyway. What I was really trying to get at is that just because the law guarantees you certain rights doesn't mean you actually have the capacity or even the opportunity to exercise them. Things like your level of education, your bank balance, or even where you sit in the social hierarchy—not to mention some inherent traits people are just born with—can act as these invisible barriers to using the rights you technically hold, and honestly, they can also open doors to certain advantages that aren't even formally yours on paper.

If we’re going to frame the question in such broad strokes, then I suppose we ought to keep the conversation just as general. It seems like the discussion got a bit narrow because the original prompt focused specifically on women, and now everyone’s just circling that one point instead of looking at the bigger picture.

There is a massive distinction between simply having rights and actually being treated as an equal. You can dream up all the rights you want, but if you lack the ability, the desire, or the actual permission to exercise them, then equality remains a fantasy. We're talking about two entirely different realms here—the first is a matter of legal code, while the second is a social reality that depends on a whole mess of cultural factors long before any lawyer ever gets involved.

Sirocek!

You’ve really thrown a curveball at me with that one!