Give one good reason why a girls should got to college

Give one good reason why a girls should got to college

m.youtube.com/watch?v=apoCp3OTsxE

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

To see if she has the self-control to not turn into a chad fucking roastie.

I can bang her.

Women don’t have self control
They need to be controlled by a man

Men shag like rabbits in uni too.
Why the double standard?

They shouldnt

Why not? Nothing wrong with a cheeky shag.

Meant for:

Fornication is a sin

According to the Bible, but there is no logical reason to take that as gospel.

Because men get nothing if women aren't lining up in droves to get slammed.

The power of having a say in reproduction has shifted from male to female in the last 60 years, which ultimately means that men can no longer be held responsible for the clusterfuck that is society. Because women obviously can't wield the power they've been given, they've always been shitty decisionmakers.

>logical reason
Logic cannot determine morality

Okay, but we're talking about a cheeky quick one.

It can. You probably don't believe in that talking snake bollocks, but have chosen to uphold Christian values because you view it as logical, for whatever illogical reason.

kys manwhore, go search the definition of integrity.

I believe the entire Bible
Also how do you determine with logic if something is moral or not?

Tell me what integrity means to you.

Not doing the exact same things you despise other people for doing, are you stupid?

>how do you determine with logic if something is moral or not?
Depends on what moral standard you're using. If there is evidence for the Bible being true (which there isn't, and I guarantee you cannot justify your belief in Christianity based upon empirical evidence, only speculation) that is convincing, it would be logical to follow the morals it puts forth. But there is none, so it's illogical to both believe the Bible and to follow it like it's an instruction manual.

When have I expressed any despite towards roasties?

Nice my thumbs up is still there from a year ago

Why is it logical to follow any secular moral code
Also what evidence is there for naturalism

I feel like Brits have reached a point in cultural development where they believe they can argue that morality is objective when it is clearly based on Judeo Christian beliefs.

Spoiler:

Western morality is a Christian construct. Classical liberalism is a Christian construct. The further you stray from Christ the further you stray from western liberalism.


Try praying a bit. Ask God for forgiveness and guidance and you will be amazed at how much better your life becomes.

This is the kind of girl who would hold a fleshlight between her thighs and let you "fuck" her doggy style. Not terrible but not great.

>why is it logical to follow any secular moral code
Any moral code is fundamentally based upon its use (or its detriment) to society and to oneself. It's destructive to the tribe to go around murdering and stealing from one another, so it's bad.
>naturalism
Never mentioned by me. I never dismissed the idea of a deity, but just your idea of the Bible's deity.

You are conflating what is prudential with what is moral.

That's like saying the further we stray from the papyrus, the further we stray from the printing press. I agree, Christianity did what it did. Horrible surgery practices from Medieval times did what they did to get to where we are today in medicine, but we shouldn't revert to it. That would be regression.

Morality is derived from prudence (not really the right word)

Get the fuck out of here with your “judeo-christian” bullshit, you fucking boomer piece of trash.

How do I know you’re a boomer? Because you use the word judeo unironically. Close this tab and log back into r/The_Donald where you belong with your “greatest ally”.

If that is true, then flourishing is identical with the good. But it's easy to imagine a state of affairs, or a possible world, in which those who are immoral flourish and those who are moral do not flourish. So, flourishing and the good cannot be the same thing.

>m.youtube
Fuck off phoneposter

so they (I know college doesn't educate anymore today) learn something useful to support their family or so they can work when the children have left the nest
Earlier women often learned something about finance because they controlled the money of the family. Human studies are useless tho

>flourishing is identical with the good
Not so. Self-harming is not considered an immoral thing by most people, but a self-destructing thing. Same with drug abuse. Harming other people, however, and supplying drugs to kids is immoral. You shouldn't force others to suffer, but you making yourself suffer is your own poison.

>Self-harming is not considered an immoral thing by most people

If you think that morality is based on prudence, then whatever is harmful is contrary to the good. And so self-harm must be immoral. If you think self-harm is not immoral, then you do not believe that morality is prudential.

You first used the word prudence. I previously said it was a poor word to use, but entertained it.
A better phrase would be that morality derives from one's influence on the well-being of others. The non-aggression principle is somewhat relevant.

To find good husband.

Well, "prudence" is the exact term used by Aristotle and eudaemonist ethicists through history, so it is, in fact, an ideal word. There is no basis for drawing a line between the wellbeing of others and your own wellbeing as an ethical principle. No one in history would suggest that ethics requires you to promote others well being and not your own, unless, of course, they do not hold that what is moral is flourishing or wellbeing.

>Give one good reason why a girls should got to college

Give a good reason a man should go...

>an ideal word
Not in my mind.
>there is no basis for drawing a line between the wellbeing of others and your own wellbeing as an ethical principle
Yes, there is. It's your choice to harm your well-being, but you should allow others to make their own decisions and mistakes. You have no right to force others into poor conditions.

>It's your choice to harm your well-being
Then your ethical system is one based on a principle of choice, not a principle of flourishing or wellbeing. Therefore, morality does not "derive from prudence" or goal-based instrumental reasoning of any sort. You merely need to choose something for it to be considered good.

>send daughter to Marxist indoctrination camp where she is incouraged and brainwashed into degeneracy 24/7
>expect her to still be normal after four years

As I said, prudence wasn't the correct word.
You cannot impede upon other people's well-being because it is not your choice to make. They go hand-in-hand.

Women generally should not be in the workforce. Things like nursing and childcare are fine but those don’t require much schooling to be proficient at. Public schools are also generally shit in this day and age and your daughter WILL engage in sexual activity with boys, making her far less attractive to future potential husbands.

Non-virgins make inferior wives and mothers. This is plainly backed by statistics

Because it's an unavoidable step in order to liberate women

What you said initially was:
>Any moral code is fundamentally based upon its use (or its detriment) to society and to oneself. It's destructive to the tribe to go around murdering and stealing from one another, so it's bad.

But now you are saying that what is good is determined by what one freely chooses, even if it is in fact "detrimental" to "oneself" and therefore diminishes the total wellbeing. Either one's choice is the moral principle, in which case you're a liberal of some stripe, or else wellbeing is the principle, in which case choices must be subordinated to what promotes wellbeing.

By oneself, I mean from society to the person.
I didn't say it was what one chooses in that concept's entirety; you are just isolating the component of freedom and omitting the rest of my point.
The main point is that causing others to suffer is bad. The factor of choice is what distinguishes harming others and harming yourself in terms of morality.
Where do you think morality originates from?

>2018
>not sending your daughter to segregated learning facilities
It’s like you don’t even want your daughter to be wholesome and find a good husband and be a good mother to your grandchildren

The two principles are opposed, though. Any ethical system needs to state what is good. If you think that some goal is the good (happiness, wellbeing, pleasure, health), then choices are good or bad depending on whether they promote that goal. If you think that freedom of choice is good in itself, then the ability to choose is good whether it promotes wellbeing or not.

So, if you are a liberal, you think that individual freedom should be maximized, and limited only where ones choices would conflict with the mutual freedom of others. That's because the good is choice, not the consequences of the choice. Killing someone or stealing their stuff is wrong not because it harms them physically or is detrimental to wellbeing or happiness, but because it harms their ability to exercise freedom. It is absurd to say that anything that people choose, so long as it is compatible with mutual freedom, is good. That's a hollow and formal principle that is behind the worse degeneracy of our times. Libertarians don't seem to appreciate that.

If you think that there is some goal which morality aims to produce, such as happiness, or wellbeing, then it is wrong for you to harm your own happiness or wellbeing, too. However, as I said previously, there's no good reason to think that morality aims at a state of happiness or wellbeing or anything else, since we can always conceive of an arrangement where immoral people obtain those ends while moral people fail to obtain them. The immoral prosper while the moral suffer.

So, morality isn't based on choice or liberty and it isn't based on happiness or flourishing or any kind.

Yes yes let's give the women busy work to keep them occupied during prime legal child bearing age. While they are their we will shove "rape culture" down their throats and teach them about the evil white man. No way this could possibly lead to a declining birth rate.

Would you rather eat with a dirty fork or drink out of a dirty glass? Imagine you just had a party and your sink is full of God knows what and for some strange reason you have to choose.

It should be noted that Mill tried to reconcile liberty and flourishing, but he did so by claiming that maximizing liberty would produce the greatest happiness. That means he is only promoting liberty or choice as a secondary, instrumental, principle.

Bamp

Colleges need to change, they need to become conservative again. There is nothing wrong with educating women, it is prefered even. But we should not forget that women are meant to raise children, they can work once that job is done.

I'd have injun babbies with the one on the right

...