Even fisheaters didn't have unlimited downrates. (the ability to downrate every post with no time limits)

At any rate, there are no downraters more indefatigable than a women upset about an issue pertaining to feminism.

Tele, it's anonymous.  Just post whatever you want; you shouldn't care about your reputation, especially considering you're gifted with the knowledge that all your detractors completely lack reason.

One more point about feminine tactics in argument - when they resort to impugning the character of the person they argue with - it's typically with language pertaining to modern psychology.  In that way they're similar to cultural marxists and other subversives talking about "authoritarian personalities" and the like.

After all, when they say it's "disordered" to be attracted to a young woman, trying to use scholastic language that can be morphed into psychological language - it sounds ridiculous - from a scholastic point of view.  Talking about what is "healthy" and what is "maturity" is a weapon for the pharisee who finds authority for the sorts of moral judgments he wants to make lacking.  So he changes the subject from morality to "mental health" - following the marxist technique.  

It's much more effective for them (because of worldly attitudes that now hold sway) to impugn a person's mental state than to criticize their morals.  And sad to say, that's how we see many trad groups operate.

I just want to point out -- despite his occasional bitterness and bursts of frustration, Telesphorus is clearly very intelligent. I just read this and it is quite illustrative as to the capabilities of his mind.

I can't help but think that many readers won't get everything out of that paragraph that I did -- most of it will probably go over their collective heads.

And what he says about impugning one's mental state is actually dead on -- we've seen it several times even here on CathInfo! When you can't attack their morals, attack their mental state.

I don't know that I could teach it -- at least not at 1 in the morning.

But I understand everything he said -- I really do!  :wink:

Each sentence I let sink in, and asked if it made sense and/or have I seen cases of this on CathInfo. The answer to pretty much every question was "yes".

And much of what he said has never been touched on here before.

For example, the phrase some people were throwing out against him, "Disordered", is a technical term in Scholasticism, and has a precise meaning. But non-scholastic trained people are using it, and giving it a more modern world bias, which has the malleability of modern psychology, rather than the precision of Scholasticism.

But what's profound is they seem to get the best of both worlds -- they beat Tele up saying he's disordered -- which is a bad thing ALWAYS when St. Thomas uses it, but they're using it in modern psychological terms -- really they should be using a more accurate phrase closer to what they mean.

Let's put it this way -- it's not "disordered" for ANY single man to be attracted to ANY young lady for purposes of lifetime marriage.  It's very much "ordered" because it fulfills God's order for the world.

Quote from: Kailyn

Tele, it's anonymous.  Just post whatever you want; you shouldn't care about your reputation, especially considering you're gifted with the knowledge that all your detractors completely lack reason.

It's not completely anonymous.  And that's the point.  A few determined people can destroy the reputation of someone when they want to.  Sort of like a few women at church can try to destroy a man's reputation.  And the most important thing for them - is to not be held accountable for it.  

Destroy your reputation?  It's a random number to the left of your post, taken seriously only by those "few determined people," (remember, the ones completely lacking reason?) who bother to continuously click a button.  The owner of the board has just said you're clearly intelligent, and if I didn't believe that I wouldn't bother posting this at 2 in the morning.  Anyone who thinks less of you because of an arrangement of digits is as little worth losing sleep over as whoever at your Church is bothering to listen to a few babbling women.  

In short, be Epictetus at the bathhouse, and marry any legal consenting bride you want.

And at your leisure, perhaps delineate your criteria for establishing certain traits as descriptive of women as women.  You seem particularly adept at discovering them.

I don't suppose "You may be unconquerable, if you enter into no combat in which it is not in your own control to conquer," is going to help?  Suit yourself.

And I spoke poorly.  To what rules do you submit your observations?  What are the criteria for an observed trait to be ascribable to women qua women?

By the way, the recent posts in this thread illustrate the pernicious effects of the voting stuff. I'm now finding myself checking to see if I'm getting positive votes and if Tele is getting negative votes. And seeing that I'm getting positive votes is stoking my pride. This is an indication of my own corruption, of course. But still, it's instructive. Of course I don't want negative votes either. I want positive votes, if there must be votes. I want my pride to be stoked - and yet I don't. Yes, instructive.

Haha, Jitpring, you are just like me. I don't want that to happen but it certainly happens when you are put in an environment that contributes to it.

There's nothing wrong in wanting to be liked and loved. As St. Teresa of Avila explained, this is truly part of human nature. So much so that even Jesus Himself desires to be loved and liked, so it is not wrong in itself. It is wrong (sinful) when this desire is stimulated by the wrong reasons, (e.g. vanity) and this is precisely where this system of reputations doesn't help and has a bad effect on people like you and me; it produces a certain feeling of self-satisfaction when you get approved by many (thumbs up, likers, whatever).

I could say more things about this topic but I will leave at that because the most basic points of our view and experience have already been expressed with enough clarity and I see no point in arguing at length over the same thing.

I was attempting to drive at maintaining ones mind in a state conformable to nature by a valuation only of those things that are in ones control.

Yes, I understand your point.  It's just it's one thing to know that your enemies are implacable, it's another thing to feel that certain trad Catholics are implacable enemies.  It is very disappointing.

And I have no desire to contest your observations - though given their specific and experience oriented nature perhaps I could never "see" what you meant.  

Well if you want to talk about specifics you may.  Probably I expressed myself clumsily.  But in arguing with women you often see a pattern.  At least I do.

Do you intend for them to apply to the set of all women generally, though not in every specific case?  

It is generally true that people have 10 fingers.  Right?

And one could say more than that - it is reflective of human nature that they have 10 fingers.  

Some would deny there is any such thing as human nature, and argue that the exceptions mean that we should not say that human beings have 10 fingers.

At any rate, all human tendencies in voluntary behavior tend to be general tendencies.