Situational cuteness: Why do women love victims so much?

 

In July 2015, some rich dentist went to Zimbabwe and killed a lion named Cecil. This was a massive deal in America because lions are cuter than starving African children. Well, starving African children who are being starved by a black dictator rather than a famine aren’t as cute as lions. Kind of odd, that.

Please ignore the savagery of my species’ gender roles.

I have said the same thing about illegal immigrants. If after being amnestied they voted 60% Republican and did everything they could to do away with abortion and gay rights, then the left would have built two walls under Joe Biden. Like hungry African children, their cuteness is dependent on how they fit in with the political landscape.

Most of you are familiar with the Episcopal Bishop Mariann Budde, who gave that silly speech at the inaugural prayer. She probably was upset about Cecil the lion.  I found Trump’s X post a bit hyperbolic, but ultimately, it was a political win because Trump included the all-important line, “She failed to mention the large number of illegal migrants that came into our Country and killed people. Many were deposited from jails and mental institutions. It is a giant crime wave that is taking place the USA.” (Post by President Trump on X Jan 22, 2025)

Basically he is pushing back against the mainstream media that depicts illegal immigrants as being adorable, culturally enriching migrants who never do anything wrong and never lower the wages of poor American citizens. From the leftist perspective, why are poor American citizens less adorable than non-American citizens? Do they forget the fact that American citizens have eyes, hands and organs and dimensions?  Are they not healed by the same medicines and made fat by the same foods? If violence is done against a citizen, does he not have the right to justice against an illegal? Should not the illegal be deported back to their native land?

As the example of the Latin countries has taught me, I will execute, and it shall go hard, but I will better the instruction.

So why do illegal Latino immigrants count more than legal American citizens of any color in the left’s hierarchy of victimhood? After some contemplation, I have figured out this conundrum. The hard left is quite similar to racists in that the characteristics of the actual population aren’t relevant but the characteristics of the population in your head are. In the Episcopalian Bishop’s head, illegal immigrants are law-abiding while being illegal. Also, Latinos are oppressed so they are nicer to the LGBTQ+  <>> P  people than those mean Trump supporters. Most importantly, illegal immigrants are victims so they count more than legal citizens.

I have seen this before with lefty women. Not even just lefty white women but lefty women in general. Women love victims. I don’t get it, but they do. A lovely bartender told me that Christians wanted to refuse service to homosexual couples. I said that I had never heard of any Christian denying food services to homosexuals but that they just wouldn’t make them a cake celebrating their homosexuality or catering their gay wedding. A homosexual could go into a Christian baker’s shop and buy any cake he/she/they wanted, and he could get a customized cake celebrating his birthday or a job promotion. She stared at me with amazement, though she confessed that she had not done as much research as I did.

A similar experience happened with a Mexican-American lady. Apparently, Ron DeSantis was telling kids not to be gay in Florida. In reality, he told teachers not to teach about sex. This was a good idea because Desantis knew that teachers were often radicalized by the educational establishment and wanted to trans kids. Somehow that meant that Republicans were going around harassing various alphabet children.

I could go on with various examples, but that would get repetitive, so let’s go with the most laughable one: Queers for Palestine. Never before has the feminine desire for victimhood been more absurd or more hilarious. Generations ago, leftists fantasized about the USSR or Cuba as paradises for workers and paragons of secular humanity.  At the very least, such dreams existed in an age before Google and instant video feeds from other countries. How were the readers of the New York Times supposed to know that Walter Duranty made everything up?

What is so richly funny about Queers for Palestine is that it is the paramount embodiment of fantasy over reality. Because the Palestinians are part of the coalition of the oppressed, it must be believed that the people who voted in Hamas are aligned with purple-haired Gaia worshippers in a social justice-oriented polycule.

This is like giving a Bud Light contract to Dylan Mulvaney and expecting working-class white guys to go along with it. Oh, wait…

That last example involved the free market, so reality eventually had to overwhelm ideology. The Budweiser company saw their profit margins going down, and they had to change their ad campaign and bring back the cool-looking big horses, narrated by a voice that sounded like Tennessee Whiskey, and given life by a magic cowboy hat like Frosty the Snowman.*

A whiskey elemental would be a cooler image but AI image generation isn’t there yet. Also, a horse walking into a bar and ordering a beer would make a good beer commercial.

Speaking about fantasy stuff that makes no sense (like a hat with magic powers that gives life akin to a Jewish shem), the Queers for Palestine ideology is emotionally appealing and it works in a fictional universe. But in the real world, violent Muslims act like violent Muslims, and they don’t much care what the people with degrees in gender studies think.

To paraphrase Ben Shapiro, population groups don’t care about your theories.

*I think that would be a fun indie comic.

**Frosty is likely a golem. Possibly of Jewish origin.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 42 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs'. Coolidge
    TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs'.
    @RobtGilsdorf

    I wonder if women champion the weak because they hope for reciprocity.

    By the way, you made me look up ‘polycule’.

    And there will be consequences.

    • #1
  2. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    JD Vance lays out explicitly how wrong the Left is on this issue you discuss. All they do is virtue signal. Their priorities are backwards. They have no understanding of the ordo caritatis of St. Thomas Aquinas or the ordo amoris of St. Augustine.

    For further reading on this:

    https://taylormarshall.com/2025/01/jd-vance-and-thomas-aquinas-on-ordo-amoris.html

    And by the way, I’ve never run across a Lefty woman who thinks they act like the Blessed Virgin Mary. What is your point in using that picture?

    • #2
  3. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    JD Vance lays out explicitly how wrong the Left is on this issue you discuss. All they do is virtue signal. Their priorities are backwards. They have no understanding of the ordo caritatis of St. Thomas Aquinas or the ordo amoris of St. Augustine.

    For further reading on this:

    https://taylormarshall.com/2025/01/jd-vance-and-thomas-aquinas-on-ordo-amoris.html

    And by the way, I’ve never run across a Lefty woman who thinks they act like the Blessed Virgin Mary. What is your point in using that picture?

    The left believes that their compassion deifies them. Check the the caption.

    • #3
  4. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Women are designed to be homemakers, nurturers, and mothers. They are designed to grow, to protect, and to nurture the literally most vulnerable humans – babies and small children. Women are designed to create and to maintain the welcoming environment (home) into which men retreat to be healed from the wounds the harsh outside world has inflicted, so the men regain strength to return to that harsh outside world and make that world better for the women and children. 

    In other words, women are designed to care for the most vulnerable.

    So caring for victims is part of women’s nature. 

    What I don’t get is why to so many women prioritize “victims” in the ways that they do.

    I guess in their instinctive “protect the vulnerable” they may not see clearly that not all who look like vulnerable victims are actually in need of care. Or they become so focused on a victim in front of them they fail to see other victims outside their sight lines. 

    • #4
  5. 9thDistrictNeighbor Inactive
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    …caring for victims is part of women’s nature. 

    What I don’t get is why to so many women prioritize “victims” in the ways that they do.

    This is the lefty woman’s world view.  They may not be victims themselves (especially the wealthy ones) but they believe it is important to advocate for anyone labeled a “victim.”  I once had a conversation with my mother-in-law,  she who had been rousted as a girl into an actual nazi detention camp with her family, whose journey to Ellis Island was marked by disguises, secret letters and her family leaving everything behind the Iron Curtain.  We were discussing the Obama-era abortion policies and late-term abortion.  Her response to so many points was “Oh no, I don’t agree with that at all.”  Then I asked her why she voted for candidates who supported these policies.  Her response after a long pause: “Because I care.”

    [Did you know that Planned Parenthood will make fundraising calls on Thanksgiving and Christmas?  Because they care.]

    • #5
  6. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    Maybe it’s a blind spot with me, but I haven’t noticed that women identify with victims – real or imagined – more often than men do.  Twenty years ago, I would have said that people on the left view themselves as victims far more often than people on the right, but today I think conservatives are equally eager to join in the Oppression Olympics.  It’s weird.  We live in one of the most free and prosperous societies in human history, but a lot of Americans think of themselves as poor, downtrodden, and oppressed because other people are richer or have more status.

    • #6
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    …caring for victims is part of women’s nature.

    What I don’t get is why to so many women prioritize “victims” in the ways that they do.

    This is the lefty woman’s world view. They may not be victims themselves (especially the wealthy ones) but they believe it is important to advocate for anyone labeled a “victim.” I once had a conversation with my mother-in-law, she who had been rousted as a girl into an actual nazi detention camp with her family, whose journey to Ellis Island was marked by disguises, secret letters and her family leaving everything behind the Iron Curtain. We were discussing the Obama-era abortion policies and late-term abortion. Her response to so many points was “Oh no, I don’t agree with that at all.” Then I asked her why she voted for candidates who supported these policies. Her response after a long pause: “Because I care.”

    [Did you know that Planned Parenthood will make fundraising calls on Thanksgiving and Christmas? Because they care.]

    Yeah, my mother should never have been allowed to vote either.

    • #7
  8. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    kedavis (View Comment):

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    …caring for victims is part of women’s nature.

    What I don’t get is why to so many women prioritize “victims” in the ways that they do.

    This is the lefty woman’s world view. They may not be victims themselves (especially the wealthy ones) but they believe it is important to advocate for anyone labeled a “victim.” I once had a conversation with my mother-in-law, she who had been rousted as a girl into an actual nazi detention camp with her family, whose journey to Ellis Island was marked by disguises, secret letters and her family leaving everything behind the Iron Curtain. We were discussing the Obama-era abortion policies and late-term abortion. Her response to so many points was “Oh no, I don’t agree with that at all.” Then I asked her why she voted for candidates who supported these policies. Her response after a long pause: “Because I care.”

    [Did you know that Planned Parenthood will make fundraising calls on Thanksgiving and Christmas? Because they care.]

    Yeah, my mother should never have been allowed to vote either.

    Just your Mom or women in general?

    • #8
  9. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    …caring for victims is part of women’s nature.

    What I don’t get is why to so many women prioritize “victims” in the ways that they do.

    This is the lefty woman’s world view. They may not be victims themselves (especially the wealthy ones) but they believe it is important to advocate for anyone labeled a “victim.” I once had a conversation with my mother-in-law, she who had been rousted as a girl into an actual nazi detention camp with her family, whose journey to Ellis Island was marked by disguises, secret letters and her family leaving everything behind the Iron Curtain. We were discussing the Obama-era abortion policies and late-term abortion. Her response to so many points was “Oh no, I don’t agree with that at all.” Then I asked her why she voted for candidates who supported these policies. Her response after a long pause: “Because I care.”

    [Did you know that Planned Parenthood will make fundraising calls on Thanksgiving and Christmas? Because they care.]

    Yeah, my mother should never have been allowed to vote either.

    Just your Mom or women in general?

    Women in general, but 9th was referring to a specific relative and I responded similarly.  And for a similar reason.  When I once, long ago, asked my mother if she could come up with a… “utilitarian?”… reason for why murder should be illegal, her response was “because it’s a sin.”

    That kind of dimness should not be rewarded with the franchise.

    Maybe we can’t have actual poll tests any more, but limiting the vote to men would accomplish a lot.

    • #9
  10. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs&hellip; (View Comment):

    I wonder if women champion the weak because they hope for reciprocity.

    By the way, you made me look up ‘polycule’.

    And there will be consequences.

    Me too. Once can always learn something on Ricochet.

    • #10
  11. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Henry, As I have told you before, for leftists, it’s not about the purported victims, it’s about the purported victimizers.

    Leftists need to feel good about themselves in a world where the reality is that they are neither morally, nor intellectually, adequate. So they engage in performance art/live action role playing about their moral and intellectual betters being evil victimizers.

    • #11
  12. doulalady Member
    doulalady
    @doulalady

    I’m not going to win any popularity contests here but every time I see one of Trump’s new administration surrounded by a monstrous regiment of newswomen asking ignorant and snarky questions it makes me embarrassed for my sex and I cannot help but think that maybe women should not have the vote. Then I see the women he’s nominated for his administration and they are very impressive, but we all know exceptions prove the rule…….see,I can’t make up my mind.

    • #12
  13. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Women are designed to be homemakers, nurturers, and mothers. They are designed to grow, to protect, and to nurture the literally most vulnerable humans – babies and small children. Women are designed to create and to maintain the welcoming environment (home) into which men retreat to be healed from the wounds the harsh outside world has inflicted, so the men regain strength to return to that harsh outside world and make that world better for the women and children.

    In other words, women are designed to care for the most vulnerable.

    So caring for victims is part of women’s nature.

    What I don’t get is why to so many women prioritize “victims” in the ways that they do.

    Because they didn’t marry manly men and start having babies,  and then their instinct to care for the vulnerable turned outside the home and got caught up in politics.

    • #13
  14. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    kedavis (View Comment):

    When I once, long ago, asked my mother if she could come up with a… “utilitarian?”… reason for why murder should be illegal, her response was “because it’s a sin.”

    That kind of dimness should not be rewarded with the franchise.

    That doesn’t sound like dimness.

    • #14
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    When I once, long ago, asked my mother if she could come up with a… “utilitarian?”… reason for why murder should be illegal, her response was “because it’s a sin.”

    That kind of dimness should not be rewarded with the franchise.

    That doesn’t sound like dimness.

    I specifically asked for a “utilitarian” type – i.e., non-religious – theory.  “It’s a sin” is non-responsive, at best.

    • #15
  16. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    When I once, long ago, asked my mother if she could come up with a… “utilitarian?”… reason for why murder should be illegal, her response was “because it’s a sin.”

    That kind of dimness should not be rewarded with the franchise.

    That doesn’t sound like dimness.

    I specifically asked for a “utilitarian” type – i.e., non-religious – theory. “It’s a sin” is non-responsive, at best.

    No, at best it’s a response correctly assuming that sin has bad consequences.

    And don’t make me quote J. S. Mill on Utilitarianism and religion.

    • #16
  17. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    When I once, long ago, asked my mother if she could come up with a… “utilitarian?”… reason for why murder should be illegal, her response was “because it’s a sin.”

    That kind of dimness should not be rewarded with the franchise.

    That doesn’t sound like dimness.

    I specifically asked for a “utilitarian” type – i.e., non-religious – theory. “It’s a sin” is non-responsive, at best.

    No, at best it’s a response correctly assuming that sin has bad consequences.

    And don’t make me quote J. S. Mill on Utilitarianism and religion.

    Not the point.  If I asked you what time the sun is likely to come up tomorrow, and you reply “The rooster crows at midnight!” that’s unresponsive to my question, even if true.

    • #17
  18. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    When I once, long ago, asked my mother if she could come up with a… “utilitarian?”… reason for why murder should be illegal, her response was “because it’s a sin.”

    That kind of dimness should not be rewarded with the franchise.

    That doesn’t sound like dimness.

    I specifically asked for a “utilitarian” type – i.e., non-religious – theory. “It’s a sin” is non-responsive, at best.

    No, at best it’s a response correctly assuming that sin has bad consequences.

    And don’t make me quote J. S. Mill on Utilitarianism and religion.

    Not the point. If I asked you what time the sun is likely to come up tomorrow, and you reply “The rooster crows at midnight!” that’s unresponsive to my question, even if true.

    You are incorrectly assuming that Utilitarianism must be non-religious. Your mother apparently was correctly assuming that sin has bad consequences.

    There is no other point–so far.

    Now if you want to tell me that your mother just definitely wasn’t thinking that way and I should trust you, then, well–just tell me.

    • #18
  19. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    When I once, long ago, asked my mother if she could come up with a… “utilitarian?”… reason for why murder should be illegal, her response was “because it’s a sin.”

    That kind of dimness should not be rewarded with the franchise.

    That doesn’t sound like dimness.

    I specifically asked for a “utilitarian” type – i.e., non-religious – theory. “It’s a sin” is non-responsive, at best.

    No, at best it’s a response correctly assuming that sin has bad consequences.

    And don’t make me quote J. S. Mill on Utilitarianism and religion.

    Not the point. If I asked you what time the sun is likely to come up tomorrow, and you reply “The rooster crows at midnight!” that’s unresponsive to my question, even if true.

    You are incorrectly assuming that Utilitarianism must be non-religious. Your mother apparently was correctly assuming that sin has bad consequences.

    There is no other point–so far.

    Now if you want to tell me that your mother just definitely wasn’t thinking that way and I should trust you, then, well–just tell me.

    If I ask for a question with a non-religious answer, but get a religious answer anyway, that’s on the answer-er, not me.  Even if they believe that religion IS everything, it’s still non-responsive.  And perhaps indicates that they aren’t smart enough to understand the question as asked, and to respond appropriately.  Even answering “I don’t believe it’s possible for anything to be non-religious,” would be better than simply giving a religious answer.  But my mother wasn’t that smart.

    • #19
  20. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    When I once, long ago, asked my mother if she could come up with a… “utilitarian?”… reason for why murder should be illegal, her response was “because it’s a sin.”

    That kind of dimness should not be rewarded with the franchise.

    That doesn’t sound like dimness.

    I specifically asked for a “utilitarian” type – i.e., non-religious – theory. “It’s a sin” is non-responsive, at best.

    No, at best it’s a response correctly assuming that sin has bad consequences.

    And don’t make me quote J. S. Mill on Utilitarianism and religion.

    Not the point. If I asked you what time the sun is likely to come up tomorrow, and you reply “The rooster crows at midnight!” that’s unresponsive to my question, even if true.

    You are incorrectly assuming that Utilitarianism must be non-religious. Your mother apparently was correctly assuming that sin has bad consequences.

    There is no other point–so far.

    Now if you want to tell me that your mother just definitely wasn’t thinking that way and I should trust you, then, well–just tell me.

    If I ask for a question with a non-religious answer, but get a religious answer anyway, that’s on the answer-er, not me. Even if they believe that religion IS everything, it’s still non-responsive. And perhaps indicates that they aren’t smart enough to understand the question as asked, and to respond appropriately. Even answering “I don’t believe it’s possible for anything to be non-religious,” would be better than simply giving a religious answer. But my mother wasn’t that smart.

    You apparently don’t know what Utilitarianism is. It can overlap with religion.

    And sin leads to bad consequences, which means it’s bad by utilitarian standards.

    If you told her you wanted a non-religious answer, you haven’t said so yet. So far all you’ve said is that you wanted a utilitarian answer, which she apparenly gave.

    • #20
  21. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    But you can pretty effectively refute me if you just say “Trust me–she definitely wasn’t thinking of the consequences of sin.”

    That would leave only your perfectly normal and innocent lack of knowledge of one of the nuances of Utilitarianism.

    (For anyone nerd enough to hear what J. S. Mill’s Utilitarianism says about religion, click here.)

    • #21
  22. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    When I once, long ago, asked my mother if she could come up with a… “utilitarian?”… reason for why murder should be illegal, her response was “because it’s a sin.”

    That kind of dimness should not be rewarded with the franchise.

    That doesn’t sound like dimness.

    I specifically asked for a “utilitarian” type – i.e., non-religious – theory. “It’s a sin” is non-responsive, at best.

    No, at best it’s a response correctly assuming that sin has bad consequences.

    And don’t make me quote J. S. Mill on Utilitarianism and religion.

    Not the point. If I asked you what time the sun is likely to come up tomorrow, and you reply “The rooster crows at midnight!” that’s unresponsive to my question, even if true.

    You are incorrectly assuming that Utilitarianism must be non-religious. Your mother apparently was correctly assuming that sin has bad consequences.

    There is no other point–so far.

    Now if you want to tell me that your mother just definitely wasn’t thinking that way and I should trust you, then, well–just tell me.

    If I ask for a question with a non-religious answer, but get a religious answer anyway, that’s on the answer-er, not me. Even if they believe that religion IS everything, it’s still non-responsive. And perhaps indicates that they aren’t smart enough to understand the question as asked, and to respond appropriately. Even answering “I don’t believe it’s possible for anything to be non-religious,” would be better than simply giving a religious answer. But my mother wasn’t that smart.

    You apparently don’t know what Utilitarianism is. It can overlap with religion.

    And sin leads to bad consequences, which means it’s bad by utilitarian standards.

    If you told her you wanted a non-religious answer, you haven’t said so yet. So far all you’ve said is that you wanted a utilitarian answer, which she apparenly gave.

    I expressed “utilitarian” in this post, although I was more specific at the actual event.  Since I was well aware of my mother’s religious tendencies.  And note that I used “utilitarian” here, not “Utilitarian.”

    The thing is, even if I had said “Utilitarian” to Mom, she wouldn’t have understood it the way you use it anyway.  I may not have even used “secular” since that might have been too complicated for her as well.

    • #22
  23. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    When I once, long ago, asked my mother if she could come up with a… “utilitarian?”… reason for why murder should be illegal, her response was “because it’s a sin.”

    That kind of dimness should not be rewarded with the franchise.

    That doesn’t sound like dimness.

    I specifically asked for a “utilitarian” type – i.e., non-religious – theory. “It’s a sin” is non-responsive, at best.

    No, at best it’s a response correctly assuming that sin has bad consequences.

    And don’t make me quote J. S. Mill on Utilitarianism and religion.

    Not the point. If I asked you what time the sun is likely to come up tomorrow, and you reply “The rooster crows at midnight!” that’s unresponsive to my question, even if true.

    You are incorrectly assuming that Utilitarianism must be non-religious. Your mother apparently was correctly assuming that sin has bad consequences.

    There is no other point–so far.

    Now if you want to tell me that your mother just definitely wasn’t thinking that way and I should trust you, then, well–just tell me.

    If I ask for a question with a non-religious answer, but get a religious answer anyway, that’s on the answer-er, not me. Even if they believe that religion IS everything, it’s still non-responsive. And perhaps indicates that they aren’t smart enough to understand the question as asked, and to respond appropriately. Even answering “I don’t believe it’s possible for anything to be non-religious,” would be better than simply giving a religious answer. But my mother wasn’t that smart.

    You apparently don’t know what Utilitarianism is. It can overlap with religion.

    And sin leads to bad consequences, which means it’s bad by utilitarian standards.

    If you told her you wanted a non-religious answer, you haven’t said so yet. So far all you’ve said is that you wanted a utilitarian answer, which she apparenly gave.

    I expressed “utilitarian” in this post, although I was more specific at the actual event. Since I was well aware of my mother’s religious tendencies. And note that I used “utilitarian” here, not “Utilitarian.”

    The thing is, even if I had said “Utilitarian” to Mom, she wouldn’t have understood it the way you use it anyway. I may not have even used “secular” since that might have been too complicated for her as well.

    Your point being “Trust me–she definitely wasn’t thinking of the consequences of sin”?

    • #23
  24. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    *sigh*

    • #24
  25. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    When I once, long ago, asked my mother if she could come up with a… “utilitarian?”… reason for why murder should be illegal, her response was “because it’s a sin.”

    That kind of dimness should not be rewarded with the franchise.

    That doesn’t sound like dimness.

    I specifically asked for a “utilitarian” type – i.e., non-religious – theory. “It’s a sin” is non-responsive, at best.

    No, at best it’s a response correctly assuming that sin has bad consequences.

    And don’t make me quote J. S. Mill on Utilitarianism and religion.

    Not the point. If I asked you what time the sun is likely to come up tomorrow, and you reply “The rooster crows at midnight!” that’s unresponsive to my question, even if true.

    You are incorrectly assuming that Utilitarianism must be non-religious. Your mother apparently was correctly assuming that sin has bad consequences.

    There is no other point–so far.

    Now if you want to tell me that your mother just definitely wasn’t thinking that way and I should trust you, then, well–just tell me.

    If I ask for a question with a non-religious answer, but get a religious answer anyway, that’s on the answer-er, not me. Even if they believe that religion IS everything, it’s still non-responsive. And perhaps indicates that they aren’t smart enough to understand the question as asked, and to respond appropriately. Even answering “I don’t believe it’s possible for anything to be non-religious,” would be better than simply giving a religious answer. But my mother wasn’t that smart.

    You apparently don’t know what Utilitarianism is. It can overlap with religion.

    And sin leads to bad consequences, which means it’s bad by utilitarian standards.

    If you told her you wanted a non-religious answer, you haven’t said so yet. So far all you’ve said is that you wanted a utilitarian answer, which she apparenly gave.

    I expressed “utilitarian” in this post, although I was more specific at the actual event. Since I was well aware of my mother’s religious tendencies. And note that I used “utilitarian” here, not “Utilitarian.”

    The thing is, even if I had said “Utilitarian” to Mom, she wouldn’t have understood it the way you use it anyway. I may not have even used “secular” since that might have been too complicated for her as well.

    Your point being “Trust me–she definitely wasn’t thinking of the consequences of sin”?

    More like, she was ONLY thinking of the consequences of what she was taught was sin, even though specifically asked NOT TO in that situation.  She was incapable of thinking in any other way.  I consider that “dim.”  Incapable of abstract thought.

     

    • #25
  26. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    When I once, long ago, asked my mother if she could come up with a… “utilitarian?”… reason for why murder should be illegal, her response was “because it’s a sin.”

    That kind of dimness should not be rewarded with the franchise.

    That doesn’t sound like dimness.

    I specifically asked for a “utilitarian” type – i.e., non-religious – theory. “It’s a sin” is non-responsive, at best.

    No, at best it’s a response correctly assuming that sin has bad consequences.

    And don’t make me quote J. S. Mill on Utilitarianism and religion.

    Not the point. If I asked you what time the sun is likely to come up tomorrow, and you reply “The rooster crows at midnight!” that’s unresponsive to my question, even if true.

    You are incorrectly assuming that Utilitarianism must be non-religious. Your mother apparently was correctly assuming that sin has bad consequences.

    There is no other point–so far.

    Now if you want to tell me that your mother just definitely wasn’t thinking that way and I should trust you, then, well–just tell me.

    If I ask for a question with a non-religious answer, but get a religious answer anyway, that’s on the answer-er, not me. Even if they believe that religion IS everything, it’s still non-responsive. And perhaps indicates that they aren’t smart enough to understand the question as asked, and to respond appropriately. Even answering “I don’t believe it’s possible for anything to be non-religious,” would be better than simply giving a religious answer. But my mother wasn’t that smart.

    You apparently don’t know what Utilitarianism is. It can overlap with religion.

    And sin leads to bad consequences, which means it’s bad by utilitarian standards.

    If you told her you wanted a non-religious answer, you haven’t said so yet. So far all you’ve said is that you wanted a utilitarian answer, which she apparenly gave.

    I expressed “utilitarian” in this post, although I was more specific at the actual event. Since I was well aware of my mother’s religious tendencies. And note that I used “utilitarian” here, not “Utilitarian.”

    The thing is, even if I had said “Utilitarian” to Mom, she wouldn’t have understood it the way you use it anyway. I may not have even used “secular” since that might have been too complicated for her as well.

    Your point being “Trust me–she definitely wasn’t thinking of the consequences of sin”?

    More like, she was ONLY thinking of the consequences of what she was taught was sin, even though specifically asked NOT TO in that situation. She was incapable of thinking in any other way. I consider that “dim.” Incapable of abstract thought.

    Is this your way of trying to say “I asked her to talk about consequences that a person could know about without being religious, and she failed to do so”?

    • #26
  27. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Is this your way of trying to say “I asked her to talk about consequences that a person could know about without being religious, and she failed to do so”?

    Somewhat.  Your description sounds like explaining what IS.  My question was more about the “why.”

    A suitable answer could have been as simple as “we make it illegal to kill other people so that it’s less likely that someone will kill ME.  Since I don’t want to be killed.  So I’m okay with a restriction that also applies to myself.”

    But she couldn’t even get to that level.

    • #27
  28. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Yeah guys. All very relevant to my post.

    Anyways, check out this thread with Southern Pessimist. He talks about a married lesbian couple they know.

    We thoroughly enjoy their friendship but one of them has gone totally wacko. She deeply believes Trump is going to hunt down gay and lesbian couples and put them in prison. She and her partner have bought a home in Mexico and are moving there. I can’t believe there is any place on the planet more accommodating to gays than South Florida but she is terrified of what Trump will do.

    Now I understand ctlaw’s idea of moral preening and narcissism but what is the psychology of people throwing themselves into misery for no good reason?

    I can understand why white leftist ladies believing in nonsense in order to feel important. But why would homosexuals come down with such a case of affluenza?

    • #28
  29. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Reminds me of:

     

    • #29
  30. Juliana Member
    Juliana
    @Juliana

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    JD Vance lays out explicitly how wrong the Left is on this issue you discuss. All they do is virtue signal. Their priorities are backwards. They have no understanding of the ordo caritatis of St. Thomas Aquinas or the ordo amoris of St. Augustine.

    For further reading on this:

    https://taylormarshall.com/2025/01/jd-vance-and-thomas-aquinas-on-ordo-amoris.html

    And by the way, I’ve never run across a Lefty woman who thinks they act like the Blessed Virgin Mary. What is your point in using that picture?

    The left believes that their compassion deifies them. Check the the caption.

    I do not see a caption for the Marian picture at the top of the post. Please include the name so I can research it further.

    I am not sure why there are people on this site whom I  would generally consider to be objective and open-minded, yet have a tendency to think that women do not deserve to vote. Perhaps you think it better that men, oh, let’s say like the congressman who thought Guam was going to tip over, should be making all the decisions? And what does voting have to do with the compassionate nature of women? Are you really trying to suggest that because a segment of the female population has lost their marbles about this particular issue,  all women don’t deserve or cannot be allowed to make political decisions. Like men have done such a great job. Sheesh.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.