what you consider good and evil doesn't apply to everyone else

and they are important

I consider religion to be evil, in any form

but what **they** consider good and evil makes all the difference in the world

it does not, what societies consider good and evil changes over time

The problem is that Kant undermined the enlightenment, and the validity of reason, with the explicit purpose of justifying faith.

this paved the way for Christianity.

and then, later, Marx and Nietzsche.

yes, and thats what the left is doing today

yes

now you understand.

i always did

but its not just the left

the right considers altruism to be moral as well.

I agree with the end, just not your ideals of an "enligthenment"

they consider capitalism as a necessary evil at best, and still consider selfishness as immoral.

The way i see it, modern society just replaced God with Socialism

yes

because they are equally valid

they are not

they're both lies told to people to control them

because there is no place for reason in society.

we ultimately have just given up ourselves to faith somewhere along the line.

reason gimps control

If a leader can't have people removed on a whim, but instead be faced with "but theres no reason for it" they don't have power

right

its just a power play

this is why progressives only value "power", they consider facts to only be what the person in power declares to be true

yes, but it is only sanctioned because the intellectual elite fundamentally believe in altruism

If i say the sky is blue, but a person in power says its green, to post-moderninsts the sky is green

today, they just take it on faith that we have no free will.

no

the sky is a social construct

i like your thinking Ping 😛

close

and no the intellectual elite don't believe in altruism, if they did they'd remove all forms of welfare, and only opt for a real "safety net" and pure capitalism

becausei n the long run that will eliminate leeching/weak people and only create a strong society that advances through competition

```Is math sexist? One Vanderbilt University professor believes that it is.

Writing in an academic journal last month, the professor complained about the masculinization of math and how it causes the oppression of women.

Describing mathematics as a “white and heteronormatively masculinized space,” professor Luis A. Leyva insists that factors including teacher expectations and cultural norms “serve as gendering mechanisms that give rise to sex-based achievement differences,” per Campus Reform.

Leyva argues that a “gender gap” exists in mathematical ability due to these social constructs, and that there isn’t any inherent difference in male and female cognitive abilities when it comes to the subject. The differences, he says, give rise to the “myth of male superiority.”

Female underachievement in the field is highlighted, he argues, by teachers who point it out and reinforce cultural expectations.

In the article titled “Unpacking the Male Superiority Myth and Masculinization of Mathematics at the Intersection,” Leyva says that teachers “contribute to the masculinization of the domain that unfairly holds students to men’s higher levels of achievement and participation as a measure of success.”

In other words, being held to a high standard keeps women down.```

no, you're wrong, welfare systems are the **embodiment** of altruism

hahaha read the first sentence then the last one.

because people will learn to survive and learn they are strong enough to survive without a "nanny state"

I though the elite believed in votes

no, they're the embodiment of "ooh look at how nice we are aren't we good?" its the Kind person al over again, they don't do it for the person being helped, tehy do it to make themselves feel good