Nostr Web Client

There is no way to establish a norm fairly. Previous standards in which women had no rights, and were literally property, was the norm before. We don’t need norms. We don’t need standardization. We don’t need rulers and governing bodies. We just need free individuals peacefully cooperating and consenting to their partnerships. The rest will sort itself out.

Laeserin 1y ago

Unpopular opinion:

Wives are a form of human property by Nature, (as are all legal dependents). They're the highest form of property, tho, because they aren't transferrable and they have rights specific to their station, including the right to renounce their station.

Men are expected to protect them and provide for them because they are "his". They can't be his unless he can lay claim to them, in some way, through legal title or Natural Law.

The feminists are actually right about this and pretending otherwise just makes us sound illogical. It says it, right in the Bible:

“You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”

-- Exodus 20:17

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

yes, employees are property also, within the terms of the contract and that absolute right to renounce

slavery is a violation of that important part of the deal

apprentices are also like this, , something in between a child and servant

Laeserin 1y ago

Yes, German apprenticeship laws has them halfway between a child and an employee, leaning more toward child, the younger they are.

That's why employees are commonly called "human resources" or "human capital".

inpc 1y ago

Have you seen my neighbour's ox though? I'm coveting that beast 24/7. I'm going to hell I know but I've come top terms with it.

MAHDOOD 1y ago

I don’t believe in religion so for me, it’s easier to say that you are not property. I think if you can disagree with your master then you are unfit to be property. You can sugarcoat it however you want and call it the sanctity of the divine union. But if you are property then you don’t have the right to leave the marriage. You don’t have the right to refuse any commands he gives you. Property do not have rights. My car doesn’t have the right to stop serving me.

Also a lot of these words you are throwing out don’t mean anything. Like “legal” and “law.” These words don’t mean anything. They are mental conceptions. Legal and law are just opinions put forth by members of congress, senate, etc. These branches of government are made up of individual human beings. That means the words “law” and “legal” are just opinions of individual people. They are not facts. They are not objective. They are not moral. They are mental conceptions. People made them up, they mean nothing. They’re as real as Santa. But people with guns force you to believe in those words. They don’t force you to believe in Santa.

Lhasa Sensei 1y ago

Late to the convo, but I thought the below excerpt from "The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage" by Will Durant fits in. Pretty interesting read. Note that in the paragraph above he does say that we must remind ourselves how little we really know of its origins.

I do agree that if a pre-nup is used both parties should retain they're own legal counsel.

I like the idea of the multi-sig.

Laeserin 1y ago

Yes, polygamy is described in the Old Testament, but Christ raised marriage to a sacrament linking the groom as "Christlike" and the bride as "Churchlike", and obviously Christ only has one Church and the Church only has one Christ, so it must remain monogamous.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

indeed, i just got finished reading The Book of Jubilees, which is a much more detailed account of the contents of Genesis and Exodus, and more than a few times there is some strange things involving marrying cousins and multiple wives, not only that, several repeats of the same theme of story as cain and abel, but the one about the mother persuading the son to "steal the blessing" from the old man using pretend hairy strap-ons lol

i mean, seriously, the jews refusal to recognise the Messiah was truly the end of them, what remains now is just the synagogue of satan, at least in the formal, institutional sense, not necessarily the spirit of many of the practitioners

Laeserin 1y ago

Jews have their own covenant.

They should all convert to Christianity, to be on the safe side, but I think that about everyone who isn't baptized.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

well, supposedly the proportion of saved vs damned, according to what The Apocalypse of Yajnavalkya indicates (i forget now - have read it twice but can't remember the justification for this) is the same as it was during the War in Heaven, ie, 1/3 are fallen

so that actually suggests that it's not about which religion you follow, it's that you follow the Law that Christ brings, and Jesus and numerous other writers in the New Testament say this as well, even the Qur'an says that who follows the Law of Allah is a muslim (one who follows the way of peace)

Laeserin 1y ago

Well, we are told that nobody can come to the Father, except through Christ, and the only clear way through Christ is baptism, so everyone unbaptized is taking a needless risk.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

I was baptized at age 14 :) my mother has the bible and photo I was given as a memorial.

Lhasa Sensei 1y ago

Interesting perspective. I'm not religious, but I can see how the interpretation describes a monogamous partnership.