There are two arguments here one of slavery and one of freedom. They are mutually incompatible. To help illustrate why it helps to examine the nature of evil. There are two kinds of evil. The first is self-destructive evil. This is the most obvious type of evil and your examples above (drunkenness, failure to work out, etc) fall into this category. Self-destructive evil is a form of irrationality self-harm due to ignorance or lack of self-control.
Far more insidious is the use of evil use to strengthen oneself or ones people. Hitler's plan of enslaving the Slavic race and exterminating most of them to make way for German settlers if actualized would have been this type of evil.
Arguing that whatever strengthens your local culture is good effectively redefines evil as good. It is an argument for the right of the strong to enslave and kill the weak.
You will indeed find this argument to be incompatible with Judaism or any Christian denomination for that matter. These faiths require adherents to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. They forbid such evil even if it "strengthens" the society.
CoinCube it is expected that you will fight for your ideological religion fetish, because afaics you are heavily invested in ideological delusion (which is why imo you are so vulnerable to cultural failure as are nearly all men these days). There that is my version of giving you a taste (mirror) of your own moralizing judgement. I am just hoping to find a few strong men on this earth, for if I am the only one creating a strong culture, it is far too slow (which is another reason for my writing of "females" as in polygamy in plural in special cases because remember the female's ovaries are more valuable than the males testicles because you only need one remaining male to inseminate all the women).
So we are in competition of ideas and I appreciate you playing the role of the villain who afaics wants to (perhaps unknowingly) destroy both successful culture and yourself by regurgitating untruths that you've apparently latched onto.
I had already stated that in fact Hitler did evil because he assumed a top-down omniscience which he can't possibly have and tried to exterminate entirely races and handicapped peoples in attempt to have a total ordering over the state of nature. Of course any high IQ person can see this will result in evil and destroy the very culture he might have been trying to protect. So sorry, you can use a delusional totalitarian idiot's lack of insight as a correct argument or counter example.
I have proposed a decentralized culture wherein the culture wins in the competition of ideas, not by attempting impossible total orders. You and I have also discussed in great detail else where why total orders must be impossible, else we can't exist (other than as some scripted movie with a static entropy in defiance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics).
And no where have I proposed to do unto others in any way that which I would not want them to do unto me.
I presume your fetish-preference is clouding your ability to actually look into my concept and understand it properly. You need a justification for religion, but sorry to inform you there isn't such a necessity. For some reason, you seem to need an ideological or "higher" purpose and this also seems to be the downfall of man in general. Hopefully the very high IQ people can start to figure this out and move towards a superior culture as I proposed and absolutely and totally dominate all these deluded peoples. But the thing is, by domination I don't call for extermination nor doing unto others in any way other than I would them to do unto me, except noting if self-defense becomes a necessity (I do think these deviant cultures are eventually going to annihilate the planet with a nuclear winter if they continue on the path they are on, so we at some point may have to take them out, at least the command and control).
James A Donald's thesis that we should just enslave our women is very similar to the argument of Himmler when he argued that education for non-Germans be restricted to elementary school just enough to teach them to write their names and obey Germans.
You compare things which are not at all similar. I have made the very important point that if you restrict your males from education then your culture is evil. If you restrict the capability of your cultural competition, then you are also destroying the competitiveness of your own culture (because it looses competition to drive it and also loses a good pool of cultural and genetic evolution to extract from).
Also I have made the point that you absolutely can't enslave your women and expect to be successful. You must give them their free will to choose. But that doesn't mean giving them the choice of defecting while simultaneously staying within the community. They must choose. If they want to pollute their minds or want to pursue their intellectual careers, then they can leave the culture community and enjoy the failure they will share with these other lonely old foul mouthed feminists who follow the FALSE LIFE PLAN. There is very rarely if ever a woman who is smart or unique enough intellectually that by not pursuing her abilities (women have much less outliers on the far high IQ end of the curve as I pointed out in my prior posts), society has lost something more valuable than the value of her ovaries. Failure-directed cultures will argue she can do both, but that sets an incorrect example that lesser IQ women try to emulate with disastrous results.
The strategy of enslaving women to force them to do what men want is morally identical. It is not irrational but it is very evil.
I have pointed out to JAD that he has a flaw in his model, and I have offered the correction. Again I advocate giving women their free will, but again not letting them have a defection cake and eat it too. Just as men can't be allowed to defect and parasite on the culture community, women can't be allow to either. To do so, would be another deviant failure-directed culture such as the ones we have now.
Ultimately embracing a strategy of might makes right as long as it is good for the local culture is one of stagnation.
You are building a strawman. I have argued for education of the males and them having the free will to decide to destroy their own culture if they are too stupid to get it. And thus by natural selection the culture community will grow stronger over time.
How is open education, competition, and partial orders leading to stagnation. Sorry you are apparently not even understanding what I have proposed.
I guarantee you CoinCube, I've got you on this one. I am correct.
The solution is not to enslave other cultures or enslave our women or anyone else for that matter but to allow for the matching of of social rewards to healthy behavior so people willingly choose to do the right thing both for themselves for society as a whole not via force and oppression but via voluntary cooperation.
Typical ideological nonsense. You can't have correct behavior if you allow the females to defect (because you force the males to defect by allowing such defection). Period. Go review the resources I linked to. Until you understand this, you are hopelessly lost.
Mr. Donald' strongly disagrees with that concept that the emancipation of slaves, the end of dueling, blasphemy laws, the divine right of kings, womans suffrage and participation in the workforce represented progress. He is stuck in a primitive mindset failing to understand the actual nature of progress.
I wrote he is closest to correct, because he identified correctly the core principle that females can't be allowed to defect. Yet I agree he is failing (even
he apparently admits he failed with his own sons), because he doesn't understand what I have written above. I have sent him links to this thread and hoping he is not too old to recognize his mistakes.
Your other argument the one for freedom of choice but not freedom from consequence is a much healthier view and I urge you to continue on this line of thinking . You have to choose. Freedom of choice is entirely incompatible with Mr. Donald's primitavism above.
Why you put this at the very end and I am not going unwrite everything I wrote above just because you save this for the end.
Your hypothetical of a sustainable multi-generational social structure built around a set of beliefs that are taught and followed on a voluntary basis requiring compliance but permitting freedom to leave has never existed and will never exist outside of the context of God and religion.
You have not made any argument.
God and religion have nothing to do with it. If the men are so stupid that they need to fear a God in order to adhere to the truths they've been taught, then the culture is growing weaker not stronger.
I am arguing for a culture that grows stronger via natural selection and free will of choice. And never did I expect all men to join such a culture because I don't think the bell curve of IQ is ever going to be eliminated.
Note I am honoring your research on evolution, biology, and social organization. I have adopted your defection and culling by free choice themes (which you employed to sell religion). As usual, I am clever about how I assimilate all the information I have been exposed to.