Understanding Religion's Relationship To Human Social Systems

Replying to this video clip: ( Link )  I wrote: How I feel about it, as a masculine man: This tells me that the woman hasn't yet (and might never) take full responsibility for her head-space, attitude, and behaviors. So they need a man who will be a father, to wield discipline over her. But what I find attractive and functionally-best in a partner is a woman who has matured to the point where she can reliably self-discipline. Even more importantly, it's crucial that she doesn't really have some adolescent or chaotic storm of emotional dysregulation. If she has such problems, then it will become *my problem*. Some women think it should be like this. They think it's what a man is supposed to do for a woman. But I don't agree. The man that I am should really never accept responsibility (especially not a life-long social contract) for disarming a woman's occasionally-weaponized personality. When I hear a woman admit to needing, seeking, and/or feeling entitled to

  Responding to: Stephanie McGuire   [ link to where she posted this comment ] [link to the video where people responded negatively to her trolling?  I dunno. It's on one of Jay's streams.  I can't remember which one.] "Wow. How did I know you'd be talking about me? I left a comment (Thursday video) on the chat issues on Jay's channel to defend myself of his accusation of me ... (blah blah blah) ----------------------------- Stephanie. If you had showed up behaving pro-socially, you could have made some new friends. You chose a more difficult path. But the roots of the real problem run much deeper. You know almost-nothing about the real world or the people in it. Worse yet, clearly, you've never even met yourself. If you keep acting like you do, then that's how people are going to respond to you. Feel free to keep trying to gaslight us about what's really been happening. But then don't act surprised when you get call

 Micah Hoover, a religious fundamentalist  has (for years) been abusing and misappropriating various non-religious social-media forums (ie. Stoicism groups) to do P.R./recruitment for his anti-Stoic and anti-virtuous religious mafia. [Yes, it's literally a mafia] With that,   he caught my attention; again.  It always boils down to him mispresenting every concept he presents; Stoicism, word-meanings, his own religion, and even basic human ideals. It's all just dishonest marketing. He does that as a means-to-and-end; in order to spread the reach of his mafia.   Let's take a look: The quote that Micah shared  and tried to mispresent was this: "“The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts.” — Marcus Aurelius" Here, Micah is inferring (incorrectly) that  Marcus Aurelius would have seen Christian dogmas  as high quality thoughts; and thus conducive to a life well-lived. [Edit: Micah, the next morning, has denied intending that as his message. I