Freethought & Rationalism Archive

alek0 · 06-18-2003, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Whoever is the better intimidator/manipulator.

You are the one who suggests that the relationship should be based on intimidation (i.e. his natural authority) and manipulation (i.e. she should withhold intercourse). In equal partnership there is no final vote, there is compromise.

yguy · 06-18-2003, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daleth
No, I'm pointing out to you that you did something that I'd prefer you not do again. That is all. I'm not sending you to your room or calling you a bad boy. I think you said something that had an unintended effect, and you can't know what effect it had unless I tell you. I'd do the same with any friend. That's healthy communication. You can accept that it has that effect on me and try to avoid doing it again or you can defend doing it.

OK, fair enough. You are the ultimate authority as to what you find distasteful...but I'm not making any promises, so keep yer powder dry, Annie.

Quote:

As for my mother, she's a quiet and sort of private person. I wasn't completely sure she believed in god until I was a teenager. Because she's so quiet, I am not able to state with complete confidence how she feels or thinks about many things.

So would it be rude if I said this didn't surprise me in the least?

Quote:

OK, I'm not clear on what mothering means here. I used "cuddling" because I thought when you said hugs and kisses were the shallowest form of love a father could give, that meant mothering.

No, I just meant that it is shallow compared to the love that embarasses you when you need embarassing.

Quote:

If that is so, why isn't any suggestion ever made to a man at any time just sugar-coated intimidation?

In some cases it can be, depending on the weakness of the man and the manipulative power of the woman. However, there is a reason why pretty women tend not to get traffic tickets.

Quote:

And if it is, why would a husband listen to and consider his wife's opinion at all? Why would he ever consider the possibility that she's more experienced in a given area?

A strong man wouldn't be afraid to find out that his wife understood something he didn't.

Quote:

Is she not taking authority by merely making a suggestion, if Eve was?

Eve wasn't merely making a suggestion. She was unintentionally catering to Adam's selfishness.

Quote:

Shouldn't a woman, a good woman of her own accord, realize that stating any opinion not told to her by her husband or father is taking authority, and decide to hold her peace at all times?

He's the boss, he's not God. He only has one pair of eyes, so to speak. To do as you suggest would be setting him up to fail. For example, let's say that before the recent shuttle explosion, an engineer saw a potential problem with the heat tiles, or whatever it was, and brought it to the attention of a superior, who didn't see the problem and dismissed it. And let's say that engineer failed to press the point, even though he knew he was right. I say he's more guilty than the superior, who was merely myopic, where the engineer failed to act on what he knew.

Quote:

They're brown, damn near black.

I also have not observed men to be anywhere near as weak as you are describing, and I've been around some. Why are you so certain that all men are so easily swayed?

Were that not the case, adultery would hardly be as commonplace as it is.

Of course, the solution to that problem is just around the corner: call it a normal part of marriage.

Quote:

Why would a self-respecting woman let a man like that in the door?

Do you really think so many women are self-respecting? In any case, there are obviously some who are not; these would both attract and cater to the kind of men I'm talking about.

Quote:

(Me) Sometimes in the traditional family the boy grows up thinking all women are weak and so he doesn't respect them, and the girl grows up thinking, well, that she shouldn't bother with thinking. Sometimes. It's always sometimes.

(yguy)If it were just sometimes, we would never have elected a scoundrel like Clinton twice, and apologists for pedophilia would not hold respected positions in academia.

You just supported my position based on what you quoted and how you replied.

You lost me.

Quote:

But you see, there is actual proof that thalidomide results in birth defects, and there is actual proof that being born without arms makes life more challenging.

At some time before there WAS proof of thalidomide's danger, there was no proof. I don't know the history of it, but if it's like other such catastrophes, at least some of it's proponents had a certain resistance to the truth about it. And of course the symptoms we're talking about aren't nearly as jolting as armless babies.

Actually, I suppose a better example would be when AIDS first broke out, and "gay" activists fought tooth and nail to prevent bathhouses from being shut down, though there was plenty of reason to believe those places were acting as facilities for AIDS transmission more than anything else. The idiots couldn't see beyond the end of their...umm...well, never mind.

Quote:

True. However the child of parents who are trying very hard and who are willing to learn as they go along has a better chance than the child of parents who think they know the right way from the start and just follow that path come what may.

But you could just as easily be describing homosexual parents as those in traditional families. After all, if a problem arises which is traceable to lack of one gender in a parental role, what will they do, get a divorce, become hetero and remarry?

Quote:

<grumble>The forum just ate part of this post.

</grumble>

Use Notepad, knucklehead.

Quote:

I have nothing of substance to say about the biblical references, but in light of these being your foundation, don't they do away with the problem of the "intuitively obvious"? If natural authority is derived from Adam and from Christ, isn't this knowledge of this authority learned rather than being a sort of congenital intuition?

No, because I only believe the Bible where it testifies to what my own intuition tells me. If you have eyes to see it, you can see the A&E scenario being played out almost everywhere you look in the realm of man/woman relationships.

Quote:

children are not born with knowledge of Adam or of Christ, so why would they be born with knowledge of a abstract idea derived from those examples?

Same reason they're born knowing what injustice is without being able to articulate it. When they see the scenario being played out by their parents, it's like water hitting a planted seed.

yguy · 06-18-2003, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
It's obviously intuitive and self-evident:

"...the right of men and women of marriageable age to many and to found a family shall be recognized,� and that �husband and wife should be equal partners.� - The World Congress of Families opening address to the second Congress from its President, Geneva, 1999

You're joking, right?

I defy anyone to explain to me how this constitutes proof that "a two-parent family needs partners."

Quote:

"rhetorical ethics"? Is that anything like being a Christian while spewing hateful messages about gays and women?

Since I'm not only not a Christian, but have never spewed any hateful messages about "gays" and women, I don't quite see the relevance.

Daleth · 06-18-2003, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Use Notepad, knucklehead.

I will not! It is intuitively obvious that Notepad is just one of the many insidious add-ons to the Windows operating system in Microsoft's attempt to remove the need for any software other than their own despite its inferiority, stifle creativity and progress, take over the world, and make us all get bad haircuts.

<slaps own hand>
I mean, I don't like Notepad.

But not a bad idea.

yguy · 06-18-2003, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daleth
I will not! It is intuitively obvious that Notepad is just one of the many insidious add-ons to the Windows operating system in Microsoft's attempt to remove the need for any software other than their own despite its inferiority, stifle creativity and progress, take over the world, and make us all get bad haircuts.

Uh huh. Like I said, women should be seen and not heard.

Daleth · 06-18-2003, 08:12 PM

Like you'd be attracted to women with hair like that! Actually, that might just solve the problem of lust once and for all.

Jinto · 06-18-2003, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Uh huh. Like I said, women should be seen and not heard.

Somehow, I really don't think you're joking. :boohoo:

yguy · 06-18-2003, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jinto
Somehow, I really don't think you're joking. :boohoo:

Somehow, this is not exactly a surprise.

PandaJoe · 06-18-2003, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
You're joking, right?

I defy anyone to explain to me how this constitutes proof that "a two-parent family needs partners."

Considering the number of times you make a claim without any evidence to back it up, not to mention the complete refusal to provide any when challenged, you sound pretty damn silly right now.

yguy · 06-18-2003, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PandaJoe
Considering the number of times you make a claim without any evidence to back it up, not to mention the complete refusal to provide any when challenged, you sound pretty damn silly right now.

Considering the number of times you guys have parroted the threadbare cliche about the proponent of the assertion bearing the burden of proof, you sound pretty hypocritical right now.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-18-2003, 08:12 PM	#136
Daleth Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: NYC, 5th floor, on the left Posts: 372	Like you'd be attracted to women with hair like that! Actually, that might just solve the problem of lust once and for all.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.