Calzaer

You have the burden of proof still; you have to prove this natural authority, this natural intuition, and all the facts-not-in-evidence you spew.

Nowhere357

Really, yguy, hypocrite seems a little strong don't you think?

yguy

No.

Dr Rick

I defy yguy to explain how he's proven he has been made guilty in someone's mind of a fabricated offense, is not a Christian, that there is a gulf of perception between him and someone else, has never spewed any hateful messages about "gays" and women, is not making any promises, has commented on information volunteered, takes the risk that people will draw unpleasant conclusions about him, and that he doesn't quite see the relevance.

Daleth

LOL!

As the someone else in question, I vouch for him on that.

At the moment, I don't see anywhere else to go with this conversation. It seems to me we're ending up with more questions as we go along, not fewer.

What is 'mothering'?

If 'natural authority' is what Adam and Jesus had, how are we shown this and what exactly does it mean? How do we know that's what it means?

If something is 'intuitively' known by all human beings, how can it be possible that so many people lack that intuition and in fact intuit something quite the opposite?

If nobody escapes childhood with their intuition completely intact, how are we to tell which adult's intuition is the naturally occurring kind?

If all men were suddenly more nurturing with their kids and all women suddenly more corrective, what's the harm? What about this system makes it worth preserving? And assuming it's worth preserving, why does it need to be the only acceptable system?

How on earth could alternate family structures lead to the downfall of the nation?

I could go through the posts and pick out dozens of questions that haven't been answered, or at least not in a way that seems complete to me. The answers may be there, but I don't know what they mean, so it's as if they weren't.

It is possible that yguy can not answer these questions in any other way. He inuits things one way, and I intuit them another and that's all... but the 'intuitively obvious' thing bugs the crap out of me because it is demonstrably obvious that it's just not true. I can accept that something is obvious to one person and he can't explain why, but to foist that perception on everyone... it can not be demonstrated to be true and has been demonstrated to be false.

yguy, if you think you can explain better and feel like it's worth your time, that's fine. I'm at a dead end with this right now. We can go on addressing each other point for point, but the foundation is still lacking.

BTW, No.

Dal

fatherphil

do they take turns compromising?

Daleth

ACK!
In a compromise, both sides make concessions. If one side simply gives in to the other, there is no compromise.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): That's not a threadbare cliche--it's a basic component of accurate communication. If people can say any Tom Fool thing they want without having to back it up, discussion breaks down.
I was astonished when I first saw you post such nonsense, but after reading one silly unsubstantiated assertion after another pour from your keyboard over the past week or two, I can understand your need to take such an illogical dodge.
But I really don't think that you're not fooling anyone.

yguy

Is there a field of knowledge which avoids this trap?

It's the kind of love that says you're wonderful just the way you are. It's essential to infants, and slow death to adults. It's nurturing the egotistical side of a person - which is fine for an infant, because if its ego doesn't grow, it won't grow at all.

Ideally by parents who understand the concept. Since most of us don't have that, the best we can do is to search within ourselves when we encounter pain caused by misuse of the male/female relationship.

It is intuitively obvious to almost everyone that parents have natural authority over children, but the authority of a husband over a wife has been encased with a perception shell of a mythology by the re-education machine that the media, cultural authorities, and the education system have become a part of.

Again, I don't know how to tell you that in a few well chosen words. Sorry.

The premise of your next question answers that.

Without a certain degree of objectivity, it's impossible.

Let's take homosexuality, which you see nothing wrong with. You could have come to believe that by hearing somebody like Fred Phelps spewing hate against "gays", seeing that he was wrong for hating, then falsely concluding that because he was a wrong person, everything he said about homosexuality was wrong. That could tempt you to the other intellectual extreme.

I myself thought as a teenager that it was "obvious" that there was nothing wrong with homosexuality, blissfully unaware that I was not thinking my own thoughts.

I don't know that the second would be a problem, strictly speaking, but for men to nurture, they have to get in touch with their feminine side when they should be letting that part of them die.

It provides an environment in which children can grow into their real, independent selves, rather than males who are dependent on female love and females who are dependent on being so depended on.

Because other systems will degrade it over the generations.

The world is governed by the aggressive use of force, and feminized men make lousy soldiers. And as politicians, they can be depended upon to cater to the most selfish elements of society, as the Democratic leadership does.

Maybe you could post few of the ones that bother you the most and I'll see what I can do. No doubt some good questions are buried in QOS's posts, for instance, but it gets tedious plowing through all the mockery to get to them.

Anyone who gives me a fair hearing is worth whatever time I have to spend here. Even so, it is unlikely that I have the wherewithal to get you to do more than consider your present views from a different angle than you've encountered up to now. Probably the best I can hope for is that you'll remember some of this; and that months or years from now, at a time not of your choosing, some idea we've talked about will resurface, and the light will go on. It's not something you can apply great intellect to, analyze, and thus understand.

Calzaer

And yet, somehow, in spite of the obvious and intuitive nature of everything you say, you can't actually support a word of it.

Why are we supposed to take you seriously again?