Mageth

any redistributive social aparatus has at its core a vision of what the end-state of affairs should be. yes, utopia. affirmative action is an example of one such agenda.

Chrisitianity is the ultimate in utopian pipe dreams.

of course this is your right to think this way. yet this is opinion, and i ask for proof that such measures are evil. if you know what is bad for society, do you know what is good for society too?

One thing that's good for society is people not trying to force their ideological ideals on society, as xianity is wont to do.

who is this strawman you keep referring to? take two statements:
god exists
god does not exist
the theist would say god exists and the atheist would say god does not exist. both statements rely on the subject, god. both are world views, two sides of the same coin

Neither are worldviews. Both are statements about belief or non-belief in god(s). My worldview is not based on my disbelief in god. It may influence it, but it's not based on it.

please provide proof of this assertion

Coming from you I take that as sarcasm.

not sure how i should take that

An intellectual would know how to take it.

what bounds are these? why must thought have bounds?

You introduced the concept of "bounds" as in "thought without bounds." The ball's in your court to define how thought is without any bound. Remember, as you stated earlier in this thread, it only takes one exception to prove your assertion wrong.

i would never force anything on you that you weren't ready or willing to accept. i respect you and everyone more than that

I question if you respect me or anyone else, based on your comments so far on this thread. Your comment "any woman playing hard to get says no and really means yes" is enough to show me what you think of "respect."

Queen of Swords

Thank you both for the compliment and for compiling the more pathetic statements into a single post. It's obvious now that the troll isn't actually a christian (which is perhaps a good thing, since he was making it look so defective).

Mageth

here comes the grammar lesson im sorry. god-subject, isnot -verb negation. that statement has no relevance unless the subject has value. we could say p is not. since p is nothing in particular, just some arbitrary letter, our statement has no importance or value. only when god has value, only when it exists in some form and has some value does that statement have any value.

suppose god is not is equal to p is not. what are we left with? dont take the question the wrong way. i really want to know what you think is left after we give god such a valuation.

Don't delve into logic if you have no inkling of what you're doing. We started with no god (the default position), then we created the god concept. My expressing disbelief in the god concept does not require the "object" to actually exist or have value.

I don't believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy either.

Santa Claus is - not.
The tooth fairy is - not.

Do you realize that, using your logic, all other gods created by all other cultures, and indeed all other concepts, beliefs, myths, etc, must have value and must exist in some form to be declared nonexistent by you? Can you see the problem with that line of reasoning?

i was attempting to show what mental constructs are.

I understand; to you, mental constructs is - not.

who is this strawman you keep talking to?

The strawman fallacy has been explained to you by Bill Snedden. I'm not addressing a strawman; I'm pointing out a strawman fallacy.

i thank you for the opportunity to learn, i will do my best. i believe you have misunderstood my intent, i will remedy. you read this.
i imagine your logic condemning st paul is as follows.
paul instructs women to not speak in church.
not speaking in church leads to inequality between men and women.
anyone whose teachings lead to inequality for women hates women.
therefore
paul hates women
in this line of reasoning you make many assumptions.
1. anyone whose teachings lead to inequality for women hates women.
2. implicitly, you assume hatred of women is bad.

please change "i imagine your logic" with "a possible line of logic"

and also change "you make many...." to "one makes many...." please let me know if these changes have made a difference.

You're still left with a strawman, maybe a more polite one, but a strawman nonetheless.

is the happiness felt by me the same as the happiness felt by you? there you go with those labels.

The point is that the emotion "happiness" is felt by both women and men. If you want to correct your earlier statement that boils down to "men and women feel different emotions" by saying "men and women are capable of experiencing the same emotions, but may experience them in response to different stimuli or to varying degrees," I might be in agreement with you.

And note this is in response to the gender labels you're asserting for men and women.

hinduwoman

Deputy42,
no one here bashes the Christians exclusively. It is simply that more christians drop by here. If a hindu came by with the intent to convert he would get the same bashing.

Please state clearly whether you think women are intellectually inferior to men or not. Don't tell me about being separate but equal, or drag in reproductive hormones. A simple yes or no.

lpetrich

This reminds me of something that had happened in the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins a few years ago. There was a Hare Krishna named Kalki Dasa who posted some rather vehement attacks on evolution there for a while, but who was somewhat vague about what alternative he had in mind. He'd end some of his postings with

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna
Krishna Krishna Hare Hare

Hare Rama Hare Rama
Rama Rama Hare Hare

He was rather mercilessly satirized and ridiculed, with some of his critics satirizing those chants as

Silly Kalki Silly Kalki
Kalki Kalki Silly Silly

Goofy Kalki Goofy Kalki
Kalki Kalki Goofy Goofy

I'm sure that one can find out more by consulting <a href="http://groups.google.com" target="_blank">the Usenet archive at Google</a>.

brighid

Oh pray tell, what is the difference? Are you meaning to say that students attend college for a reason other then job opportunities? So again – why the hell are you bitching??
When there are enormous and institutionalized disparities in the abilities for any minority group to gain the same social or economic footing then yes – I guess I do have an agenda – it’s called equality – how evil of me!

Satan must be in possession of the minds and hearts of all those millions of people around the world who do not want to be forced to live in poverty, to be relegated to the status of second class citizens, who only want the same opportunities to excel, to become educated, to provide for their families so that future generations may rise above the intellectual, moral and social status of their ancestors and contribute to the country they live in and love. Unfortunately, those who are in the positions of power and privilege didn’t learn how to share in kindergarten and must be put in a position to share their wealth and privilege with those they have systematically oppressed and consciously chosen to keep down for centuries. That power mongering group just happens to historically be the white, Protestant male.

If this upsets you, well it is you who should be looking in the mirror and following the dictates of your god. Again, where is your compassion and your humility? Where is your caring for the poor and the oppressed? Why aren't you on the side working to right the wrongs of the past centuries and helping lift everyone to the status of equals so every man, woman and child in this country can earn a living wage, have a decent roof over their heads, be provided health care and have the opportunities to reach their full potential?

But I guess you may not know what it's like to go hungry, or to be denied opportunities, or even to truly struggle.

Perhaps, like members of other fundamentalist sects who believe the "status quo" of man on top should be restored so we can get thing back to the good ol days where us bitches and niggers knew our place and didn't question the authority of our divinely appointed leaders - the white, Christian male. Yeah - let's get back to the good ole days where all was good in this country! Yeah let's get back to the days where women couldn't vote and the only jobs they could have were wife, mother, teacher, nurse or nun. When women were the property of their fathers and husbands. Let's get back to the days when black folks had seperate public bathrooms, seperate schools, and they knew their place right well and there was none of that race mixing stuff. Let's get back to the time where women and niggers weren't allowed into the institutions of higher learning along with the white man cuz they sure liked it better that way. And we should definitely get back to the time when our churches were seperate, whites in one, blacks in the other and all the women quiet and subservient the way god made them to be. Let's get back to the time when it was okay to lynch a black man for even looking at a white woman and where an accusation was all that was needed to send a black man to his death. Yeah, that was justice. And damnit let's go even farther back when all those damned blacks were our slaves and the chinks and wetbacks knew their place in the fields, where they were our property, to be bought and sold like cattle. And those Indians - those damned savages and their heathen, barbarian ways - kill them all and the ones that are left convert them to Christianity! Yeah, that's the ticket!!! Yeah, there were no wrongs to right. Those were the good ole days weren't they Deputy Dawg? Let's get back to the way things were when there was no such thing as charity and where everyone knew their place - white man on top! Is that what you would like?

Brighid

Wizardry

Due to the gratuitous amount of MSTing in this thread by QoS, and the relative low quality of discussion here, I think this thread would find a better audience over in RRP.

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: Wizardry ]</p>