lpetrich

However, the energy to break up the water must come from somewhere.

Deputy42

ip-

no of course not, like i said earlier, its a cost/benefit analyisis.

1. a child most likely wouldn't understand you
2. a child could possibly understand you perfectly yet be unequipped emotionally to cope with what you said.

Deputy42

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.

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?

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

please provide proof of this assertion

not sure how i should take that

what bounds are these? why must thought have bounds?

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

Deputy42

be careful assuming what form perfection might take. again, the message is perfectly clear, but are you ready to accept the truths that it has to teach? refusing to accept the truth doesn't change the nature of the truth.

Queen of Swords

<strong>Deputy42's self-contradiction </strong>

Page 2 : "i think you will agree that men and women have many differences."

Strangely, repeated questioning produces : "men are better at impregnating women than women are at impregnating women".

Where are the many differences?

<strong>Deputy42's nonsense</strong>

Deputy42's reply : "the differences between men and women are more dramatic than you lead on. different hormones trigger different responses to stimuli, casue different emotional states, humans....but different"

When asked to clarify this (or at least explain "different"), Deputy42 responds with a study that finds anabolic steroids or testoterone replacement therapy may have different effects on men and women.

What this has to do with normal, healthy men and women is a mystery for the ages.

We still don't know how testosterone replacement therapy might have a signficant impact in the way all women and men are treated in the workplace or in a marriage.

<strong>Deputy42's avoidance of questions</strong>

Page 1 or 2 : "the relationship between parents and offspring and that of husband and wife can be thought along parallel lines. "

Still waiting for an answer.

At first, Depuity42 says, "in the same way men are called to be leaders in that a man and woman form one flesh."

However, on page 3 : "i think it is each person determines his/her own reality. again, equality is a good idea, it just leads to strange situations sometimes."

And later : "a womans role is whatever she decides to make it, just like everyone else."

Still waiting for an answer.

<strong>Deputy42's incoherence</strong>

"and the importance lies in the male aspect."

"additionally, with regards to the workplace. homogenizing men and women in the workplace requires an equally sterile, unnatural, and objective workplace......again interesting"

I'm not even sure if Deputy42 knows the meaning of the word "objective", much less "natural".

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>

Deputy42

you asked for things that men do better than women, are you not satisfied? it seems from your arguments that this is in fact the only thing men can do better than women.

first you must accept people have free will. one must be able to choose good or bad in order to be free. doing good merely because it is the only alternative does not exercise free will.

it seems apparent that a man who subjugates women and institutionalizes such thoughts additionally could be called oppressive. continuing to exert control over other by virtue of such doctrine could be called thuggish. and paul was a male.

do you seriously propose that we discredit all thought from a person who we think is wrong on one point? should we throw out psychoanalysis because freud was a coke addict and wrong about human development?

the reference to 1 thes is on topic. the narrow view you use to condemn all of st pauls writings is frightening to me.

would you like me to prove that christianity leads to the excellent human life? you really believe in objective truth? besides, what claims would you like me back up?

paul was most concerned with spreading the good news of the gospel, that is most important.

of course a god would be different than any one man or culture. but we are made like him.

women taking estrogen. i tried to explain this earlier, but i will try again. the normal functioning of a man or a woman is based on biology. hormones can affect changes in biology, therefore changing the normal functioning of an individual. i like the twisty turny straws and the big ones you get at mcdonalds, o yeah and the cool double ones you get with coffee.

were st paul here today i think he would have more to teach me than i him.

depends on the class. a southern baptist segregated high school in the deep south during the sixties might not. i think you're seeing the light.

how little you think of role models! our attempts to completely objectify the subjective has again failed. a girl may not need to know what it is to be male, but she does need to know what a good male is.

i wont use that analogy if you wont

THIS is easy.....any woman playing hard to get says no and really means yes. anytime your girlfriend tells you she doesnt want anything for valentines day means she had damn well better get flowers.

Deputy42

earlier someone stated that science didn't use paradoxical language. a wave AND a particle?

were the universe so easy to understand, wouldn't you get bored? its a path to take, i for one am glad its that way.

Deputy42

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.

i was attempting to show what mental constructs are.

who is this strawman you keep talking to? is someone there with you named strawman? does he or she have something to say? if i have misrepresented you i apologize. i must admit that things get kinda blurry after 7 pages.

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.

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

Queen of Swords

See my post above. You claim that there are "many differences" between men and women, and yet this is the only thing you can find? The only thing that men can do that a woman can't do without semen and a syringe?

Is there going to be evil in heaven? If not, how will we ever have free will there?

<strong>I originally said : Please point out where I called Paul an "oppressive male thug", or else stop playing with your strawman </strong>

<strong>Straw man. Please do not put words into my mouth. This tactic is blatant deception.</strong>

I see, so according to your standards, Paul was "thuggish". Everyone note : Deputy42, not I, has referred to Paul as "thuggish".

<strong>I originally said : You are evading the question. If Paul "keeps with the times", why should we put his commands into practice - especially those dealing with gender roles? Please stay on topic </strong>

You are ignoring my question. Please answer it. We are not discussing Freud, we are discussing Paul. Please stay on topic.

<strong> I originally said : In other words, you can't back up your claims with objective data. Well, that's nothing new </strong>

The claim that it leads to "the excellent human life". Can't back it up? Stop saying it, because it's beginning to sound like a meaningless lie.

<strong>I originally said : Please answer the question. Was Paul more concerned with preserving the status quo than with upholding human rights? Was he so afraid of the Romans/Jews that he had to "let in a few additions"?</strong>

Please answer the question. Was Paul more concerned with preserving the status quo than with upholding human rights? Why did he "let in a few additions"?

<strong> I originally said : Please answer the question. Do you see no difference between an omniscient, all-powerful god and the Chinese/Westerners?</strong>

In that case, why even bother bringing up the Chinese or the Western civilizations? They couldn't see what would happen in the future as a result of their actions. Can your god see that?

<strong>I originally said : Women undergoing what hormone replacement? And what does this have to do with the normal functioning of men and women anyway? You're grasping at straws.</strong>

Define "normal functioning".

<strong>I orignallly said : Is that the point? You might as well say, "would a class of white people even LISTEN to a black man teach?"</strong>

Let's leave the condescending remarks out of this, shall we?

Are you saying that racism was in any way a good thing, simply because it happened at some point in history?

<strong>I originally said : That's not what you said the first time. You said that a male role model could provide a child with goals and a sense of being male. A girl doesn't need a sense of being male - and as for goals, those aren't exactly gender-specific any more. </strong>

I quoted what you said on the subject : are you horrified at your own state of mind?

<strong>I originally said : We're not talking about psychology here. We're talking about the act of human reproduction, which you likened to agriculture. I am pointing out what's wrong with your analogy.</strong>

What does that mean? When did I use your ridiculous analogy?

<strong>I originally said : Please point out a case where "no" always means "yes".</strong>

This mindset is responsible for acts of rape and sexual assault.

And you fail to back up your statement that "99% of sexual advances are unwanted".

But most of all, the statements you have made are disgusting.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>

Bill Snedden

I can't tell if you're really serious about this or not, but the "strawman" to which your opponents are referring is a logically fallacious form of argumentation.

A "strawman" is formed when one's opponent creates a caricature of one's position in order to more easily knock it down. It is a fallacious form of argumentation because the argument attacked is not the actual argument presented.

For example:

Sally: "From his letters and other writings collected in the New Testament, it is possible to conclude that the apostle Paul held opinions and ideas that today would be regarded as sexist."

Bob: "Your claim that Paul was a misogynistic jerk is simply not supported by scripture. Paul never says anything about hating women!"

Of course, Sally made no such claim. Bob has constructed a "strawman" caricature of her argument that he will perhaps find easier to defeat.

Hope that helps...

Bill

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>