Women and Religion - Does it anger you?

Schrafinator, from http://EvC Forum: HOW TO START A NEW TOPIC (as of 4/13/04)

quote:

---

I am fairly frustrated with the closure of topics for drift.

​

buzsaw finally responded to my post in a thread, but the topic was closed before I had a chance to respond, (even though our exchange was pretty much on topic--women and Christianity).

---

The topic is reopened. You could have submitted a request via the "Too fast closure" link that I put in my signature.Adminnemooseus

---

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

The fact is that men have primarily been the generals, the kings, the house heads and the decision makers for thousands of years on this planet. That should tell you something. Get with the age old world wide program, CF.

Don't forget to bring your Bible along when you return.

Btw, thanks Moose, for reopening the thread. We do need to address the issues here in this important and interesting topic. Trying to keep it on topic, but some slight drift is needed to cover the closely related factors.

Yeah, it tells me you don't know how to read, or else you would have seen this, where I said:

quote:

---

The fact that men tend to set themselves up as decision-makers should not be confused with a greater ability for making correct desicisions.

---

You even quoted it in your reply, which is weird. I would have assumed that you were old enough not to make the mistake of presenting an argument that I pre-emptively refuted in the message you replied to.

If you put a rational person and an irrational person into the same room and lock the door. Coincidently, the irrational person happens to have a knife. Guess who will be the dominant person in the room.If you think people in the past know best, what about the concept of slavery? Remember that black Africans were ruled by the Vatican as subhuman. Are you going to make the case that blacks are less than human just because in the past they have always been regarded as less than human?Get with the program, and welcome to the post-modern era.[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-22-2004]

---

The Laminator

​

I think you went a bit too far forward in your philosophical time-machine. Isn't post-modernism sort of a position that all methods of gathering knowledge are subjectively equivalent? That is, I may look at the world through science, but that doesn't mean looking at it through crystal-ology or astrology are worse ways?That's what I had heard, anyway. Personally I stick with "modern" - I think post-modern goes too far.

I don't know Froggie, I've always been taught that we are currently living in the post-modern era. Remember that up until the late 80's, women in the states were still thought to be somehow inferior and not able to achieve much. They were supposed to stay at home and bake trays after trays of cookies. That's why I tend to think both victorian and modern ages were outdated. After all, I'm a guy and I how to make cookies.Anyway, I tend to not have much respect for guys that are too egoistic to admit that there's no reason to think girls are somehow less than guys.

---

The Laminator

​

By the way buzsaw, what you just did was used tradition for an argument like this. Appeal to tradition is a fallacy in an argument. Basically, you are saying "A is traditional, therefore A is correct or better."With that said, watch it.

---

The Laminator

​

Lam, my only response to your post is that it's no wonder the world is going to hell in a handbasket so to speak. The revisionists are wrecking the family unit. Crime, disease, suicide, divorce, deviency and imorality are epidemic.

Well, I think that it's only post-modernists that say that. One more reason I distrust post-modernism; by definition the present is always the "modern era." The thing I guess is that both old people and Christians have the misapprehension that things are getting worse; i.e. the "good ol' days" effect. Historians and people of reason know that things are getting better; its just that there's a commensurate advance in how mass media pervades our lives. So less bad stuff is probably happening, it's just that thanks to the evening news, every human being hears about more of it than before.Buz is both old and a Christian, so I imagine his faith in the "good ol' days" will be nigh unshakable.

See? No, they're on the decline, according to any statistical measure.It's just that thanks to the media, you hear about it more.

OK Crash, let's analyze your statement.1. "men tend to set ehemselves up as decision makers." = your premise that they are decision makers because they set themselves up as such, not because they ARE better decision makers.2. "not be confused with a greater ability for makeing correct descisions." = don't be confused to think that this means they have a greater ability for making correct descisions.That's my read from your statement. If that's not what you meant, please try not to be so ambiguous in future statements. Gotta hit hay.

The following graphs are graphs I took directly from Bureau of Justice StatisticsThe only area of crime that has increased is the one regarding drug crimes. This is due to our rediculous drug war. Anytime you prohibit something, all you do is create a black market for the product.Anyway, as you can see, all areas of crimes except for drug crimes have been decreasing very steadily.

---

The Laminator

​

buzsaw's banal observation:

quote:

---

Crime, disease, suicide, divorce, deviency and imorality are epidemic.

---

When haven't they been?BTW, when are you going to answer my post here?