|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| letchimWOD | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Air Force Academy creates worship area for Pagans, Druids, and Wiccans | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
subbie Member  Posts: 3242 Joined: Member Rating: 9.6 |
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apothecus Member (Idle past 363 days)  Posts: 274 From: MN USA Joined: |
Role = barefoot and pregnant, I assume? Let the flames commence. "My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Buzsaw Member (Idle past 93 days)  Posts: 9158 From: new york usa Joined:
|
What about it? Post some substance. Enlighten the worldwide web. What have I stated that you can falsify? Isn't EvC the science forum where we substantiate acclamations? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
subbie Member Posts: 3242 Joined: Member Rating: 9.6 |
Interestingly, according to Wiki, there are only two places in the world where women aren't allowed to vote, Saudi Arabia and the Holy See. This is the sort of company you find yourself in, Buz. I hope I'm not the only one who sees the delicious irony in this fact. Edited by subbie, : Subtitle Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Son Member Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
By the way, yourself have shown no evidence for your assertions and reality itself proves you false:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apothecus Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 274 From: MN USA Joined: |
No offense, but you strike me as similar to an acquaintance of mine who, unfortunately for him, finds shit all over his feet whenever his mouth opens up. The difference between you and this fellow is that it's easier for you to filter your comments when typing than it is for him to prohibit the inane foolishness from escaping his yap. You also have the luxury of this being an anonymous forum; I doubt even you would be so "forthcoming" with your ridiculousness in the company of others who may not share your views. So with this question ...
... I was attempting to gain insight into Buz's world. What would be your opinion for women's "role" in society? Just curious. Have a good one. "My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PsychMJC Member Posts: 35 From: Modesto, California Joined: |
What phenomenal fact are you hinting at? That a majority of societies in the past were strictly male-dominated? Yeah, I think most people here will agree with that. But you can't discount the numerous societies around the globe that do or have revered, respected, and sometimes bowed down to the will of their women. Are you saying that those societies have weaknesses because of their structure? Perhaps. If that is what you are saying then I expect you to support that. If you ARE saying that then I am sure I can some up with numerous flaws in a male dominated society as well. It would appear that the most effective way for a society to function is for ALL members of that society to have an equal voice. That's just one of my craaaaazy ideas I came up with, I know it sounds terrifying. As for animals, I would ask you to support your opinion that most of the animal kingdom is strictly male-dominated and why you think those structures are superior.
Thats good. Any support for this opinion?
Silly.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member  Posts: 3937 Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
Is this in the Bible? Or do you make this up on your own? Seriously. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Buzsaw Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 9158 From: new york usa Joined:
|
Hi Apothecus. Thanks for asking. Come, let us reason together. According to Wiki, Ole man Buz's position on the role of women is compatible with billions of folks in nearly every human culture since history was recorded. It wasn't until around the beginning of the 20th century AD that the first nation worldwide instituted women sufferage. It happens to be the moderns who are the odd ones. For all of the previous thousands of years, all of the nations assumed my position. It was not until 1920 that the majority of Americans began to part ways from my position. How do you respond to the specifics of my message which set off this personal attack? Whether one is an evolutionist or Biblical creationist (The Bible lends support to my position), reality is that all cultures have until recently held my position. Why should such a verbal firestorm ensue because I take the traditional position? Having taken my position, it should be understood that the Biblical NT principles should be applied relative to the necessity of husbands, love and cherish your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it (not exact but close quote). If the husband loves his wife, his leadership role will not be oppressive as it is depicted in, say, Mohammed's Quran, the Sunnahs and the the Haddith, and for that matter in some pagan cultures. Also, my friend, what about my points that women are more emotional and easily persuaded by nature. Is it irrevelant that door to door sales companies understand that it's easier to sell to the woman of the house than the man? Is ole man Buz crazy for citing this or are my counterparts willfully ignoring the facts of life? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Buzsaw Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 9158 From: new york usa Joined:
|
Silly? Back when I was a youngun selling for Prudential, it was a known fact One reason that I didn't fare so well is that I insisted on the presence of both husband and wife before sales pitches. One beautiful young wife invited me in, but I declined and left my card. The husband called and schedled an appointment. He thanked me for waiting for him and ended up being a buyer. Now it's politically uncorrect to say so, but facts trump popularity and political correctness for ole man Buz. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Buzsaw Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 9158 From: new york usa Joined:
|
Hi Coyote. Did my 1 rated response to Apothecus make any sense to you? If that message didn't answer your inquiry, I'd be happy to answer further inquiries. Yes, it is the Biblical position as it has been with nearly all cultures. Imo, the Biblical position works out best for both men and women relative to how they are designed both mentally and physically. No doubt you're aware of these differences in the genders. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Buzsaw Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 9158 From: new york usa Joined: |
My apologies to Coyote for offering further comment. As soon as I posted it the topic problem came to mind. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member Posts: 3937 Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
If you start a separate thread I'll be happy to participate. I have a few opinions to offer. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Member  Posts: 12139 Joined: Member Rating: 2.4 |
Some Christian men have wrongly adhered to the fallen cultural standard on the flimsiest of excuses they could make out of the Bible. There is nothing in the New Testament to deny women the vote or participation as leaders in worldly occupations either. Also, when feminism started growing in the 19th century there were many injustices to women that had to be corrected. Women lost everything if their husband left them, children, everything, and if the husband died they lost all the property as they weren't permitted to own property. And this whole business about women being more emotional is not in the Bible either. We are considered to be more easily deceived than men because Eve was while Adam wasn't, and I'm not going to fight it since it's in the Bible but it isn't the blanket difference you are claiming. Also, while some women are more easily deceived than some men, not all women are more easily deceived than all men and some women are less easily deceived than some men. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member (Idle past 108 days)  Posts: 5720 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: quote: In the sense that it was universal, wasn't later rescinded, and was for an entire country, then New Zealand was the first, though other countries toyed around with it. For example, the Pitcairn Islands beat New Zealand by more than 50 years, but they were a British Territory, not an independent country. And then there was Franceville in the New Hebrides. They were the first to grant universal suffrage not only regardless of sex but also of race in 1889, four years before New Zealand, but they quickly lost their independence. They were, depending on how you look at it, in rebellion since there wasn't any functional government over them at the time. While Franceville allowed all to vote, only white males could hold office. Sweden has an interesting history. They're the first country to actually allow women to vote at all, but it was only granted to those who were members of the city guilds in 1718. That right was then taken away (for local elections in 1758 and then the general elections were rescinded in 1771). They then re-granted women the right to vote in 1862, but only in local elections. The Isle of Man (which is in a bizarre relationship with the British Crown...not exactly part of the United Kingdom, but still ruled by the Monarch) granted the vote to property-owning women in 1881. This isn't to take anything away from New Zealand. They certainly did it in the simplest way. They included not only women but also Maori women (though they couldn't hold office). South Australia follows the next year and surpasses New Zealand by not only allowing universal suffrage to women but also allows them to hold office in Parliament. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Copyright 2001-2013 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2013
(1)
