Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ID question for creationists
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 16 of 56 (57130)
09-23-2003 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
09-21-2003 1:01 PM


holmes responds to me:
quote:
quote:
It was just the serpent. And he told the truth. And he didn't tell Eve to eat from the tree. All he did was say that god's claim that they would die a physical death before the sun set should they eat of the tree was incorrect. Rather, they would become as gods, knowing good and evil.
I am in near complete disagreement with you on this interpretation.
While Adam and Eve were innocent, God did tell the truth and the snake surely lied.
How? God said, and I quote:
Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
And that's it. That's all god said with regard to what the consequences would be should Adam and Eve ate of the tree. And the language used is indicative that it would be a physical death, not a spiritual one, and that it would be before the sun set that day, not some sort of "god's days are 1,000 years long and indeed, Adam lived to nearly 1,000 and thus died 'that day' using 'god time.'"
Now, the serpent said, and I quote:
Genesis 3:4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
And that's it.
Now, let's examine what actually happened.
Did Adam and Eve die a physical death on the very day they ate from the Tree? No:
Genesis 5:3: And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
5:4: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
It seems Adam lived to be 930.
Did their eyes open and they become as gods, knowing good and evil? Yes:
Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
So the question is: Who told the truth?
That would be the serpent.
Who lied?
That would be god.
Note, the serpent did not tell Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. He asks Eve if god said that that they could eat from every tree and Eve responds they could eat from every tree except the Tree of Knowledge and then (and where she got this idea from, we don't know since it is never discussed), she says that even touching it would cause them to die.
And the serpent's only comment at that point is that no, it would not cause death but merely to become as gods, knowing good and evil.
That's it.
Where do we find anything in this story that indicates that what the serpent said wasn't true? Even god says the exact same thing that the serpent said: They became "as gods, knowing good and evil."
quote:
I believe the best interpretation is that the tree of knowledge was the tree of false knowledge (which is that of good and evil).
So? The serpent doesn't say whether or not this tree is of "true" knowledge of "false" knowledge. It simply says that they would "become as gods, knowing good and evil."
And that's precisely what god says...they have "become as one of us, knowing good and evil."
So where did the serpent lie?
quote:
To remain innocent in life, as well as not judging God's creation they had to remain free from such stupid (and subjective) ideas of OBJECTIVE right and wrong. That is why God told them not to eat of that tree or they would die.
But they didn't die.
God said they would die and the language used was that they would die a physical death and that this would happen before the sun set on the day they died.
That didn't happen.
quote:
The serpent merely tricked Eve emotionally with the idea that all things which can be called knowledge is real and good
Where? Where does the serpent say this? The serpent says nothing about knowledge being real and good. The serpent does not tell Eve to eat from the tree. The serpent simply corrects god about the consequences of eating from the tree.
quote:
and intellectually by twisting what "to die" meant (showing quite well that equivocation can lead to a lot of bad consequences).
Not at all. The langauge that god uses in Genesis 2 and that Eve uses in Genesis 3 indicate that the death was a physical one.
And they didn't die when they ate from the tree, in direct contradiction to what god said and what Eve thought.
You're right, equivocation can lead to a lot of bad consequences, but god didn't equivocate.
He lied.
There's a difference.
quote:
When they "ate" the fruit of the tree of Knowledge, God was proven right and they did die.
No, they didn't. Eve lived long enough to give birth to Cain and Abel at least. Adam lived to 930.
The language god uses can only mean a physical death. The phrasing gets used elsewhere in the Bible and it gets translated as a physical death. What makes this passage different from all the rest?
quote:
No longer did they live in a paradise
But that isn't dying. That's eviction.
quote:
I realize my interpretation is an allegorical one and not literal
But it isn't even allegorical. If I were to say, "If you eat this, your heart will explode into a thousand bits, bursting through your chest to make a pretty stain upon the wall, and you shall exsanguinate before your very eyes," how is that an "allegory" and not a direct statement?
Indeed, I understand the idea of knowledge being a loss of innocence, but nothing in what god says makes it indicative that that's what god meant. When he finds out that Adam and Eve have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, he panics that they might eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal:
Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
What would be the point of this if it were an allegory?
quote:
It's much deeper in meaning anyway.
That doesn't mean it's justifiable.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 09-21-2003 1:01 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 09-23-2003 5:57 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 17 of 56 (57131)
09-23-2003 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
09-21-2003 9:50 AM


crashfrog writes:
quote:
I mean, it's scientific fact that women are significantly more proficient at recognizing facial emotional states by sight. I imagine that extends towards all body language, and would render women considerably better-equipped to suss out subterfuge.
Um, without discussing the validity of such a claim (whether emotional states are a reliable indicator of subterfuge), wouldn't the important thing be what one would do with this information?
Why is it that so many women stay with men who do them ill? How many times have we heard the story of the woman who walks in on her man in flagrante delicto, he says that it wasn't him, that it isn't what it looks like, etc., etc., and she buys it?
Personally, I don't think either sex has it better when it comes to resisting beguilement. A good manipulator will know how to do it despite any blocks you put up.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 09-21-2003 9:50 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2003 7:22 AM Rrhain has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 56 (57158)
09-23-2003 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Rrhain
09-23-2003 5:25 AM


Why is it that so many women stay with men who do them ill? How many times have we heard the story of the woman who walks in on her man in flagrante delicto, he says that it wasn't him, that it isn't what it looks like, etc., etc., and she buys it?
How many times have I heard it? Zero. Not only do I not know any women that have fallen for that, I don't know any that would.
Maybe I just live in a funny corner of the world, or something, but in my experience, women are aware, and men are oblivious. I swear this is almost universal among people I'm close enough to know.
Maybe you're right, and there's no reason to suggest that either sex is more easily beguiled - but if we were to suggest it, it seems ludicrous to me to suggest that it's the women that are more easily fooled. That's 180 degrees from my experience, I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Rrhain, posted 09-23-2003 5:25 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 09-23-2003 7:42 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 56 (57159)
09-23-2003 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Buzsaw
09-20-2003 10:34 PM


Re: Adam and Eve
quote:
Is this tiny speck called planet earth that designated final battle ground for the demise of the enemy of the universe? Could this mysterious forbidden tree in in the garden have a higher purpose known only by God in this celestial warfare between good and evil? Are we like Job oblivious to the real reason we find ourselves and our world in such turmoil, that reason being a bigger celestial struggle involving the spiritual dimension? I don't know. Just thinking out loud.
{emphasis mine}
Sir, I can't help laughing when I think about this speculation of yours. Is this tiny speck called planet Earth really a final battleground of good vs evil, Luke vs Vader? God created a universe so huge and now He wants to destroy it just because of some mediocre planet. It's like I'm building myself a home just for a grain of sand to be nestled in one of its corners.
If you're thinking cosmic warfare, wouldn't it be grander to set a battleground that spans galaxies, using stars and black holes for skirmishes, and trampling thousands of planets and asteroids in the process? What a nasty joke to end the universe with a final battle here, on this microscopic home of ours. It's like a whole laboratory facility being blown to smithereens by a bacteria.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Buzsaw, posted 09-20-2003 10:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 20 of 56 (57164)
09-23-2003 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
09-23-2003 7:22 AM


crashfrog responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Why is it that so many women stay with men who do them ill? How many times have we heard the story of the woman who walks in on her man in flagrante delicto, he says that it wasn't him, that it isn't what it looks like, etc., etc., and she buys it?
How many times have I heard it? Zero. Not only do I not know any women that have fallen for that, I don't know any that would.
Maybe I just live in a funny corner of the world, or something, but in my experience, women are aware, and men are oblivious.
I think you need to get out more, then.
Ricky Lake has had god knows how many episodes about it and there was even a popular song about it, It Wasn't Me, by Shaggy. Hell, even Eden's Crush from Pop Stars had a song about it also titled, "It Wasn't Me" (though in their version, the song is about how they're not that gullible.) Do you not remember the plethora of books about it such as Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them?
Do we really need to have the "anecdote is not evidence" argument?
quote:
Maybe you're right, and there's no reason to suggest that either sex is more easily beguiled - but if we were to suggest it, it seems ludicrous to me to suggest that it's the women that are more easily fooled.
I agree that on the face of things, it would be ludicrous to suggest that one sex is more easily fooled. Instead, it would seem that it would be easier to fool one sex in one way while it would be easier to fool the other sex another way.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2003 7:22 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Rei, posted 09-23-2003 2:30 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2003 3:59 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 21 of 56 (57223)
09-23-2003 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rrhain
09-23-2003 7:42 AM


Oh, come on. "It wasn't me" (the song) is obviously designed to be a parody of men who try and get out of things with that line. Have you listened to the song? The woman has pictures of him, heard him, watched him the whole time, etc.
And I'm surprised that you, of all people, would try and use a talk show as evidence.
Last, to toss a twist in: In your argument, Rrhain, you argue that perhaps it's easier to trick one sex in one way, and the other sex in another way. What do you think is it that could cause such an effect?
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 09-23-2003 7:42 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 09-23-2003 8:23 PM Rei has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 56 (57245)
09-23-2003 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rrhain
09-23-2003 7:42 AM


Ricky Lake has had god knows how many episodes about it and there was even a popular song about it, It Wasn't Me, by Shaggy.
Yes, I'm familiar with it. The thing was I thought it was a stupid song because I couldn't imagine a single woman I knew falling for a lie as stupid as "it wasn't me."
As for talk shows, I don't see that it's largely the women who get fooled. Half the time they're fooling the man (sleeping with a midget, etc).
Do you not remember the plethora of books about it such as Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them?
I could of course counter with the vast number of books and movies about female beguilers.
Do we really need to have the "anecdote is not evidence" argument?
No, we really don't. After all I've never tried to pass my own experiences off as indicative of any kind of universal. I just felt it noteworthy that Buz lives in a place where one can toss off "women are more easily beguiled" without flinching. The truth, most likely, is that both sexes probably have an equal track record at being decieved, and as you say, a studied manipulator will be able to beguile you no matter your sex.
Instead, it would seem that it would be easier to fool one sex in one way while it would be easier to fool the other sex another way.
Indeed. Well, now we're way off topic.
(Damn you to hell, Rrhain - you got that stupid song stuck in my head! )
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 09-23-2003 7:42 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 09-23-2003 9:10 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 23 of 56 (57277)
09-23-2003 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rrhain
09-23-2003 5:15 AM


rrhain writes:
But it isn't even allegorical. If I were to say, "If you eat this, your heart will explode into a thousand bits, bursting through your chest to make a pretty stain upon the wall, and you shall exsanguinate before your very eyes," how is that an "allegory" and not a direct statement?
This is a terrible terrible argument. God did not say this at all.
He said "on that day you shall surely die."
IF the whole "tree of knowledge" story is read as an allegory, THEN more interpretations present themselves than the allegorical interpretation you have presented (where their words must be taken literally). You have done nothing to counter my read, except by saying "ain't so."
I think it is a consistent and plausible read that God did not mean "your heart will explode etc etc." He was using hyperbole (which God seems wont to do) to express the weight of the consequence from "eating" from the "tree of knowledge." They would in a sense die as paradise will have ended for them.
In this allegorical tale he is warning them to stay away from taking to much stock in their own beliefs, especially those regarding moral judgements of good and evil. That is HIS area and he made them to be as they are. Once they become "like Gods" they judge who they are and what he has done, and end any possibility for happiness.
The Serpent is an allegorical creature for man's reasoning and misinterpretation. Eve not only overstates God's proclamation that it is mere touch that will kill her, but falls for the fallacious belief that to become like Gods in knowing good and evil is a good thing, and an equivocation between dying (literal) and dying (metaphorical). This last part may very well be to show it is the inability of humans to properly reason that leaves them open to eating such false knowledge, and why they should avoid doing so.
And why does God suddenly fear that they might eat of the tree of life and live forever? Does this not make sense given the allegorical tale I outlined?
It is a statement that once men accept the false knowledge of good and evil, and so become the morose judges of all creation and each other, it can only be hoped that man does not achieve the knowledge to extend life and so become exactly like Gods. They would spread more unhappiness and misery to each other and every other living thing forever, trying to make things fit their false judgements.
This is almost an eastern or later Greek (epicurean) philosophy. I admit it is just one allegorical interpretation, but you have not advanced an argument against it accept by picking and choosing which is allegory and which is literal.
I get your version. I presented mine in the same manner, and believe it is a more cohesive read (all allegory) as well as having a deeper meaning for humans (than God is jealous of man's potential to gain his power). I don't think you were fair in your assessment, even if you wanted to reject it on a personal level.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rrhain, posted 09-23-2003 5:15 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 09-23-2003 8:51 PM Silent H has replied

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 24 of 56 (57292)
09-23-2003 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Buzsaw
09-20-2003 10:34 PM


Re: Adam and Eve
the serpent (imo, then dinosaurs, the pre-cursed serpents)
Oh great. Tell me, do dinosaurs and snakes have anything in common? (Other than bones, diaspid openings, scales, and other reptilian and diaspid synamorphies.)
------------------
Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Buzsaw, posted 09-20-2003 10:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 25 of 56 (57330)
09-23-2003 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Rei
09-23-2003 2:30 PM


Rei responds to me:
quote:
Oh, come on. "It wasn't me" (the song) is obviously designed to be a parody of men who try and get out of things with that line.
I know. But think about it: Why would anybody try that if it didn't work?
Do all women fall for it? Of course not. But the fact remains is that there are women who, for whatever reason, will somehow come to believe that they didn't catch him, that it was somebody else.
quote:
Have you listened to the song? The woman has pictures of him, heard him, watched him the whole time, etc.
I looked it up to make sure I had the artist correct. Yes, I know.
But did you listen to the rest of it? She sticks with him because he's good in bed:
You know she not gonna be worrying bout things from the past
Hardly recollecting and then she'll go to noontime mass
quote:
And I'm surprised that you, of all people, would try and use a talk show as evidence.
It was a simple counter to crashfrog's insistence of not knowing anybody who would be that gullible. All it takes to counter a claim of none is to show one. There was an entire industry built up around the concept of "men are pigs and women are too gullible and meek to show them the door." I, too, don't personally know anybody who would be that silly, but I do know they're out there.
quote:
Last, to toss a twist in: In your argument, Rrhain, you argue that perhaps it's easier to trick one sex in one way, and the other sex in another way. What do you think is it that could cause such an effect?
Cultural and biological effects make males and females respond differently.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Rei, posted 09-23-2003 2:30 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2003 9:37 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 26 of 56 (57334)
09-23-2003 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Silent H
09-23-2003 5:57 PM


holmes responds to me:
quote:
quote:
But it isn't even allegorical. If I were to say, "If you eat this, your heart will explode into a thousand bits, bursting through your chest to make a pretty stain upon the wall, and you shall exsanguinate before your very eyes," how is that an "allegory" and not a direct statement?
This is a terrible terrible argument. God did not say this at all.
He said "on that day you shall surely die."
My point is that the way in which god said it was just as clear as my statement. The wording used by god is used elsewhere in the Bible and it always means a physical death. The wording used by god is used elsewhere in the Bible and it means a literal, 24-hour day.
So what is so special about this one passage that it can somehow mean something other than a physical death by the end of the literal, 24-hour day?
True, the passage does not describe how Adam would die from eating of the Tree, but it is quite clear that Adam was going to die and not just be a huge disappointment with god removing favor.
quote:
You have done nothing to counter my read, except by saying "ain't so."
No, I have pointed out that none of the phrasings used in the text indicate allegory. Even if we take the point of view that the entire story of Adam and Eve isn't to be taken literally, that Adam is the first man, that Eve isn't the "mother of all," etc., it still doesn't make any sense. Even allegories need to maintain internal consistency and in the language used in the tale, Adam was told that by the time the sun set, his body would no longer be alive.
quote:
I think it is a consistent and plausible read that God did not mean "your heart will explode etc etc."
But that's the direct connotation of what god said. He didn't say something vague and nebulous like "a terrible fate." He said that Adam would die. Not a spriritual death, not a death of trust, but an actual, physical death.
quote:
That is HIS area and he made them to be as they are. Once they become "like Gods" they judge who they are and what he has done, and end any possibility for happiness.
God isn't happy?
quote:
Eve not only overstates God's proclamation that it is mere touch that will kill her, but falls for the fallacious belief that to become like Gods in knowing good and evil is a good thing
Where does the text say that?
quote:
And why does God suddenly fear that they might eat of the tree of life and live forever? Does this not make sense given the allegorical tale I outlined?
No, it makes it even more indicative that it's supposed to be taken literally.
quote:
It is a statement that once men accept the false knowledge of good and evil, and so become the morose judges of all creation and each other
Again, god isn't happy?
That makes no sense.
quote:
as well as having a deeper meaning for humans (than God is jealous of man's potential to gain his power).
But the god of the Old Testament is a jealous god. Over and over and over again, he displays his wrath, overreacts to the tiniest slight, deliberately hardens peoples hearts so that he can have a justification for destroying them, even goes so far as to torture people in order to prove a point to someone else in the celestial hierarchy. The god of the Old Testament is not a nice person.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 09-23-2003 5:57 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Silent H, posted 09-25-2003 3:58 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 27 of 56 (57337)
09-23-2003 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
09-23-2003 3:59 PM


crashfrog responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Ricky Lake has had god knows how many episodes about it and there was even a popular song about it, It Wasn't Me, by Shaggy.
Yes, I'm familiar with it. The thing was I thought it was a stupid song because I couldn't imagine a single woman I knew falling for a lie as stupid as "it wasn't me."
And yet, they do.
Look, I'm not saying that this is some sort of universal. But the fact of the matter is that there is enough of a reality to it that it has entered the popular culture as a reference.
quote:
As for talk shows, I don't see that it's largely the women who get fooled.
Where did I even hint at that? Methinks you are confusing my direct statement that I think it's the case that neither men nor women are "more likely to be beguiled" with the claim by buzsaw.
Please remember to whom you are speaking and what was actually said. I am not buzsaw.
quote:
Half the time they're fooling the man (sleeping with a midget, etc).
And the other half of the time, they're being fooled by the men.
Where on earth does this silly idea that one sex is "more gullible" come from?
quote:
quote:
Do you not remember the plethora of books about it such as Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them?
I could of course counter with the vast number of books and movies about female beguilers.
Where did I deny any such?
You seem to have confused me with buzsaw.
Tell me that you're not so sensitive to issues regarding relations between the sexes that you've fallen for the "man=bad/women=good" idiocy.
You're absolutely right: Women beguile men.
But by the exact same token, men beguile women.
On Alan Colmes radio show not too long ago, a female caller was talking about the California gubernatorial race. She made reference to the 1988 election when people were spouting the lunacy that women would vote for Quayle because he's attractive. And while she said that such an idea is ludicrous, she admitted that she was leaning toward Arnold Schwarzenegger precisely because he's attractive...and that she was shocked to find that happening in herself.
quote:
quote:
Do we really need to have the "anecdote is not evidence" argument?
No, we really don't. After all I've never tried to pass my own experiences off as indicative of any kind of universal.
Did you or did you not say the following in Message 18:
How many times have I heard it? Zero. Not only do I not know any women that have fallen for that, I don't know any that would.
Maybe I just live in a funny corner of the world, or something, but in my experience, women are aware, and men are oblivious. I swear this is almost universal among people I'm close enough to know.
Maybe you're right, and there's no reason to suggest that either sex is more easily beguiled - but if we were to suggest it, it seems ludicrous to me to suggest that it's the women that are more easily fooled. That's 180 degrees from my experience, I guess.
It would seem that you were doing precisely that: Because you had never seen it, because your experience was so completely different, then it couldn't possibly have any validity.
quote:
I just felt it noteworthy that Buz lives in a place where one can toss off "women are more easily beguiled" without flinching.
As do I.
What I was responding to was your immediate counter that it's actually the men who are more easily beguiled. After all, did you or did you not state in Message 13:
I mean, it's scientific fact that women are significantly more proficient at recognizing facial emotional states by sight. I imagine that extends towards all body language, and would render women considerably better-equipped to suss out subterfuge.
My response was directly related at that statement: The idea that women are less easily beguiled doesn't hold water. They might be better able to identify subterfuge in certain areas, but that is a far cry from the generalization you were making.
quote:
The truth, most likely, is that both sexes probably have an equal track record at being decieved, and as you say, a studied manipulator will be able to beguile you no matter your sex.
So where's the argument?
quote:
(Damn you to hell, Rrhain - you got that stupid song stuck in my head!)
Sorry. I'd suggest the theme to the Smurfs, but I don't think that'd help....
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2003 3:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2003 9:44 PM Rrhain has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 56 (57344)
09-23-2003 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rrhain
09-23-2003 8:23 PM


I know. But think about it: Why would anybody try that if it didn't work?
Because men are stupid.
It was a simple counter to crashfrog's insistence of not knowing anybody who would be that gullible. All it takes to counter a claim of none is to show one. There was an entire industry built up around the concept of "men are pigs and women are too gullible and meek to show them the door." I, too, don't personally know anybody who would be that silly, but I do know they're out there.
Talk shows are usually fake, dude. Like professional wrestling. Did you not know this?
Anyway, I'd point out my claim was "I don't know anybody so gullible". You haven't pointed out anyone that I know, so you've hardly rebutted my claim, no?
This is much akin to using the word "sodomite" to prove that the men of Sodom were all gay. Talk shows are indicative only of our perceptions of society, not society itself. I agree that some people hold the perception that women are universally more gullible. That they hold the perception is no indication that they are, in fact, more gullible.
I'd have to see some stats. That would remove all doubt, don't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 09-23-2003 8:23 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Rrhain, posted 09-23-2003 10:03 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 56 (57345)
09-23-2003 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Rrhain
09-23-2003 9:10 PM


It would seem that you were doing precisely that: Because you had never seen it, because your experience was so completely different, then it couldn't possibly have any validity.
I would have hoped that my repeated use of "in my experience", etc. would have made clear that I expected my statements to be taken in the context of my own experience. I guess, however, that I was mistaken. Perhaps you could point to the specific phrase where I implied that because it was true in my experience, it must be true for everybody.
My response was directly related at that statement: The idea that women are less easily beguiled doesn't hold water. They might be better able to identify subterfuge in certain areas, but that is a far cry from the generalization you were making.
Well, it was just speculation. I didn't realize you were directly trying to counter that speculation. In that, I think you are correct. A greater ability or potential to detect subterfuge does not mean a greater ability to reject subterfuge. I guess we are in agreement?
So where's the argument?
Now that we know that we agree, there isn't one, I guess.
Sorry. I'd suggest the theme to the Smurfs, but I don't think that'd help....
Yeah, about that - my parents never let me watch the Smurfs because they felt that it didn't promote wholesome values - all those guys, one girl, some kids out of wedlock, and an obvious homosexual. So, since I don't know the smurfs theme, no, it wouldn't help to suggest it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 09-23-2003 9:10 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Rrhain, posted 09-23-2003 10:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 30 of 56 (57349)
09-23-2003 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
09-23-2003 9:37 PM


crashfrog responds to me:
quote:
quote:
I know. But think about it: Why would anybody try that if it didn't work?
Because men are stupid.
And...? Keep going. You're not finished yet. Some men do it because they're stupid enough to think that they'll get away with and some men do it because....?
quote:
Talk shows are usually fake, dude.
Every single one? If you'll recall, it wasn't just a single instance. It was a common thread. Talk shows (and not just the tabloid ones like Ricky Lake and Jerry Springer but the more "respectable" ones like Oprah and Dr. Phil, too), magazine articles, entire books about women who stick with horrible men and actually defend them.
quote:
Anyway, I'd point out my claim was "I don't know anybody so gullible". You haven't pointed out anyone that I know, so you've hardly rebutted my claim, no?
Your claim was much more than that, crashfrog. Even to this post, you're still clinging to the notion that there aren't any women that silly to fall for it.
quote:
This is much akin to using the word "sodomite" to prove that the men of Sodom were all gay.
You mean like you're claim that the only reason men try to lie to women is because the men are stupid?
quote:
Talk shows are indicative only of our perceptions of society, not society itself.
For the umpteenth time, I am not saying that this is some universal. You seem to have me confused with buzsaw. I've asked you once to remember to whom you are speaking.
I agree that talk shows are not the best place to find a representative sample of the general populace. However, talk shows do actually show specific examples. The idea that you can fool a woman is not something out of left field.
quote:
I agree that some people hold the perception that women are universally more gullible.
What makes you think I am one of them?
And while we're on it, why do you seem to be saying that it's the other way around...that men are universally more gullible?
quote:
That they hold the perception is no indication that they are, in fact, more gullible.
Agreed.
What makes you think I have any other opinion?
Now, why do you seem to be making the inverse claim...that men are more gullible?
quote:
I'd have to see some stats. That would remove all doubt, don't you think?
Indeed.
Where are your stats that men are more gullible?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2003 9:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2003 10:12 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024