Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Air Force Academy creates worship area for Pagans, Druids, and Wiccans
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 226 of 244 (557370)
04-24-2010 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by subbie
04-23-2010 11:08 PM


subbie responds to me:
quote:
While you are correct that there is nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibiting such a requirement, I suspect that courts would likely strike any such requirement under reasoning similar to that in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections.
Hard to say. The decision declares the poll tax invalid because:
(b) Fee payments or wealth, like race, creed, or color, are unrelated to the citizen's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process. Pp. 383 U. S. 666-668.
(c) The interest of the State, when it comes to voting registration, is limited to the fixing of standards related to the applicant's qualifications as a voter. P. 383 U. S. 668.
(d) Lines drawn on the basis of wealth or property, like those of race, are traditionally disfavored. P. 383 U. S. 668.
The amount of money a person has certainly has no connection to their ability to "participate intelligently in the electoral process," but a case could be made that educational status of a person is. After all, the overwhelming majority of States disenfranchise the mentally disabled and convicted felons are also disenfranchised. That latter part was a huge part of the electoral mess in Florida around the 2000 election: The governor refused to allow parolee packets to contain a single sheet of paper that gave instructions on how they could have their voting rights restored.
There are reasons that the courts claim to be legitimate with regard to why a person cannot vote that are not based upon age.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by subbie, posted 04-23-2010 11:08 PM subbie has not replied

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


Message 227 of 244 (557373)
04-24-2010 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Buzsaw
04-24-2010 4:54 PM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
Why, Dr Adequate, have most door to door sales companies advocated dealing with the woman of the house?
Assuming you're not referring to a product that is targeted at women, it is because the woman of the house is the one who makes the buying decisions for the family. While men may earn more than women, women are the ones who determine how it gets spent. She is the one who usually has to buy the food, furnish the house, clothe the family, etc. She's the one who handles the finances and will make the decision as to what needs to be bought and when.
There's a reason that the vast majority of men's underwear is bought by women. It isn't because they're wearing it themselves.
Surely you didn't think advertisement is generally aimed at women because women are less competent than men, did you?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2010 4:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 228 of 244 (557377)
04-24-2010 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Buzsaw
04-24-2010 6:02 PM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
you should refute my facts before personal attacking and rating my message.
Nice try, but that's your responsibility. You're the one making the claim, therefore it is your burden of proof to justify it. You're the one saying that there is a mental difference between males and females and thus you are the one who needs to explain just how it is you know that.
So far, you've only given one example: Advertisement is aimed at women. I just refuted that: It isn't because women are more likely to be persuaded by advertising but rather because she is the one who is going to make the decision. You don't advertise to the people who aren't going to buy your product.
And I don't think you really want to look to the animal kingdom, either. For there it is the female that typically dominates. As a f'rinstance, it is the female lions who hunt for the pride.
So what other justification do you have for your claim that women are less intellectually capable than men?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2010 6:02 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2010 10:54 PM Rrhain has replied

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


(1)
Message 229 of 244 (557380)
04-24-2010 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Buzsaw
04-24-2010 7:43 PM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
Why should such a verbal firestorm ensue because I take the traditional position?
Because it is a bigoted position. Surely you're not saying that because something is traditional that makes it good, are you?
Slavery is traditional. It is only within the past couple hundred years that there was an effort made to do away with it. Are you saying this effort was misguided? That we should re-institute slavery because for some people, it is their "role" to be a slave?
If so, are you willing to entertain the possibility that your role is to be my slave?
And you do understand that your own religion is far less "traditional" than the one it was born from, yes? So if you can accept the fact that your new-fangled idea is better than the traditional one, why is it you are having such a hard time realizing that your traditional idea isn't nearly as good as the more recent one?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2010 7:43 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Coyote, posted 04-24-2010 9:35 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 230 of 244 (557383)
04-24-2010 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Rrhain
04-24-2010 9:31 PM


Traditional religion
And you do understand that your own religion is far less "traditional" than the one it was born from, yes? So if you can accept the fact that your new-fangled idea is better than the traditional one, why is it you are having such a hard time realizing that your traditional idea isn't nearly as good as the more recent one?
If one wants to follow a traditional religion one has to look farther back then a few thousand years.
One might find that Old Man Coyote was here long before these upstart religions came about.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Rrhain, posted 04-24-2010 9:31 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2010 3:11 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 244 (557385)
04-24-2010 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Rrhain
04-24-2010 9:17 PM


Rrhain writes:
So what other justification do you have for your claim that women are less intellectually capable than men?
That's not my position, Rrhain. My position is the scientific one, that the brain lobes of men and women are different, having different degrees of capabilities relative to some roles.
Though my wife would would admit that decision making and leadership role is not her forte, her memory and intuition is superior to mine.
Admittedly there are exceptions to my postion. A friend who's intelligence is below par wisely deligates the leadership role to his wife who's inteligence is normal.
Logically no human entity would function efficiently having two equal presiding officers/presidents. There's a logical reason
governments, businesses or lodges would normally consider that option. Rarely would that arrangement work. Why should the family unit be an exception. History attests to the fact that it does not work well by and large. The divorce rate and unrest in America's homes attests to the logic of my position.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Rrhain, posted 04-24-2010 9:17 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Son, posted 04-25-2010 3:47 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 234 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2010 4:55 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 235 by hERICtic, posted 04-25-2010 1:32 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 232 of 244 (557391)
04-25-2010 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Coyote
04-24-2010 9:35 PM


Coyote writes:
quote:
One might find that Old Man Coyote was here long before these upstart religions came about.
From what I understand, the oldest religion that is still practiced is Hinduism, but that is beside my point.
Buzsaw is saying that all these "new" ideas like women being the equal to men go against "traditional" truths. But his own religion is a "new" idea that goes against the "traditional" truth. That's the entire reason that Jesus was getting into such trouble, if we are to believe the New Testament: He was preaching a new idea. Specifically, he was claiming that he was the son of god, which was absolute blasphemy, but the point still remains: He was something new.
So if Buzsaw's own philosophy is based upon rejecting the old for a new covenant, one wonders why he is so averse to the concept. What is so threatening to his vision of how the world works by recognizing that women and men are not in a competition for dominance?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Coyote, posted 04-24-2010 9:35 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 233 of 244 (557392)
04-25-2010 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Buzsaw
04-24-2010 10:54 PM


But you still didn't address my message! I showed you that Nordic countries are much more heavily influenced politically by women, if you were right, it would mean also that they should also be the ones doing the worse amongst modern countries, so why isn't it the case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2010 10:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


(4)
Message 234 of 244 (557394)
04-25-2010 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Buzsaw
04-24-2010 10:54 PM


Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
quote:
So what other justification do you have for your claim that women are less intellectually capable than men?
That's not my position, Rrhain.
Have you forgotten that your words are still online?
Message 219
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?
Message 220
Now it's politically uncorrect to say so, but facts trump popularity and political correctness for ole man Buz.
Message 208
I grew up in Wyoming where the majority of men effectively apprised their women on voting wisdom. However too many of them unwisely ignored the phenomenal fact of the male leadership role throughout human history and in most of the animal kingdom ever since the recording of history.
Since women are more emotional and easily persuaded and manipulated, imo, voting is not included in their role
Now, you're surely going to complain that you then said:
though their legitimate role in culture is no less important than that of the male.
But where does this come from? What is the justification for claiming that women cannot perform any "role"?
And, of course, you immediately follow that with:
Why, Dr Adequate, have most door to door sales companies advocated dealing with the woman of the house?
Message 221
Imo, the Biblical position works out best for both men and women relative to how they are designed both mentally and physically.
Let us not pretend that you aren't claiming that women are less intellectually capable than men. We are not stupid and it does not serve you to behave as if we are.
quote:
My position is the scientific one
No, it isn't. You need to justify this claim.
quote:
that the brain lobes of men and women are different
Indeed, but what you need to then justify is your claim that this means that women are "more emotional and easily persuaded." The fact that women are different from men doesn't mean they are incapable.
quote:
having different degrees of capabilities relative to some roles.
Where is your evidence? You certainly haven't shown any and all studies into it have been unable to demonstrate this claim. It is time for you to put up or shut up. There's a wonderful example here from the Olympics: Women are still not allowed to compete in the ski jumping competitions. Why? Because the IOC thinks that it is dangerous to a woman's reproductive organs to do so. Oh, the official reason is that there aren't enough women, but their own comments belie that as nothing more than politics. As the head of the International Ski Federation said:
Ski jumping is just too dangerous for women. Don’t forget, it's like jumping down from, let's say, about two meters to the ground about a thousand times a year, which seems not to be appropriate for ladies from a medical point of view.
Any evidence to back it up? Of course not. They simply claim it to be so.
And this depsite the fact that the world record holder for the very hill upon which they competed is held by a woman.
People used to claim that women were physically incapable of running a marathon. We all know that's silly now. Surely you're not saying that there is anything different between the women who routinely run the marathon and the women of decades past, are you?
But, of course, we're not talking about physical prowess, are we? So you're going to have to explain why it is you seem to think that women can't think as deeply and deftly as men. More women go to college in this country than men.
quote:
Though my wife would would admit that decision making and leadership role is not her forte, her memory and intuition is superior to mine.
Admittedly there are exceptions to my postion. A friend who's intelligence is below par wisely deligates the leadership role to his wife who's inteligence is normal.
This isn't a question about individuals. You do understand that there is more variation within the individual groups of men and women than there are between men and women, yes? You need to justify your claim that women are somehow "less" than men and thus not deserving of full equality in every aspect of life.
quote:
Logically no human entity would function efficiently having two equal presiding officers/presidents.
So how does the US do it? We have three co-equal branches of government.
How did Rome do it with the triumvirate?
How on earth do parents manage to do it with their children?
quote:
There's a logical reason governments, businesses or lodges would normally consider that option. Rarely would that arrangement work.
And yet, it happens all the time. There's a reason that business has this thing called a "partnership."
quote:
Why should the family unit be an exception.
It isn't. That's the point. Right at this moment, families are headed by equal partners and we find that those that follow this arrangement are stronger than those who try to have a dominant/submissive relationship. There's a reason that the evangelical Christians who have this "women must submit to the authority of the man" attitude have the highest divorce rate.
quote:
History attests to the fact that it does not work well by and large.
Exactly the opposite is true. When you have dicatorships, you destroy society. It is because we decentralized the system of government away from a single authority that we managed to advance beyond feudal systems.
quote:
The divorce rate and unrest in America's homes attests to the logic of my position.
(*chuckle*)
You seem to forget that the divorce rate is highest among people who share your worldview. And not just slightly higher but dramatically so.
The most stable relationships are among the "liberals" who feel that marriage is an equal partnership. And to drive that point home, same-sex relationships last longer than mixed-sex ones. How do you explain that?
Edited by Rrhain, : Dropped a "n't." Put it back in.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2010 10:54 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2010 8:11 PM Rrhain has replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4517 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 235 of 244 (557425)
04-25-2010 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Buzsaw
04-24-2010 10:54 PM


Buz writes:
Why, Dr Adequate, have most door to door sales companies advocated dealing with the woman of the house?
Rrhain writes:
Assuming you're not referring to a product that is targeted at women, it is because the woman of the house is the one who makes the buying decisions for the family. While men may earn more than women, women are the ones who determine how it gets spent. She is the one who usually has to buy the food, furnish the house, clothe the family, etc. She's the one who handles the finances and will make the decision as to what needs to be bought and when.
Rrhain is absolutely correct. I use to do door to door sales for top of the line siding eons ago. We were taught, have the husband and wife present when making the sale, but sell to the woman.
More often than not, if she wants it....they'll buy it.
If he wants it and she does not...more often than not, there will not be a sale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2010 10:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


(1)
Message 236 of 244 (557441)
04-25-2010 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Buzsaw
04-24-2010 7:43 PM


Times of yore: RIP
Hey Buz.
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.
Western society moves on, regardless of whether your personal views have not. If you want to condone the subjugation of minorities and women by asserting in this thread (and others) that since it was the norm in the past that it should be the norm now, it's a free country. Apparently we differ in opinion here (surprise!): I'd like to believe we've come a long way since the times you hold so dear, and I'm sure you'd find a dozen ways in which our current society has degraded since the bronze age. To each his own, it seems ...
But I do find it amusing (and a bit contrived, as well) how you assume such a wounded stance after submitting such an inflammatory post. How long have you been posting here? Seven years, says your profile. Should you not expect to be called on the carpet for such statements? Methinks the gentleBuz doth protest too much ... or do you just do it for the lulz?
Seriously Buz, I understand that you're old, and that if you had your druthers, you'd most likely be living blissfully in NT times (or at least a few hundred years ago) versus in the enlightened, scientific, technologically advanced culture in which god unfortunately (for you) decided to create you. Welcome to reality. However, I would posit that you'd find that the "good 'ol days" may not be as "good" as your fantasies would lead you to believe, eh?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2010 7:43 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 237 of 244 (557443)
04-25-2010 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Buzsaw
04-24-2010 8:28 PM


Please Create a New Topic, Buz
Buzsaw writes:
Perhaps we're too adrift of topic for further debate on the role of women. If someone wishes to go further on this, one would open a new thread for that. Unless it pertains to this topic I think it best not to respond further.
My apologies to Coyote for offering further comment. As soon as I posted it the topic problem came to mind.
Please go right ahead and create a new topic on your opinion of the role and relative strengths and weaknesses of women, or any other group you would like to identify.
I can assure you of my participation, other commitments willing.
I think our audience would find it quite revealing.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2010 8:28 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2010 8:22 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 244 (557449)
04-25-2010 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Rrhain
04-25-2010 4:55 AM


Rrhain, the skyjumping quote is not from me. I don't know where you got it.
As for the rest of your stuff, you simply pshaw almost 6000 years of recorded human history relative to the genders and the role each play in human culture. Moderns are the odd people out and we're paying a price for it.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2010 4:55 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Rrhain, posted 04-26-2010 2:54 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 244 (557451)
04-25-2010 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by anglagard
04-25-2010 6:11 PM


Re: Please Create a New Topic, Buz
Anglagard writes:
Please go right ahead and create a new topic on your opinion of the role and relative strengths and weaknesses of women, or any other group you would like to identify.
Hi Anglagard. I'll go ahead and propose a new topic but you have it wrong. My impetus on the role of the genders is that both have their respective strengths and weaknesses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by anglagard, posted 04-25-2010 6:11 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Coyote, posted 04-25-2010 8:31 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 240 of 244 (557453)
04-25-2010 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Buzsaw
04-25-2010 8:22 PM


Re: Please Create a New Topic, Buz
My impetus on the role of the genders is that both have their respective strengths and weaknesses.
We understand that.
But what we don't follow is the biblical version of things that you seem to be unable to get away from, no matter how much some of it is out of touch in the current world. And not just out of touch, but just plain wrong!
One should honor tradition when it serves, but be willing to shed those traditions which no longer serve any useful purpose.
And just because it ended up in the bible is no reason to accept and follow nonsense.
Please do start a new topic.
(Don flameproof suit.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2010 8:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2010 8:59 PM Coyote 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