Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Page v. Borger
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 10 of 92 (30319)
01-27-2003 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Black
01-26-2003 5:38 PM


quote:
No fear either; the observation that women are more emotional than men is, well, science.
Your claim that women are more emotional than men is, well, utter crap.
Just look at men's over-the-top emotional behavior during domestic violence and abuse, athletic events, war, and rock concerts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Black, posted 01-26-2003 5:38 PM Black has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jdean33442, posted 01-27-2003 2:02 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 12 of 92 (30335)
01-27-2003 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jdean33442
01-27-2003 2:02 PM


quote:
No one is free of emotions,
Exactly. That's my point. Dr. Page was "called a girl" because his responses were judged as containing any emotion at all.
quote:
however, you point out only extreme cases.
I only needed to point out any case to show that the idea that only females display emotion to be false.
quote:
I don't understand what rock concerts and athletic events have to do with emotions. Last time I checked aggression is not an emotion.
Um, men are very emotional at athletic events and rock concerts (both as participants and observers).
Men shouting, jumping around, celebrating, hugging, screaming can all be observed at these events.
People can feel aggressive, no?
BTW, I can't help but notice that you seem to be hounding me on this board. You respond nearly exclusively to my posts. Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jdean33442, posted 01-27-2003 2:02 PM jdean33442 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jdean33442, posted 01-27-2003 2:53 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 49 of 92 (30685)
01-30-2003 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Black
01-27-2003 11:45 PM


quote:
Shraf,
Don't you feel better after you take a midol? Try it sometime before you post. You are unwittingly proving the point.
LOL!!!
First of all, my name is sChraf, not shraf.
Second of all, your dismissive Midol comment just makes me more committed to my feminist ideals, just like jdean's completely over the top, knee-jerk response to my posts makes me more committed.
jdean's obvious insecurity about himself and his fear of women and women's equality, and the aggressive, angry, abusive way he expresses it is proof positive that feminism is very much needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Black, posted 01-27-2003 11:45 PM Black has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 50 of 92 (30687)
01-30-2003 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by peter borger
01-30-2003 7:02 AM


quote:
Hi Quetzal,
As mentioned in the previous mail:
You can have it as you like.
1)Either a scientific discussion
2)or not.
Apparently you chose option 2.
I am not surprised,
Have a good one, mate & best wishes,
Peter
You are the one not answering his specific questions, Peter.
You are running away without addressing the pesticide resistance/evolutionary arms race issue, nor are you addressing the issue of you claiming that you have evidence from fossils of an entire genome, or something like that.
Put up or shut up.
Oh, I guess you chose #2, in the form of running away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:02 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by jdean33442, posted 01-30-2003 5:48 PM nator has replied
 Message 52 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:21 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 92 (30834)
01-31-2003 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by jdean33442
01-30-2003 5:48 PM


This is a public message forum.
I am free to reply to whom I wish unless told otherwise by the moderators.
I request that you do not reply to me unless you can do so in a civil, respectful way that involves actual content.
I will refer you to the forum giudelines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by jdean33442, posted 01-30-2003 5:48 PM jdean33442 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 55 of 92 (30835)
01-31-2003 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by peter borger
01-30-2003 7:21 PM


quote:
In another thread you claimed to be an agnostic. Please don't let me laugh, Schraf. Your as atheistic as Samuel Beckett. Nothing inherently wrong with that --everbody is free to choose-- except that it cannot be defended scientifically (As demonstrated).
Huh?
Talk about irrelevant!
quote:
Furthermore, I addressed all Quetzals points (as usual), but he only wants to discuss the data subject to his own evolutionary opinions. Even if they don't make sense in the light of contemporary knowledge.
You did not address his point about the difference between an evolutionary arms race and pesticide resistance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:21 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by peter borger, posted 01-31-2003 11:10 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 92 (30837)
01-31-2003 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by jdean33442
01-30-2003 5:48 PM


quote:
Quetzal is quite adept at debate.
I very much agree.
quote:
Why don't you let Quetzal defend himself?
I'll stop when Quetzal asks me to, not because some arrogant, abusive newbie has decided to try to order me around.
quote:
And where is your pro and/or con address of these issues? Stop attacking the guy just to attack him. It's stale.
Where is your pro and/or con address of these issues?
Did you have a point to make in this thread, or are you only here to criticize me? It's stale.
quote:
Running away? You attack me indirectly and refuse to reply to anything I put directly at you.
I do not repond to hateful posts intended only to annoy me, and that is all you have been posting here.
I will refer you to the forum guidelines.
quote:
Perhaps PB will give up his pursuit of creationism and become a sandwich artist at a local deli. All because of your hard nosed (and convincing I must add) post. Great job lass!
More content and less abusive behavior would be much appreciated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by jdean33442, posted 01-30-2003 5:48 PM jdean33442 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 92 (30906)
01-31-2003 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Admin
01-31-2003 11:42 AM


I know that this is the free for all forum, but jimmy dean the Sausage King made reference to replies I had not made to him elsewhere in the moderated part of the board.
I referred him to the forum guidelines as explanation of why I wasn't terribly interested in responding to him there.
Sorry it wasn't clear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Admin, posted 01-31-2003 11:42 AM Admin has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 65 of 92 (30907)
01-31-2003 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Quetzal
01-31-2003 11:26 AM


Thanks, Q. The feeling is mutual
Jimmy Dean the Sausage King is new around here and hasn't figured out how to gain respect yet. I guess his mama didn't teach him that to earn respect in civilized company one must treat others with respect.
In fact, I don't think he has uttered a single word WRT Biology or Creationism.
Methinks I smell a troll, not someone interested in either.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-31-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Quetzal, posted 01-31-2003 11:26 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jdean33442, posted 02-03-2003 7:19 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 80 of 92 (31085)
02-02-2003 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Arachnid
02-02-2003 3:38 PM


quote:
Schraf's militant feminism makes my homophobia act up...and John has the IQ of coolwhip. **oops, was that my outside voice?**
Hey Arachnid, care to reply to my message #60 in the Faith and Belief forum, Define Faith topic?
You made some accusations and I asked for clarification and examples.
If you think I am a militant feminist, you must not talk to very many feminists.
Now my husband; he's the militant feminist in our house.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Arachnid, posted 02-02-2003 3:38 PM Arachnid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Arachnid, posted 02-02-2003 10:43 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 83 of 92 (31151)
02-03-2003 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Arachnid
02-02-2003 10:43 PM


quote:
LOL...funny reply, Schraf.
Than you kindly.
quote:
Here's the problem as I see it: You seem to embody everything that is mainstream and hip to the current pop culture.
See, that is strange, because I have held these basic views for about 20 years.
quote:
Sexist: You diminish the roles of males in society
I do? When did I do that?
Was it when I talked of raising women's role in society? How does lifing up women automatically lower men? Strange either/or thinking there.
If you mean I diminish the roles of men that have been overvalued compared to the undervalued roles of women, then yes, I challenge that notion.
I believe that both genders have a great deal to offer, and no, I do not believe that men and women are exactly the same. But I do think that our similarities are great and our differences small.
It is the systematic exclusion from certain activities based upon gender, and the systematic requirement to participate in certain activities based upon gender, that I oppose. There are very few jobs which require a person to have testicles, or have ovaries.
That's all feminism really is.
quote:
and verbally crush anyone(male) who tries to rise above his lowly station.
What lowly station is that? The lowly station of heading up nearly all of the highest business, academic, and governmental institutions in our country?
Seriously, what lowly station are you talking about?
Oh, and if my argument was flawed, I wouldn't be able to verbally crush anybody.
quote:
Society, as a whole has waged war against the male since as far back as I can remember(35 yrs) Examples: men rarely win custody battles,
You are right, and I think it is awful that this is the case. There is absolutely no reason women should be given preferential considerstion in custody; men are perfectly capable of being good single parents. However, it is also true that working mothers have had their children taken away from them because they worked outside the home, and it is also true that fathers do a great deal more abandoning of their children than mothers, and fathers fail to pay child support at an alarming rate, and only recently have either of these problems of irresponibility been addressed in any serious way by the courts.
However, if you want to talk about "war" against a gender, perhaps you might like to think a bit about the history of how women have been treated, and continue to be treated, in this country. Rape and domestic violence are real, and not rare. Men kill their wives and girlfriends at a rate that far exceeds that of women killing their husbands and boyfriends.
http://www.letswrap.com/dvinfo/stats.htm
"Family violence kills as many women every 5 years as the total number of Americans who died in the Vietnam War"
Statistics show that one in three college-age men would rape a woman if they knew they could get away with it.
Page Not Found
Imagine living in my world, as a woman, for a little while, and then you tell me who is at war with whom.
quote:
in domestic disputes it's the male who goes to jail,
Um, that's because men are a GREAT deal more likely to be physically violent, and because men are generally much more likely to come back and murder their wife or girlfriend.
http://www.letswrap.com/dvinfo/myths.htm
"according to the FBI, in over 95% of all domestic abuse violence, the man is the batterer. The injuries that battered women receive are at least as serious as 90% of all violent felony crimes, yet under state laws, domestic violence is almost always a misdemeanor."
quote:
men disproportionately out number women in our country's judicial system...blah, blah...
See above. Men, for whatever reason, tend to be more violent.
quote:
the point is that you and people like you are working to destroy the value of men in society.
Let's see. I talk about raising women's status, and this, by definition, "destroys the value of men?"
Does this mean that the value of men is dependent upon women's status being lower, in your view?
quote:
I'm not denying the woman's struggle for equality, but I believe it is better to rise up than to tear down men in your quest for equality.
Again, please show me where I have done this "tearing down of men". I want examples. I don't think you have them.
Most of my coworkers are men. Most of my friends are men. I have been married to a wonderful man for 10 years. I love men.
I hate what our society has done to men. Some, like you seem to, think that for women to rise up, men must go down. This is not at all the case, although if they have been raised that there must be a leader and a follower, that there must be a winner and a loser, then the road to mutual respect will be a long one.
I don't want totear down men, but I do want men, both individually and as a group, to come to terms and take responibility for their violence towards and discrimination against, women. The reason it's important for men, as a group, to do this, is because chances are, if you know a fair number of men, at least a couple of them have done some kind of physical abuse to a woman.
quote:
Anti-Christian: I don't know if this comes from a general dislike of anything authoritarian or the crystal-toting new age philosophy that includes your male hatred above...
Contentless personal attack, and strawman.
quote:
but you know absolutely nothing about the faith that you slander...no, really you know nothing about it...sure, I belive you've read some words in a bible or even attended sunday school for some period of time, but you are wrong to speak, as with authority, when you slander wholesome values based in Christianity or not.
I was raised a Catholic and attended 12 years of Chatechism. I lived in a Catholic household. I know a thing or two about living a religious life, because I used to be a believer.
But all of that doesn't matter. One doesn't have to have been a member of a group to have valid criticisms of the practices of that group.
If you have something specific to say which counters my criticisms of the Southern Baptist edict, or evidence which challenges my divorce statistics, or anything else specific, then bring it forward.
If all you have is to declare that "I don't have the right" with no reasoning behind it, well, then it isn't much.
quote:
Anti-semite: your not especially twisted in this department..you just cling to common doctrines espoused by all the anti-semites.
I haven't seen much in the way of antisemitism on this board, although I have seen a bit of criticism of the secular government of Israel.
Are you actually telling me that anyone who criticises the government of Israel is, by definition, an anti-semite?
Well, that would make anyone who criticizes the government of England an anti-Church of England-ite, wouldn't it?
quote:
In and of themselves, your views mean very little (same as my views) but together they embody this MTV new age philosophy that all these "enlightened" automatons like to tout.
However, you were wrong about my views, weren't you? You had a little box of preconceptions about me that you put me in when I started to speak of women's rights, instead of finding out for yourself what I actually think.
We all do this from time to time, as it is in human nature to categorize. However, let this be a lesson that it is not always wise to do this with people.
quote:
It is unoriginal and indefensable and requires no imagination or true convictions...you have become exactly what the maintream media wants you to be.
Oh, being a femminist requires quite a lot of conviction, considering that people like you fear people like me. Fear leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering. This is the path of the Dark Side.
(Thanks, Master Yoda)
quote:
Now, I mean it when I say you are a smart girl(despite your ripe old age )but you should stretch out your brain and think for yourself instead of regurgitating yesterday's news.
Piss off, boy.
I think very much for myself, thank you.
I think it's pretty funny to tell a non-religious person that they don't think for themselves. I mean, depending upon how literally certain Christians take the Bible, there is little or no thinking or analysis or interpretation needed, right?
quote:
I only tell you this because you asked me to clarify.
Things are probably clearer for you now, but they aren't for me.
I still do not have any specific examples of where I said what you say I did.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-03-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Arachnid, posted 02-02-2003 10:43 PM Arachnid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by jdean33442, posted 02-03-2003 7:41 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 89 of 92 (31244)
02-04-2003 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by jdean33442
02-03-2003 7:19 PM


Wow, you have a really inflated sense of your own importance, don't you?
Oh, I've gotta tell you that your psychic abilities are not what you think they are.
It's pretty funny that you would characterize me as the one getting mad when you are the one slinging mud and ranting nonsensically about that which you know nothing about.
Thank you, though, for finally letting me know your real reason for following me around this site, troll. You are "entertained" by annoying me. Well, I'm sorry that you are the kind of icky wierdo that enjoys ranting and raving angrily at women on the 'net for "entertainment".
Goodbye, sicko.
PS I wonder if your bosses at Ditech.com know about how you spend company time, and what your attitudes about domestic violence are? Do you think either would be good for your potential for advancement?
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jdean33442, posted 02-03-2003 7:19 PM jdean33442 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 90 of 92 (31246)
02-04-2003 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by wj
02-04-2003 1:56 AM


quote:
jdean is a troll, isn't he? A real human being couldn't really believe all that misogynistic diatribe and still remain outside a penal or mental institution.
He is certainly a troll, and I don't think he gets many dates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by wj, posted 02-04-2003 1:56 AM wj has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024