RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Disciple Generation, Once you wanted revolution, now you're t< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2006,14:15   

At Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Snoop Dogg figures in sermons, housewives cradle babies in tattooed arms -- and religious fundamentalism rules. Meet the Disciple Generation, the fierce new face of American evangelism.

By Lauren Sandler

Link

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2006,14:27   

Plus, next door at the Paradox you can catch some sweet shows (I most recommend Jason Webley).  And one can just head down the road to Hale's Brewery and get the best beer in the area.  Ah, Ballard, how I love thee.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2006,15:27   

Nice Ben Folds reference.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2006,04:18   

?????????

I don't understand the point of this thread. It's funny when fundies try to be <snicker> "hip"? Personally, I want my fundies to be above the cesspool of American pop culture (a culture irrelevant to the next generation, which will genuflect to new tinpot gods).

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2006,04:59   

Quote
I don't understand the point of this thread. It's funny when fundies try to be <snicker> "hip"? Personally, I want my fundies to be above the cesspool of American pop culture (a culture irrelevant to the next generation, which will genuflect to new tinpot gods).


oooooh that was a bit too fundamental for me gap <snicker>

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2006,05:11   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 30 2006,10:18)
?????????

I don't understand the point of this thread. It's funny when fundies try to be <snicker> "hip"?

Yes, it is.



--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2006,06:03   

GoP:  
Quote
I don't understand the point of this thread. It's funny when fundies try to be <snicker> "hip"? Personally, I want my fundies to be above the cesspool of American pop culture (a culture irrelevant to the next generation, which will genuflect to new tinpot gods).
I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment. The reason I find that this is newsworthy is the same reason I think Jim Jones's movement might have been newsworthy, even the day before the KoolAid party. Maybe some of these excerpts from the original article will illustrate why I think movements like this are a threat that ought not to be ignored:
Quote
To say that Mars Hill is just a church is to say that Woodstock was just a concert.
 
Quote
Following Driscoll's biblical reading of prescribed gender roles, women quit their jobs and try to have as many babies as possible.
 
Quote
Within this movement lies something as old as America itself, and as terrifying and alluring as anything Orwell predicted; something that is at once political, emotional, deeply anti-intellectual, and more galvanized than you can imagine.
 
Quote
When Driscoll invokes his Lord, he describes an uncompromising disciplinarian who demands utter obedience from his followers in exchange for rescue from an eternity in h*ll
 
Quote
[Judy] Abolafya no longer reads secular books or speaks to her old friends... Radical conversions like Judyís arenít what Driscoll has in mind just for Seattle, but for the entire nation
 
Quote
At a weekly Bible study class at a Mars Hill pastor's home, Abolafya first heard about the doctrine of wifely submission. The pastor's wife gave Abolafya a book to study called "The Fruit of Her Hands," which can essentially be summed up in Ephesians 5:22: "Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord."
 
Quote
Most significantly, in founding the network, Driscoll has established a nationwide apparatus to push back women's rights through the "liberation theology" of submission. The online application for church planting is an extremist screening device to this effect. It begins with a lengthy doctrinal assertion that every word of the Bible is literal truth; the application plucks out the examples of creationism and male headship of home and church to clarify this doctrine. "We are not liberals," it says. "We are not egalitarian."


--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2006,06:52   

Russell:

Quote
I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment. The reason I find that this is newsworthy is the same reason I think Jim Jones's movement might have been newsworthy, [etc.]


OK, I think I understand now....k.e. finds them potentially dangerous. I just couldn't figure out what he was trying to say.

As for the hipness issue, I agree with Arden that fundies strike out when they try to co-opt pop culture. This is because they're trying to use something they really don't understand in order to be "relevant" to the kids. But relevance is purchased by honesty -- if you're true to your belief system and comfortable in your own skin, then people will respect your integrity. Besides, who gives a toss about pop culture anyway? I mean, it's fun to play chase-the-fad, but it all dates so quickly and then people react against it anyway. So even when you win, you lose. I'd rather have culture.

Besides, I don't think they're dangerous. What's wrong with women staying at home and taking care of their family, so long as it's their decision?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2006,08:15   

Quote
What's wrong with women staying at home and taking care of their family, so long as it's their decision?

Nothing. And that's just the start of it.

What could be better for a dude than being head of his household? Being god of his household, or course. How sweet is that?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2006,08:19   

Quote
Besides, I don't think they're dangerous. What's wrong with women staying at home and taking care of their family, so long as it's their decision?
Absolutely nothing. What's scary is movements that convince women - or anyone else for that matter - that they should subjugate their own decisions to their power hierarchy. Sure, an individual may make a voluntary decision to surrender her freedom. And zombie movements are merely amusing until they become sizable. I see serious Taliban potential in movements like this.

"It can't happen here?" I don't count on it.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2006,08:47   

Russell:
Quote
Absolutely nothing. What's scary is movements that convince women - or anyone else for that matter - that they should subjugate their own decisions to their power hierarchy. Sure, an individual may make a voluntary decision to surrender her freedom. And zombie movements are merely amusing until they become sizable. I see serious Taliban potential in movements like this.


I see your point -- I don't think anyone on this thread wants to revisit Puritan America, and there's always the chance that movements like this could lead to a theocracy, but I just don't see that as very likely. It's more probable that the net result will involve a few women embracing traditional values. Personally, I don't think that's so bad. I think that most women are looking for a man who takes charge anyway. Some just hide it better than others*.



*In my experience, when things go wrong, most women seek out the nearest alpha male to resolve the crisis. Feminism is the politics of comfort.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2006,08:50   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 30 2006,12:52)
if you're true to your belief system and comfortable in your own skin, then people will respect your integrity.

Exactly. For instance,


--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2006,08:55   

Quote
For instance...

Don't forget the tattoo!


--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Seizure Salad



Posts: 60
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2006,09:12   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 30 2006,14:47)
Personally, I don't think that's so bad. I think that most women are looking for a man who takes charge anyway. Some just hide it better than others*.



*In my experience, when things go wrong, most women seek out the nearest alpha male to resolve the crisis. Feminism is the politics of comfort.

I think virtually every female of my generation (I'm 20, live in Canada) would fall over laughing if you said this to their faces. And then they would kick your ass.

I know you're speaking from experience Paley, but a lot of your comments seem hopelessly out of touch. Either that, or they're ripped from a BDSM lifestyle website.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2006,09:47   

Jim and Occam:
He got the chicks, didn't he? †;)


Mr. Salad:
Quote
I think virtually every female of my generation (I'm 20, live in Canada) would fall over laughing if you said this to their faces. And then they would kick your ass.


Seizure, seizure, seizure. The first thing you'll learn about women* is that there's a parsec's worth of difference between what they say they want and what they really want. This is because most women themselves don't know what they really want until they find it. Unfortunately, they're usually married to a schlub they hate by then.


*Not that I'm implying anything about your personal life. You probably get more tail than I did at yer age (can't chase any now). Nevertheless, you seem a little on the idealistic side. That'll change.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2006,10:04   

Gather 'round boys. GoP's gonna give use the benefit of his wisdom about wimmen:
Quote
The first thing you'll learn about women* is that there's a parsec's worth of difference between what they say they want, and what they really want.

"But, Your Honor... I have it from a very reliable source that when she said 'No', she really meant..."

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2006,10:11   

Quote
Gather 'round boys. GoP's gonna give use the benefit of his wisdom about wimmen:
†  
Quote

The first thing you'll learn about women* is that there's a parsec's worth of difference between what they say they want, and what they really want.


"But, Your Honor... I have it from a very reliable source that when she said 'No', she really meant..."


Nah, the guys who understand these truths don't rape. If anything, they have women rape them. †:D

####, Russell, I thought you'd know these things by now. I need to introduce you to some of my friends who date women that would turn ol' Hef green. They agree with the above. Agree? ####, they taught it to me.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Seizure Salad



Posts: 60
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2006,19:20   

Paley,

It's possible the "truths" you speak of have vague psychobiological underpinnings, and thus are more or less universal among women, but from what I can tell it's more likely that social factors are at play.

I believe that the traditional, patriarchal, taken-in-hand concept of women you describe is the product of societies that are conservative and patriarchal, and therefore express such values. Women growing up under those conditions tend to have this role instilled in them as part of the socialization process, and the men expect them to fulfill it. But as soon as you examine other societies with different values, your "truths" dissolve.

Case in point: I lived in London, Ontario until I was eighteen. London was pretty much the last bastion of British strength in North America, and as a result remains a nexus of arch-conservativism (by our standards--by your American standards it's still fairly liberal). The point is that London has as close to conservative, traditional values as you're likely to find in Canada, and as a result the gals I know do look to men when the going gets tough. It's not far from what you describe at all.

However, now I live in Montreal, which is the most leftist city that North America can offer, and the social values here are completely different. It's a different world--there is no comparison at all. None of the women I've met, including my current girlfriend, behave anything like the girls back in London. They're all fiercely independent, strikingly headstrong, incredibly decisive and self-sufficient. It's been a shock, but I think it illustrates a rather important point. And, well, there it is.

Y'see, being a hormone-addled kid, I'm interested in these things.

(As and aside: ID is so irrelevant here that it's been burned to death and its ashes incinerated into nothingness.)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2006,19:24   

GoP's Checklist:

Trolling habit                              ATBC Response

Geocentrism +                                Total refutation
fundamentalist nonsense

Guts to Gametes                             Claim never
                                                   supported,
                                                   available material
                                                   refuted

Political claims                                Racist ideologies
                                                    revealed. Claims
                                                    refuted.

Claims of "deism",                           No evidence yet of
deliberate trolling,                          claimed difference
tag team posting

Appeals to incredulity                       Demonstrably
and fine tuning                                incoherent, again.

This just in: Sexism                          Oh lordy, what
and behaving like an                         next?
elderly, wise old gent


"Girl don't go away mad, girl, just go away"

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,04:28   

Mr. Salad:

Quote
I believe that the traditional, patriarchal, taken-in-hand concept of women you describe is the product of societies that are conservative and patriarchal, and therefore express such values. Women growing up under those conditions tend to have this role instilled in them as part of the socialization process, and the men expect them to fulfill it. But as soon as you examine other societies with different values, your "truths" dissolve.


I beg to differ, because the cause of the behavioral differences is rooted in biology. Women are hardwired to respond to confident, dominant males, and this is reflected in the socialization process. By the way, I've heard that young Canadian women are easy marks for any hustler. My experiences mirror this: confident, brash young women are the most easily manipulated women. It's the traditional women that are tough.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,05:42   

Fascinating. So where do lesbians fit in? Are they more on the confident / brash / easily manipulatable side? Are they hard-wired to hang out with gay dudes?

Tell us about women, Paley.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,06:04   

Ved:

Quote
Fascinating. So where do lesbians fit in? Are they more on the confident / brash / easily manipulatable side? Are they hard-wired to hang out with gay dudes?


Modern research indicates that lesbianism is caused in part by an excess of androgens to the prenatal brain, causing the brain to be "masculinized" with respect to sexual orientation. Thus, lesbians probably don't have the same emotional drives as straight women. Not a good comparison.

Ummm,you guys know the implications of evo biology with respect to gender differences.....right, guys?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,06:48   

Implications like what? That there are shades of sexuality between male and female where individuals might fall, and some people may even end up somewhere on the side opposite the kind of naughty bits they have?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,06:52   

Quote
Ummm,you guys know the implications of evo biology with respect to gender differences.....right, guys?
Matt Ridley has written a lot about this in "The Red Queen" and "Genome".

I don't subscribe to the "politically correct" notion that sex does not entail significant biologically-driven, neurobehavioral effects in humans.

I also don't subscribe to the notion that, once you accept that such evolutionarily determined male/female behavioral tendencies are more likely than not, that Darwin's - let alone GoP's - assessment or analysis of those differences is particularly trustworthy.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,07:00   

Quote
Ummm,you guys know the implications of evo biology with respect to gender differences.....right, guys?


Let me extend this idea a little further.

From what I've seen on this board, you guys are into Evolution because:

1) It's a neat theory;

2) You can use it as a stick to beat fundies with.

†But evolutionary biology is a theory with real-world implications. If you accept it, then you have to be prepared to accept any possible social ramifications that flow from this model of reality. If evolution suggests that selective forces might have created gender differences, then you can't throw that part out and keep only what you like. Ideas have consequences, at least if we take them seriously.

Now, some people try to get around this objection by denying that there's any evidence that sexual/social preferences themselves are biologically determined, or by arguing that these preferences are immune to selective pressures. The latter is inconsistent with evolutionary thinking, the former is merely ad hoc. It also lacks parsimony, since we would have to assume that society after society was somehow able to mold women in the very same manner.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,07:16   

Ved and Russell:

I am aware that human sexuality falls on a continuum for both sexes. I am also aware that women tend toward monogamy, especially as they get older and start thinking about children. A choice has to be made at that point; unfortunately, women often regret their decisions because they lie to themselves. Why? Because they want to believe modern myths, and these myths tell them that they should look for an "equal" partner. Then a man comes along who sweeps them off their feet.....and they start cheating on their husbands. Women (or at least straight/bisexual women) want men, and men make most of the important decisions and solve the problems. I'm not saying that "is" = "ought"; I'm just recording what I observe.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,07:19   

Quote
But evolutionary biology is a theory with real-world implications. If you accept it, then you have to be prepared to accept any possible social ramifications that flow from this model of reality.

Why yes, of course. And one of those social ramifications that follows from evolution is that there is no right or wrong way to do anything. Even if it was found that over thousands of years human men and women evolved so that one was socially dominant over the other, there is no reason to believe that that relationship is superior to any other.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,07:27   

Ved:

 
Quote
Why yes, of course. And one of those social ramifications that follows from evolution is that there is no right or wrong way to do anything. Even if it was found that over thousands of years human men and women evolved so that one was socially dominant over the other, there is no reason to believe that that relationship is superior to any other.


Absolutely -- there's no way to define "superiority" in this sense. But the biological drives can't be wished away, either. Consider this: if a woman is in an unhappy relationship, wouldn't you say that's a "bad" thing? I'm just saying that men should understand what makes women truly happy. And women generally want the men to lead a little. When they don't get it from their husbands, they deem them "boring" and look for a man who gives them want they really want. Or, if they're too moral to cheat, they nag their husbands to an early grave.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,08:12   

So...Size really does matter?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,08:17   

Quote
So...Size really does matter?


Yes. Girth moreso than length.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Seizure Salad



Posts: 60
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,10:05   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 31 2006,10:28)
I beg to differ, because the cause of the behavioral differences is rooted in biology. Women are hardwired to respond to confident, dominant males, and this is reflected in the socialization process. By the way, I've heard that young Canadian women are easy marks for any hustler. My experiences mirror this: confident, brash young women are the most easily manipulated women. It's the traditional women that are tough.

I'm not so sure that the cause of behavioural differences are rooted in biology in this case. I admit that this could very well be true, probably is true to some degree, but I'd like to see some proper research that points to that conclusion.

Again: from what I have observed it's very much a result of social factors. Paley, you have a very traditional, conservative concept of women, which grows out of the patriarchal value system that women have been steadily emerging from for the past century, but is still preponderant in many parts of the world. Montreal was one such society during the "dark ages" of Quebec when the entire province was heavily Church-oriented and economically/culturally/socially stagnant. When the
Quiet Revolution came along and destroyed the old system, the city did a complete about face and is now an ultra-left core, and needless to say, the social values are completely different. The values that you are familiar with are not instilled in the minds of women here, they aren't part of the socialization process, they don't really exist. As a result, female Montrealers are very different. So are the men.

I suppose one only needs to look to matriarchal societies of the past and present to understand my point. It would be very unlikely that they would exist if human biology is averse them.

As for Canadian women being particularily vulnerable: I'ven't heard anything like that up here, so I can't really comment. I would be interested in seeings some stats that suggest this, if you can dig any up. One thing though: I would definetely be careful when refering to "Canadian women", given that Canadian citizens do not have a coherent national identity, and therefore few unifying traits. We're not like the United States, or Germany, or other patriotic nations. Everything is regional up here, to the extreme; the people in British Columbia seem like complete foreigners next to the folks in the Prairies, etc. It's why there are secession movements in almost every province. But anyway, as an anecdote, one of my friends thwarted a hustler-type with a knife two weekends ago. So that's prety kickass.

Lastly, I'm afraid I don't understand how confident, headstrong women are more easily manipulated than traditional women who willingly depend on the supposed dominance of men.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,10:05   

Quote
From what I've seen on this board, you guys are into Evolution because:
1) It's a neat theory;
2) You can use it as a stick to beat fundies with.
I can only speak for myself. I think it's an incredibly neat theory, but more importantly, it merges seamlessly with the rest of modern science, which is even more incredibly neat. The fact that fundies are determined to blind themselves to these beauties is, for them, a shame. But it's absolutely no problem for me, personally. Heck - it eases the competition for me and mine. The ONLY problem I have with the fundies is when they try to impose their stifling worldview on the rest of us, as in (1)trying to muddy up science education with their quaint creationism, or (2) imposing dangerously wrong anti-science attitudes, as in issues of climate change or (3) curtailing other peoples' rights and privacy when their parochial understanding of scripture so dictates.

If they want to express their fundiness as modestly as do the Amish, for instance, they have my unstinting support.

Quote
But evolutionary biology is a theory with real-world implications. If you accept it, then you have to be prepared to accept any possible social ramifications that flow from this model of reality. If evolution suggests that selective forces might have created gender differences, then you can't throw that part out and keep only what you like. Ideas have consequences, at least if we take them seriously.
I couldn't agree more.
But this...
Quote
... unfortunately, women often regret their decisions because they lie to themselves. Why? Because they want to believe modern myths, and these myths tell them that they should look for an "equal" partner. Then a man comes along who sweeps them off their feet.....and they start cheating on their husbands. Women (or at least straight/bisexual women) want men, and men make most of the important decisions and solve the problems. I'm not saying that "is" = "ought"; I'm just recording what I observe.
reveals something about your personal experiences, perhaps, but (1) not mine, and (2) I don't think any objective statistics.

You aren't suggesting, are you, that women are more likely to "lie to themselves" than are men?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,10:23   

I'm curious to know how one might lie to themselves.  The other day I tested this notion.  I had $76 in my pocket but told myself I actually had $760 in my pocket.  I suspected I was lying to myself so I counted it again and low and behold, I only had $76 in my pocket.  Truth be told I never believed myself when I told myself I had $760 in my pocket.

How do you lie to yourself and not get caught?  Seems like you would already know you were lying in the first place.

I have to admit, these psychobable concepts like "lying to oneself" are quite amusing.  No they're not!  OH YES THEY ARE! (I just lied to myself again but I spotted it right away!;).

Hmmm...Back to the sex talk...So does this mean women really do like a man who wears Aqua Velva?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,10:26   

{sniff} {sniff}

What's that smell?

{sniff}

Ah yes, it has a familiar ring.

{sniff}

Hmmmm I think I've got it! Yes, it's the very familiar smell of a pointless troll trying to justify his bigotry (if such bigotry is real, who knows with a pointless troll). Let me guess, we could take the thread in which GoP failed to justify his bigotry about a swathe of non-white races and (predominantly) non-white religious groups and substitute various terms for "women" and have the same conversation.

Why do I smell the exact same bullshit attempts to justify the "white, heterosexual, western, christian, male" at the top of the pile? Now I rarely ask questions like this, but just what are the conservatives that try to justify this stuff conserving? I mainly don't ask them because the extremely bullshit faux bipolarisation of politics (esp in the USA) annoys the living bejeezus out of me.

I would ask the question "why is GoP shifting from racist screeds to sexist screeds?", but I already know the answer as does everyone else.

What is it that you cannot understand GoP? Yes there are genetic differences between races/sexes (duh!;). Yes these differences are predicted by evolutionary biology. Yes these differences can have general consequences. So what?  People are not groups. All the varied and complex social phenomena that you enjoy picking on are a wealth of interactions. You're pulling one thread from a beautiful and complex multicoloured Persian rug and claiming that it is responsible for the whole pattern. Intelligence, social dominance, criminality, tendancy for psychosis, etc etc etc are phenomena born of complex interactions. No one denies, nor needs to deny for the sake of some fictional politics, the biological causative factors in these phenomena. But to claim they are the major/only/principle causative agent behind a specificcomplex phenomenon is both ludicrous, and in this case, deliberately dishonest.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,12:02   

Russell:

 
Quote
You aren't suggesting, are you, that women are more likely to "lie to themselves" than are men?


Actually, yes. But before you get out the pitchforks and torches, let me explain why.

Women and men have different ways of asserting themselves in society. Men (for whatever reason) prefer the direct approach: "I'm smarter than you, tougher than you, get more chicks", etc, etc. If that doesn't work we get out the brick. †;)

Women, on the other hand, are physically weaker and don't have rivers of testosterone coursing through them, so they express their dominance through social networking. If they need to cut another chick down to size, they prefer to gossip, form cliques, etc. Also, being more monogamous, they are more interested in monitoring their relationships than are men.

Now all of this takes a whole lot of analysis (men are analytical too -- we just prefer things to people). Analysis doesn't really know any borders, so studying and monitoring others inevitably turns inward. So women tend to focus on themselves more than do men (men just react). But people in general like to think of themselves in the best possible way -- to spin their socially unacceptible feelings and habits, if you will. Thus, women spin more time spinning and justifying their unacceptable attitudes, or even "talking" themselves into more socially acceptable attitudes (that's why female sexuality is more malleable than male sexuality -- researchers have actually found evidence for this). Thus, women lie to themselves more. It's a consequence of being more social.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,12:57   

Quote
Thus, women lie to themselves more. It's a consequence of being more social
Some generalizations are too general to be generally useful. I suggest that there may be a gender-bias in the nature of the "lies" men and women tell themselves, but I'm skeptical of an overall "intrapersonal honesty" difference between the sexes.

While I know the question - even if it were well enough defined to be a question - cannot be answered with anecdotal evidence, I offer afdave as a sterling example of male "intrapersonal (dis)honesty".

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,13:23   

Quote
While I know the question - even if it were well enough defined to be a question - cannot be answered with anecdotal evidence, I offer afdave as a sterling example of male "intrapersonal (dis)honesty".


Well, I'm talking about "intrapersonal dishonesty" in terms of relationships. Part of it is simply that women think about relationships more; men would be just as dishonest if they gave a crap about the subject. †Dave frets about the intersection between faith and evidence, sees a truckload of cognitive dissonance blocking his path, and takes out the dynamite.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,15:31   

Once again I am forced to ask Paley --- why on earth do you think anyone gives a flying ### what you think?  

About anything?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,15:34   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 30 2006,15:47)
The first thing you'll learn about women*

Um, Paley, no offense, but when's the last time  **you**  got laid . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,11:23   

Salad:

†  
Quote
Lastly, I'm afraid I don't understand how confident, headstrong women are more easily manipulated than traditional women who willingly depend on the supposed dominance of men.


Well, I don't know that there are any statistics on this, but a lot of young men in Jamaica, Italy, Greece, and Turkey make a living conning career businesswomen with empty promises of "true love":

†  
Quote
The primary destinations for female sex tourism are Southern Europe (mainly Italy, former Yugoslavia, Turkey, Greece and Spain), the Caribbean (led by Jamaica, Barbados and the Dominican Republic), the Gambia and Kenya in Africa, Bali and Phuket in Thailand. Lesser destinations include Nepal, Morocco, Fiji, Ecuador and Costa Rica. Female sex or romance tourism differs from male sex tourism, in that women do not need to sign up for tours or go to specific bars. Women sometimes give clothes, meals, cash and gifts to their holiday boyfriends, but not all (especially in Southern Europe) expect compensation.


Many of these women are just looking for a little fun (and may be too old or unattractive to get it for free), others are "size queens" hunting for the "big bamboo", but whatever the initial impulse, these single businesswomen often get taken big time. As far as younger women go, they'll fall for anything. The best marks are the ones who think they're unshakeable, and the arrogance of youth is an open secret.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,11:40   

To follow up on my last post, the most famous case is non other than Terry McMillan (author of Waiting to Exhale and How Stella Got Her Groove Back) who got hustled by Jonathan Plummer, who apparently shared his mojo a little too liberally with other men.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Seizure Salad



Posts: 60
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,16:06   

I think it's much more accurate to say that all youth are vulnerable to manipulation, not just young women, or especially young women.

As far as your example goes, it's an interesting one, but it doesn't prove much, as plenty of men are also conned in sex tourism. Besides, women are just as capable of preying on the vulnerability of lonely men, or conning them the old-fahsioned way. There are plenty of examples on both sides, and neither speaks to fundamental truths about either sex, just human fallibility in general.

What I meant to imply in my question is that "traditional" women who willingly submit to the supposed dominance of men have already been manipulated and conditioned by the patriarchal value system that has pre-determined their social role and destiny. Therefore, I felt that claiming they are less suceptible to manipulation than women who are determined to redefine themselves outside of said value system was pretty ironic.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,06:19   

RE: relative susceptibility to manipulation - "traditional" vs. others.

Again, the analogy with virus infection is intriguing. A virus, once established in a given cell, often has multiple mechanisms for preventing a second virus from getting a toehold.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,06:49   

Salad:

 
Quote
What I meant to imply in my question is that "traditional" women who willingly submit to the supposed dominance of men have already been manipulated and conditioned by the patriarchal value system that has pre-determined their social role and destiny. Therefore, I felt that claiming they are less suceptible to manipulation than women who are determined to redefine themselves outside of said value system was pretty ironic.


Perhaps they're being manipulated. On the other hand, maybe they're doing what they really want while letting the men bust their asses in the workforce. Remember, it's the one who controls the spending, not the earning, who has real power in the household. And in many traditional societies, the women control the spending. Give trad women a little credit.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Seizure Salad



Posts: 60
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,09:00   

Quote
Remember, it's the one who controls the spending, not the earning, who has real power in the household. And in many traditional societies, the women control the spending. Give trad women a little credit.


Point taken--this is definetely true sometimes. And naturally, it's often true in reverse. Nowadays it's most common, however, that husband and wife maintain their own respective bank accounts, and perhaps one joint account, which I believe is the best way to manage finances.

That being said, there was a time not so long ago when many banks would not allow women to withdraw money from their own accounts without consent from their husband. Fortunately, North America has moved past such flagrant discrimination, but it remains so in developing nations.

PS: Paley, your avatar is pure awesomeness. What is it?

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,10:23   



Why it's Columbo, of course. So apt. Apt, I say. Like Paley, he leads people to believe he's just an idiot.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,10:25   

Mr. Salad:

Quote
Point taken--this is definetely true sometimes. And naturally, it's often true in reverse. Nowadays it's most common, however, that husband and wife maintain their own respective bank accounts, and perhaps one joint account, which I believe is the best way to manage finances.


I agree that joint accounts are the best compromise.

 
Quote
That being said, there was a time not so long ago when many banks would not allow women to withdraw money from their own accounts without consent from their husband. Fortunately, North America has moved past such flagrant discrimination, but it remains so in developing nations.


Yeah, women have it rough in developing countries. They often do the bulk of the physical labor, almost all the child-rearing, and then they're treated like slaves on top of it all. Of course, this situation also applied in Western societies until fairly recently.

Quote
PS: Paley, your avatar is pure awesomeness. What is it?


My favorite detective of all time: Lt. Frank Columbo.

PS: If Matt Hughes beats Georges St. Pierre on Nov. 14th, I'll be sitting shiva for at least the minimum.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Seizure Salad



Posts: 60
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,13:43   

My money's on GSP--he's technically the better fighter, and seems to be at the top of his game right now. Plus he's my homeboy. I think that Matt Hughes' time has come. I know he's a freakishly insane demon of a man who never gives in, and part of me is worried that if they spend too much time on the ground he'll somehow manage to pound GSP into oblivion, but...we'll see.

On a side note, I found it hilarious that the second Emelianenko-Coleman fight was pretty much a repeat of the first. Now I want him to fight Mirko Filipovic again, that would be exciting.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,14:49   

Quote
My money's on GSP--he's technically the better fighter, and seems to be at the top of his game right now. Plus he's my homeboy. I think that Matt Hughes' time has come. I know he's a freakishly insane demon of a man who never gives in, and part of me is worried that if they spend too much time on the ground he'll somehow manage to pound GSP into oblivion, but...we'll see.


"Brawl and sprawl and wait for the fall." Let Hughes rush into the sub this time.

 
Quote
On a side note, I found it hilarious that the second Emelianenko-Coleman fight was pretty much a repeat of the first. Now I want him to fight Mirko Filipovic again, that would be exciting.


You didn't like Coleman introducing his daughters to Fedor post-fight? "Say hi to Fedor, kids. He's really a nice man."



Probably not the best parenting decision. Fedor handled it about as well as possible.......

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Seizure Salad



Posts: 60
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,15:30   

Yeah, that added a bizarre edge to the whole event. Coleman is off his rocker. I read his daughters were in tears after the match. I can only imagine what kind of fucked up childhood you must have when your father is a (waning) competitive heavyweight MMA fighter.

  
  48 replies since Oct. 29 2006,14:15 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]