Has feminism gone too far

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby dunadan » Fri Sep 29, 2000 6:31 am

Gargoyle:<BR><BR>"Your knowledge on women's current roles in the military (and past roles) is quite...err...incomplete."<BR><BR>Err, no Gargoyle, err, it is you who are incorrect.<BR><BR>"In the U.S., the ONLY military roles restricted to women are front-line direct combat roles (and this is changing steadily even as we speak) such as infantry, and combat naval vessels. And the only reason that this is resisted is because of the ambiguous "morale" issue of having women in combat (even though they have proved themselves in combat in the past)."<BR><BR>Really, Gargoyle? Proven themselves? Tell us what battle the 1st Lesbo Battalion won as a result of their bold flanking attack. None? Well, in what minor battle did they turn the tide for their side? None? Well, what skirmish did they banish the enemy in? None again. "Proof" is in combat, not rigged manuevers or fake drills. In the real world (which you have obviously managed to avoid), it don't work that way. Ambiguous "morale" issues means that men get sick of having to pretend women are their equals.<BR><BR>"And it is hardly the case (like you mentioned Israel and Russia) that women were a failed experiment" Really? Why did the Israelis remove women from combat after three weeks? Why did the Soviets not capitalize on this new "discovery" of womens' fighting ability by continuing it after WWII? Your comment regarding the female combat squadron is interesting. The Soviets also claimed to have invented Baseball, television, and the electric light. Do you believe that, also? Why didn't Alexander integrate women into combat? Or Julius Ceasar? Or Napolean? Probably because they were interested in WINNING, not kissing Patsy Shroeder's fat butt.<BR><BR>"There is no doubt within the US military today of the ability of women to perform (except in the "old school" boys club heirarchy). Women drive armed armored personnel carriers, but don't drive front-line fighting vehicles, not because they don't possess the ability to do so, but for at this time purely political reasons."<BR><BR>More bovine excretion! What a lie and a joke! In combined training, women recruits are allowed to wear sneakers instead of boots when running the obstacle (now called the "confidence") course and run around obstacles which men must climb or crawl under! We have women aircraft mechanics who have to have someone carry their tool boxes for them because its too heavy! In manuevers, OPFOR units are ordered not to move and to surrender when attacked by mixed-sex units. Boy, that "proves" what good soldiers they are doesn't it? At West Point when women were first admitted, they had to remove the "Enduro" from the curriculum. The "Enduro" is a TIMED 20-mile run in full combat "kit" and is graded. Guess what sex came in last place? Surprise! What was the reaction of the politicians? Get rid of it! We get rid of anything that makes women look weak (which they are) for political reasons. Women are not kept out of combat roles for political reasons, idiot! They have been forced upon the US military SOLELY FOR political reasons in order to sway the 50\% of the electorate that is female.<BR><BR>As far as how far "behind the times" the US military is, that's another joke. No country that actually intends to fight wars EVER puts women in their military in any significant way. I really don't care what Sweden, Denmark, Holland, or any of the other little wimp european countries do. They simply expect to cower behind the US GI if any stuff hits the fan. Women can wear silly blue hats and carry unloaded weapons as well as anyone else I suppose if that's what you intend for your military to do. The only European country to actually do any fighting since WWII are the Brits and I don't remember any little girls being with 2 Para at Goose Green, do you moron?
User avatar
dunadan
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2000 8:44 am
Top

Postby dunadan » Fri Sep 29, 2000 6:55 am

AsGoot:<BR><BR>"Finland don't have SAT's but the girls' GPA is (statistically) significantly higher. So there is in a way contrasting evidence. And what do you think, where the graduating students actually would be, in general, better educated?"<BR><BR>My problem with GPA is that grading includes such non-academic and subjective considerations as "class participation" and attendence. In the USA, there has arisen a phenomena called "grade inflation" where teachers give higher grades/lower standards for grades in order to make the schools look good.<BR><BR>The SAT, on the other hand as I've previously stated, is objective and has a large enough sample group (about a million students per year) to be statistically significant.<BR><BR>My comment on Europe is simple fact. Socialism is a product of the european "enlightenment". Egalitarianism springs not from the American Revolution, but from the French Revolution. The more generations an ideology has the ability to affect, the more deeply the change to a society.<BR><BR>Norway does indeed have high test scores on international standardized tests I have seen. However, Norway does not have a million impoverished, illiterate immigrants flooding into its country, workplace, neighborhoods, AND schools each year. The US does.
User avatar
dunadan
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2000 8:44 am
Top

Postby dunadan » Fri Sep 29, 2000 7:07 am

Gargoyle:<BR><BR>At no time did I say that a woman MUST return to her husband within a certain time frame. What I DID say is that she has the right to leave that environment until he proves himself capable of being a good husband. This DOES NOT MEAN she must return to him at some future time. What it DOES mean is that she MAY NOT divorce and remarry.<BR><BR>I'm sorry that you had an abusive home. This does not mean that you have any more insight into the matter. As a matter of fact, it obviously has had an effect on your thinking.
User avatar
dunadan
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2000 8:44 am
Top

Postby Gargoyle » Fri Sep 29, 2000 7:51 am

Let me guess Dunadan, did a woman beat you out for acceptance at West Point? Did you got stuck on that itty-bitty barb-wire when she crawled under it past you to victory? <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0><BR><BR>You're going a little overboard here. I'm not claiming that Normandy was stormed by hordes of women soldiers. The point is, today's military is not the military of 500 years ago (where you seem to be existing) where you had to lug your 100 lb suit of plate mail onto the horse and charge with your lance. The military is multi-role, yes there are _specific_ roles that women would not perform as well in, but these are the minority. The bulk of today's military is actually NOT in the infantry and not in the foot soldier. Surprised? It's called technology, something that you don't need to lift 75 lbs over 20 miles to be able to use. It's also very convenient to ignore and hide real-world examples under your rabid patriotism. Tell me again why a missile operator, tank driver, bomber pilot, ship's captain, intelligence officer, repair technician, needs to carry 75 lbs of gear for weeks at a time?<BR><BR>And speaking physical standards, women have more of the physical qualities desired to be a fighter pilot in today's world. They are lighter, smaller, have higher blood pressure and lower center of gravity (which equates to g-force resistance), than men. But you would certainly see this as a political plot by the feminist lobby...
User avatar
Gargoyle
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 851
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 1:00 am
Top

Postby dunadan » Fri Sep 29, 2000 8:03 am

Diamond:<BR><BR>Give me a break. At no time did I say that she MUST return to her husband. Reconcilliation is ALWAYS to be the goal. She may remain separated from her husband indefinately - but, she may not divorce or remarry. She made her choice of her own free will and must live by it. "What God has joined together let no man tear asunder." Again, the only cause for divorce is adultery - period.<BR><BR>I do not care how popular or unpopular Jesus's commands to us are. I don't doubt your faith or sincerity. BUT, God is not a cafeteria - one cannot pick and choose what one will or will not believe based on one's likes and dislikes. It is what it is and demands obedience. There are no "Ten Exceptions" to the "Ten Commandments".
User avatar
dunadan
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2000 8:44 am
Top

Postby Dan Mihm » Fri Sep 29, 2000 8:07 am

What's really scary here is the fundamentalist Christian dogma that is dominating this discussion. Please understand, those of you thumping books, that your own particular brand of religious righteousness BY DEFINITION cannot sustain us all. It cannot be right for everyone, nor even right for the most.<BR><BR>I deny any attempt at making our laws conform to your religious views. Even if our laws come near your moral code, every attempt must be made to separate public and medical policies from religious standards or language. I respect your right to believe what you will but I vehemently reject your cloying, non-representative, and wholly unscientific ---OR PROVEN-- religious claims as pertains to law. Even if I subsribe to your perfect happiness in your faith, and your right to practice it, I must equally denounce it's inclusion in ANY public discourse or policy making. Your Religion can never represent everyone and must be equally excluded from our decision making processes. <BR><BR>If you really want to know what I think---I think you have (those of you with Christian leanings) shown far too much critical aptitude, and respect for Natural Law and scientific facts, to be bamboozled by religion--yet here you are proving me wrong. Add this to the equation---no matter how convincing or reasoned your arguments--once the religion angle shows through I am forced to disregard your thought processes as irrational and only half-cooked. <BR><BR>Sorry. That's the honest truth and I don't think many people have the balls to say that, and religious people tend to run roughshod, subsequently, over the group at hand. Nobody likes to say Christianity is just another religion, with as much myth and hokum as any. That's why Beleg loses me everytime, no matter what nuggets of straight thinking he peppers his posts with. And if you want me to respect YOUR religion, then I have to respect all of them equally. And I do, but I will fight to the death to keep YOUR religion's agenda being supported to the exclusion of all others, and for those who do not subscribe to ANY.<BR><BR>For example, What if I really made sense (for most of what I said) until I mentioned I get my information from little green men on Mars? You'd dismiss me as hare-brained and everything else I say from then on. Well, now you know how I feel.<BR><BR>And it makes it impossible for me to agree with you, even if I agree with you. I don't think Christianity has a patent on truth or righteousness. Nor on reasonable behaviour. Christianity did not mint the behaviour of treating someone as you would wish to be treated, nor did it coin the action of honoring a parent. I believe in marriage as an institution, not as a religious requirement. I believe once such promises are made that we are obliged to honor them. If I got a girl pregnant as a youth I would have honored my obligation, whatever course was taken. I would AGREE with most of you on many more subjects than I would DISAGREE. <BR><BR>Unfortunately, your religion usually takes it many more notches past where I would go, then throws in MORAL FORCE to create ABSOLUTISM (and how can one religion absolutely be right for all?) and all of the social stigmatizing, and witchhunting, and ostracizing, and elitism and conformity that have been so well documented--wherever religion has been it's most powerful.<BR><BR>Equally as unfortunate, like Communism, religion is not evil as an entity....yet, when the additional command is issued "to spread Religion/Communism to all corners of the land" (usually kind of an afterthought proposition, don't U think? Communism stands alone as a theory and ideology, To Take Over The World probably was not an original ingredient of the recipe, but an after-act possibly added by marketing agents, not idealogues) That's what gets me, and corrupts any chance that someone pushing religion has any control over themselves, or restraint. No, they are commanded to save me in spite of myself, and that I will see the error of my ways, and that YES, I am in error. Oh yes, let there be no doubt, since I don't believe what you do....I am wrong. God has said so....<BR>
User avatar
Dan Mihm
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 980
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 8:57 am
Top

Postby Diamond of Long Cleeve » Fri Sep 29, 2000 8:23 am

My dear Dan -<BR><BR>Here's a thread about how feminism has gone too far, and you're surprised that conservative Christians turn up in it??!! They hate feminism as much as you do! <BR><BR>Dunadan -<BR><BR>My understanding of Matthew 19: 9 is that Jesus is saying that a person who divorces their partner for anything OTHER than adultery, commits adultery themselves if they marry again. Not that God likes divorce (hardly), but it is allowable in the case of adultery or serious sexual sin. It is remarriage which seems to be firmly forbidden. <BR><BR>Anyway, a good weekend to you all.<BR><BR>
User avatar
Diamond of Long Cleeve
Mariner

 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Postby dunadan » Fri Sep 29, 2000 10:20 am

Gargoyle:<BR><BR>"Let me guess Dunadan, did a woman beat you out for acceptance at West Point? Did you got stuck on that itty-bitty barb-wire when she crawled under it past you to victory?"<BR><BR>Nope. That's the whole point. They don't have to crawl under the barbed wire. They are allowed to run around it - as "proof" of their equality.<BR><BR>"The bulk of today's military is actually NOT in the infantry and not in the foot soldier. Surprised? It's called technology, something that you don't need to lift 75 lbs over 20 miles to be able to use. It's also very convenient to ignore and hide real-world examples under your rabid patriotism. Tell me again why a missile operator, tank driver, bomber pilot, ship's captain, intelligence officer, repair technician, needs to carry 75 lbs of gear for weeks at a time?" That Blackhawk pilot in Mogadishu became an infantryman real fast didn't he? The fact of the matter is that there are literally no jobs (except perhaps administration) which don't require physical strength. I'll give you an example: You're part of a Patriot battery. That's pretty hi-tech isn't it?The battery moves - it goes where its needed. If you are going to move, you're going to have to break down a lot of equipment in the field, secure it, set things up in the new location. You're going to set up tents, cammo netting, etc. That's done using a sledge hammer and large steel spikes. Most of that hi-tech equipment has to be manhandled into position. All that requires physical strength. Okay, you're a tank driver. Your track gets shot off. You carry extra links. The entire crew gets out and changes the track. Do know what they weigh? You DON'T wait for the battalion recovery vehicles to catch up with you because you're needed as soon as you can get your tank mobile. There are only four crew members in an M1 Abrams and each must pull their weight. In each of these real-world examples, either the girls sit back and let men do the hard work (how would you feel if you were one of those guys who gets stuck with the grunt work) or it doesn't get done.<BR><BR>The push-button war does not exist. The last time "technology" was supposed to win a war was Vietnam. There is no weapon we now have (laser-guided munitions for example) that we did not employ in Vietnam or was used somewhere by some other army. Before that, the atomic bomb was supposed to make the infantryman obsolete - then the low-tech North Koreans invaded the south. We fought poorly in Korea and Vietnam because we forgot how to fight - mainly because of our dependence on technology. Every time someone who doesn't know what they're talking about tells us that technology will save us, we are forced to engage in low-tech wars that we are unprepared for.<BR><BR>"And speaking physical standards, women have more of the physical qualities desired to be a fighter pilot in today's world. They are lighter, smaller, have higher blood pressure and lower center of gravity (which equates to g-force resistance), than men. But you would certainly see this as a political plot by the feminist lobby..."<BR><BR>Wrong again. Women are deficient in Spatial Orientation. They are more likely to lose track of what is "up", "down", "north", etc. When you're in a dog-fight, dodging, twisting, looping, it's usually a good thing if you can remember where "up" is. They are also shown (under actual conditions) to over-analyze. Lt. (jg) Kara Hultgren drove her Tomcat into the ocean (the engine was not at fault, she stalled it) in what has been called the worst carrier landing approach ever in the fleet. Kara Hultgren died because someone wanted to "prove" women are the equal of men and threw an inferior pilot into the cockpit of one the the world's most demanding aircraft - and we lost a $26 million aircraft to boot!
User avatar
dunadan
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2000 8:44 am
Top

Postby Sandy » Fri Sep 29, 2000 10:33 am

Dunadan said something that struck me... I won't try to quote him. Anyway, I think the Bible is _seriously_ open to interpretation, in a major way. <BR><BR>If the Bible was all cut & dry, we wouldn't need priests and preachers. <BR><BR><BR>On to the topic, anyway, there is definitely one thing that bugs me about any kind of prejudice (feminism, racism, or any other kind of ism). When all these people scream about equality of treatment and equality of opportunity, what they really want is favoritism for their side. <BR><BR>For example, there are all kinds of scholarships for minorities. Is there even a *single* scholarship for a white male? Not on your life. <BR><BR>Same thing at the workplace, especially government jobs. They have to have a certain quota of minorities and women. Who cares whether those people are qualified, or what the ratio is of people even IN those fields (say 99\% of the people who have chosen to work in a certain field are white men... why should an employer HAVE to hire a percentage based on the total populace ratio?)<BR><BR>I guess, to me, it comes down to the opinion that people who put forth the cry of prejudice are really much more prejudiced than the people they're fighting against.<BR><BR>Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>Sandy
User avatar
Sandy
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 7:30 am
Top

Postby dunadan » Fri Sep 29, 2000 10:44 am

Dan Mihm:<BR><BR>There can be no law without divine absolutes. Whether you like it or not, your view of what is right/wrong or permissible/forbidden is a product of Christianity.<BR><BR>Unless law appeals to higher power - GOD - it carries no authority over others other than the authority of force. The King's law travels with the King's muskets, as it were.<BR><BR>Why is it illegal for someone to blow your brains out? Because it's wrong. Secular law carries no authority over individuals. You said it yourself - no one has the right to impose their view of what is right or wrong on any other person in your view. You have no basis to do so because in your view of the cosmos, all religion is fake, and yet you are unable to enforce any kind of secular moral/value system because you deny any moral/value system for all. Don't tell me that "Everyone would be against murder". Nonsense, happens every day and lots of people would probably LIKE to do it every day.<BR><BR>Whether you like it or not Dan, your life is only worth the value I place on it as a moral absolute. In and of yourself you're worth nothing to me or anyone else who does not know you and care for you. It is only my GOD who places a value on your life for me.<BR><BR>Think about it.
User avatar
dunadan
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2000 8:44 am
Top

Postby Dan Mihm » Fri Sep 29, 2000 10:54 am

Diamond,<BR><BR>I would have to say that after being part of this forum, and I don't think before it, that I Hated Feminism. Has it gone too far? well, I would say it has but I don't hate it. I would say I dislike the radical elements and I detest the modern portrayal of it in the media. I am infuriated with the modern media incarnation of Feminism. Most of it's base elements, I am in support of.<BR><BR>No matter how much butt-kicking women do on TV or in ADS or on film, it does not make it real. I think it is dangerous to project it the way they do, and I think it is dangerous for girls to think like those commercials. And obviously, denegrating men and boys ruthlessly and constantly. <BR><BR>I will say that regardless of how base some men have behaved in decades gone by,,,,and regardless of how women were slighted, either blatantly or by insinuation,,,,that nothing equals the 24-7 man bashing occurring in all media outlets for impact and Social trauma. Yes, it may take another 20 years of it to equal centuries of old-style woman bashing, but that should not be our goal as a society, nor as a woman's yardstick with which to measure by. I would hope that women are as smart as they claim to be, and realize that pay-back gets you nowhere. For those women who never tasted real subjugation, to go on a 30 year vendetta against men who never bore the power to subjugate, is a travesty and a mockery of true revenge. And if we are to swing from one side to the other, always, like a pendulum...then we will never achieve equality or peace. The pieces are set now to enable and empower women. Women should be winning hard earned respect by taking advantage of the new playing field, not living off of fantasy-male-butt-kicking images that have yet to come to pass, and may not ever.<BR><BR>What do y'all think?<BR>
User avatar
Dan Mihm
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 980
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 8:57 am
Top

Postby Dan Mihm » Fri Sep 29, 2000 11:15 am

Too bad for you Dunadan, and the muddy only gets muddier. Perhaps someday your blinders will come off. You are a slave to something that has no more proof than little green men on mars. And if your god thinks a whole world would bow to his judgements without ever proving himself then he overestimated. You should stick to theology because your reliance on facts is blown up everytime you lean on your god. Leave the facts alone, please, because you taint them with you faith. And that no law carries weight without God is your own invention or regurgitation, not a fact. It sounds good to you , is all. <BR><BR>Do you believe a moral code only sprang into existence when your sect arose? Believe me, they existed before your kind and they will exist after you are gone. ALso, your moral code or force is only representative of who taught you. I can't vouch for who tutored you, or what twisted version they spoonfed you...you are not at the font of your faith, you are at the end of it. And i cannot accept your word on the matter, that you understand all mysteries, and are the keeper of the One Truth. Rather foolish of you to even claim that, don't you think? Humility and modesty might serve us better in the face of the unknown.
User avatar
Dan Mihm
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 980
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 8:57 am
Top

Postby Gargoyle » Fri Sep 29, 2000 11:45 am

I agree with you Dan, about the media's horrible use of men as convenient targets for falsely empowering women. But what am I to do, if I mention that aloud then I get denied sex...I want to stand up for my fellow men, but I need my cuddlin' time too! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><BR><BR>Dunadan,<BR><BR>So, based on your pilot's example, do you think she's the first person to ever ditch a carrier approach? That there is only ONE example of a woman failing at that (where many many men throughout the last 50 years have destroyed _hundreds_ of aircraft in carrier mishaps) would suggest to me that no problem exists. It sounds like a classic case of _individual_ pilot error. Awfully kind of you to apply a single person's mishap to cast judgement on the abilities of 3 billion women. Perhaps it's men that are unfit for carrier service, based on the statistics?<BR><BR>Yes, physical training standards for women are lowered...as they should be! But you seem to be painting the picture that women are somehow exempt from all training? That when they get to the field it is ok for them to not perform? If your tank tread example happened in real life, the woman would be disciplined for failure to perform her duty (by standing back and letting everyone else work), and the tank commander would be disciplined for allowing this to happen. If she couldn't perform, she wouldn't be in that tank. I know military women, and the ones I know would be the first ones outside that tank to be fixing the tread (and are able to carry just as much weight as the men, these are seriously tough girls).<BR><BR>It is interesting how you seem to believe that if a woman fails at something it is solely because of her sex, yet if a man fails at something it is for other reasons the last of which would be his sex.<BR><BR>
User avatar
Gargoyle
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 851
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 1:00 am
Top

Postby peregin2k » Fri Sep 29, 2000 1:44 pm

Dan,<BR>Have you considered that some of those people who wrote or did those male bashing commercials are men themselves? Or do you think they're all gay for doing that? (I haven't written any of those, yet, but I'll take into consideration what you said and try to convince my client that it ain't right. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> ) It takes a long process to make an ad, you might not like what the client wants you to do, but you have do it. Do you think companies care what you think? No! They're after the products image or how it relates to the consumer. Which brings me back to the Midol commercial you cited, they don't care what men think, they're just after their women clientle. You're not the target market.
User avatar
peregin2k
Mariner

 
Posts: 7147
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:53 pm
Top

Postby dunadan » Mon Oct 02, 2000 6:14 am

Dan Mihm:<BR><BR>Okay, you are right. We're all dummies. Now, answer the question.<BR><BR>The fact of the matter is, no matter how much you rant irrationally about religion, you still refuse to answer the question. I suppose because you've painted yourself into a corner and, like the guy who does so literally, you're looking for a way out without stepping on fresh paint.<BR><BR>Where do we get law and by what right is it enforced? Oh, by the way geneticists have determined all homo sapiens are descended from ONE female - they call her Eve.
User avatar
dunadan
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2000 8:44 am
Top

Postby dunadan » Mon Oct 02, 2000 6:19 am

Diamond:<BR><BR>You might try a Living Bible or other modern language translation. Jesus states that, replying to pharasees, that adultery is the only accepted reason for "putting away" one's wife. If you divorce for any other reason and re-marry, you have committed adultery. Also, anyone divorced (thus guilty of adultery) is also denied remarriage.
User avatar
dunadan
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2000 8:44 am
Top

Postby Diamond of Long Cleeve » Mon Oct 02, 2000 6:27 am

Dunadan, that's basically what I was getting at. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Diamond of Long Cleeve
Mariner

 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Postby Dan Mihm » Mon Oct 02, 2000 9:25 am

Dunadan, you are making up an argument. Who cares, you? Just because you say law comes only from the divine does not make it so. The Law of the Jungle is the only one I hold as immutable. So there. A totally godless and sane policy. Your question can also go easily without an answer, and still prove you nothing. Natural Law. Man roamed the land for hundreds of thousands of years with no other law. Then, it was possible that interaction and social forces allowed for whatever rules they saw best. If it was perverted into something someone proclaimed GOD whispered in their ears, so much the worse for us! Now we have somone's GOD on their side. What silliness. Dunadan, if all you've got is bluster from the bible, you may be in the majority in this country and a few others. Doesn't mean it's true, in fact most of the world does not believe it's true, and a great many millions of people think basing your world view of today on old stories and fables is silly.<BR><BR>Let me rephrase that... I don't care what you base your world view on, for example a Curious George book. Be about as smart. But people like you don't stop there Dunadan, you make everyone elses business, your business. You decide to take charge of what is right or wrong, based on your fable-system, and judge all others. ANd as usual, you ignore most of your faith's doctrines while doing so. (such as running over people, uncharitable attitudes, and slash and burn arguments which eviscerate instead of edifying) <BR><BR>I'll tell you what, much of your martial diatribe here has reminded me of some grizzled vet saying who he'd rather be in a fox-hole with when hell breaks loose.....I'll take a rational person with an open mind and eyes that see anyday over someone spouting Job at me and who can't remember what century it is. Someone a thousand years from now talking about the wisdom of the ancients, and getting his text from a tattered and age0old Spiderman comic would resemble your version of Divine Law, Dunadan.<BR><BR>If God is up there, he will find a way to enforce his laws, I'm sure. If he needed your help, Dunadan, I think I would have read about it in the papers. Now I'm betting that he ain't up there, and I'm telling you that I think it's a bunch of bunk. You have no idea how much I respect your right to believe what you want. But you REALLY have no idea how much i will deny your right to spew that stuff out as the basis for law and how we conduct ourselves. I may think your religion is so much fluff when you practise it in you home, I feel that times 1000 when you try to make it the public's guidebook. Bottom-line, without trying to be mean, I have to categorize you and yours as crackpots. You believe the wackiest things, and will fight to the death over them (or destroy those in your way to prove your righteousness, a very christian thing to do). You have no proof, no demonstrable theories, and no recent events of merit that would convince even the most gullible. hint hint<BR><BR>I look back at this post of mine---I don't know what to say. It is like arguing with a wall, I know. But just for once, try to look at somone like me with a little understanding.....and realize how hard it is for us to take religious people seriously. It is very much like my comic book example above. One guy is yelling about what's in his book, another guy is telling me I'm doomed, according to his book...where is there anything concrete? Not that I'm in the market, thank you...but jsut because "it is written" does not make it so. In fact, what if I took a very literal interpretation of Tolkien and started professing it as the One True Faith? Very appealing to me, Really, and as long as I slash some throats in True Believer fashion, I could gain some notoriety (and therefore validation) and we could get a new sect rolling.<BR><BR>Just want you to know Dunadan, that we can talk and argue about anything, until the religion stuff comes in...then you are on your own because I won't dabble in that, nor let that make up the meat of a discussion. Your opinions and fable-religion are irrelevant in the forum of public debate here in the US, a country with the wise provision of keeping just such moralistic flim-flammery from deciding our public policy. You and Beleg can chew that all you want, but your Moral Force is a story from a book, no more.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
User avatar
Dan Mihm
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 980
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 8:57 am
Top

Postby Dan Mihm » Mon Oct 02, 2000 9:45 am

And yes, Peregrine 2k, I certainly do recognize that many men are helping with the popularized version of man-bashing. As I've said before, I seeit as a modern incarnation of feminism, or a wholly separate "Man-Bashing because it's fun, acceptable, and chic" policy, rather than recognizing it as the Feminist Agenda. I don't really think the feminist party is somewhere running all media ads. And I think that a lot of what Feminists originally wanted through this century was OK stuff. <BR><BR>But, not as many men run these media outlets as you think, and not as many as some would propose. It's easy to say, "Yeah, it's still old men smoking cigars in a back room" but it's not that cut and dried. Women are everywhere, plenty of them are making these decisions, and NO I do not think all men making them are gay. Never crossed my mind except that the gay public has as much to gain as any minority group by wholesale bashing of White Male Society. But also, P2k, if men are behind a lot of it--it wouldn't be the first time that ad guys sold out a personal belief to sell a product. Doesn't suprprise you, does it?<BR><BR>Also, just because I am not the Target Audience in the Mido commercial doesn't make it OK. It was not OK to subjugate women for a men's product was (or is) it?<BR>
User avatar
Dan Mihm
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 980
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 8:57 am
Top

Postby Tempest » Mon Oct 02, 2000 9:46 am

How do you know that it's just a story? Can you prove it? Or as Huxley said, are you, like he, just an atheist because it allows you to do whatever you want?
User avatar
Tempest
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:12 am
Location: Wandering in the wilds
Top

Postby dunadan » Mon Oct 02, 2000 12:08 pm

Dan Mihm:<BR><BR>You're soooo funny when you get mad. Unless you really meant the law of the jungle as the only basis for law, you still haven't answered my question.<BR><BR>Okay, I've opened my mind to you. Convince me of your point of view. Why shouldn't person A rob person B at gunpoint and then kill person B to prevent reciprocation? We do live in a civil society and I presume you want there to be rules, not only for others but for your own family's sake.
User avatar
dunadan
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2000 8:44 am
Top

Postby dunadan » Mon Oct 02, 2000 12:12 pm

Diamond:<BR><BR>Well then, what's the question? 1) Divorce is banned except... 2) Adultery. 3) If someone is divorced, that party cannot marry again.
User avatar
dunadan
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2000 8:44 am
Top

Postby Dan Mihm » Mon Oct 02, 2000 12:16 pm

Tempest--the truth of what happenned those many years ago is irrelevant. Because Christianity, in no form, follows what exactly happened or by whom, or where. Christianity, as proposed to a person of this century, gets a hundred different versions, all from different sects that have different spins on almost every conceivable angle of articles of faith. Modern religious dogma hardly matches what the first evangelists had to say. And Christian co-opting of the old-testament is reviled amongst those religions who still cling only to the pre-christian texts.<BR><BR>All the more ridiculous, then, to try to rub my nose, and make me bow down to whatever STORY you or Dunadan would feed me. You don't even know how twisted and corrupt it is compared to the Truth, so why should I believe you or worse yet---feel bad? I feel bad for you, not for my actions. I feel like you are duped and theres no amount of talk or slapping is gonna bring you around. You have no idea the depth of the truth, how many translations, how many papal edicts there were to change wordings, how many Lutheran or Greek or Unitarian twistings of the basics that have occurred since THE EVENTS took place. I have no problem thinking that Jesus existed, or that he was a wonderful person. I have no problem thinking he caused an uprising of sorts. Ever heard of the Ghost Dance, of the Sioux Peoples? Now there's a Messianic message delivered to a hopelessly persecuted people who saw no end in sight to their subjugation, and how fervently some of them clung to it as a last hope.<BR><BR>For you to say, and I've read Huxley BTW, that I'm just getting out of my Moral obligations by claiming atheism is too snooty. First, it claims you know better what my obligations are, its saying that you are honoring yours like a good little boy, and that I am not honoring mine. Where do you get off? And all because I don't believe your little fairy-tale? Well, you don't believe mine, therefore I dub you evil and a wastrel and a detriment to society. How do you like it? Understandably, you and yours would love a monopoly on Morality. And is it so surprising? The God's On Our Side Crowd has been pulling that crap for uncounted centuries. It's second nature. And it certainly is not true.<BR><BR>It's in our blood, to ascribe that which we do not understand to other powers. And so easy to bait people with Eternal Life and scare them with "if you speak a word against it, God will strike you down, and take your name off the list" Cripes, what a racket. You've got them coming and going. "Your Eternal soul is at risk!" "Believe or Die!" "Do not blaspheme against Him!" "Proof! You ask for Proof! Surety you crave? The Lord gives none!" What a perfect shell game, and all the time you never have to cough up the proof. And then Tempest, you have the audacity to put the onus on me to prove that THE STORY never happened. It's hard enough to prove something DID happen (as Christians are well aware...) and only someone in your shoes would ask someone to prove something DIDN'T happen. (Prove to me that I didn't open this book sitting next to me. You could prove that I DID open a book (fingerprints, hair samples, skin cells, etc), but you can't prove that I DIDN'T open a book) <BR><BR>I would think with all the promises you people make, that it would behoove YOU to secure proofs. You're the ones making the claims and telling the Big Lie. I would think proof would be a devastating marketing tool for you. Maybe you should come up with some.
User avatar
Dan Mihm
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 980
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 8:57 am
Top

Postby Dan Mihm » Mon Oct 02, 2000 12:32 pm

Dunadan, you are not the question POSER here. If you don't find my answers satisfying, then too bad. You don't make rules or see that others follow them, understand? I tried to answer, and if that isn't up your alley, then it's YOUR PROBLEM.<BR><BR>BTW, whatever led you to believe there was another set of Laws other than the Jungle's? Or that any other had prevailed but momentarily?<BR><BR>Your inane question would not lead us any farther, no matter what my answer (which I have given). I have been able to come to grips with what is Good and Bad without god's help, thank you very much. And your telling me that my value system has been impacted by god is insupportable, no matter to what degree it is true. I would be a product, to some degree, of whatever environment I was raised in.<BR><BR>There are Amazonian tribes which never had the Gospel brought to them. Do they deserve Heaven? Who was to come advise them of their options? Have all of their untutored generations since Christ earned Hell for their ignorance? Has right and wrong been in a state of suspension until YOU show up to teach them better? Do you negate their values of right and wrong simply becasue there were no clever, ambitious missionaries skilled in the use of a long-prop dugout? Here is my last attempt. I have tried to answer. Move on to another point, answer some of mine, or stand the risk of being labelled an addle-brain by me... a broken record. You're obviously waiting to pounce on anything I say about Law and claim GOD is at the core, whether I will it or no, so let's cut the suspense and move on...
User avatar
Dan Mihm
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 980
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 8:57 am
Top

Postby Monk » Mon Oct 02, 2000 3:47 pm

All right you two....if you can't get along, I'm going to have to separate you.<BR><BR> Keep Smiling<BR> The Monk
User avatar
Monk
Shield Bearer
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 7:05 am
Top

Postby Tempest » Mon Oct 02, 2000 4:20 pm

Um, Dan, I'm sorry if I came out antagonistic, because I really don't want to sound that way. Besides, since I hardly ever post on these threads, you don't really even know what I believe. I wish that you would not group me with other people who disagree with you, without knowing where I stand first. <BR><BR>As for proof, you're right. You cannot exactly prove the Bible. However, the same can be said about History. All the ancient texts are our only witnesses to what happened in the past. If you're going to denounce the accounts in the Bible on those grounds, you will have to discount many other historical writings, who have fewer copies and translations.
User avatar
Tempest
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:12 am
Location: Wandering in the wilds
Top

Postby plunge » Mon Oct 02, 2000 5:03 pm

At least in the study of history people are actually trying to discover things about the past without any real vested interest in what they discover. Its a real process of intellectual exploration that doesn't set out trying to prove a doctrine is true, and ignoring everything that contradicts it. <BR>The Bible is pretty much an advertisement for itself. People researching it for relgious purposes are only concerned with finding things that support their own previously held opinions about what the Bible says is true.
User avatar
plunge
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2000 4:23 pm
Top

Postby Tempest » Mon Oct 02, 2000 5:10 pm

That's not entirely true. Many historians were writing history from a specific, and often biased, point of view. I submit that what we know of history would be vastly different if peasants had been writing instead of wealthy scholars.
User avatar
Tempest
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:12 am
Location: Wandering in the wilds
Top

Postby Slaine » Mon Oct 02, 2000 5:26 pm

Ww, like what?
User avatar
Slaine
Rider of the Mark
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 4:30 pm
Top

Postby peregin2k » Mon Oct 02, 2000 5:58 pm

Peasants would write it similar to the wealthy scholars cause the wealthy scholars would be paying them to write it. Remember peasants at that time, can't read and write, and wouldn't care less to write something with regards to history, when they are out there in the fields trying to support their family. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>
User avatar
peregin2k
Mariner

 
Posts: 7147
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:53 pm
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron