Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:I believe men are more dominant because

1)men are physically stronger than women,
and
2)men are intellectually superior to women

When my wife gets a superiority complex, I usually just club her over the head, and then drag her, by her hair, back into the cave. Where she should be making me a sammich.

I am afraid, Rick is speaking in an unknown tongue. So for your all’s benefit, let me give you the proper interpretation:

"I believe men are more dominant because

1)men are physically stronger than women,

And

2)men are jealous of women’s intellectual superiority

So

3)men must act stronger than women

When my wife superior intellect see’s me loafing about, She sometimes clubs me over the head with that ol’ frying pan, and nags me out of my man cave, telling me to take out the trash or else I have to make my own sammich…"
-
-
-

B.W., have you been spying on me? How did you know exactly what happened at my house?

RickD wrote:B.W., have you been spying on me? How did you know exactly what happened at my house?

I had the interpretation!

Ivellious wrote:Just glancing through the Florida State article, I found some serious flaws in his logic (especially in the area of economics). He also makes a few claims that seem a little absurd and a few that are completely opinions, not based in historical fact (for instance, his explanation of why killing women and children is considered worse than killing men and how that concept emerged is ludicrous). He also "cites" statistics that he obviously is making up on the spot, and I found several quick references to discredit some of his claims. He basically tries to spin everything to say that "actually, men have it way worse than women, so shut up and let us do our thing." Also, he kind of doesn't understand evolutionary theory. He kind of butchers its basic principles to make a point.

Not all that impressed. His very first point is valid, that high risk-taking has favored men throughout history...but after that it falls flat. And even that point can rather easily be countered by saying that women simply haven't been allowed to take "risks" throughout history.

Well, this just goes to show and maybe even prove something. Not to be particularly offensive to you, but you are indeed a women and you've read the article with such a narrow scope, you've missed some critical ideas.

Women have extremely high value. Think about that for a second. Especially many years back.

Your counter to his point is absurd and completely void of economic reasoning and void of any military strategy. If we were both running countries, and we were at war. You wouldn't be serious in sending all your women to the battlefield, would you? I would simply wipe you out, and I wouldn't even need to invade you. I would only need to wait for all the men you harbored to simply die and walk in uncontested.

It has nothing to do with women simply haven't been allowed to take risks. It just simply is IGNORANT for a society to allow such a thing because it could severely hinder their economic output.

Ancient wars were fought, and when ones side won, why didn't they also kill the women and young girls? Because they are economically valuable, that's why.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend? I mean, on top of that men have been proven to be ahead of the curve in some aspects, while women have proven to be ahead of the curve in other aspects.

Ummmm...I have to burst your bubble, man...I am most certainly male haha...

I understand your point, but that logic doesn't fly today. Treating women like prizes to be won is simply objectification. It may have been necessary to some degree in war, but even in other aspects, women were objects and property of their husband. I'm not saying they should have risked their lives in war, but for centuries women were treated as inferior, that's why men took the risks. Women weren't allowed to have jobs, run for office, make money, own land...I mean, those are some steep inhibitors when it comes to getting ahead. Of course men were the greatest contributors...because they were the only ones allowed to. My point was that to say that men took all the risks, so they deserved the rewards is totally forgetting the fact that even at the most basic levels men did not allow women to do anything to deserve a reward (other than raising and birthing kids).

I wasn't talking about simply military, I was going for a much more basic day-to-day scope.

Ivellious wrote:Ummmm...I have to burst your bubble, man...I am most certainly male haha...

I understand your point, but that logic doesn't fly today. Treating women like prizes to be won is simply objectification. It may have been necessary to some degree in war, but even in other aspects, women were objects and property of their husband. I'm not saying they should have risked their lives in war, but for centuries women were treated as inferior, that's why men took the risks. Women weren't allowed to have jobs, run for office, make money, own land...I mean, those are some steep inhibitors when it comes to getting ahead. Of course men were the greatest contributors...because they were the only ones allowed to. My point was that to say that men took all the risks, so they deserved the rewards is totally forgetting the fact that even at the most basic levels men did not allow women to do anything to deserve a reward (other than raising and birthing kids).

I wasn't talking about simply military, I was going for a much more basic day-to-day scope.

Haha, oh my, you totally had me in thinking you were a women! Should have asked! You were convincing though. No offense.

Also, treating women in an objectable way isn't at all analogous to saying they have high value. In fact, saying its objectifying is extremely aggressive language. You still don't get the point I am making in fact. Women were not treated inferior. They are simply a high commodity for economic growth. If you took risks with your women, you risked your civilization from continuing. Plain and simple.

It is in this way that it supports evolutionary theory if you believe that. I don't for obvious reasons.

Women, as far as I can tell you are prized. Its highly complementary. I don't know any women who doesn't want to be cherished and in safety. Its simply objective to allow men to be the risk takers.

I mean, I don't suppose you have the coordinates to paridise island, do you? Not even paradise island took risks. Even they made sense of this concept. Heck, they were amazonian and had advanced technology, but they still understood where they stood best in society. Hahahaha.

Well, again, I'm not saying your point about the past isn't valid (except the part about social Darwinism...which most people who believe in evolution that I know of consider to be more philosophical and psychological than the biological theory of evolution). My point is, in the article, using that point as a rationale for why men had it harder isn't valid because it neglects to consider the reasons for it being that way and also fails to consider how women were treated as "highly valuable second class citizens", to be blunt.

I don't take too much offense to you calling me a woman haha. I had lots of female friends in high school (like, just friends who I hung out with the most, nothing implied there) and I guess I tend to communicate with girls better than guys in many contexts. I'm still hyper-competitive and have lots of male tendencies, but my way of thinking and writing has been said to be "like a girl" in the past, so I understand.

I'm not really part of the feminist movement or anything, but I think the attitudes of old which were used against women or to put women in certain roles (and keep them out of others) should stay in the past. I'm a firm believer in total gender equality across all spectrums, and I just thought the posted article appealed way too much to false arguments and opinions rather than anything worth saying, and that it had a negative undertone of "Women should just shut up about inequality because men have it SO much worse, trust me."

domokunrox wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Ummmm...I have to burst your bubble, man...I am most certainly male haha...

I understand your point, but that logic doesn't fly today. Treating women like prizes to be won is simply objectification. It may have been necessary to some degree in war, but even in other aspects, women were objects and property of their husband. I'm not saying they should have risked their lives in war, but for centuries women were treated as inferior, that's why men took the risks. Women weren't allowed to have jobs, run for office, make money, own land...I mean, those are some steep inhibitors when it comes to getting ahead. Of course men were the greatest contributors...because they were the only ones allowed to. My point was that to say that men took all the risks, so they deserved the rewards is totally forgetting the fact that even at the most basic levels men did not allow women to do anything to deserve a reward (other than raising and birthing kids).

I wasn't talking about simply military, I was going for a much more basic day-to-day scope.

Haha, oh my, you totally had me in thinking you were a women! Should have asked! You were convincing though. No offense.

Also, treating women in an objectable way isn't at all analogous to saying they have high value. In fact, saying its objectifying is extremely aggressive language. You still don't get the point I am making in fact. Women were not treated inferior. They are simply a high commodity for economic growth. If you took risks with your women, you risked your civilization from continuing. Plain and simple.

It is in this way that it supports evolutionary theory if you believe that. I don't for obvious reasons.

Women, as far as I can tell you are prized. Its highly complementary. I don't know any women who doesn't want to be cherished and in safety. Its simply objective to allow men to be the risk takers.

I mean, I don't suppose you have the coordinates to paridise island, do you? Not even paradise island took risks. Even they made sense of this concept. Heck, they were amazonian and had advanced technology, but they still understood where they stood best in society. Hahahaha.

Well, I am a woman. And I'd like to say that I don't like being thought of as just a "tool" for economy. And feeling safe? You'd be surprised about how many women can take care of themselves just fine. You know many of those young men in the civil war? Those were women. And to hell if I'm going to let some man think of me as a "prize" or "trophy". High value? Am I a prized animal? You gonna butcher me and sell my meat when you no longer need my "services"? You know, it takes both a man and a woman to make a baby, so it's just as risky for men to die as it is for women.

Ivellious,

The article is invalid because it fails to do what? Fails to reason and consider the treatment of women? I doubt the article hasn't done either one. Are you sure you're not confused with the article just disagreeing with your position?

Tina,

I would just tone down on the rhetoric. I wouldn't be too proud of women in the civil war. Are you talking about the non-combatants? Nurses, spies, and the occasional medics, drummers, horn players, flag bearers. The spies were not just any regular spies. They were romantic spies who fornicated with opposing ranking officers.

Also, its speculated that most of the women combatants were fighting for the confederate army
I mean, never mind the fact that there is no confirmation on how many women did engage in combat. The participation of women in the civil war is so irrelevant compared to the amount of men who fought and actually made and an impact on its outcome.

So, why can't a man think of you as valuable? Do you not have value?
Nobody is going to butcher you up, ok. Men are not Jeff Dalmer's, ok? Calm down.

And you're not serious about the whole birth risk thing compared to risks men take, are you?
Child birth isn't the risk it used to be now that men have advanced the process to make it safer.

I find it utterly laughable that you want to compare it to occupational hazards men exclusively do. I eagerly await for you to show me how many women are lumberjacks, roughnecks, hunt dangerous wildlife, etc.

And I am not saying any of this to be a jerk, but seriously take a step back and recognize that men have accomplished amazing feats and continue to maintain modern society today. Men are not particular proud of their feats. They just do what they need to do to make life easier for us all.

However, from your rhetoric, you approach the feats of women with a puffed chest and waving your fist at men. Just a simple reminder. There's no pride allowed in heaven. Let's get that sorted out.

Tina wrote:

domokunrox wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Ummmm...I have to burst your bubble, man...I am most certainly male haha...

I understand your point, but that logic doesn't fly today. Treating women like prizes to be won is simply objectification. It may have been necessary to some degree in war, but even in other aspects, women were objects and property of their husband. I'm not saying they should have risked their lives in war, but for centuries women were treated as inferior, that's why men took the risks. Women weren't allowed to have jobs, run for office, make money, own land...I mean, those are some steep inhibitors when it comes to getting ahead. Of course men were the greatest contributors...because they were the only ones allowed to. My point was that to say that men took all the risks, so they deserved the rewards is totally forgetting the fact that even at the most basic levels men did not allow women to do anything to deserve a reward (other than raising and birthing kids).

I wasn't talking about simply military, I was going for a much more basic day-to-day scope.

Haha, oh my, you totally had me in thinking you were a women! Should have asked! You were convincing though. No offense.

Also, treating women in an objectable way isn't at all analogous to saying they have high value. In fact, saying its objectifying is extremely aggressive language. You still don't get the point I am making in fact. Women were not treated inferior. They are simply a high commodity for economic growth. If you took risks with your women, you risked your civilization from continuing. Plain and simple.

It is in this way that it supports evolutionary theory if you believe that. I don't for obvious reasons.

Women, as far as I can tell you are prized. Its highly complementary. I don't know any women who doesn't want to be cherished and in safety. Its simply objective to allow men to be the risk takers.

I mean, I don't suppose you have the coordinates to paridise island, do you? Not even paradise island took risks. Even they made sense of this concept. Heck, they were amazonian and had advanced technology, but they still understood where they stood best in society. Hahahaha.

Well, I am a woman. And I'd like to say that I don't like being thought of as just a "tool" for economy. And feeling safe? You'd be surprised about how many women can take care of themselves just fine. You know many of those young men in the civil war? Those were women. And to hell if I'm going to let some man think of me as a "prize" or "trophy". High value? Am I a prized animal? You gonna butcher me and sell my meat when you no longer need my "services"? You know, it takes both a man and a woman to make a baby, so it's just as risky for men to die as it is for women.

Should I be smiling? Especially the butcher remark...

Tina wrote: Or the couple could just compromise and make decisions together like a healthy relationship should. Lay out options, elimate the ones disagreed upon. A relationship is not man-90% woman-10%...a relationship is not even 50/50- it is more like 30/70 one day or 60/40 another day and so on. A real relationship involves "give and take" to consider the happiness of the relationship and each individual

THIS. As a woman myself, I want our relationship to be just that - a relationship, where we are partners, not "the leader and the follower". If we're talking about the relationship of God and humanity, THEN it takes a leader/follower pattern, but not between two equally sinful and fallible human beings, just because one has a Y chromosome and the other has another X. I don't want to be bossed around, but neither do I want to boss around my husband.

Yeah I'm off-topic from where you were but I had to comment.

(NASB)1 Timothy 2:9-15
Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, [10] but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. [11] A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. [12] But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. [13] For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. [14] And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. [15] But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

Oh, here I am off the chain, again.

So, to paraphrase the Bible: "Women should just shut up and have children because that is the only reason they are allowed to exist. They should not expect anything better than subservience because they are inferior beings to men."

Ivellious wrote:So, to paraphrase the Bible: "Women should just shut up and have children because that is the only reason they are allowed to exist. They should not expect anything better than subservience because they are inferior beings to men."

I think you are paraphrasing the Koran, above. Read the sura entitled Women; you've done a good job distilling it down to its essence.

FL

What kind of an argument is that, FL? I've made it clear on here before that I don't agree with Islam's scripture on women either. I was only referring to the Bible. If you want to debate the literal passage quoted by domo, go ahead. It seems damn clear to me, and I just shortened it up a bit.