What qualifies a man to talk about an issue like feminism?

@spendius,

If everyone is perfect, they didn't need us, but people aren't that way, and even an idiot should receive help when they are seeking it. Information on many of these topics are available online, but typing any of them up in Google will get a student too much info to process, when many times they need only some specific information. That is why having people they can go to who have much of that info pre-sorted is useful. Additionally, talking to peers usually was easier for students. Even if a student was going to talk to a doctor or nurse after, they'd use the Wellness Educator to get basic questions answered and sometimes even rehearse what they needed to ask (some are shy).

Advice to me is not going to matter. I'm not in college anymore. That was just one of the many jobs I did while I was there.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

even an idiot should receive help when they are seeking it.

That's a surprising thing for a Darwinian to say. You are a Darwinian evolutionist aren't you TK. I thought they kicked sand at weaklings to reduce their chances of impressing the opposite sex in the interests of perfecting the species.

It does rather expose to view the real reason for attacking the Christian religion. The scientific reasons are not on the liberal agenda truth to tell. It's the Christian condemnation of certain sexual practices which is the real target. Evolution theory has nothing to do with it. It is nothing other than a club to beat people who are not very interested in science with.

It's just the same with making it "easier for students". Students are supposed to be challenged.

I think you're a bit confused TK like all the anti-IDers.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

That's a surprising thing for a Darwinian to say. You are a Darwinian evolutionist aren't you TK. I thought they kicked sand at weaklings to reduce their chances of impressing the opposite sex in the interests of perfecting the species.

Just because someone believes that the origin of species was the product of evolutions and the concept of survival of the fittest does not mean that they want to live by this principle.

Acceptance of evolution is to accept history, not necessarily to sanction it as a moral code.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Just because someone believes that the origin of species was the product of evolutions and the concept of survival of the fittest does not mean that they want to live by this principle.

But you must remember Bob that the argument over on the evolution threads is mainly about teaching it to under 18s and to 50 million of them some of whom will have IQs in the 140+ range and can be expected therefore to expose themselves to certain writers (Freud and Reich say) in the future. And to be ambitious and end up in influential positions where moral codes are somewhat different than those of us lesser mortals.

I have thought all the five years of my time on those threads that my opponents were not Darwinists. That they were Christianty bashers for profoundly unscientific reasons. And with no suggestions as to what to replace it with when they've bashed it.

My claim to be the only Darwinist over there still stands. In fact that is the main reason for my support of Christianity and why the anti-IDers simply refuse to discuss the social consequences of their policy. And also why they refuse to discuss the science of feelings and emotions and psychosomatic effects in human beings.

It logically follows that they wish to institute a dramatic change to a nation's educational system for purely personal and emotional reasons connected to the general liberal agenda which is what they are really promoting. That explains why when I broach those important matters I am greeted with insults and invective, admittedly of a simple order.

Not only am I the only Darwinist over there but I'm the only scientist as well. And the only one not a troll.

I consider that some sentences within a post constitute trolling and not simply the whole post. Anyway--it must be trolling on a science thread to be bringing personal feelings into the matter. Without the slightest doubt. I put my personal feelings to one side when I sit at the A2K Science table. And even then I wouldn't claim they couldn't be detected by a nifty trickcyclist.

But they wear their's on their sleeves.

0 Replies

As Robert already pointed out, believing in Evolution is a matter of history, and not of moral code. Having said that, even if it was a moral code, you've again illustrated the shallow depth of your understanding of its drivers.

Evolutionary survival has nothing to do with weakness. Evolutionary survival has nothing to intelligence either. Their are plenty of dumb and weak animals. Evolution is not about the survival of the strongest, but the FITTEST.

What you perceive as a dumb student undeserving of assistance, is still a person that fits the environment because they were able to identify the Student Health Dept. as a place they could acquire what they need.

So even if evolution survival of the fittest was some moral code (which it isn't), you'd still be wrong here. The non-sense in your subtext is that to accept ideas like charity and community, one must reject evolution. This is once again, logically false.

In plain terms, this has nothing to do with evolution.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Evolutionary survival has nothing to do with weakness.

We all know that TK. Weakness doesn't evolve. Evolution is about what does evolve.

Quote:

Evolutionary survival has nothing to intelligence either.

I can understand you holding such a view TK but I'm afraid it isn't true.

Quote:

Their are plenty of dumb and weak animals.

Name me one. As a species I mean. Not some cat up a tree.

Quote:

Evolution is not about the survival of the strongest, but the FITTEST.

You should try not to insult our intelligence quite so insultingly as that.

Quote:

What you perceive as a dumb student undeserving of assistance, is still a person that fits the environment because they were able to identify the Student Health Dept. as a place they could acquire what they need.

You mean a salvation seeker of your version of salvation I presume.

Quote:

The non-sense in your subtext is that to accept ideas like charity and community, one must reject evolution.

That simply proves you can't read except maybe if reading is defined as printed words passing your eyes for reasons unconnected with their meaning. I do reject evolution you silly moo. It is you evolutionists who have no reason to be charitable or imbued with community spirit unless you are going into social evolution in which case Christianity pisses all over everything else. So far.

Quote:

As Robert already pointed out, believing in Evolution is a matter of history, and not of moral code. Having said that, even if it was a moral code, you've again illustrated the shallow depth of your understanding of its drivers.

Has Bob relied on an assertion like "shallow" yet. You don't want to be seen positing a position on one of your infantile assertions TK. Intelligent people will guffaw if they are honest at that sort of thing.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Their are plenty of dumb and weak animals.
Name me one. As a species I mean. Not some cat up a tree.

Earthworm.

Pay up.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

You must be kidding TK. They can burrow through concrete. And eat your yard in a few months and turn it into earthworm ****. There's thousands of billions of the buggers. And they can survive being chopped in half.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Actually earthworms can't borrow through concrete. They can only squeeze through cracks created by other sources. The ability to eat a yard en masse doesn't describe strength. Great numbers doesn't describe strength either.

You didn't successfully describe strength or intelligence as to why they survive.

Instead, you made my point very well. The earthworm's survival is due to it's fit with it's environment, not it's strength or intelligence.

Pay up.

Enough sidetrack conversation though. I know you've had this explained to you before, so I am only being formal here. I don't plan to let you use the excuse of a misunderstanding (intentional or unintentional) of evolution derail the topic.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

The earthworm's survival is due to it's fit with it's environment, not it's strength or intelligence.

Its fitness IS its strength and intelligence.

Concrete is full of cracks. How else could a photon be detected down a mine as they have.

Evolution does not derail the topic. Feminism is intimately connected to evolution theory.

I don't think you understand the issues. There is nothing simple about them. You try to take advantage of making them seem simple. Simplicity is attractive.

What do you make of men needing to be sexually aroused to reproduce and women don't. In fact female arousal may well inhibit reproduction. And, after a certain age, male arousal is not simply an organic reflex. It requires a mental component.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
The earthworm's survival is due to it's fit with it's environment, not it's strength or intelligence.

Its fitness IS its strength and intelligence.

You aren't using these words correctly. The earthworm is a weak and unintelligent animal which survives due to a good fit with it's environment.

spendius wrote:

Concrete is full of cracks. How else could a photon be detected down a mine as they have.

Full of cracks the earthworm did not borrow. Additionally, sub-atomics is obviously not your discipline.

spendius wrote:

Evolution does not derail the topic. Feminism is intimately connected to evolution theory.

Perhaps to understand basic physical differences, but not social and moral practices. Your tired attempt to de-thrown evolution by asserting that it demands certain social/moral practices is logically false.

spendius wrote:

I don't think you understand the issues. There is nothing simple about them. You try to take advantage of making them seem simple. Simplicity is attractive.

On the contrary, I'm offering nuance on the matter, while you are attempting to make this a simple matter of feminism is bad or good, etc when in fact the whole of feminism can't be judge in such simple terms because feminism itself is not homogeneous.

spendius wrote:

What do you make of men needing to be sexually aroused to reproduce and women don't. In fact female arousal may well inhibit reproduction. And, after a certain age, male arousal is not simply an organic reflex. It requires a mental component.

Somebody didn't study their biology. Male arousal, is certainly assisted by mental components, but is ultimately a physical matter. A man can be aroused in spite of his mental state, and for that matter can be triggered chemically (viagra, etc) independent of mental state. The penis is actually erect when a muscle is relaxed. It is very much a organic reflex. It is much like breathing, we can do it manually, but our body can do it autonomously (and will) without us.

As for female arousal being a inhibitor to reproduction, you've failed (again) to support your argument with anything. Just to spite honesty, you even threw in a "in fact" to really showcase your inability.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

You aren't using these words correctly.

Assertion.

Quote:

The earthworm is a weak and unintelligent animal

Assertion

Quote:

which survives due to a good fit with it's environment.

Don't we all. The polar bear and some big game are now being molly-coddled to keep them going. Which is "weak".

Quote:

Full of cracks the earthworm did not borrow.

I'll read "burrow". There are 6000 species of earthworm. They release co2 which forms carbonic acid which can erode rock. I feel sure one of these species can burrow through certain species of concrete given enough time.

Charles Darwin wrote--" It may be doubted whether there are many other animals which have played so important a part in the history of the world, as have these lowly organized creatures."

Quote:

Additionally, sub-atomics is obviously not your discipline.

Assertion. And I don't see how you can arrive at it unless it is your discipline. I know how photons penetrate through rocks at great depth. I'll admit it is a different process to the one an earthworm uses. Plants penetrate concrete.

Quote:

Perhaps to understand basic physical differences, but not social and moral practices.

Basic physical differences are fundamental to both feminism and to patriarchal religions. Social and moral practices are un-connected to evolution unless you are speaking of social evolution and, as I've said, that puts Christianity in pole position. So far.

I'm contending that feminism, assuming more than lip-service is involved, which is patronising, would knock us over and women would have most to lose. Ordinary women I mean. Not the few hundred high profile women who make a fat career out of selling them down the river by talking "dirty" all the time.

Quote:

Your tired attempt to de-thrown evolution by asserting that it demands certain social/moral practices is logically false.

"Tired" is another assertion. I'n not in the least tired. And I assert no such thing you have asserted I've asserted. You simply wanted an excuse to get in "tired" and "logically false" in the hope the smears will stick if attention is not alert which you must have assumed it isn't. Evolution makes no demands of any sort. It is a blind process.

Quote:

On the contrary, I'm offering nuance on the matter

Assertion. My nuance detector hasn't flickered.

Quote:

while you are attempting to make this a simple matter of feminism is bad or good,

Assertion. I don't do bad or good. I do works or doesn't work.

Quote:

because feminism itself is not homogeneous.

Assertion. Lip service bullshit.

Quote:

Somebody didn't study their biology.

Assertion. I studied mine in this regard. Viagra is like spectacles. An artificial aid. A prosthetic.

Quote:

As for female arousal being a inhibitor to reproduction, you've failed (again) to support your argument with anything. Just to spite honesty, you even threw in a "in fact" to really showcase your inability.

Yes--it is a fact. Still--you got in "inability". I'm not prepared to go any further that I did go. If you don't know what I mean you haven't been there. Ms Greer's doughnut filling comes to mind. Read Reich.

I thought you didn't give a damn TK. Are all your assertions taken out of the same grab-bag?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
You aren't using these words correctly.

Assertion.

Quote:
The earthworm is a weak and unintelligent animal

Assertion

Quote:
which survives due to a good fit with it's environment.

Don't we all. The polar bear and some big game are now being molly-coddled to keep them going. Which is "weak".

Dear spendi, if you plan on using evolution or drivers like the survival of the fittest in your arguments, you can't just use these terms however you wish. A species strength, intelligence are different measures than a creature's fitness. I've seen this explained to you server times, so it's been my charity that I've been as patient about you using these terms incorrectly when addressing the evolutionary success of various species.

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Full of cracks the earthworm did not borrow.

I'll read "burrow". There are 6000 species of earthworm. They release co2 which forms carbonic acid which can erode rock. I feel sure one of these species can burrow through certain species of concrete given enough time.

Advantage mine, spendi. You may not realize it, but what you speak of here is variation. The idea that perhaps certain environments (certain types of concrete) will be affected by certain types of worms means that the different types of worms are going to have different fitness based on their environment.

Earthworm type A lives in Environment A
Earthworm type B lives in Environment B
Switch the environments (the soil composition, the tree cover, the amounts of rock or concrete, the water table) and the fit changes. Neither worm is smarter or stronger in the other environment, it will either be more or less fit.

spendius wrote:

Charles Darwin wrote--" It may be doubted whether there are many other animals which have played so important a part in the history of the world, as have these lowly organized creatures."

Not a point that serves your argument. It is the earthworm's fit that has made it a evolutionary success.

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Additionally, sub-atomics is obviously not your discipline.

Assertion. And I don't see how you can arrive at it unless it is your discipline. I know how photons penetrate through rocks at great depth. I'll admit it is a different process to the one an earthworm uses. Plants penetrate concrete.

Then you know that Newtonian models make the fact that there is a crack a side note. Your statement that cracks are present and that's how photons penetrate solid mass shows a very shallow understanding of the topic you speak of.

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Perhaps to understand basic physical differences, but not social and moral practices.

Basic physical differences are fundamental to both feminism and to patriarchal religions. Social and moral practices are un-connected to evolution unless you are speaking of social evolution and, as I've said, that puts Christianity in pole position. So far.

In terms of social evolution, no, Christianity is not in good position. It does not adapt to its environment and is becoming less and less relevant. Its fit is decreasing as we learn more about the world and see that its ideas don't square with many scientific and logical models.

spendius wrote:

I'm contending that feminism, assuming more than lip-service is involved, which is patronising, would knock us over and women would have most to lose. Ordinary women I mean. Not the few hundred high profile women who make a fat career out of selling them down the river by talking "dirty" all the time.

Saint spendi, just looking out for the "ordinary" woman. Now, this is lip-service at its finest. The social power balance is not in women's favor. The idea that ordinary women have the most to lose from feminism, is an argument you either expect me to just accept because you say so, or a not well thought out blurt.

The majority of feminist leaders have not come from some elite media inner circle, but rather mostly modest middle and lower class situations. The whole of feminism is not defined in some women who want to talk "dirty," but more largely to the humane treatment of women, and the economic exploitation of them. It's not all about sex. Your reduction only shows that there are topics you understand even less than evolution.

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Your tired attempt to de-thrown evolution by asserting that it demands certain social/moral practices is logically false.

"Tired" is another assertion. I'n not in the least tired. And I assert no such thing you have asserted I've asserted. You simply wanted an excuse to get in "tired" and "logically false" in the hope the smears will stick if attention is not alert which you must have assumed it isn't. Evolution makes no demands of any sort. It is a blind process.

you may not be tired, but your argument is. It is a well worn, tested and failed argument against evolution.

spendius wrote:

Quote:
On the contrary, I'm offering nuance on the matter

Assertion. My nuance detector hasn't flickered.

If you want, we can take a moment, while you re-read the instructions on the cracker jack box.

spendius wrote:

Quote:
while you are attempting to make this a simple matter of feminism is bad or good,

Assertion. I don't do bad or good. I do works or doesn't work.

Cool. Let's trade one flawed dualism for another. My point stands, your black and white, this or that outlook on feminism and it's outcome (or function) is extraordinarily limited.

spendius wrote:

Quote:
because feminism itself is not homogeneous.

Assertion. Lip service bullshit.

You wouldn't be the fool who wants to argue that all feminists think alike, have the same goals, have the same reasoning, have the same methods do you? Never mind, you might be exactly that fool.

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Somebody didn't study their biology.

Assertion. I studied mine in this regard. Viagra is like spectacles. An artificial aid. A prosthetic.

Ah yes! Artificial! The ability to create, and the ability to effect our environment to fit us is the human evolutionary advantage. It has been our greatest fit.

Humans aren't supposed to be underwater for an hour at a time, but we find a way to artificially create an environment that we can be in: SCUBA equipment, submarines.

It's still fitness at the end of the day.

spendius wrote:

Quote:
As for female arousal being a inhibitor to reproduction, you've failed (again) to support your argument with anything. Just to spite honesty, you even threw in a "in fact" to really showcase your inability.

Yes--it is a fact. Still--you got in "inability". I'm not prepared to go any further that I did go. If you don't know what I mean you haven't been there. Ms Greer's doughnut filling comes to mind. Read Reich.

Still a "fact" that you've failed to support (again).

spendius wrote:

I thought you didn't give a damn TK. Are all your assertions taken out of the same grab-bag?

I don't give a damn about your approval of the Student Health Dept or the Wellness Educator's methods. I very much care about confronting bigots.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

The adverts chosen for display on this thread--

Quote:

What Really Attracts Men
10 Secrets To Attracting Your Man Get Him Hooked for Good!
ReconnectYourRelationship.comWhat Men Actually Want
What to Expect When Going into a Relationship. Take Control Today!
www.gettheguy.co.ukWhat Men Want
10 Secrets To Get A Man Positively Addicted To You For Life

Don't you think TK that men are already blasted, wrung-out, angst-ridden, pooped, washed out, haggard, knackered and shagged out enough as it is without you helping to guide us towards the higher ground. We even die younger. And we are laughed at when we go to counsellors with our troubles.

Perhaps your world exists within the demand side of the budget rather than the supply side. You're a typical production of tertiary industry which is the direct cause of our current economic woes which you conveniently blame on the bankers and the politicians as if they had forced people into debt and obesity. Media is blaming everybody but itself and it is the sole cause. And it is feminist.

What would any sensible woman do with a bloke "hooked for good", under "control" and "positively addicted"? Some flogging sounds in order once money draining has reached its limits and if you kept up to date at the cutting edge that activity is increasing at an alarming enough rate to make me fear for the young lads.

I would bet most of the bankers were being egged on by glam-pussies whose "pleasure knows no limits" and who had them by the balls after learning how to do it from Ms Greer. Media is keeping very quiet about that.

The idea that women need any help from the likes of you is ridiculous.

1 Reply

Don't those ads make you feel something of a sap TK? They would me if I was deploying sophistries in the cause of female power.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Don't you think TK that men are already blasted, wrung-out, angst-ridden, pooped, washed out, haggard, knackered and shagged out enough as it is without you helping to guide us towards the higher ground.

A moment ago, everyone was over coddled according to the world of spendi, now all the men are blasted, wrung-out, angst-ridden, pooped, washed out, haggard, knackered and shagged out. I guess it is whatever you want it to be for your argument.

spendius wrote:

We even die younger. And we are laughed at when we go to counsellors with our troubles.

WE aren't laughed at, but perhaps YOU are.

Tell me why you believe this is true. I know plenty of men that have sought out counselors, and I've not observed any such laughter at the idea.

You seem insecure.

spendius wrote:

Perhaps your world exists within the demand side of the budget rather than the supply side. You're a typical production of tertiary industry which is the direct cause of our current economic woes which you conveniently blame on the bankers and the politicians as if they had forced people into debt and obesity. Media is blaming everybody but itself and it is the sole cause. And it is feminist.

The media is feminist how? Specifically. Be prepared to defend this statement, otherwise--bullshit.

spendius wrote:

What would any sensible woman do with a bloke "hooked for good", under "control" and "positively addicted"?

What does this have to do with feminism?

spendius wrote:

I would bet most of the bankers were being egged on by glam-pussies whose "pleasure knows no limits" and who had them by the balls after learning how to do it from Ms Greer. Media is keeping very quiet about that.

One does not have to agree with Greer or all of Greer to be a feminist.

spendius wrote:

The idea that women need any help from the likes of you is ridiculous.

Your opinion is noted and filed next to your liver culture.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Don't those ads make you feel something of a sap TK? They would me if I was deploying sophistries in the cause of female power.

I don't feel sappish in the slightest. I'm an advocate for gender equality, in that cause, I see many feminist causes that deserve support of people.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Talking with Spendius is worse than talking with Eliza.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Hey Dad--it's even harder talking to an ex- professional do-gooder who talks about people deserving support and who is also an ardent backer of evolution theory.

If you can explain that to me I'll be glad to read what you have to say.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You poor thing.

T
K
O

1 Reply

What qualifies a man to talk about an issue like feminism?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know