Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.

Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
Hujo
Contributor
Hujo
Consider the perspective of men, at least under thirty, women at least this age or younger are privileged in that they can go to university and learn to critically analyze their sexes status and roles in society and their positive and negative roles in the past. Some say history is a comparable study for men but as feminist will also tout, and I agree, history is a selective look at only key elite players that shaped society and wrote the history books. Women’s studies is an extensive look at the roles and status of all women from a second wave feminist perspective.

This privilege obtains power to give society a false perception of gender status by obtaining roles in government or media that dictate to society and the rest of the infrastructure what the status of women is, first by stifling male voices (See forbes) and then promoting only their surveys and publications, the goal, that has been accomplished, was to create thru media, empathy and respect for women, while denigrating and creating scorn of men, thus effectively silencing them. They were very successful in this goal. Society; our media, our governments, our schools, cater to women and ignore men.

This article and this board is a glaring example of how men have been completely marginalized, shamed and devalued, we are the ones with out a forum for our voices, we are the sex that is being silenced, we are the ones being left in the dark, and consequently making poor life choices because of this, this is why we are unhappy in marriage, why we don’t go to post secondary, why we are less healthy and why we kill ourselves more, we are left in the dark by feminists control in the media. We are ill informed and unsupported.

AND IT HAS TO STOP.

Forcing a publication to apologize for telling the truth only exposes the superior, biased minds of feminist journalists and bloggers. I urge non blind-liberal and conservative journalists, men and women, to ignore the few misogynist assholes on this board, they do have issues, if they are not just sock puppet feminists, instead *listen* to what the rational men and the women supporting them are saying, if it sounds shocking, if it sounds angry, it’s because we are frustrated and fed up that this crap goes on in the media all the time, and I urge you and the publications you work for to ignore feminist demands and put an end to this double standard society.

There are lots of men making it their mission to have our voices heard, to inform other men about these issues. When we have the sufficient numbers we will be boycotting we will be making examples of companies, publications and journalists we already do. This movement only grows and grows.

LET MEN HAVE A VOICE! TIME TO TAKE WOMEN OFF THE PEDESTAL AND MAKE THEM EQUAL!

For progress’s sake at the very least.

Message Edited by Hujo on 09-08-2006 08:42 PM

09-08-2006 08:19 PM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

Nice post buddy.

Let me tell you guys a story on a bus that happened 80 years ago. A woman entered the bus and demanded a man give her his seat because she was a lady.

The man asked her, “lady I would love to give thee my seat, but as a gentlemen I have to ask thee one question of my own.” The lady looked ready to please, she answered passionately, “Sir what is the question, I will so graciously answer any question you ask.”

The man looked at her squarely in the eyes and said, “lady, are thee one of these women who believe in woman’s equal rights?”, without a pause she answered,  “Why yes she bellowed, I believe firmly in equal rights of women.”

With an astute look on his face, he said, “Thank thee for answering my question” he brassley added, “thee may now stand as the men.”

Feminism has killed chivalry. Cause and effect, you women can now expect to be treated like the men. Time to start getting plenty of anti depressant pills, as they may run out with all the women filling prescriptions.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-08-2006 08:28 PM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

This nation is not the freest nation on earth, with all the conservative communist females messing up the balance of the human family.

I am glad feminasty’s ears are burning.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-08-2006 08:30 PM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

“This nation is not the freest nation on earth, with all the conservative communist females messing up the balance of the human family.

I am glad feminasty’s ears are burning.”

Oh boy! Now here’s a discussion I can get my misogynist teeth into. (I’m really bored to distraction trying to talk to, reason with, argue with, or appeal to American women, so a discussion with and among men is a great relief … wish we could have such a talk at our “club” while enjoying a pipe and a glass of sherry in a peaceful and dignified atmosphere, but this being ‘Mer-cuh’ I guess that’s a bit too much to ask).

Anyway, I perked up at your calling the bimbos “conservative communists.” And, of course, the context, “This nation is not the freest nation on earth, with all the conservative communist females messing up the balance of the human family,” makes me pretty sure that what you meant to say is not what you said – at least, not to me because of my picky-picky insistance on precise denotation. Or, maybe I’m wrong. But, I would SOoo rather talk about word meanings, diction, semantics, political philosphy, or butterfly collecting than to talk to American women about feminism.

OK – so what’s my bitch? In a word .. er, a term, that is, “conservative communist” might be a contradiction in terms, paradox, oxymoron, mutually exclusive sort of word pair. Then again, considering the reality of some communist governments or organizations – as opposed to the theory of their Marxist roots – maybe a conservative communist isn’t such a far out idea. Here’s my reasoning:

“Communist” as a political term usually is confused with “Marxist” in that Marx’ theories put into practise should lead to the establishment of a “Communist” state system. Since the idea is to throw out the running dogs of capitalist imperialism by violent revolution (the only kind that works because anything else is no fun at all) then it’s my opinion that the Reds are the radical, leftist, progressive, left of liberal extremists, and the old order of running dogs of capitalist imperialism is the reactionary, right wing, regressive, right of conservative extremists. This nonsensical formulation comes from my old political science readings, and depends on the following definitions (in my words rather than some textbook quotations, if you don’t mind):

Liberals (the Left) are motivated by trust in the people, and favor extending and expanding democracy. Liberals are progressive. And, that refers to progress toward democracy and self determination, and away from the Divine Right of Kings.

Conservatives (the Right) are motivated by distrust of the people, and favor limiting or retarding democracy. Conservatives/reicht wingers are against giving power to the people, and desire more power to be in the hands of the aristocracy, the wealthy, the military, and the royalty.

Reactionaries are extreme conservatives, and are reacting against liberalization of society. Radicals are extreme liberals, and want to force the right out and give all power to the people

Long experience prepares me for the objections to these definitions – I’ll take a moment to pick my nose while they vent who have never taken a college course in poli sci.

There are a few things you need to know if these ideas seem to be wrong – seem to contradict what you have been accustomed to believing. First, this is the meat and potatoes of political science at its most basic. That is to say, in order to talk about things and make sense of any discussion, everyone must mean the same thing when he uses a word or term. It just wouldn’t do in any serious study for everyone to mean different things when he uses some word. Second, daily life and television is not a venue of serious study, and no one should be surprised to discover that he’s been under a degree of false impression about anything. Third, don’t grab the dictionary to try to refute my definitions. Dictionaries are not writ in stone, and more importantly, they are general references – not political science text books. The use of these terms is a specialist matter, and misusing terms can result in confusion – for example, (taking one of the dictionary senses of the word “liberal” and applying it to politics) thinking someone is politically liberal because he spends money freely.

Now, getting back to the specific matter of “communist conservatives,” There are plenty of reasons for thinking of feminists as communists. Most of the idiots who led our women astray back in the mid 60’s were, in fact, Marxists or believed themselves to be. There has long been a self appointed elite of literary intelligensia trying to set the agenda of American culture, and they have been predominently Jewish, Marxist, and lately feminist. How they came to have power in the publishing and media business is beyond this discussion. You can hardly study Marxism without getting soaked in Engels’ Marxism-feminism, and you can’t study feminism (or, Women’s Studies) without getting dosed with Engels by a lesbian Marxist feminist intellectual moron. The implications of what I am saying are so wide ranging and relevant to this discussion that I beg you to stay narowly focused.

Another reason for thinking femists are likely to be communists is that they, fems, usually talk in political terms that sound very Marxist – either because they really do use Marxist terms, or because the uneducated think that anything more intellectual and political than waving the American flag is suspect and the usual suspects ’round here are always commies. It’s easy to confuse the running dogs of capitalist imperialism with the other Chavinist pigs and KGB NAZI’s. It’s like putting your metaphors into a blender. Sigh.

Still another reason for equating commies and feminists is that feminists think they are leading the way to a glorious revolution, and everyone knows that revolutionaries are commies, and further, since we men are being identified as the “old order” and therefore conservative-reactionary-right wing, the fems naturally fall into the opposite position of liberal-radical-leftist. Somewhere along the way, the feminists have decided that capitalism’s repression and oppression of the masses is the same sort of thing as men’s oppression and repression of women. Rather begs the question, but that’s a matter for the next class, Rhetoric and Straight Thinking.

Now, to the question of feminists being thought of as “conservative.” I assume you know that when a conservative (right wing) female calls herself a feminist she doesn’t see any contradiction. That’s because feminsts are stupid. I mean, for every female who prefaces her anti-male diatribes with, “Well, I’m not a feminst, BUT … ” or “Well, speaking as a woman …” there’s another female who .. Oh, my God – I’m starting to talk just like a feminist – endlessly.

Try again: To be succinct – feminists are just a political movement to gain power for their own group. Since feminism is not a true leftist revolutionary movement (which would be humanist in nature rather than selfish and cruel) they naturally rely on aggressive and agenda focused tactics like any extremist movement of either the left (radicals) or the right (reactionaries.) They showed conclusively that they don’t care about anything but dominating and “winning” when PC was introduced. It isn’t the existence of PCism that proves the uncompromising and authoritarian nature of feminism – it is the near total acceptance of PCism by virtually every American female. PC just means “our way or the highway.” Lucky for us that the highway is not as wide as the asses on most American women, so the choice is not so hard.

Try again. Why can feminists appear conservative/right wing? OK, I think I’ve got it: When we think of very repressive authoritarian creeps – like cops or priests – we usually identify them as mean old men (cultural conditioning makes us do this, I guess, but it’s significant that two Catholic nuns who taught me in grammar school were finally arrested in the late 60’s for brutality to their students) … **bleep**, I lost the thread again.

Once more: Because feminists are determined to suppress any ideas, feelings, opinions, or beliefs that do not support women’s attaining more power over other people (and, if you are female, the only “other” people are men. Duh.) So, what is the meaning of suppressing the opposing or competing beliefs and values? It is authoritarian and anti-liberal. BINGO!

That must be it. LIberalism requires of the regime that the people have access to information and the freedom to express and share ideas. That is because liberalism was founded as a political movement to limit the power of the king, and to give self determination to the People, and it won’t work if we can be shot for talking about things. It should be (God, I hope it is) obvious that the regime, the corporations, big busines, the king or president, the priests, the cops, and some other inherantly self interested, greedy, paranoid, people hating perverts don’t want the People to be well educated, informed, and free to speak. And, that is the nature of American feminism and PC and Women’s Studies, and NAZIism. It matters not what they claim (Gosh, I’m not a feminist, BUT, speaking as a women, I just know in my heart that it’s going to liberate men too”) So, that’s why feminism sometimes seems conservative – because feminism uses the same tactics and strategies as other repressive movements.

But, and here comes another little reality that you must understand – the extreme left, such as Chinese Communists, use repressive and oppressive means also. All extremist political movements are trying to change things by force and violence; that much should be definitional. So, it should not be surprising that NAZIism and Communism are just about the same in their brutality and violence and oppression. The Marxists at least claim that this is a necessary stage in the revolution, and that the end result will be a democratic workers’ paradise. Can’t blame ’em for trying. But, the reicht wing political extremists are killing and stomping about in the service of the rich elite. Big difference – Similar behavior, and that is why so many people cannot see the difference between the left and the right, liberal and conservative – even though the extremes of reactionary (like NAZI’s and televangelists) and radical are not very much like the moderate positions of liberal and conservative.

One final warning: The terms “radical liberal” and “radical conservative” are soo very declasse. “Radical liberal” would be sort of redundant because to be a “radical” is to be a radical leftist. “Radical conservative” is a sort of contradiction in terms since “radical is the extreme left, and “conservative” is the moderate right.

So, is there really such a thing as a “liberal feminist?” Only if she actually wants to empower men and women equally. You better decide that one for yourself after you’ve been involved with a lot of women. But, I can’t accept a “conservative communist” because it needs too much explanation to figure out what it means.

09-09-2006 12:59 AM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
I can’t believe I read the whole thing…

Interesting factoid: Marx was supposed to have been heavily influenced by ethnographer Lewis Henry Morgan’s 1877 write-up on the matriarchal Iroquois culture.

So it’s worth considering that maybe Marxism derived from a native/pure form of feminism, rather than the other way around as is commonly presumed.

Message Edited by MartianBachelor on 09-09-2006 12:51 PM

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-09-2006 02:45 PM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
acrawfield
Regular Contributor
acrawfield

patriarch, the flaw in your cute little analogy is that few women today would ever actually expect chivalry out of a man. I certainly don’t expect guys to hold doors open for me or give up their seats on a bus.

09-09-2006 04:34 PM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

I think before you beg the question of “matriarchal” Native American cultures, you should read a lot of ethnology that was published long after Morgan’s amature work, and before the feminists started to reconsctruct and rewrite everything. Especially, take a peek at Steven Goldberg’s work, “The Inevitability of Patriarchy”

09-09-2006 04:35 PM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
reclaff
Contributor
reclaff

Message Edited by reclaff on 07-30-2007 03:49 PM

09-09-2006 04:52 PM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Diogetrix wrote: …take a peek at Steven Goldberg’s work, “The Inevitability of Patriarchy”

Diogetrix – I answered that in some detail in the other thread where you’ve brought that up, but it’s OT here.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-09-2006 05:01 PM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

acrawfield said…

patriarch, the flaw in your cute little analogy is that few women today would ever actually expect chivalry out of a man. I certainly don’t expect guys to hold doors open for me or give up their seats on a bus.

Lol, that’s funny you would mention that scenario. The last few years I have been letting the door slam in women’s faces, stepping back and letting them open their own doors. I have actually had women wait for me to open the door, I politely wait for them to emerge from the behind the door. The don’t like it.

Chivalry is dead, and I’m happy with that. When I used to work in a grocery store and women would whine to us men to help them carry heavy loads, it was liberated to tell them to carry it themselves. Or when they would flirt with us to get us to do their jobs. “Do it yourself” was the common theme.

Women on construction jobs have felt the same pinch. They used to be able to get men to do the heavy stuff. Now we just say, “Do it yourself.” Facts prove women struggle with weights of 25 lbs, 50 lbs is almost unmovable. Us men will all to kindly say, “move it yourself.” Chivalry is Dead and I helped kill it.

It makes me happy knowing that you, if you were ever pregnant with groceries and a child running wild on a bus, would be happy to stand for 45 minutes than have me stand. It would turn into an anti feminist rant if anybody tried to challenge me.

Holding doors open for you or anything Chivalrous, don’t expect anything soon.

Chivalrous ideologies like Child Support and Alimony until you die, don’t expect them for long either!

You want to be a man, learn how to be a weak man, have fun! It’s not a bed of roses, just be sure to fill your anti depressant bottles in case they run out of stock, you women are going to need them.

The term Conservative Communist is a term coined by the fact the most feminasty’s are not hardcore commies. In the pecking order of communists, most feminasty’s fall into the conservative part of the communist marxist ideologies.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-09-2006 08:20 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.
Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

Diogetrix

Liberals (the Left) are motivated by trust in the people, and favor extending and expanding democracy. Liberals are progressive. And, that refers to progress toward democracy and self determination, and away from the Divine Right of Kings.

Diogtrix, do you really want to paint liberals in such a glowing light. Was  your intention to really paint the conservative right as the tired old line, Reich?

Let me illuminate something for you, Hitler was no Christian. He was 1/4 Jew, and a very in trenched occultist. Very much into New Age Modern Religions Reinvented Out of old Ancient Babylonian Mysticism with a Touch of Egyptian Occultism for Flavor. Nothing new under the son there.

From my study, I gather, as do some of my colleagues, that the same powers are the head of both the Democratic and Republican parties. They use their immense wealth to get both parties to tow the line. Socialism is on the menu.

Diogetrix, you cannot deny the slow, but mythological removal of Christianity, God loving people around the world. The world is becoming the “Anything but Christianity Religion.” Christendom has been wiped out of Russia, China, Asia, Europe, Canada, New Zealand, and coming to American Theater for play, near you.

Just as the Beatles came to America to Destroy Christianity, the world appears to want it destroyed as well. Jews are an enemy of the gospel, as are secular humanists, atheists, and many other liberal Marxists. Their god is the State. Their god, is money, their gods are themselves, and they, in this life, say they will answer to no one but themselves and their pleasures.

All that is fine, its the glory of free will.

The line behind the conservative communist label attributed to feminists, is due to the fact that most feminists are not hard core commies, they are Red, just not Soviet in your face Red. They are a mixture of Marxist and Capitalist doctrine. If you read between the lines, you will discover that Wall Street funded both Nazism and Marxism. Nothing happens by accident politically in the United States, it has been planned and orchestrated since our birth. Therefore it should be of no surprise that one would fine commies still living in America, still living for the day to bring all free men to their knees.

I even like to call feminists closet commies, because they like to veil their true ideology of the destructive notion of Marxist equalitarianism. At least under socialism everybody is treated equally crappy by the state, equally poor and miserable.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-09-2006 08:46 PM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

“Conservative part of the Communist ideologies” is what I’m TRYING to edukate you guys about. Communism is not conservative. Ever. If Communist regimes are repressive and genocidal, and even if they claim to be setting the calendar back to Year Zero like Pol Pot and his merry band, they are still operating within a Marxist ideology, using Marxist tactics and strategies for revolution and social reorganization, and it is leftist. Conservative is right wing. LIberal is left wing. There are no conservative communists in the world of political philosophy. Whether or not Stalin was conservative and right wing in his emotions, actions, policy, statements, or bathroom habits has no bearing on the fact that the Communist USSR was founded on a radical revolutionary leftist philosophy. If it is less pure Marxist then it is a more moderate leftism/communism – NOT conservative, even though it emulate conservative regimes down to the last jackboot. Authoritarian (fake liberal) feminists – yes, communist conservatives – no. Are you equally disposed to accept a “Liberal NAZI?” Well, guess what – that’s why the American media and education system has created your mind the way it is, so that you can be easily confused about what’s what. Because, again, the idea of a liberal NAZI is absurd, but not to the average American dupe, and that is why most Americans no longer can grasp the meaning of the American revolution and put it into context with liberal philosophy and history. Do you doubt that you have been methodically dumbed down so that you don’t know the meanings of the most basic words of political ism’s? Then, tell me all about the term “reactionary.” The biggest change in political reality in the western world was the liberal movement, and the reaction to it which followed in Europe. But, not one in a thousand Americans has a clue about it, and the US media and K-12 schools will spontaneously combust before they will utter the word “reactionary.” Weird – isn’t it?

09-09-2006 08:54 PM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38

acrawfield wrote:
patriarch, the flaw in your cute little analogy is that few women today would ever actually expect chivalry out of a man. I certainly don’t expect guys to hold doors open for me or give up their seats on a bus.

It is interesting how you arrogantly think that most woman in the world don’t expect chilvary from men, just because you don’t. Wow, what an arrogant fascist SOB you are!

I myself still hold doors for women, but only feminine women of all ages. I especially enjoy to hold doors open for elderly feminine women, it always perks me up to see a smile come to the face of an elderly feminine woman. The only women I don’t hold doors open for are the ones that look masculine enough to open the door themselves. I been working off that policy for years, and it’s a very reasonable and logical policy. Sometimes when I hold the door open for a feminine woman, there will be a masculine-looking woman just behind the feminine woman, so I always make sure to drop the door on the masculine-looking woman.

09-09-2006 09:31 PM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

Diogetrix

If you want to really know what I think, than I will tell you. In my mind the Liberal is nothing new. Sodom and Gomorrah were very liberal cities, and God got so upset with their loose morality, that he burnt the place to the ground. To this day, around where those cites are evidence of sulfur and brimstone.

I think before the flood man was very liberal, God had enough and he cleaned the place up. That is why I believe the earth is 75% water, which came from the flood.

The bible tells of the Assyrians, that when the cup of their indignation was filled, their cup of sins, they would be cut down. Babylon was the same way, to be cleansed from the earth, never to return.

Take a look at the prophecy concerning Israel.

One nation was prophesied about, as how they would leave the earth and return 2,000 years later, Israel.

Before you pretend that the bible was changed with the times, the dead sea scrolls were hidden from view and extracted 2,000 years latter, the Old Testament is the same then as it is today. Well until some liberals started changing the bible around in modern times, their bible changing work should be burned. I’ll light the fire.

So as you can see, what do the liberal so called progressive Socialist Marxist Democrats like to do? Well they like things liberal, you call them the saviors of the free world. I disagree. Socialist Democrats avoid church in general, they are more subject to humanist lines of pedigree. Tend to be pro abortion, pro homosexuality, pro child sex, pro bestiality.

Now forgive me if I am wrong, but are not all those human behaviors condemned as sins in the bible? We should rename the Democrats the Socialist Feel Good Do It Party. Aleister Crowley would be a happy man, “Do as thou whilst, as long as your hurt no one.” Right from the Gates of Hades.

If you call the Liberals the saviors of humanity, your right with the Devil. He has said the same things through his church of Gnosticism. That, and I’m paraphrasing from memory, Gnostic’s believe that the  God of the bible created the material universe to enslave us. In order to free ourselves we need to ascend to the astral plane, with our Ascended Brethren, where no material universe exists. Just nothing. Hm mm, sounds a lot like hell if you ask me. So Called True Liberty

Sorry, I try to keep religion out of Feminasty debates, but you seem like a smart man, I was willing to share my train of thought with you, and the world. I suppose I still have free speech. The progressives haven’t taken that from me in the name of Freedom, Liberty, Justice? Have they?

Freedom is exactly what the Devil wanted from God. To be God, or if he couldn’t do that, he wanted to go to the bottomless pit to get away from God, now that is hatred. Liberty from God’s laws. Justice to do as they please.

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

So as you can tell, if you believe the way I do, that Liberalism is not the cure all, fix all in the so called evolutionary path. Democrats or anybody may be being enlightened, or illuminated by sources not human.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.

It is also impossible to believe in Evolution without transcending to the next stage. Truly you cannot believe that humans evolved from single cell bacteria, by chance and accident, being a genetic mutation at every stage along his path for billions of years, only to have evolved to separate by like entities. One man and one woman, all the animal world has the same. Without evolving for the stars in the next generation.

Not only does it take faith to believe in phantom physics, but there is not a good viable fossil trail for the billions upon billions of trans-species and inter species fossils that would be needed for the millions of life forms on the eplanet. All I see are finished fossils, in their final form. The same in the fossils, millions of fully formed fossils. Even Darwin suggested that there would need to be zillions of fossils in  the earth to prove the theory. Yet, as we dig, we find fully formed fossils. We find bat fossils they say are 485 million years old, that have changed little between now and then. The list goes on.

I have lots of questions for evolution, they can only answer me with Theories and Speculation.

So my point is, there is so called spiritual Evolution, which if examined, sounds like a very Occultic and Gnostic theory mixed together.

I’ll leave you with one very simple phase from the bible, and you see its seething nature in the world today.

[4] And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
[5] For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Ye shall be as god’s. Where have we heard that?

So do I think there are different degrees of Communism? Yes.

There is brutal and Marxist Reds all the way through. Yes, they do exist today, in their much milder forms on Wall Street, in our Liberal universities, in our progressive churches. They can be called an outright commie, or a Feminist that is only a commie as far as gender bending is concerned. A closet conservative commie. These types of women do not want the world to see their Despotic aims, they merely want to be observed fighting for the viva Revolution. We have already rebelled against our Maker, why do we still rebel in the name of Freedom, Liberty, and Revolution?

What do we truly want Freedom from? That is the million dollar question.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-10-2006 12:18 AM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

Sorry, I’m no more willing to discuss political philosophy or western civilization in the context of Biblical prophesy than I’m willing to discuss men’s emotional evolution in the context of Women’s Studies. Why? Because the dogma dictates the debate – it’s terms, premises, acceptable conclusions, etc. Want to have some prostate surgery performed by a feminist? Some things just don’t belong together, and intellectual inquiry doesn’t go well with religious doctrine.

Here’s an example of why I don’t want to get involved in your methodology:

“Sodom and Gomorrah were very liberal cities, and God got so upset with their loose morality, that he burnt the place to the ground. To this day, around where those cites are evidence of sulfur and brimstone.”

First, to the matter of Sodom & G. being “liberal” cities.
1. I don’t have any credible account of what was going on there, if there were cities.
2. How can you characterize something as “liberal” when the word was still a rather long way off in the future?
3. How can S&G have been “liberal?” Did they practise “one man, one vote?”
4. Does this mean that Jeffery Dahmer was a liberal?
5. Does this mean that all the NAZI’s and Republicans who are into kinky sex are/were liberals?
6. Which is more liberal: Homosexual orgies or heterosexual **bleep** sex?

This is fun. Ha ha.

The problems are really all logical fallacies. I know you can’t reason and think well enough to deal with it.

See, what you are doing is falling for the fallacy that liberalism and moral depravity are related in a way that they are not. LIberals and libertines share some values, and it is not surprising that “sexual deviants” would favor a liberal political atmosphere, but not in ancient Middle Eastern cities. Did they have trade unions in S&G? Nah. At least, it’s not mentioned in the Bibble, so you are obligated to admit they didn’t. Tough method of reasoning you’ve chosen for yourself.

If your logic were valid, then it’s also valid that Jesus was a commie. Or, at least a liberal. Actually, he was a Buddhist.

Maybe it’s circular reasoning. American homosexuals are more at home in the Democratic Party because it is more liberal and accepting of different lifestyles. Therefore, liberalism fosters homosexuality. Ancient Mid East people who were homosexual must have become that way by being liberal. ?

What is confusing you is that you have been trained to associate certain behaviors with certain political orientations, and the association is often not related at all, or is not related in the way you think.

By the way, saying that God destroyed S&D is a question begging argument. I assume you can’t prove the existence of any gods.

Do you think there’s more sulfer and brimstone around S&G, or around Tonopah, Nevada? That stuff has been in the ground for a really long time, so maybe the dinosaurs actually became extinct because the gods caught them doing nasty things with the wrong sex. If I ever find the ancient texts of the Dinosaur Cult we’ll know for sure.

this is boring.

09-10-2006 01:09 AM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

I attempted to reason with you. I’m not trying to convert you. I’m just explaining my position.

So explain our origins, did we come from a cosmic accident in gradual stages, or are we created beings by a superior power that created this physical world, and commands the atoms with his vioce. A power that can hang a star in space  larger than the orbit of Pluto, which is no longer a planet for some strange reason.

Now if this same Higher Power can constuct billions of other galaxies, all of which we see when we peer deeper into space with Hubble. Can not this same Higher Power inspire men to write a book about him, 66 men to be exact, at differnent centuries, all with the same message? So its not plausible to you a believe in creation. What do you believe in our origins.

Science can’t even create a mustard seed in the lab that functions like a real one.

http://www.centuryone.org/arch-bible.html

That website can help to bolster the credibility about scripture. It is true on the smallest of details, why not on all.

Remember he who made the board game, also gets to make the rules.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-10-2006 06:11 AM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

2. How can you characterize something as “liberal” when the word was still a rather long way off in the future?

It is the activities, that are the same. Rampant homosexuality, murder, vice, love of money, all the these things are liberal past times. So no, you are not going to try and reinvent the wheel unnoticed.

Here is a website detailing Sodom and Gomorrah. Certainly gives some more credence to the theory I suggested. That Liberal behavior is only acceptable if you believe you are your own god. You have to make your own morals, and guidelines outside the scope of what morality is specified in the scripture.

Let’s examine the fruits of Liberalism outside the confines of what the bible specifies.  High divorce is a product of liberalism, the fruits of divorce are children being raised without a father. Higher crime, lack of respect of authority, bad grades, higher likelihood of drug and other substance abuse. The girls are more likely to use sex to gain attention from men.

Higher rates of Homosexuals, a rampant gay revolution. What are the fruits of homosexuality? Higher rates of STD’s. With 10% of gay white men and 29% of gay black men contracting HIV, this liberal lifestyle is deadly. At least 1/3 of gays have some std. As far as their lifespan compared to a married couple, they tend to die earlier, in their 50’s. Hardly worth the risk being a liberal there?

Being a liberal is deadly in other areas. Engaging in sex with multiple partners, is risky. Drinking too much, eating too much, what am I missing here?

I’m speaking in general here, a liberal lifestyle is not found in between the pages of the bible.

I believe in free will, what I am asking you, is Liberalism, is akin to “Do what thou wilt” logic and is not, or never will be the savior of humanity which you are making it out to be. Liberalism is not the almighty cure all fix all.

Message Edited by PatriarchVerlch on 09-10-2006 07:12 AM

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-10-2006 06:47 AM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

LIke I said, dude: Logical fallacies. The best you can hope to do is separate your life into the religious part – in which you don’t have to make sense, and the empiricle part – in which you try to reason according to logical and rational methodology. Pity anyone who trys to deal with you not knowing which part you’re operating in at the time – or, as is more common with religious nuts, whether you’re changing back and forth as the situation requires. You know, when you’re losing on rational grounds, you summon the gods to rescue you. Typical of certain people, that. For example, have you ever noticed that when some people are being reduced to looking ridiculous in an argument, they take on the mantle of moral superiority? Morality always trumps logic or reason – history, science, etc. It’s called a “cheap shot” by people who have brains. Oh, hell – why do I bother?

09-11-2006 04:46 AM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
As for opening doors and giving up seats on buses, I view that as good manners, not a gender-specific chivalrous act. I wouldn’t expect a guy to give up a seat or open a door for me, because I’m in good physical shape and perfectly capable of standing or opening a door on my own. However, if they do offer either, I accept it with a smile as they are being polite. I open doors for people when they are walking directly behind me or if they are coming out a door that I have to pull to enter, particularly if they are elderly men or women or a person of either gender carrying something or taking care of children. I open doors for women; I open doors for men. I would also be more than willing to give up a seat for anyone who was carrying something, juggling children, an elderly person, or someone of any age or gender who just looked really tired. If I were pregnant and carrying a sack of groceries, yes, I would want a 20- or 30-something healthy man to offer me a seat. It has nothing to do with my gender and everything to do with the fact that helping out those who are having difficulties is the polite thing to do.

I also can lift 25 or 50 pounds without too much of a problem. Maybe the construction women need gym memberships like I’ve got.

BTW, according to the masculine/feminine appearance criterion, porkchops would be opening a door for me. Despite the fact that I’m sure some of you are picturing a short-haired mannish woman, I’m rather feminine looking. And I would graciously walk through that door. If you chose not to open it for me, I’d walk through it myself and think nothing of it. I’d probably have other things on my mind at the time anyway.

Message Edited by phatkat811 on 09-11-2006 01:44 PM

09-11-2006 01:43 PM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
Oh yeah, I think the idea of alimony is ridiculous as well. However, I do think that the non-custodial parent (of either gender) should pay child support.

09-11-2006 01:47 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38
Phatkat, I will be the judge of what I deem to be feminine. Also, any woman with tatoos showing on her automatically gets the door dropped on her from me.

09-11-2006 02:29 PM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

or, as is more common with religious nuts, whether you’re changing back and forth as the situation requires.

I still haven’t been able to coax your belief of how humans came to exist on planet earth. Problem No. 1 is that we exist and we are not in the planning stages. We are human, and live quite well on a planet 93 million miles from the sun. Traveling at Several million miles per hour, if you count the movement of the earth, sun and galaxy. Our human brains have more neural connections, than there are stars in the known universe, one human brain.

So, let’s here your origins of mankind. If you have a better one that Goddidit, than let’s hear your Stephen King wit.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-14-2006 02:58 AM

Re: Why Noers article is important NOT sexist.
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

Phatkat, I will be the judge of what I deem to be feminine. Also, any woman with tatoos showing on her automatically gets the door dropped on her from me.

Any woman that is hot, dressed like she cares, long hair, non troubled appearance, gets the door held at Mach 3. If she even resembles a feminist in action or deed, door slammed, and I will wait for her to exit before I enter.

Open your own doors feminagg’s.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-14-2006 03:00 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: