The unpopular opinion thread

[peewee's lovechild]

Whott is an anthropological biologist.

[peewee's lovechild]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Monogamy-is-an-Oddity-42006.shtml

[peewee's lovechild]

http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.php?url=&cat=monogamous

[peewee's lovechild]

http://www.trinity.edu/rnadeau/fys/barash%20on%20monogamy.htm

[whottt]

Whott is an anthropological biologist.



I'm an anthropologist.

[whottt]

http://www.trinity.edu/rnadeau/fys/barash%20on%20monogamy.htm


You got any links to editorials by the animals? Thanks...in advance.

[peewee's lovechild]

Monogamy may cause extinction:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030527084621.htm

[peewee's lovechild]

I'm an anthropologist.

You need to work on the biology to back up your points.

[peewee's lovechild]

You got any links to editorials by the animals? Thanks...in advance.

Already posted them.

Read them.

Thanks.

[midgetonadonkey]

So the animals can write?

That's amazing.

[ATRAIN]

2Blonde wants me to head up her fan club but she feels sorry for Paki's heart condition and pee wee being retarded.

[whottt]

Like I said...animals don't create PC's or use complex verbal communication...so turn off the PC, shut up and start grunting...and go live in the woods.

If these things are not natural and it is against our nature to use them, then stop using them.

[whottt]

You need to work on the biology to back up your points.



And you need to stop looking at animals as something to aspire to being...


Turn off the PC...stop writing. Animals don't use PC's or type...so shut up and stop doing it.

[peewee's lovechild]

So the animals can write?

That's amazing.

Dude, are you ever going to lunch?

[remingtonbo2001]

Whottt is actually Eric Wolf. :worthy:

[whottt]

Monogamy may cause extinction:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030527084621.htm



So might stupidity.

[whottt]

Like I said...marriage is a survival mechanism depending on the environment and ratio of males to females, among other things. So is polygamy, bigamy and most other forms of bonding.

I'm not saying you have to be married...I myself am divorced, but when I was married I had zero desire to pursue other women or other sexual relationships would have been content to stay that way for the rest of my life.

I have never had the uncontrollable desire to go and fuck or come on to every hot girl I see. Yeah I appreciate a good looking woman and am as prone to looking as much as the next guy, but I would have been content to spend the rest of my life with the right woman in a totally monogamous relationship.

And I am saying that it serves a survival purpose(as evidenced the rampant spread of those that espouse it as a creed to live by), and it is very much up to the individual.


Huge generalization on your part saying that it's not in man's nature to be monogamous and marry...it may not be in the nature of all men(or women) but it is most definitely in the nature of some.......

[peewee's lovechild]

Huge generalization on your part saying that it's not in man's nature to be monogamous and marry...it may not be in the nature of all men(or women) but it is most definitely in the nature of some.......

That last part is not generalizing?

[whottt]

Hey Pee...I've seen dogs that will eat the shit of other dogs.

You first.....




I don't suppose while you are googling arguments to use against me you'd be so kind as to google the engandered species list and tell me how many monogamous creatures are on it...

Thanks, in advance.

[peewee's lovechild]

Hey Pee...I've seen dogs that will eat the shit of other dogs.

You first.....




I don't suppose while you are googling arguments to use against me you'd be so kind as to google the engandered species list and tell me how many monogamous creatures are on it...

Thanks, in advance.


The sciencedaily wasn't enough for you?

But, anyway, calling someone out for making generalizing statements and then making one yourself is just genius.

[whottt]

When we meet I'm going to say hi to you and then I'm going to bend over and you can stick your nose up the crack of my ass and take a big ole sniff instead of saying hi...after all, animals do that too.

[peewee's lovechild]

Marriage is a natural thing for man.

Man is not part of the animal kingdom.

Such is the wisdom of the anthropologist whott.

[whottt]

The sciencedaily wasn't enough for you?

I didn't see anything conclusive, in fact the article I read made a point of saying the information isn't conclusive and they really don't know shit.





But, anyway, calling someone out for making generalizing statements and then making one yourself is just genius.


How did I generalize...it's in my nature to be monogamous, and it has been since before I had any concept of religious right or wrong. that's proof that it is in the nature of some.

[E20]

Marriage is a natural thing for man.

Man is not part of the animal kingdom.
Such is the wisdom of the anthropologist whott.
No and No.

[whottt]

Marriage is a natural thing for man.


Survival is a natural thing for man, in fact we do it better and with more versatility than any other mammals....and marriage is a survival construct, a product of the adaptive ability of man and at a times a necessity due to the unique biology, and growth period of man, not to mention the numerous environments we are capable of surviving in.





Man is not part of the animal kingdom.

Such is the wisdom of the anthropologist whott.


Hmmm...


Even a dumbass probably easily knows that our closest relatives are the Chimpanzee and they are not monogamous, they practice infanticide and all sorts of other shit that is generally looked down upon by thriving aspects of humanity...


How's it working out for them?

[peewee's lovechild]

IHow did I generalize...it's in my nature to be monogamous, and it has been since before I had any concept of religious right or wrong. that's proof that it is in the nature of some.

So, because it happened to you, it must've happened to so many more?

[peewee's lovechild]

Survival is a natural thing for man, in fact we do it better and with more versatility than any other mammals....and marriage is a survival construct, a product of the adaptive ability of man and at a times a necessity due to the unique biology, and growth period of man, not to mention the numerous environments we are capable of surviving in.


How does marriage help us survive, o wise one?

Wouldn't us mating with several females and producing all sorts of offspring ensure that we have the numbers needed for survival?





Even a dumbass probably easily knows that our closest relatives are the Chimpanzee and they are not monogamous, they practice infanticide and all sorts of other shit that is generally looked down upon by thriving aspects of humanity...


How's it working out for them?


It's working out for them just fine.

One of theirs even made it out to space before any American did.
But, I digress.

As for infanticide, humans have been guilty of that for thousands of years.

Check Sparta, for example.

But, you probably already knew that.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Even a dumbass probably easily knows that our closest relatives are the Chimpanzee and they are not monogamous, they practice infanticide and all sorts of other shit that is generally looked down upon by thriving aspects of humanity...


How's it working out for them?i don't think he's the one to ask

[whottt]

Marriage is a natural thing for man.

Yes...and so is to not be married. And so is for one man to more than one mate, so is at times, for a woman to have more than one mate....

It's all natural to us...






Man is not part of the animal kingdom.


We are biolgical organisms and by that definition we are animals, but we are unlike any other animals on this planet...


Turn off your PC.








Such is the wisdom of the anthropologist whott.


Let me know how turds taste........

[whottt]

How does marriage help us survive, o wise one?

Because idiot..in nature, a woman being alone and rearing a child at times had a radically reduced chance of survival...as did her child.


So if Joe Stud is out there busy fucking every woman he sees instead of actually ensuring the survival of some of them, imparting the skills necessary to the child's survival, the human race would not be thriving now.




Wouldn't us mating with several females and producing all sorts of offspring ensure that we have the numbers needed for survival?


Not if they're a bunch of dumbasses that can't survive...

We aren't born naturally optimized for survival. We have to learn it...


The animals would kick our asses right now if we tried to live like they do. Without the benefit of biocultural evolution.










It's working out for them just fine.


It is? Check again.






As for infanticide, humans have been guilty of that for thousands of years.

Check Sparta, for example.

I see...and how are the Spartans doing now? Thriving I suppose?

[Extra Stout]

How does marriage help us survive, o wise one?

Wouldn't us mating with several females and producing all sorts of offspring ensure that we have the numbers needed for survival?
Umm... I know women find your thick woolly back hair and rancid-hot-dog body odor irresistible, and throw their legs open as if spring-loaded when you stand within 50 feet, but for most of humanity the ladies discriminately choose their mates, so in settings where they selectively chose men who would care for them and help raise their offspring, marriage became normative.

[dimsah]

Umm... I know women find your thick woolly back hair and rancid-hot-dog body odor irresistible

:rollin:rollin:rollin

[peewee's lovechild]

Because idiot..in nature, a woman being alone and rearing a child at times had a radically reduced chance of survival...as did her child.


So if Joe Stud is out there busy fucking every woman he sees instead of actually ensuring the survival of some of them, imparting the skills necessary to the child's survival, the human race would not be thriving now.





Not if they're a bunch of dumbasses that can't survive...

We aren't born naturally optimized for survival. We have to learn it...


The animals would kick our asses right now if we tried to live like they do. Without the benefit of biocultural evolution.










It is? Check again.






I see...and how are the Spartans doing now? Thriving I suppose?

So, you're saying that humans are born stupid and they can't survive if not born into an environment of marriage.

Oh, and the Greeks are still around.

But, they weren't the only ones who practiced infanticide.
As a matter of fact, it still happens to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

I looked it up for you.

And, why are you so interested in how shit tastes?
I thought humans were past that.

Or, is it that you're really interested in the taste of shit?

[peewee's lovechild]

Umm... I know women find your thick woolly back hair and rancid-hot-dog body odor irresistible, and throw their legs open as if spring-loaded when you stand within 50 feet, but for most of humanity the ladies discriminately choose their mates, so in settings where they selectively chose men who would care for them and help raise their offspring, marriage became normative.

I don't have woolly hair.

[whottt]

Why don't you guys just say it's not in your nature to be monogamous and marry...because that's what the case really is. You aren't alone, lots of men are like that...as are lots of women, but that doesn't mean everyone is that way, nor should they be...we survive because of our adaptability and diversity...not because we are bunch of brainless fucks, producing equally brainless offspring, soley driven by the instinct to fuck everything in site.

[peewee's lovechild]

Why don't you guys just say it's not in your nature to be monogamous and marry...because that's what the case really is. You aren't alone, lots of men are like that...as are lots of women, but that doesn't mean everyone is that way, nor should they be...we survive because of our adaptability and diversity...not because we are bunch of brainless fucks, producing equally brainless offspring, soley driven by the instinct to fuck everything in site.

Link?

Proof?

Link?

[E20]

Marriage or limiting each other to one mate. Human emotions/desires in general interfere with the possiblities of having more than one mate for the sole reason of advancing the human species. We're too much of an advanced organism who can inhibit much more complex emotions to compare our well being and survival to that of animals, all though we fall under the same kingdom of animalia you have to look deeper into the classification system to compare.

[Extra Stout]

I have figured out what will supplant modernity: neo-tribalism. America will dissolve into a large number of tribes with a complex network of alliances and rivalries. When conflict emerges, the tribes most predisposed to violence will win.

Sorry, team Blue.

[whottt]

So, you're saying that humans are born stupid and they can't survive if not born into an environment of marriage.


No...you're saying that marriage isn't natural to man, when in fact some form of it is has appeared in virtually every culture in recorded history, monogamous and otherwise, not to mention there are example of it in nature ...and pointing to animals as proof of your point. This makes you quite possibly the biggest idiot I have ever egnaged in a debate. Even the entire foundation for your argument isn't 100% based in fact.


Furthermore, you seem to think what makes man man and will ensure our survival is the desire to fuck everything in site and make as many babies as you can, when in fact there are countless examples in nature to prove this is noway ensures survival or a thriving population, and it's damn sure not what makes us man...as even insects practice it.






Oh, and the Greeks are still around.

I see...and I don't suppose you'd care to look up their population and growth totals now would you?



But, they weren't the only ones who practiced infanticide.
As a matter of fact, it still happens to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

I looked it up for you.

And I'm pretty sure that most of the cultures practicing infanticide are doing so because they have a bunch of idiots incapable of any higher biological purpose than going around and fucking everything in site and thus have exceeded the capacity of their land to provide for their survival...


Not only that but seeing as how what sets us apart from most of the animal kingdom is our capacity for empathy, the idea of inflicting pain on a titny human is moving us backwards...not forward. That's not evolution...that de-evolution.


Even if it would increase our numbers(and believe me, we really don't need that), the dumbass offspring and lack of survival resouces most likely would be moving us further away from men and more towards being animals.




And, why are you so interested in how shit tastes?
I thought humans were past that.

I'm not...I'm interested in you tasting it.







Or, is it that you're really interested in the taste of shit?

Read a bunch of it recently...quite a bit actually.

But no...I just want to see you start living like animal like you are advocating we should do.


Animals aren't monogamous(even though some are) so we should be that way..

Well I am just saying animals also eat shit...so you should do that too. I mean if animals doing it is a good reason for doing it...then animals doing it is a good reason for doing it.


Are we taking our cues from the animals or aren't we?

[midgetonadonkey]

I find it funny that peewee is arguing that marriage is not natural, yet he is married.

[CuckingFunt]

From a biological point of view, the human species has a concealed ovulation and very little sexual dimorphism. These are both typical of species whose mating systems are female dominant and/or monogamous.

[whottt]

I find it funny that peewee is arguing that marriage is not natural, yet he is married.



I think the other guys arguing it isn't natural are married too....

[peewee's lovechild]

No...you're saying that marriage isn't natural to man, when in fact some form of it is has appeared in virtually every culture in recorded history, monogamous and otherwise, not to mention there are example of it in nature ...and pointing to animals as proof of your point. This makes you quite possibly the biggest idiot I have ever egnaged in a debate. Even the entire foundation for your argument isn't 100% based in fact.


There are also records of men having more than one woman and having several kids.

Is it still considered marriage?

Can you give the definition to marriage?

And, if it's still considered marriage (when there's more than one woman involved), is it still monogomy?

Marriage is a human construct.
It's not natural.



Furthermore, you seem to think what makes man man and will ensure our survival is the desire to fuck everything in site and make as many babies as you can, when in fact there are countless examples in nature to prove this is noway ensures survival or a thriving population, and it's damn sure not what makes us man...as even insects practice it.



But, it's done to ensure survival, isn't it?

Why do animals get in "heat" and mate?

Is it for the pure pleasure of it, or is there an element of survival to it?




I see...and I don't suppose you'd care to look up their population and growth totals now would you?


Google Greece, I'm sure you'll find all the info you want.




And I'm pretty sure that most of the cultures practicing infanticide are doing so because they have a bunch of idiots incapable of any higher biological purpose than going around and fucking everything in site and thus have exceeded the capacity of their land to provide for their survival...



You're point was that chimps practice infanticide and that we're better than them.

I just pointed out that humans have been doing it for thousands of years and continue doing so.




Not only that but seeing as how what sets us apart from most of the animal kingdom is our capacity for empathy, the idea of inflicting pain on a titny human is moving us backwards...not forward. That's not evolution...that de-evolution.



Oooookay.




Even if it would increase our numbers(and believe me, we really don't need that), the dumbass offspring and lack of survival resouces most likely would be moving us further away from men and more towards being animals.


So, why is marriage important again?




I'm not...I'm interested in you tasting it.



Your quick wit is impressive.




Read a bunch of it recently...quite a bit actually.

But no...I just want to see you start living like animal like you are advocating we should do.


Animals aren't monogamous(even though some are) so we should be that way..

Well I am just saying animals also eat shit...so you should do that too. I mean if animals doing it is a good reason for doing it...then animals doing it is a good reason for doing it.


Are we taking our cues from the animals or aren't we?


So, all animals eat shit?

What was that you said about generalizing?

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

From a biological point of view, the human species has a concealed ovulation and very little sexual dimorphism. These are both typical of species whose mating systems are female dominant and/or monogamous.

Um, yeah, what the chick with the jugs said, dude.

[Extra Stout]

I find it funny that peewee is arguing that marriage is not natural, yet he is married.
When he gets caught cheating, he will just blame evolution.

[peewee's lovechild]

From a biological point of view, the human species has a concealed ovulation and very little sexual dimorphism. These are both typical of species whose mating systems are female dominant and/or monogamous.

I get the concealed ovulation.

"very little sexual dimorphism"?

I fluff my feathers whenever a female is present.

[peewee's lovechild]

When he gets caught cheating, he will just blame evolution.

Thanks for that.

I got my "get out of jail free" card.

[peewee's lovechild]

From a biological point of view, the human species has a concealed ovulation and very little sexual dimorphism. These are both typical of species whose mating systems are female dominant and/or monogamous.

Maybe an arguement can be made about make up and other enhancements.

Maybe.

[CuckingFunt]

I get the concealed ovulation.

"very little sexual dimorphism"?

I fluff my feathers whenever a female is present.

You can fluff your feathers all you like, but you weren't born with a peacock tail.

How we alter our appearance is decoration; it's not at the biological level. Biologically, there is very little difference between men and women -- hips, genitalia, boobs, and slightly different body hair patterns. That's it.

[peewee's lovechild]

hips, genitalia, boobs, and slightly different body hair patterns

I like those.

[CuckingFunt]

I like those.

Hence the female dominant mating systems.

[E20]

So WTF is the argument here?

[peewee's lovechild]

So WTF is the argument here?

That women have boobs because men like it.

Oh, and that's how they get men to marry them.

[E20]

So the argument is if marriage/monoagamus(sp) is natural for humans? My answer: to an extent yes.

[whottt]

If it makes you guys feel any better...I've been single for 10 years now and have had sex with 3 different women in the past 2 months(hey turning 40 is a bitch), and I'm working on a fourth in a class I am taking, a fitness freak, she looks like all those athletic dancer/tumbler women on ESPN..I've always wanted to do a woman that could probably kick my ass...I may go see a 5th out of town at the end of the month...and yeah that would be a personal record for me.


But anyway...you think you're missing out on something, but you really aren't. It's fun for a few minutes...but it's pretty hollow if you want to know the truth about it.


I spend just as much time wishing I was married and could meet the right woman to spend the rest of my life with as you guys do wishing you could go out and be single again...

Just jack off, it lasts about as long...it's easier, less expensive and the urge you are feeling will leave you.


Plus...I can't always get sex when I want it just because I am single(and neither would you)...


Then again LOL, I forgot, you guys are married so you guys probably don't get it when you want it either, in fact you might even get it less BWAHAHAHA.

[CuckingFunt]

I think part of the issue with this argument is that marriage and monogamy are being used interchangeably when they're really not the same thing.

I absolutely believe that monogamy is natural to our species. Sure, there are exceptions, but I think those are probably more on a mental/emotional level (fear of commitment, trust issues, etc.) than they are on a biological level. Marriage, on the other hand, is a human construct that originally had far more to do with ownership than it did romance, love, or commitment. It is, essentially, a glorified business contract.

[I. Hustle]

I read all that and the only cool thing was when boobs were brought up.

[remingtonbo2001]

Angel_Luv and I are in love.

[whottt]

There are also records of men having more than one woman and having several kids.

Yeap...and that's natural too. It's also a survival mechanism...one that is frequent in war like societies where women outnumber the men.




Is it still considered marriage?


Yeap...




Can you give the definition to marriage?

Sure...it's a social grouping/bond...the smallest unit. More or less.





And, if it's still considered marriage (when there's more than one woman involved), is it still monogomy?

No........it's not monogamy.


Dude...there are some cultures where one woman will have two husbands. These are rare..but they do exist, they are also a survival mechanism.


Some survival mechanisms work better than others.



But the ultimate point of all this is that humans are not all alike and they often have different drives and instincts.....that's why we are so adaptable.




Marriage is a human construct.
It's not natural.


It's completely natural when defined as what it actually is, a social bond...and it occurs frequently in nature.

Monogamy occurs less frequently, but it does occur in nature...and thus it is natural.

We humans are adabptable...there aren't many no social bonding patterns that are unnatural to us.





But, it's done to ensure survival, isn't it?

Why do animals get in "heat" and mate?

Is it for the pure pleasure of it, or is there an element of survival to it?

Animals are incapable of higher thought and generally aren't as adapatable as we are. They are driven purely by instinct and not by learned knowledge...we are driven by both.








Google Greece, I'm sure you'll find all the info you want.


I already know the answer......






You're point was that chimps practice infanticide and that we're better than them.

I just pointed out that humans have been doing it for thousands of years and continue doing so.



I know what you were pointing out...I was pointing out that animals don't always do things optimum for survival...and you stupidly went in an entirely different direction with my point.

Incidentally...they don't ususally do it for the same reasons.





So, why is marriage important again?

I didn't say it was important...although at times it is. I said it was natural to humans, it is. It's actually natural to animals as well, and so is monogamy.











So, all animals eat shit?

What was that you said about generalizing?


Link to me saying all animals eat shit?

[remingtonbo2001]

So, anyone else in love?

[DarkReign]

So is the PC, Language, wirting, verbal and symbolic communication....will you now turn it off, stop thinking, communicating, and go live in the woods?

Cmon, really? Youre going to equate marriage with scientific advancement on a scale of "what should I believe and how does that affect my life"?


It's a also a survival function, depending on the environment.

Most animals don't evolve by biocultural evolution and produce offspring which take decades to grow to maturity and that are virtually helpless prior to doing so.


I'm not saying you have to be married...but saying you shouldn't be is as off as saying you should be.

Fair enough. I am married. Just hit my one year anniversary. Been with her for 8 years (and no, I have never cheated on her. never even been tempted to, actually).

I can see how monogamy can be a benefit in an enviroment where males far outnumber females (or even close to outnumber), so maybe there is a reason marriage was developed. But then again, if I had to guess when marriage was "created", I would argue women outnumbered men by a fair margin seeing as the menfolk of the time were quite war-like. On the other hand, if some pre-civilization form of marriage existed when humans were still beating clubs on cave walls, I can see the benefit of marriage from male perspective...because in a tribe of 12 people, you want to lock up what you can, in a sense.

Just a guess.



False...it depends on the environment and the male to female ratio. among other things.


It also depends on the individuals...and that is man's nature.


And there are mongomaous creatures in nature.

Penguins. Thats the only one I can think of. Dont care much to compare mankind to animals, seeing as our differences far outweigh our similarities, IMO (from a psychological standpoint).

And yes, religion is the perverbial double-edged sword. The greatest institutions and nearly ALL early scientific achievements can be attributed to Christianity (in the West anyway....cant speak for the East, but they obviously werent/arent Christian).

But then again, so can (pre-18th century) war, every genocide (all of them) and not to mention how Christianity was "spread" and the countless lives lost to that endeavor.

Sure, we of today can look back and say "All in all, it helped". But thats an easy perspective for us....try asking the poor schlub circa. 500-1000AD whose family was plucked from his village and tortured into conversion, watching his wife and children endure rape and bloody torture at the hands of supposed Holy Men...all in the name of God. Hindsight...yada yada...

[remingtonbo2001]

So....

[lefty]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101684

[remingtonbo2001]

Angel_Luv.

[peewee's lovechild]

whott's funny.

[ShoogarBear]

(# of posts in this thread) = 1/(intelligence)

[E20]

(# of posts in this thread) = 1/(intelligence)

Post counts are units of intelligence? And what's wrong with Yanni.

[to21]

If it makes you guys feel any better...I've been single for 10 years now and have had sex with 3 different women in the past 2 months(hey turning 40 is a bitch), and I'm working on a fourth in a class I am taking, a fitness freak, she looks like all those athletic dancer/tumbler women on ESPN..I've always wanted to do a woman that could probably kick my ass...I may go see a 5th out of town at the end of the month...and yeah that would be a personal record for me.


But anyway...you think you're missing out on something, but you really aren't. It's fun for a few minutes...but it's pretty hollow if you want to know the truth about it.


I spend just as much time wishing I was married and could meet the right woman to spend the rest of my life with as you guys do wishing you could go out and be single again...

Just jack off, it lasts about as long...it's easier, less expensive and the urge you are feeling will leave you.


Plus...I can't always get sex when I want it just because I am single(and neither would you)...


Then again LOL, I forgot, you guys are married so you guys probably don't get it when you want it either, in fact you might even get it less BWAHAHAHA.This is true.

All my boys laughed at me when I got married at a young age. These same fuckers are asking the Wifey to find them a "good woman to settle down with" at work now (15 years later).

[ShoogarBear]

Post counts are units of intelligence?

Outside of this thread, yes.

I'd explain it to you, but you wouldn't understand. :smokin

[CuckingFunt]

99% of all romantic comedies and "chick flicks," especially those made in recent years, are not only vapid and dull, but also incredibly negative towards women.

[easjer]

My unpopular opinion:

I think the objectification of female and female traits and genitalia that occurs on here is disgusting. Calling men who do not perform well on a basketball court pussies or cunts or referring to them as bleeding vaginas or attempting to emasculate them by assigning female traits or using gender stereotypes is demeaning to women. It makes me really sad to see this stuff thrown around casually as if it's really acceptable, when I think it is totally the opposite. The basis of this crap assumes that women are inferior to men and it attempts to make fun of a man or insult a man by emasculation/womanizing him. This assumption that women are on a lower level than men is wrong, imo, and it really bothers me.

I suppose you can go ahead and cue the feminist rhetoric bullshit that gets thrown around now.

[dallaskd]

pissing in the shower is perfectly fine.

+1

[E20]

Outside of this thread, yes.

I'd explain it to you, but you wouldn't understand. :smokin

Try me. :lol

[easjer]

99% of all romantic comedies and "chick flicks," especially those made in recent years, are not only vapid and dull, but also incredibly negative towards women.

I agree with that (though there are some chick flicks I like).

[dallaskd]

this might be with the majority, but women comedians are terrible. there has never been one slightly funny woman comedian ever.

[TheSanityAnnex]

this might be with the majority, but women comedians are terrible. there has never been one slightly funny woman comedian ever.

Lisa Lampanelli is pretty fucking funny.

[CuckingFunt]

My unpopular opinion:

I think the objectification of female and female traits and genitalia that occurs on here is disgusting. Calling men who do not perform well on a basketball court pussies or cunts or referring to them as bleeding vaginas or attempting to emasculate them by assigning female traits or using gender stereotypes is demeaning to women. It makes me really sad to see this stuff thrown around casually as if it's really acceptable, when I think it is totally the opposite. The basis of this crap assumes that women are inferior to men and it attempts to make fun of a man or insult a man by emasculation/womanizing him. This assumption that women are on a lower level than men is wrong, imo, and it really bothers me.

I suppose you can go ahead and cue the feminist rhetoric bullshit that gets thrown around now.

Agreed. Same thing goes for referring to everything bad as "gay."


I agree with that (though there are some chick flicks I like).

The thing that made me think of that was actually watching one of the very few that I have enjoyed and seeing how it succeeds where so many others fail.

[Extra Stout]

And yes, religion is the perverbial double-edged sword. The greatest institutions and nearly ALL early scientific achievements can be attributed to Christianity (in the West anyway....cant speak for the East, but they obviously werent/arent Christian).
That right there is so dense with misconceptions I don't know where to begin to unpack it.


But then again, so can (pre-18th century) war, every genocide (all of them) and not to mention how Christianity was "spread" and the countless lives lost to that endeavor.
Apparently your knowledge of Eastern history is quantitatively zero.

[I. Hustle]

Black people are owed something because of what their ancestors went through.

[Extra Stout]

"The greatest institutions" like Roman law?
"and nearly ALL early scientific achievements" like the ones of the ancient Greeks, or those of the Moors in al-Andalus?
"can be attributed to Christianity" or rather to a social system where the Church ran the schools?
"(in the West anyway....cant speak for the East, but they obviously werent/arent Christian)." Orthodox Christians aren't Christians?

"so can (pre-18th century) war" every war (no) or just some (Crusades)?
"every genocide (all of them)" the Turks were Christians? Really? Josef Stalin too?
"and not to mention how Christianity was "spread" and the countless lives lost to that endeavor." do you mean that most or all Christian conversion was forced (nonsense) or just that instances did exist (Theodosius & the Eastern Empire, Charlemagne & the Saxons, the Reconquista)?

[midgetonadonkey]

Women are inferior to men.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

But anyway...you think you're missing out on something, but you really aren't. It's fun for a few minutes...but it's pretty hollow if you want to know the truth about it.


Pretty much sums up marriage, no?

[easjer]

Pretty much sums up marriage, no?

Not my marriage, at least from my pov. I will let my husband speak for himself.

Social construct or not, biologically necessary or not, my marriage has made me much happier than I was before marriage and has increased my odds of propagating the species.

[easjer]

Women are inferior to men.

Thanks, Midge. Knew I could count on you.

[peewee's lovechild]

this might be with the majority, but women comedians are terrible. there has never been one slightly funny woman comedian ever.

Sarah Silverman is funny.

[peewee's lovechild]

Lisa Lampanelli is pretty fucking funny.

Annoying yes, funny . . . meh.

[peewee's lovechild]

Black people are owed something because of what their ancestors went through.

Mexicans and their progeny are owed half of the U.S.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Not my marriage, at least from my pov. I will let my husband speak for himself.

Social construct or not, biologically necessary or not, my marriage has made me much happier than I was before marriage and has increased my odds of propagating the species.

I wasn't really being serious. Some people are happy being married, some feel trapped, some just go through the motions, etc.

Same thing with being single.

Trying to shoehorn everyone into one category or lifestyle never works.

[tp2021]

Its annoying when posters talk about how great their marriages are.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Annoying yes, funny . . . meh.Much like yourself no?

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Point, Cobra Kai.

[tp2021]

Lisa Lampanelli is a riot.
Sarah Silverman can be funny, but she is mostly annoying.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Not my marriage, at least from my pov. I will let my husband speak for himself.

Social construct or not, biologically necessary or not, my marriage has made me much happier than I was before marriage and has increased my odds of propagating the species.

I will refer all to my previous statement in this thread.


Um, yeah, what the chick with the jugs said, dude.

[easjer]

I wasn't really being serious. Some people are happy being married, some feel trapped, some just go through the motions, etc.

Same thing with being single.

Trying to shoehorn everyone into one category or lifestyle never works.

Agree with that!

[easjer]

I will refer all to my previous statement in this thread.

:rolleyes

[midgetonadonkey]

Lisa Lampanelli is a riot.
Sarah Silverman can be funny, but she is mostly annoying.

I think they are both funny as hell.

Lisa Lampanelli gets the edge though.

[I. Hustle]

Mexicans and their progeny are owed half of the U.S.

My point exactly. I am Mexican-American and could cry that we are owed as well. If they did decide to give land back to black people like they said whose land do you think it would be? I was told one time by some coward to go back to Mexico where I belong. First off that dude shouted that out of a moving car and didn’t have the nuts to try and say that to someone face to face. Second tracing MY family roots will show that we are from TEXAS. Always have been always will be. I felt like telling him to go back to Germany or England or wherever the hell he came from.
Besides historically just about every race has been subjected to slavery at some point.

[whottt]

Just out of curisosity...

If a man calls another man a dick...does that mean he thinks men are inferior?
If a man calls another man an ahole does that mean he thinks everything is inferior?


Coversely, if a woman says another woman acts like a man, or hell if a man says it to a woman...does that mean they think men are inferior?


Men need to be able to insult each other...it's an essential part of building a relationship and communicating.

[remingtonbo2001]

Black people are owed something because of what their ancestors went through.

Really?

If anyone is owed anything, it's the Native Americans.

[peewee's lovechild]

If they did decide to give land back to black people

What do you mean "give land back to black people"?

They never had land here.

[peewee's lovechild]

Really?

If anyone is owed anything, it's the Native Americans.

Yes.

The Aztec part of me agrees with this.

Either way, I need to collect for my ancestors.

Reparations, baby!!!!!!!

[peewee's lovechild]

Bring on the Reparations!!!

[I. Hustle]

Really?

If anyone is owed anything, it's the Native Americans.

I meant they aren't owed anything. I worded it incorrectly.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

I am forced to live in a world knowing that if I had only been born a few centuries sooner I could have known the joy of owning another human being. I believe the federal government should pay me reparations totaling the fair market value of all the house work I did for my parents because we did not have the right to own slaves.

[peewee's lovechild]

I am forced to live in a world knowing that if I had only been born a few centuries sooner I could have known the joy of owning another human being. I believe the federal government should pay me reparations totaling the fair market value of all the house work I did for my parents because we did not have the right to own slaves.

:lmao

[peewee's lovechild]

Quasi-racist SFIE is some funny shit.

[remingtonbo2001]

Bring on the Reparations!!!

Fine.

But we're not giving back Texas.


You can have Arizona and New Mexico.


Hell, we'll also throw in Louisiana.


Just print up this post and take it to the Govorner's mansion along with a money order for the amount of $335.50 and the land is yours.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

Land should be given back to the animal(s) that inhabited NM before the Native Americans. Neandratals? Chimps?

[peewee's lovechild]

Fine.

But we're not giving back Texas.


You can have Arizona and New Mexico.


Hell, we'll also throw in Louisiana.


Just print up this post and take it to the Govorner's mansion along with a money order for the amount of $335.50 and the land is yours.


Fuck all that.

Texas would be the first thing we want back.

Texas with all it's minerals.

[I. Hustle]

What do you mean "give land back to black people"?

They never had land here.

I meant just give it to them.

Look I am trying to work and slack off at the same time ok. Sometimes I rush things.

[easjer]

Just out of curisosity...

If a man calls another man a dick...does that mean he thinks men are inferior?
If a man calls another man an ahole does that mean he thinks everything is inferior?


Conversely, if a woman says another woman acts like a man, or hell if a man says it to a woman...does that mean they think men are inferior?


Men need to be able to insult each other...it's an essential part of building a relationship and communicating.

I have no problem with insults - I have a problem with utilizing female genitalia as a form of derogatory intercourse.

Calling someone a walking vagina is meant to be demeaning to the male - because it implies an emasculation or lessening which subsequently equates him with female genitalia.

I don't think calling someone an asshole is quite the same, but you have a point about calling someone a prick or a dick.

Whether or not a woman or man attributing male characteristics to a woman is considering them inferior would depend on the insult in question. When this happens on here, it is clearly meant to be insulting, and the insult is as a result of what I describe above.

To be honest, I can't think of an insult centered around masculinization. Perhaps a woman being called a dyke if she is disdainful of men or has a more masculine appearance, but again, that really returns to the idea of women liking other women, which is inferior to male companionship and a penis.

So. . . if you could give me an example, I'd look at it and be happy to determine whether or not it infers a gender-based inferiority.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

While we're getting reparation happy here, when is the government going to step up and beat some reparations out of Canada's government for what they did to the Cajun people when they kicked them out? Where's my 40 acres and a minor league hockey team, eh?

[CuckingFunt]

Black people are owed something because of what their ancestors went through.

Slavery, and the lingering racism of the Jim Crow south after its "end," was an absolute abomination and something for which this country should be embarrassed for a long time.

However, I don't support reparations as they imply that Blacks are the only group who've been on the losing side of the USA oppression game. The way we treat our own people, across the scale, is shameful. Especially considering we've got the gall to take pride in being a melting pot.

[mrsmaalox]

I meant just give it to them.

Look I am trying to work and slack off at the same time ok. Sometimes I rush things.

We could give them land in Africa to go to.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

We are all experimental subjects of Aliens who landed here a long long long time ago.

[whottt]

Blacks were enslaved by blacks(and still are) long before white men started doing it. White men never actually went to Africa and rounded up slaves...they purchased them from Black Tribes and Muslim slave traders.


True fact...the first registered slave owner in United States History was a Free Black man who won a legal case for ownership for life of another black man. And in part his case was won based on the cultural practices of Blacks in Africa. Prior to that, blacks(and whites) were slaves under th terms of indentured servitude.........

True
Fact


Also true, Mexicans would not colonize Texas, and the Mexican government had to offer European settlers land and money to colonize Texas. That's how they got here.

Texas was only part of Mexico for a few decades, it was part of Spain for centuries, and it has been part of the US for longer, and it was inhabited by native Americans for far far longer...so I want to know exactly why Mexico has a claim? They owned it less time than anyone, and their people wanted to be here less than anyone.


The United States didn't go to war with Mexico for Texas...Texas did. And it won it's independence legally and ultimately with the consent of the Mexican government.



Furthermore, the Mexican citizens that did live here, in fact fought for Texas Independence from Mexico and became citizens of Texas and then the United States, and they are called Tejanos.


The whites did not move in here and run all the Mexican citizens out of the state....the whites and Mexicans that lived here fought together for Texas Independence from Mexico.


If you want to say it belongs to the Native Americans that lived here for millenia...well you have a point then, but it doesn't belong to Mexico...or Mexicans. And Texas joined the United of America with the popular support of it's citizens(including the Mexican ones) as an Independent country, just as they fought for Indepdence from Mexico.


Historical fact. Sorry if it doesn't jibe with popular blame the white man philosophy...the Indians, they've got a point about being fucked over by the Whiteman...no one else really does.


And slavery is still prevalent in Africa and just about every Muslim country.

[peewee's lovechild]

While we're getting reparation happy here, when is the government going to step up and beat some reparations out of Canada's government for what they did to the Cajun people when they kicked them out? Where's my 40 acres and a minor league hockey team, eh?

Dude, you rock.

[I. Hustle]

Slavery, and the lingering racism of the Jim Crow south after its "end," was an absolute abomination and something for which this country should be embarrassed for a long time.

However, I don't support reparations as they imply that Blacks are the only group who've been on the losing side of the USA oppression game. The way we treat our own people, across the scale, is shameful. Especially considering we've got the gall to take pride in being a melting pot.

I actually agree with you. WOW

[I. Hustle]

Also true, Mexicans would not colonize Texas, and the Mexican government had to offer European settlers land and money to colonize Texas. That's how they got here.

Texas was only part of Mexico for a few decades, it was part of Spain for centuries, and it has been part of the US for longer, and it was inhabited by native Americans for far far longer...so I want to know exactly why Mexico has a claim? They owned it less time than anyone, and their people wanted to be here less than anyone.


The United States didn't go to war with Mexico for Texas...Texas did. And it won it's independence legally and ultimately with the consent of the Mexican government.



Furthermore, the Mexican citizens that did live here, in fact fought for Texas Independence from Mexico and became citizens of Texas and then the United States, and they are called Tejanos.


The whites did not move in here and run all the Mexican citizens out of the state....the whites and Mexicans that lived here fought together for Texas Independence from Mexico.


If you want to say it belongs to the Native Americans that lived here for millenia...well you have a point then, but it doesn't belong to Mexico...or Mexicans. And Texas joined the United of America with the popular support of it's citizens(including the Mexican ones) as an Independent country, just as they fought for Indepdence from Mexico.


Historical fact. Sorry if it doesn't jibe with popular blame the white man philosophy...the Indians, they've got a point about being fucked over by the Whiteman...no one else really does.


And slavery is still prevalent in Africa and just about every Muslim country.


I was never a blame the white man kinda guy. I'm the get over it kinda guy.

As far as my family being from here well so far I see nothing that shows otherwise. We are called mexican now but my people are Mestizos. The reason we are here is because the Spaniards mixed with my NATIVE AMERICAN ancestors. The same ancestors that lived in this region of North America.

[whottt]

What I don't understand...


Why aren't Mexican pissed off at Spain?

Spainish comes from Spain..as does Catholicism...American didn't go in there and impose that shit on Mexicans, and eradicate their culture and force them to convert to European customs, government and religion..Spain did.


Yet most Mexicans I know are proud of their Spanish heritage, the cultural impact of Spain, their relgion and their language, that the Spanish conquerers imposed on the indigenous people. I don't understand it, and I never have....even the dark skinned Mexicans that took the brunt of the genocide and show little or no European blood in them...are proud of these ties.

Your true heritage was most likely Aztek...not Spanish. And America wasn't the one responsibile for what happened to your country....nor are they responsible for the shitty European Aristocracy type government(otherwise known as socialism) that has kept that country completley fucked economically.


I don't have any problems with Mexicans that want to come to America and be citizens...but what scares the living hell out of me is the ones that want to bring the Mexican Government and socialism with them...


Fuck that. That shit is so corrupt it's not even funny...


Mexico has a shitload of natural resouces and arable land...there is absolutely no reason it should be as economically fucked as it is.

It makes no sense, if the Mexican government was that great, those mofos wouldn't want to come over here in the first place...for money or anything else.


I don't understand the loyalty to the Mexican Government...

[tp2021]

people put too much importance on the past when really, it has no bearing on who you are as a person. live your own life, forget who did what to whom in the past...if you have to google and wiki shit, then you dont know it and it isnt a big deal to you, so dont act like it is. move on, live your life for now and the future. not the past.

[whottt]

I was never a blame the white man kinda guy. I'm the get over it kinda guy.

As far as my family being from here well so far I see nothing that shows otherwise. We are called mexican now but my people are Mestizos. The reason we are here is because the Spaniards mixed with my NATIVE AMERICAN ancestors. The same ancestors that lived in this region of North America.

That's awesome...but that's not the popular conception.

Me..when I went to join the Army after September 11th, 90% of the guys I saw joining up to go fight were Mexican...I don't know if they were Mexican Nationals or Mexican Americans..but damned if they weren't the bulk of the guys wanting to fight, and most of them wanted to join the Marines.

I dont' give a fuck who those mofos were...those are the guys this country needs more of right now.


But like I said...I don't get the loyalty of so many Mexican Nationals to the Mexican Government...if I was from Mexico and patriotic...first thing I would be trying to do is overthrow that corrupt mofo.

[whottt]

people put too much importance on the past when really, it has no bearing on who you are as a person. live your own life, forget who did what to whom in the past...if you have to google and wiki shit, then you dont know it and it isnt a big deal to you, so dont act like it is. move on, live your life for now and the future. not the past.


Right it doesn't have much bearing on who are you as a person...but if a country is run so shittily, with absolutely logical reason for being so, that I have to leave to go to another country just to make a living and feed my family, I am not going to be freaking loyal to that country....and I am damn sure not going to want to make the place I am going to earn that living just like it...


I mean my family came over here from Germany most likely for economic reasons(incidentally in the early part of the 20th century)...I don't want to be like Germany. Fuck Germany. If Germany was so great...I wouldn't be here now.

[whottt]

I have no problem with insults - I have a problem with utilizing female genitalia as a form of derogatory intercourse.

You do realize that most men are quite fond of female genitalia right?




Calling someone a walking vagina is meant to be demeaning to the male - because it implies an emasculation or lessening which subsequently equates him with female genitalia.

Right...it means he's not fufilling his gender role. It means he's not acting like a man should act...but it's also just because it's intended to sound derogatory.





I don't think calling someone an asshole is quite the same, but you have a point about calling someone a prick or a dick.


Thanks...it is relevant right?



Whether or not a woman or man attributing male characteristics to a woman is considering them inferior would depend on the insult in question. When this happens on here, it is clearly meant to be insulting, and the insult is as a result of what I describe above.


Well maybe there are certain times when a man is supposed to be hard and tough, and by comparing them to female genitalia, which is decidedly not hard or tough, they are accusing them of not doing what they are supposed to be doing and being what they are supposed to be being.




To be honest, I can't think of an insult centered around masculinization. Perhaps a woman being called a dyke if she is disdainful of men or has a more masculine appearance, but again, that really returns to the idea of women liking other women, which is inferior to male companionship and a penis.

So. . . if you could give me an example, I'd look at it and be happy to determine whether or not it infers a gender-based inferiority.


Sure...she looks like a man. She talks like a man. She walks like a man, acts like man. I think she has an Adam's apple...she's got a mustache, a beard.


All derogatory...all referencing male characteristics, all meant to be insults to women.


I can't honestly say I've ever heard someone call a woman a dick before though.

[Extra Stout]

Once I heard someone say of Serena Williams, "She looks like Ben Wallace with breasts." I understand now that the comment was just extolling her toughness and athleticism.

[whottt]

people put too much importance on the past when really, it has no bearing on who you are as a person. live your own life, forget who did what to whom in the past...if you have to google and wiki shit, then you dont know it and it isnt a big deal to you, so dont act like it is. move on, live your life for now and the future. not the past.

And BTW, I didn't google or wiki anything, it's what I studied in college, with a focus on what is now called the Southwestern United States. You might be surprised how deep my knowledge on this subject goes. I'm definitely a know it all type(on the forum anyway) but on this subject the name actually fits.

[easjer]

You do realize that most men are quite fond of female genitalia right?

Yes, which is something that has always struck me funny. Hetero men like vaginas, so why ascribe weakness and lack of performance, inherently negative things with something you like so much?



Right...it means he's not fufilling his gender role. It means he's not acting like a man should act...but it's also just because it's intended to sound derogatory. . . Well maybe there are certain times when a man is supposed to be hard and tough, and by comparing them to female genitalia, which is decidedly not hard or tough, they are accusing them of not doing what they are supposed to be doing and being what they are supposed to be being.


Ok - but why does the insult have to be centered on equating him with the opposite gender? The nature of insult lies on demeaning and subjugation. If what you are saying is that the man is soft when he needs to be tough - why not call him a wet tissue? Or a down pillow? Why does he have to be a woman or a pussy or a bleeding vagina? Why do we have to ask if it's his time of the month?

There are a multitude of comparisons and insults with no reference to gender. The fact that gender is brought into it as a negative is necessarily degrading to that other gender.

And I'm willing to revert to gender at this point and state that if it is the case that male gender is used derogatorily, that it is no more appropriate than degrading the female gender. But in conceding that, please concede to me that it happens far more frequently that the female gender is the one used derogatorily on this site and the casualness with which it is done is potentially harmful, in the same way that casually racist terms are harmful.




I can't honestly say I've ever heard someone call a woman a dick before though.

I have. And because of that I concede to gender and not just female. In the case it refers to overt aggression and unnecessary brutishness; less charming stereotypes of exaggerated male behaviors.

I suppose the question now is whether a woman or man calling a man a dick is subjugation of the male gender. I suppose in my argument it would be.

[easjer]

Once I heard someone say of Serena Williams, "She looks like Ben Wallace with breasts." I understand now that the comment was just extolling her toughness and athleticism.

:lol

I give.

Ben Wallace with breasts? Yeah.

But is a physical comparison on the same level? It's insulting someone's appearance, rather than their actions. I have to think about it for awhile.

[Leetonidas]

HjPAEPFaxoM

lol I stand by peewee. You realize that aside from Stairway (and I don't know if you play music, but if you do you should know that millions of songs have similar chord structures) that all those songs are either covers of the originals or new interpretations right? Led Zeppelin didn't steal shit, and people know their versions because their songs were better.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'll go with my old standby: officiating almost never (less than 1% of the time) costs a team a game.

Oh, and I think I've come around to whottt's view of singledom (several pages back). As someone who has never been married and who, at 36, has done the serial hookup thing and the serial dating thing, I've come to realize that finding some one specific person to share a life with seems a fabulous choice.

[whottt]

Yes, which is something that has always struck me funny. Hetero men like vaginas, so why ascribe weakness and lack of performance, inherently negative things with something you like so much?




Ok - but why does the insult have to be centered on equating him with the opposite gender? The nature of insult lies on demeaning and subjugation. If what you are saying is that the man is soft when he needs to be tough - why not call him a wet tissue? Or a down pillow? Why does he have to be a woman or a pussy or a bleeding vagina? Why do we have to ask if it's his time of the month?

There are a multitude of comparisons and insults with no reference to gender. The fact that gender is brought into it as a negative is necessarily degrading to that other gender.

And I'm willing to revert to gender at this point and state that if it is the case that male gender is used derogatorily, that it is no more appropriate than degrading the female gender. But in conceding that, please concede to me that it happens far more frequently that the female gender is the one used derogatorily on this site and the casualness with which it is done is potentially harmful, in the same way that casually racist terms are harmful.




I have. And because of that I concede to gender and not just female. In the case it refers to overt aggression and unnecessary brutishness; less charming stereotypes of exaggerated male behaviors.

I suppose the question now is whether a woman or man calling a man a dick is subjugation of the male gender. I suppose in my argument it would be.


What a dick!

Just kidding.

It's probably more offensive because men tend to be more insulting than women and men tend to insult each other more than they insult women. So you hear it a hell of a lot more.

Plus when you are calling someone a pussy...just the sound of the word can be offensive. I know a lot of women that don't like that word period.


You know what...you have a point anyway, because a great deal of the time men have considered women more inferior(and up until recently, it got worse the more technologically advanced we became, most of the primitive and hunter gatherer tribes were egalitarian...


SO easjer...if someone called you a degogatory name corresponding to the female anatomy...would you be insulted?

[Leetonidas]

I would also like to point out in that Taurus song, their is a repeated chord with an alternating bass line. Stairway to Heaven is a series of other chords, not the same one played over an over again with a different bass note.

[CuckingFunt]

You do realize that most men are quite fond of female genitalia right?

Right...it means he's not fufilling his gender role. It means he's not acting like a man should act...but it's also just because it's intended to sound derogatory.

Well maybe there are certain times when a man is supposed to be hard and tough, and by comparing them to female genitalia, which is decidedly not hard or tough, they are accusing them of not doing what they are supposed to be doing and being what they are supposed to be being.

Female genitalia is, believe it or not, attached to actual females. In fact, it's pretty much the thing that sets them (us) apart as females. Therefore, when you call a guy a pussy, as an insult, you are essentially calling him a woman. As an insult.

That's a tad problematic. It assumes that women are inherently less than men. It assumes that women are inherently less capable than men, depending on usage, or less intelligent than men, or less stable than men, and on and on. You say it's used towards men to accuse them of not doing what they're supposed to be doing, or being what they're supposed to be (which on its own raises all sorts of questions as to what, exactly, a man is supposed to be... but that's a different conversation), and that's fine, but there are other ways to do it. The fact that "pussy" (and "fag") is so quickly used in our society as a way to express a perceived weakness says a lot about how we view women.


Sure...she looks like a man. She talks like a man. She walks like a man, acts like man. I think she has an Adam's apple...she's got a mustache, a beard.

All derogatory...all referencing male characteristics, all meant to be insults to women.

Equally insulting to me. Any insults referencing gender, race, and sexuality are equally responsible for helping to maintain the many systems of inequality that currently exist.

[E20]

Taking shits and sneezing feels better than an orgasm and among other bodily functions.

[remingtonbo2001]

I believe Mexico should be annexed into the Union.

It's obvious the Mexican government isn't capable of supporting it's own citizens.

[easjer]

SO easjer...if someone called you a degogatory name corresponding to the female anatomy...would you be insulted?

Yes, most likely. Though it would be less about the cause of female equality than personal insult at that point.

Funt sums it up well too.

[easjer]

Here's another statement from me.

Abraham Lincoln and FDR are the top 5 of my worst presidents list, from a political science point of view. They worked around the Constitution in deplorable ways to gain their own ends, and I think it left the government and country worse for it.

Of course, when you factor humanity and history back in, it is difficult to see what ought to have been done differently, given how deplorable the institution of slavery is and how disgusting the notion of owning another human being is. And given the dire situation that many people found themselves in during the Depression - what would have been a better course of action.

Yet another moment when ideologies clash and fail in light of humanity, and why the study of things such as history and political science can only be carried so far.

[easjer]

I'll go with my old standby: officiating almost never (less than 1% of the time) costs a team a game.

Oh, and I think I've come around to whottt's view of singledom (several pages back). As someone who has never been married and who, at 36, has done the serial hookup thing and the serial dating thing, I've come to realize that finding some one specific person to share a life with seems a fabulous choice.


:lmao

You know what's funny? Almost as long as I've been on this site, you've had a picture of an old ref up as your avatar, and I've never thought of you as a relatively young man. Especially with your extensive basketball knowledge - I've always, always thought of you as in your mid 40s or older.

Well, if you can't find a wife, remember you have an open invitation from me and SFIE to marry us in ST. (Unfortunately, we're sort of a packaged deal at this point.) :married

[Hank the Tank]

300 is one of the worst movies ever made.

Will Ferrell isnt even remotely funny.

LOZ: Ocarina of Time is boring.

[tp2021]

:lol

I give.

Ben Wallace with breasts? Yeah.

But is a physical comparison on the same level? It's insulting someone's appearance, rather than their actions. I have to think about it for awhile.

Is it insulting if you have to think awhile? Thats a pretty good one, actually. it plants a ticking time bomb. it does nothing at the time, but a week and a half later when you think about it for a minute..."That dick!"

People read too much into what other people say. if words like pussy or dick insult you, maybe you just arent psychologically strong enough. kids call each other meaner, more personal things. the personalized insult is what hurts, not the random word vomit that an ass says to anyone s/he comes across. if its not the insult, but the insinuation that it must mean one sex or race or religion or whatever is more inferior to the person saying it, i doubt that the insultor feels that way. you dont think about that stuff when you are fuming at someone. calling someone a piece of shit doesnt mean you think piss is the superior effluence. thinking too much into petty shit like that just empowers the person insulting you more (thats if they even realized its effect).

People are too sensitive and petty.

By the way Whottt, i wasnt pointing you out specifically. knowing what i know now, its cool that you know so much about the history of the people in the southwest. as someone about to go off to college, its cool to see that someone has stayed interested in what they studied and enjoy it so much.

[DarkReign]

That right there is so dense with misconceptions I don't know where to begin to unpack it.

Apparently your knowledge of Eastern history is quantitatively zero.

Thanks, like I give a shit what you or anyone else thinks.

I understand youre a learned theist and a helluva smart dude, but I was making a platitude.

Tell me you couldnt read what I wrote and guess the fucking time period I was referring to?

As an example, just so youre clear, I was referring to Newton, The University of Paris, the scientific method (or at least a part of it, arguably speaking) and Galileo.


"The greatest institutions" like Roman law?

[sic]

"and not to mention how Christianity was "spread" and the countless lives lost to that endeavor." do you mean that most or all Christian conversion was forced (nonsense) or just that instances did exist (Theodosius & the Eastern Empire, Charlemagne & the Saxons, the Reconquista)?

You do realize that (early) Greece is considered from the West, right?

[tp2021]

this is a good thread.

i dont know if thats unpopular, but its my opinion. its my guess that the only people enjoying it are the ones posting it.

[E20]

This new age bullshit with the tea drinking and like yoga shit is stupid and bullshit.

[whottt]

Female genitalia is, believe it or not, attached to actual females. In fact, it's pretty much the thing that sets them (us) apart as females. Therefore, when you call a guy a pussy, as an insult, you are essentially calling him a woman. As an insult.


I gotta disagree with you on this one Funt...women are more than just their genitals.





That's a tad problematic. It assumes that women are inherently less than men. It assumes that women are inherently less capable than men, depending on usage

Or it assumes that women and men have traditionally had different strengths and different weakenesses...I think that's a fairly accurate statement, if only because women bear children and primarily are the nurterers. But the truth of the matter is that many do assume an inherent inequality in the sexes...I don't really agree with that but I won't deny that it has been and largely still is the mindset of many. Including some women...



or less intelligent than men,

Hmmm...regardless of what most men think of the intelligence of women compared to men...most men, even the misogynists, will concede that women's IQ when it comes to men far exceeds the IQ of men when it comes to women.





or less stable than men, and on and on. You say it's used towards men to accuse them of not doing what they're supposed to be doing, or being what they're supposed to be (which on its own raises all sorts of questions as to what, exactly, a man is supposed to be...

There hasn't been a single society in the history of man where women primarily served as the hunters, or even the co-hunters. or men primarily as the child rearers. Women have often been the gatherers and prior to the industrial revolution even the farmers, but never the hunters. So it is pretty much an absolute statement that men are the killers, the takers of life women are the nuturers and givers of life....and killing takes a certain hardness, a lack of sympathy, a lack of empathy. This is not to say women can't do it...only that at no point in history has it been their role in an organized society.

You can call it how you see it, but it has been strictly the domain of man since time began. Not a single recorded case to the contrary........

And comments like that have been used to goad men into a killing mindset for the purpose of survival I'd imagine, for almost as long.


Since those sorts of insults are usually aimed a players showing an unwillingness ot hurt their opponent, a lack of killer instinct if you will...is it really that hard to understand why men make those sorts of comments to one another at times when they aren't supposed to be giving life, but taking it? Figuratively speaking of course.





but that's a different conversation), and that's fine, but there are other ways to do it. The fact that "pussy" (and "fag") is so quickly used in our society as a way to express a perceived weakness says a lot about how we view women.



Equally insulting to me. Any insults referencing gender, race, and sexuality are equally responsible for helping to maintain the many systems of inequality that currently exist.


Right and I'd counter that those insults are offensive because of the discrimination itself that has existed/exists, not because the actually convey some sort of inequality in their utterance, it's more about the difference in roles, which weren't really a choice. That's why I don't think it bothers the majority of men to hear women saying a woman acts or looks like a man or calling one of them a dick etc.


You could say those sorts of expressions are now an anachronism in an industrialized civilization that strives to be egalitarian...but they definitely served a purpose in the past. It got me to kill(and skin) when my Dad was showing me how to do it....

[Stacie]

Dam Whottt those are some long replies, I hope you bring some of that shit to the next gtg. :)

[whottt]

You know what Funt, I'll say something else, the end result of the discrimination based on gender roles is ultimately a negative for men and mankind...as women aren't supposed to be hard, they are supposed to be nurtuers, and the result of the inequlity is that women are now striving to be more manlike and harder...I don't see that as a benefit to the human race personally...it's unfortunate that it happened. It's definitely upset the balance of human nature.


The most primitive societies were universally egalitarian...........


And blame for the spread of that mindset lies primarily at the feet of Europeans and it is the major cultural impact Europeans have had on the Indigenous populations of the lands they have colonized. It is almost entiirely a European mindset that grew out of the development of agriculture, and later imposed on other cultures by Europeans using trade incentives......it's not one that was predominant in the peoples of the Americas or Africa prior to their interaction with Europeans.

[Stacie]

I have three gay friends.

You actually keep count? :lmao

[ploto]

When men exhibit more feminine characteristics, they are insulted with feminine words and when women exhibit more masculine characteristics, they are insulted with masculine words. I really do not think it runs much deeper than that.

[E20]

When men exhibit more feminine characteristics, they are insulted with feminine words and when women exhibit more masculine characteristics, they are insulted with masculine words. I really do not think it runs much deeper than that.

I think that Whottt and CF are arguing the rigidness of contemporary gender roles and how each gender has to follow a norm set of rules for acceptance in society at large.

[pickle girl]

Kori and LJ can't be trusted any more..................

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Driving and talking on a cell phone should be illegal in the US, like in most other first-world countries. And people that text message and drive should get their driving privileges revoked.

Damn straight. Studies show that talking and driving has an equivalent crash rate to mid-level drink-driving (that is BAC 0.08-0.15).


Rome much? Greece?

Not until the mass indoctrination of Christianity/Islam have gays ever experienced persecution in the West (cant speak for the East...no idea). So basically, gays have been persecuted far shorter a span then when they were not (historically speaking).

Spartans (and Greece as a whole) used to practice pedastry, which carried over into early Roman culture as well.

With that said, I dont care about what gays do or dont do. Marriage, child raising, whatever. None of my business.

Okay, I should have said "persecuted for the entirety of recent history". Sheesh. Name me a culture in the last 1000 years that hasn't persecuted gays.


Species go extinct everyday and it's only the popular ones people give a shit about on the endangered list.

Yup. ANd the current extinction rate is about 1000 times the natural background rate. We humans are currently causing a mass extinction event the likes of which has not been seen since the dinosaurs disappeared.


Global warming is real.

You bet it is.


Global Warming has been happening since the end of the Ice Age.
Al Gore propaganda that all tree huggers have embraced.

Fuck you and fuck Al Gore. I'll believe the SCIENTISTS from every major scientific institution in the world and the thousands of studies from diverse scientific fields which all point to the same thing.


The Olympics are stupid. They do not celebrate anything of value. They are simply a vehicle to generate television ad revenue and to promote the host nation's propaganda.

+1


Most people who are "green" are just trying to convince themselves there is a way to continue being mindless consumer drones without the nasty global consequences.

Totally - so many people claim to be "green" when they haven't done a fucking thing about it.

You have to actually measure your impact (to produce a baseline), and then change your lifestyle (and measure again), in order to change your footprint on the planet. I'm proud to say I've done exactly that and reduced my environmental footprint by around 60% in 2 years.


I have figured out what will supplant modernity: neo-tribalism. America will dissolve into a large number of tribes with a complex network of alliances and rivalries. When conflict emerges, the tribes most predisposed to violence will win.

Sorry, team Blue.

:lol Sad but true.


99% of all romantic comedies and "chick flicks," especially those made in recent years, are not only vapid and dull, but also incredibly negative towards women.

Indeed.


Sarah Silverman is funny.

Not.

Extra Stout wins this thread. He's said the most intelligent things.

Whottt - athiesm does not claim that there are no greater beings in the Universe, it claims that there are no anthropocentric GODS, a subtle yet important difference which invalidates your entire rant back on page 6. However, I'm an agnostic anyway, so I'm not going to debate it with you any further than that.

As for the whole arguement about "marriage"... sheesh guys, marriage is clearly a religo-legal-cultural construct. WHat you were really arguing is monogamy vs polygamy/polygyny, and that is both a biological and a cultural construct depending on context... but hell, I can't be bothered to say any more than that. Let's argue it over a (case of) beer if I ever visit SA again (I have curtailed my international travel for environmental reasons, although i might hop on a freighter to the States in a year or two).

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

This new age bullshit with the tea drinking and like yoga shit is stupid and bullshit.

Yeah, but the cult of coffee and weight-lifting is so much more valid! :rolleyes

Tea goes back to China about 5000 yrs ago, and yoga about 7000 yrs, so yeah, um, you're stupid and bullshit for dismissing things you don't understand.

Actually, you'd said some half-reasonable things in this thread up until then.

[E20]

Yeah, but the cult of coffee and weight-lifting is so much more valid! :rolleyes

Tea goes back to China about 5000 yrs ago, and yoga about 7000 yrs, so yeah, um, you're stupid and bullshit for dismissing things you don't understand.

Actually, you'd said some half-reasonable things in this thread up until then.
Ugh........I don't drink coffee or any caffiene related products. I've been drinking tea for 19 years, it's our national drink and my family and I go through 3-5 thermoses of tea a day. It's just the sudden way everybody now humps those things because some celebrity started and everybody is raving about the benefits when they don't know jack shit about because of some fad. I never said specifically yoga and tea were bullshit, just the way a bunch of people are riding it. Samthing with Madonna and that whole kabbalah incident, she started it and now half of hollywood is doing the same thing, they say it has helath benfits eeirly similar to the benefits taht tea and yoga have or whatever.

Go back to your biodome you EPA pansy.

BTW weight lifting pwns.

[debo]

some people are too stupid to deserve freedom of speech

[whottt]

Whottt - athiesm does not claim that there are no greater beings in the Universe, it claims that there are no anthropocentric GODS,

No it doesn't...it says there is no god or gods. Period.








a subtle yet important difference which invalidates your entire rant back on page 6.


LOL...invalidates it in what way? Because I

A. Realize they lacked a specialized modern scientific vocabulary 3000+ years ago


B. Realize that even if they had one, whatever happened or was the foundation for what happened, the description of it would have evolved drastically in all those years since, as would have the sounds of the words, as would have the meanings of the words...and that's not even taking into account being intepreted by different cultures and languages, being altered by different leaders for their own purposes, not to mention having every chronicler slip his .02 in to grab a slice of immortality.


40 years ago gay didn't mean what it means now...now the original definition of that word is defacto buried for all time, and that's in the age of recorded history.


C. Realize that if we encountered God right now, we still wouldn't have the worlds to describe his perceptions, or the minds to grasp them, for if we did, we'd be the gods. New words would have to be invented to accurately describe them, but more than likely we wouldn't invent new words, we'd apply pre-existing ones to them, to describe heretofore unconceived of things, ...and 3000 years from now we'd sound like a bunch of simplistic morons to the people of that time. Even if they researched, they'd look up the original definition, even though we weren't using in terms of the original definition. Even if we recorded verbatim what happened or what we were told, the words wouldn't mean the same thing and the future generations understanding of it would be different then ours, because they will be looking at it from their perspective of creation, their point in time...not ours.


IOW how in the fuck do you expect a culture in which science doesn't exist to give you a scientific explanation, and how do you expect them to understand something they don't understand, they couldn't understand, unless they themselves were god, and even if they were, would you expect their descendants 3000 years later to have the same intepretation of events, under any circumstances..........................


Question ?








However, I'm an agnostic anyway, so I'm not going to debate it with you any further than that.

Oh let's...it's been proven that Christ existed...has it been proven that God doesn't? It's been proven that many biblical events did happen...has it been proven that any atheistic ones did?


Furthermore...as I said, man and man alone of all creatures on this planet, has spiritual beliefs....and we have always had them, they actually predate the existence of modern thinking man.........


What were the atheists doing back then? Where is their great civilization?


There's not one...there's not one now.


It doesn't take intellect to not believe in higher beings, even a single creator...a dog can do it.


Meanwhile...the people who follow the 10 commandments...they are doing pretty good.

[CuckingFunt]

People read too much into what other people say. if words like pussy or dick insult you, maybe you just arent psychologically strong enough. kids call each other meaner, more personal things. the personalized insult is what hurts, not the random word vomit that an ass says to anyone s/he comes across. if its not the insult, but the insinuation that it must mean one sex or race or religion or whatever is more inferior to the person saying it, i doubt that the insultor feels that way. you dont think about that stuff when you are fuming at someone. calling someone a piece of shit doesnt mean you think piss is the superior effluence. thinking too much into petty shit like that just empowers the person insulting you more (thats if they even realized its effect).

It's not about the words. Look at my screen name and ask yourself if I'm not psychologically strong enough for dirty words. It's about the meaning behind those words.

Calling someone a piece of shit isn't saying that piss is better, it's saying that shit is an unpleasant enough substance to count as an insult. Therefore, insulting a man by calling him a woman is saying that being a woman is an unpleasant enough fate to count as an insult.


I gotta disagree with you on this one Funt...women are more than just their genitals.

No shit.


Or it assumes that women and men have traditionally had different strengths and different weakenesses...I think that's a fairly accurate statement, if only because women bear children and primarily are the nurterers. But the truth of the matter is that many do assume an inherent inequality in the sexes...I don't really agree with that but I won't deny that it has been and largely still is the mindset of many. Including some women...

Hmmm...regardless of what most men think of the intelligence of women compared to men...most men, even the misogynists, will concede that women's IQ when it comes to men far exceeds the IQ of men when it comes to women.

There hasn't been a single society in the history of man where women primarily served as the hunters, or even the co-hunters. or men primarily as the child rearers. Women have often been the gatherers and prior to the industrial revolution even the farmers, but never the hunters. So it is pretty much an absolute statement that men are the killers, the takers of life women are the nuturers and givers of life....and killing takes a certain hardness, a lack of sympathy, a lack of empathy. This is not to say women can't do it...only that at no point in history has it been their role in an organized society.

You can call it how you see it, but it has been strictly the domain of man since time began. Not a single recorded case to the contrary........

And comments like that have been used to goad men into a killing mindset for the purpose of survival I'd imagine, for almost as long.

Since those sorts of insults are usually aimed a players showing an unwillingness ot hurt their opponent, a lack of killer instinct if you will...is it really that hard to understand why men make those sorts of comments to one another at times when they aren't supposed to be giving life, but taking it? Figuratively speaking of course.

Right and I'd counter that those insults are offensive because of the discrimination itself that has existed/exists, not because the actually convey some sort of inequality in their utterance, it's more about the difference in roles, which weren't really a choice. That's why I don't think it bothers the majority of men to hear women saying a woman acts or looks like a man or calling one of them a dick etc.

You could say those sorts of expressions are now an anachronism in an industrialized civilization that strives to be egalitarian...but they definitely served a purpose in the past. It got me to kill(and skin) when my Dad was showing me how to do it....

That's a whole lot of talk that, unfortunately, doesn't really address the point that either easjer or I were making. It's not about biological gender differences or the complex dynamics of a hunter/gatherer society. It's about the fact that using female traits as an insult to suggest weakness is also equating womanhood or femininity with weakness. That's offensive in and of itself. The frequency with which it happens, both here and in the real world, is especially so.

And, quite frankly, as a man, it's really not your place to tell me that it's not offensive.

Also, of course it doesn't bother you (or pehaps the majority of men, but I really haven't polled enough of them to know for sure) if a woman were to call another woman a dick, or suggest she was acting like a man. The only reason anyone would ever have to do that would be a woman were acting too strong, or too independently, or too masculine. In the insult world, dick = strong, independent, and masculine; therefore, man = strong, independent, and masculine. Societally, that's the jackpot. Saying that a woman acts (or looks) too much like a man is an insult to her for not adequately fulfilling all that expected of a woman, but still is associated with character traits that are seen as good and powerful.


You know what Funt, I'll say something else, the end result of the discrimination based on gender roles is ultimately a negative for men and mankind...as women aren't supposed to be hard, they are supposed to be nurtuers, and the result of the inequlity is that women are now striving to be more manlike and harder...I don't see that as a benefit to the human race personally...it's unfortunate that it happened. It's definitely upset the balance of human nature.

Women were supposed to be nurturers, perhaps, but technological advances have long since erased whatever relatively miniscule physiological and biological differences there ever were between the sexes. We're several hundred years removed from hunter/gatherer human relations and, at this point, whatever division there is between the sexes is entirely socially constructed.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Oh, and I think I've come around to whottt's view of singledom (several pages back). As someone who has never been married and who, at 36, has done the serial hookup thing and the serial dating thing, I've come to realize that finding some one specific person to share a life with seems a fabulous choice.

Pussy.

[whottt]

It's not about the words. Look at my screen name and ask yourself if I'm not psychologically strong enough for dirty words. It's about the meaning behind those words.

Calling someone a piece of shit isn't saying that piss is better, it's saying that shit is an unpleasant enough substance to count as an insult. Therefore, insulting a man by calling him a woman is saying that being a woman is an unpleasant enough fate to count as an insult.



No shit.



That's a whole lot of talk that, unfortunately, doesn't really address the point that either easjer or I were making. It's not about biological gender differences or the complex dynamics of a hunter/gatherer society. It's about the fact that using female traits as an insult to suggest weakness is also equating womanhood or femininity with weakness. That's offensive in and of itself. The frequency with which it happens, both here and in the real world, is especially so.

And, quite frankly, as a man, it's really not your place to tell me that it's not offensive.

Also, of course it doesn't bother you (or pehaps the majority of men, but I really haven't polled enough of them to know for sure) if a woman were to call another woman a dick, or suggest she was acting like a man. The only reason anyone would ever have to do that would be a woman were acting too strong, or too independently, or too masculine. In the insult world, dick = strong, independent, and masculine; therefore, man = strong, independent, and masculine. Societally, that's the jackpot. Saying that a woman acts (or looks) too much like a man is an insult to her for not adequately fulfilling all that expected of a woman, but still is associated with character traits that are seen as good and powerful.



Women were supposed to be nurturers, perhaps, but technological advances have long since erased whatever relatively miniscule physiological and biological differences there ever were between the sexes. We're several hundred years removed from hunter/gatherer human relations and, at this point, whatever division there is between the sexes is entirely socially constructed.


Is anyone still not convinced she's female?

[GaryJohnston]

Women are not a mans equal.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Ugh........I don't drink coffee or any caffiene related products. I've been drinking tea for 19 years, it's our national drink and my family and I go through 3-5 thermoses of tea a day. It's just the sudden way everybody now humps those things because some celebrity started and everybody is raving about the benefits when they don't know jack shit about because of some fad. I never said specifically yoga and tea were bullshit, just the way a bunch of people are riding it. Samthing with Madonna and that whole kabbalah incident, she started it and now half of hollywood is doing the same thing, they say it has helath benfits eeirly similar to the benefits taht tea and yoga have or whatever.

Go back to your biodome you EPA pansy.

BTW weight lifting pwns.

Excellent, you explained yourself well. Your original rant didn't get that across though.

I agree with you, fads suck, fashion is bullshit, and the entire world should learn to look for substance, not style.

No biodome here, just sustainable living.

I also lift weights and know all about its benefits. :)

[anakha]

Ryan Stiles and Colin Mochrie are the funniest comedians of the past twenty years.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

No it doesn't...it says there is no god or gods. Period.

Exactly, "no gods", not "no higher beings". The "God/s" I think you are talking about are higher beings that are intimately connected to human affairs, but to me that makes no sense. I can accept that there are other beings in the Universe (given its immense size) that are more advanced than humans, however I do not believe that there is an omniscient God/s that created everything and gives a shit about human beings. I see no proof, just some old stories that have been re-written by a thousand scribes. Nor am I willing to conclusively state that there is not an omniscient God/s because it is something beyond my ability to prove. I have no problem with what anyone else wants to believe, as long as they don't try to inflict it upon me. That is agnosticism as I see it.


LOL...invalidates it in what way? Because I

A. Realize they lacked a specialized modern scientific vocabulary 3000+ years ago


B. Realize that even if they had one, whatever happened or was the foundation for what happened, the description of it would have evolved drastically in all those years since, as would have the sounds of the words, as would have the meanings of the words...and that's not even taking into account being intepreted by different cultures and languages, being altered by different leaders for their own purposes, not to mention having every chronicler slip his .02 in to grab a slice of immortality.


40 years ago gay didn't mean what it means now...now the original definition of that word is defacto buried for all time, and that's in the age of recorded history.


C. Realize that if we encountered God right now, we still wouldn't have the worlds to describe his perceptions, or the minds to grasp them, for if we did, we'd be the gods. New words would have to be invented to accurately describe them, but more than likely we wouldn't invent new words, we'd apply pre-existing ones to them, to describe heretofore unconceived of things, ...and 3000 years from now we'd sound like a bunch of simplistic morons to the people of that time. Even if they researched, they'd look up the original definition, even though we weren't using in terms of the original definition. Even if we recorded verbatim what happened or what we were told, the words wouldn't mean the same thing and the future generations understanding of it would be different then ours, because they will be looking at it from their perspective of creation, their point in time...not ours.


IOW how in the fuck do you expect a culture in which science doesn't exist to give you a scientific explanation, and how do you expect them to understand something they don't understand, they couldn't understand, unless they themselves were god, and even if they were, would you expect their descendants 3000 years later to have the same intepretation of events, under any circumstances..........................

I'm not arguing that there isn't something in the human mind that propels us on a quest for meaning, which many people seem to find in religion. But I see religion more as a combination of the individual psyche and collective cultural imagination. For most of history, people have felt the internal, psychological need to give meaning to the Universe, and getting together and expressing this need has resulted in various religions and philosophies. That's what I think you are describing.

Personally, I'm somewhere between an existentialist and a nihilist because I think the only true meanings in the Universe are those we each ascribe to it - there is no overarching scheme (except the laws of physics), no afterlife, no greater meaning. I am an entirely insignificant speck in a Universe without any consciousness of my existence, and when I'm dead that's the end. Some people find those challenging, even depressing ideas, but I find them energising - if this is it, LIVE FULLY!


Oh let's...it's been proven that Christ existed...has it been proven that God doesn't? It's been proven that many biblical events did happen...has it been proven that any atheistic ones did?

:rolleyes

C'mon whottt, disproving a negative is an overworn, bullshit rhetorical trick used by every religious shyster and you should be better than that. God can be neither proven nor disproven, so why bring it up?

What "athiestic events"? Athiests don't need heresay. Athiests pretty much believe in the laws of physics, because they are what seem to control the universe (everything in science and mathematics stems from the laws of physics). And YES, they have been proven, and those same proofs can be (and are) reproduced over and over again! That's the point of the scientific method! :lol Can you show me Christ raising himself from the dead? Nup. Can I drop an apple from an apple tree, on your head, and say with utter reliability that if we do the same thing again we'll get the same result (a sore head for you)? Damn straight we can.


It doesn't take intellect to not believe in higher beings, even a single creator...a dog can do it.

...except that dogs do not have the intellectual capacity to "believe" anything, nor even the capacity to understand the concept of "belief".

[Extra Stout]

Thanks, like I give a shit what you or anyone else thinks.

I understand youre a learned theist and a helluva smart dude, but I was making a platitude.

Tell me you couldnt read what I wrote and guess the fucking time period I was referring to?

As an example, just so youre clear, I was referring to Newton, The University of Paris, the scientific method (or at least a part of it, arguably speaking) and Galileo.
I came across as overly contentious. Sorry.


You do realize that (early) Greece is considered from the West, right?The West claims Greece as its own as part of its mythology of superiority. The Greeks don't agree.

[Spurminator]

I haven't bathed in three days and no one has noticed.

[DarkReign]

I came across as overly contentious. Sorry.

No problem.


The West claims Greece as its own as part of its mythology of superiority. The Greeks don't agree.

I cant argue that. IMO, the West's Greece is a divided Greece, whereas the East's Greece is Alexander's Greece (pre-Peloponesian War (sp?)). I would never make the mistake of discounting Greece's contribution to all civilization, east or west, both scientific (and more importantly, IMO) logic and reason.

Moreover, I said it before in not so many words, Christianity's contributions to humanity (and the West especially) far outweigh its atrocities (its not even close, Im sure you would agree). But thats easy for us to say was my point. Maybe I shouldnt have singled out Christianity and made more of a blanket statement concerning all organized religion instead, but that would be disingenuous on my part because I cant speak with any authority on the rise and spread of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoist, Confucianism, etc. I know next to nothing (basically nothing) of the East's historical ebbs and flows. By "east" I mean everything east of the old Greece (Macedonia, Athens, Sparta, Thrace, etc) not including Russia, for purposes of disambiguation.

One could argue that distinction was made clear by the rise of the Roman Empire and its obsession with everything Greek, separating Greece permanently to the East.

[GoGatos.]

You guys keep jacking with RuffNready and your going to get a meltdown of epic proportions.

[JoeChalupa]

There is too much psycho analyzing of every damn subject.

[tp2021]

It's not about the words. Look at my screen name and ask yourself if I'm not psychologically strong enough for dirty words. It's about the meaning behind those words.

Calling someone a piece of shit isn't saying that piss is better, it's saying that shit is an unpleasant enough substance to count as an insult. Therefore, insulting a man by calling him a woman is saying that being a woman is an unpleasant enough fate to count as an insult.


Okay then. let the words mean whatever you want them to mean. If words get to you, are you really that strong? Just punch the guy in the balls, show him who the strong woman is, and call him a dick-having man and be done with it.

[remingtonbo2001]

I believe God and the scientific method go hand in hand.

Case and point, when I was a child, I claimed that it would snow on Christmas.

This claim (hypothesis) was made months before hand. I used prayer to achieve my desired results.

This hypothesis was mocked by the memebers of my family, abiet in a kind, loving and gentle way.

I continued to believe. I continued to pray.

The night before Christmas we returned from a Christmas Eve service. It was close to midnight and I had decided to check out the weather report.

As usual, it called for rain for the week, with the snow elevation around 2,000 ft. Our location was around 500 ft.

However, I still believed, even up to that night, that it would snow on Christmas.

I awoke the next morning and what did I see. SNOW. It snowed.

I went down stairs and clearly remember my father with a huge grin on his face.
He immediately told me turn it to the weather channel.

The forecast the night before and the previous days called for rain during the week of Christmas. However, the forecast that morning called for snow to occur the next 5 days.

During those days we recieved up to 2ft of snow.

Jesus teaches to have faith in God as a child has faith in his/her parents.

Children do not question, they believe. Sadly it is the world which corrupts this innocence. I have come to learn this first hand and will continue to strive to have the faith I once had as a child.

God is real. Whether you wish to acknowledge God's exsistance is your choice.

[ashbeeigh]

Hanson was/is a pretty good band.

[FromWayDowntown]

The most obvious manifestation that Western culture is on the decline is the lack of basic civility in human interaction, if only because it exalts the individual and degrades the concern for others. A me-first mentality is bad for society.

[Extra Stout]

I believe God and the scientific method go hand in hand.

Case and point, when I was a child, I claimed that it would snow on Christmas.

This claim (hypothesis) was made months before hand. I used prayer to achieve my desired results.

This hypothesis was mocked by the memebers of my family, abiet in a kind, loving and gentle way.

I continued to believe. I continued to pray.

The night before Christmas we returned from a Christmas Eve service. It was close to midnight and I had decided to check out the weather report.

As usual, it called for rain for the week, with the snow elevation around 2,000 ft. Our location was around 500 ft.

However, I still believed, even up to that night, that it would snow on Christmas.

I awoke the next morning and what did I see. SNOW. It snowed.

I went down stairs and clearly remember my father with a huge grin on his face.
He immediately told me turn it to the weather channel.

The forecast the night before and the previous days called for rain during the week of Christmas. However, the forecast that morning called for snow to occur the next 5 days.

During those days we recieved up to 2ft of snow.

Jesus teaches to have faith in God as a child has faith in his/her parents.

Children do not question, they believe. Sadly it is the world which corrupts this innocence. I have come to learn this first hand and will continue to strive to have the faith I once had as a child.

God is real. Whether you wish to acknowledge God's exsistance is your choice.
Sounds like the prosperity gospel.

[2centsworth]

Men and Women are different, get over it.

A lot of so-called Christians do not "believe" in Christ.

Obama is the Anti-Christ.

We're about 15 years away from the Greatest Depression ever.

Poor people in America are considered rich around the world.

[angel_luv]

In life you will meet very few people who really want to know your honest opinion on any given subject.

[JoeChalupa]

Justin Timberlake is one talented mofo.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

9/10 Christians (haven't met enough religious Jews or Muslims to inlcude them in the ratio) "believe" in God only because they fear what they do not know, which is if God actually exists.

I hear this type of stuff a lot: But, what if he is real? It's better to have faith that he exists and go to heaven than to go to hell because you don't believe.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

Our society is consumer-driven; people who believe the shit they see on t.v. about people who have the sixth sense (see dead spirits and shit) are too gullable. It's all set up and pure bullshit.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

The NBA would be about half as exciting without Black American basketball players.

(really going out ona limb here, guys).

[manufor3]

I believe God and the scientific method go hand in hand.

Case and point, when I was a child, I claimed that it would snow on Christmas.

This claim (hypothesis) was made months before hand. I used prayer to achieve my desired results.

This hypothesis was mocked by the memebers of my family, abiet in a kind, loving and gentle way.

I continued to believe. I continued to pray.

The night before Christmas we returned from a Christmas Eve service. It was close to midnight and I had decided to check out the weather report.

As usual, it called for rain for the week, with the snow elevation around 2,000 ft. Our location was around 500 ft.

However, I still believed, even up to that night, that it would snow on Christmas.

I awoke the next morning and what did I see. SNOW. It snowed.

I went down stairs and clearly remember my father with a huge grin on his face.
He immediately told me turn it to the weather channel.

The forecast the night before and the previous days called for rain during the week of Christmas. However, the forecast that morning called for snow to occur the next 5 days.

During those days we recieved up to 2ft of snow.

Jesus teaches to have faith in God as a child has faith in his/her parents.

Children do not question, they believe. Sadly it is the world which corrupts this innocence. I have come to learn this first hand and will continue to strive to have the faith I once had as a child.

God is real. Whether you wish to acknowledge God's exsistance is your choice.

amen brotha :toast

[Ronaldo McDonald]

If the sky were brown and shit were blue, blue eyes would be less attractive.

[I. Hustle]

There is too much psycho analyzing of every damn subject.

The reason you think like that is because society as a whole has brain washed you to believe like that. You were born into a world that wants you to think that way.
You see the ancient Romans had a saying for this it’s “Quo modo agitis hodie” It refers to a person who believes the world has too much psycho analyzing. It is a very common abnormality of the brain but I believe the early Spaniards also had a saying for this, something to the effect of “Donde esta mis chones? Oh aqui estan sobre tu cabeza!” loosely translated means “Where is my understanding? Oh I believe it is lost in the philosophy of man!”

[whottt]

Exactly, "no gods", not "no higher beings".


Well Ruff...again I am going to point out that they didn't have a formalized scientific perspective back then....so I don't know why you would expect the perspective of people pre-dating the existence of science to give descriptions and recountings that align perfectly with the perceptions of someone who came after...among other factors.

All I want to know is how a people without the benefit of science nailed certain things like the Earth began as a formless protoplanetary disk, , that electromagnetic radiation(and in our case the gravitational forces behind it) were essential in shaping the earth and giving it form and producing life, that the earth was once covered entirely by water, before there was life, that vegetable life came before animal, sea life before land life, and that man was the last dominant species to evolve on this planet?


How did they know that stuff?


Because that is exactly the sequence in which it happened...doesn't seem to be the type of stories anthropocentric folk would invent to me.


Either Moses was the smartest person who ever lived, scientifically and spiritually, not to mention one hell of a psychologist...or else our prehistoric ancestors were collective geniuses....or else it was stuff they were told and we view it through their existing perspective and ability to comprehend these things.


You throw a flashlight back in time and their view of it is going to be mystical...anything they couldn't explain or didn't fully understand would be mystical or divine. Doesn't mean it would stop being a flashlight and stop producing light.......


IOW, their definition of higher life form, was God.


It's really not that hard to reconcile these sorts of things, and since religion and spirituality have been a part of man's perspective much longer and to much more positive benefit than science...I am always inclined to try and do so.

[xrayzebra]

Exactly, "no gods", not "no higher beings". The "God/s" I think you are talking about are higher beings that are intimately connected to human affairs, but to me that makes no sense. I can accept that there are other beings in the Universe (given its immense size) that are more advanced than humans, however I do not believe that there is an omniscient God/s that created everything and gives a shit about human beings. I see no proof, just some old stories that have been re-written by a thousand scribes. Nor am I willing to conclusively state that there is not an omniscient God/s because it is something beyond my ability to prove. I have no problem with what anyone else wants to believe, as long as they don't try to inflict it upon me. That is agnosticism as I see it.



I'm not arguing that there isn't something in the human mind that propels us on a quest for meaning, which many people seem to find in religion. But I see religion more as a combination of the individual psyche and collective cultural imagination. For most of history, people have felt the internal, psychological need to give meaning to the Universe, and getting together and expressing this need has resulted in various religions and philosophies. That's what I think you are describing.

Personally, I'm somewhere between an existentialist and a nihilist because I think the only true meanings in the Universe are those we each ascribe to it - there is no overarching scheme (except the laws of physics), no afterlife, no greater meaning. I am an entirely insignificant speck in a Universe without any consciousness of my existence, and when I'm dead that's the end. Some people find those challenging, even depressing ideas, but I find them energising - if this is it, LIVE FULLY!



:rolleyes

C'mon whottt, disproving a negative is an overworn, bullshit rhetorical trick used by every religious shyster and you should be better than that. God can be neither proven nor disproven, so why bring it up?

What "athiestic events"? Athiests don't need heresay. Athiests pretty much believe in the laws of physics, because they are what seem to control the universe (everything in science and mathematics stems from the laws of physics). And YES, they have been proven, and those same proofs can be (and are) reproduced over and over again! That's the point of the scientific method! :lol Can you show me Christ raising himself from the dead? Nup. Can I drop an apple from an apple tree, on your head, and say with utter reliability that if we do the same thing again we'll get the same result (a sore head for you)? Damn straight we can.



...except that dogs do not have the intellectual capacity to "believe" anything, nor even the capacity to understand the concept of "belief".

your thoughts explain why you love "mother earth" and think everyone else should.

You the great scientist talk one thing and then mix up "apples" and "Christ". But typical of your type. You are what I suspected all along: an over educated idiot.

You also "speculate" about dog's. Hopefully one of these days you will have the same "intellectual capacity" to believe as they do. They at least display intelligence which I have reason to question about you to have the capability to do the same, display some intelligence.

[whottt]

your thoughts explain why you love "mother earth" and think everyone else should.

You the great scientist talk one thing and then mix up "apples" and "Christ". But typical of your type. You are what I suspected all along: an over educated idiot.

You also "speculate" about dog's. Hopefully one of these days you will have the same "intellectual capacity" to believe as they do. They at least display intelligence which I have reason to question about you to have the capability to do the same, display some intelligence.

Be sure to let him know it's science that is responsible for his favorite cause, global warming...not religion.

[JoeChalupa]

The reason you think like that is because society as a whole has brain washed you to believe like that. You were born into a world that wants you to think that way.
You see the ancient Romans had a saying for this it’s “Quo modo agitis hodie” It refers to a person who believes the world has too much psycho analyzing. It is a very common abnormality of the brain but I believe the early Spaniards also had a saying for this, something to the effect of “Donde esta mis chones? Oh aqui estan sobre tu cabeza!” loosely translated means “Where is my understanding? Oh I believe it is lost in the philosophy of man!”

My point exactly.

[midgetonadonkey]

Chacho's nachos are disgusting.

[midgetonadonkey]

And their margaritas are average at best.

[Richard Cranium]

Rap is not music and should not even be a category for MUSIC awards.

[ploto]

Most women only claim sexual harrassment when it is someone to whom they are not attracted.

[Mister Sinister]

The hokey-pokey is *not*, in fact, what it's all about.

[I. Hustle]

The hokey-pokey is *not*, in fact, what it's all about.

No in fact the turning yourself around is what it is all about. It's a very deep spiritual meaning.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Government subsidies to farmers to leave land fallow is no different than giving in to demands of terrorists.

[samikeyp]

Chacho's nachos are disgusting.

Thank you. :toast

[peewee's lovechild]

I would also like to point out in that Taurus song, their is a repeated chord with an alternating bass line. Stairway to Heaven is a series of other chords, not the same one played over an over again with a different bass note.

Dude, I've tried explaining that to Mige and he's just retarded.

[ATRAIN]

You guys keep jacking with RuffNready and your going to get a meltdown of epic proportions.

I am counting on it.

[ATRAIN]

Black Women are nothing more than nappy headed ho's

[MavDynasty]

Black Women are nothing more than nappy headed ho's

RACK! :lmao

[remingtonbo2001]

Earthquakes are fun.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

The best kind of candy is the kind with gum in the center.

[Mister Sinister]

The theme song to Fresh Prince is the reason we have stoplights.

[peewee's lovechild]

Black Women are nothing more than nappy headed ho's

Nappy headed ho's had a throwdown in Detroit last night.

[ATRAIN]

Nappy headed ho's had a throwdown in Detroit last night.

LMAO yeah they did.

[ATRAIN]

A Woman's place is in the kitchen.

[Mister Sinister]

Joe Quesada isn't an entirely worthless human being.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Dude, I've tried explaining that to Mige and he's just retarded.
he couldn't even answer me what makes reggae, reggae. i wouldn't listen to his music knowledge too closely. everyone "covers" everything. music has been around for hundreds of years and there is only 12 notes.

[ATRAIN]

Gays should be gathered up and put on a remote island somewhere and not let off.

[Mister Sinister]

UHF was the greatest movie ever.

[peewee's lovechild]

UHF was the greatest movie ever.


"Suuuh-pliiiise!!!"

[Mister Sinister]

Life is like a mop.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

"These Floors Are Dirty As Hell And I'm Not Gonna Take It Anymore!"

[Mister Sinister]

What's in the box?!
....
.....
......
NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING! STUPID! You so STUPID!

[samikeyp]

Generalizing statements like "All (insert team name here)'s fans are..." are the tools of the ignorant.

[I. Hustle]

Taste Great!

[Extra Stout]

For the most part, Mexicans are simply a variation of white people, sort of like Italians.

[peewee's lovechild]

For the most part, Mexicans are simply a variation of white people, sort of like Italians.

Too bad we don't have a kick ass Mob like the Itals do.

We could've had badass movies made about us.

[CuckingFunt]

Too bad we don't have a kick ass Mob like the Itals do.

We could've had badass movies made about us.

Yep. The Godfather >>>>>>>> Mi Vida Loca.

[La Migra]

Yep. The Godfather >>>>>>>> Mi Vida Loca.

American Me >>>>>> The Godfather

[peewee's lovechild]

Yep. The Godfather >>>>>>>> Mi Vida Loca.

I fucking hated that movie.

The only Mex-Am movie that is close to being cool is "Blood In, Blood Out (Bound By Honor)", but it's not about Mob activity.

I wish we had a Mob.

Our Cosa Nostra could be "Cosa Nuestra".

I think I'm on to something here.

[Ignignokt]

Yep. The Godfather >>>>>>>> Mi Vida Loca.

Look tatas, i know no movie compares to the godfather, but i think American Me is considered a mob movie, or rather the begining of a mob movie.

[peewee's lovechild]

American Me >>>>>> The Godfather

No way.

[peewee's lovechild]

Look tatas, i know no movie compares to the godfather, but i think American Me is considered a mob movie, or rather the begining of a mob movie.

It's a prison movie.

Prison gangs do not = The Mob.

[Ignignokt]

Cucking funt is pretentious and has no standards. SHe wont turn down any lesbo like she said she would.

[Ignignokt]

It's a prison movie.

Prison gangs do not = The Mob.


You're right to an extent, but the Mexican Mafia operates as a cartel.

[I. Hustle]

How do you even bring up Mi Vida Loca before American Me?!

[dickface]

don't worry Mexicans, you'll always have El Mariachi.

[peewee's lovechild]

You're right to an extent, but the Mexican Mafia operates as a cartel.

Cartel's don't have a facade of ligitimate business like The Mob does.

[peewee's lovechild]

don't worry Mexicans, you'll always have El Mariachi.

And Once Upon A Time In Mexico.

[I. Hustle]

It's a prison movie.

Prison gangs do not = The Mob.

It is set in prison but explains the evolution of the Mexican mafia

[peewee's lovechild]

Neither are Mob-like, though.

[I. Hustle]

don't worry Mexicans, you'll always have El Mariachi.

Desperado before that

[peewee's lovechild]

It is set in prison but explains the evolution of the Mexican mafia

It explains that prison inmates like to ass fuck and that you get killed when you appear to look weak, even if you're the leader of said gang.

[I. Hustle]

Cartel's don't have a facade of ligitimate business like The Mob does.

There are tons of fronts in cartels. Not just for the MM but just about any cartel

[I. Hustle]

It explains that prison inmates like to ass fuck and that you get killed when you appear to look weak, even if you're the leader of said gang.

Yeah that's the movie aspect. Trying to add that extra drama.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

Back to the Future Part 1 is the best movie of all time.

[midgetonadonkey]

Cartel's don't have a facade of ligitimate business like The Mob does.

That's not entirely true. There are many little mexican restaurants in Kingsville and Corpus that are fronts for coke dealers.

May not be of mob like proportions but still shows that there are some drug dealers that try to put up a legitimate facade.

[peewee's lovechild]

May not be of mob like proportions

I'm talking about "The Mob", not little mom and pop's organizations.

[CuckingFunt]

Cucking funt is pretentious and has no standards. SHe wont turn down any lesbo like she said she would.

How can I be pretentious without having standards?

[CuckingFunt]

How do you even bring up Mi Vida Loca before American Me?!

Because it was a comment made as a joke -- Mi Vida Loca is clearly a funnier punchline than American Me.

I almost went with La Bamba.

[I. Hustle]

Because it was a comment made as a joke -- Mi Vida Loca is clearly a funnier punchline than American Me.

I almost went with La Bamba.

I apologize. I would have gone with the La Bamba comment. La Bamba was thug life at it's height

[peewee's lovechild]

Because it was a comment made as a joke -- Mi Vida Loca is clearly a funnier punchline than American Me.

I almost went with La Bamba.

La Bamba's genius = The Godfather.

[peewee's lovechild]

"I want some ACTION tonight!!"

[FromWayDowntown]

How can I be pretentious without having standards?

Come on -- this thread IS about unpopular opinions and few opinions could be less popular than one that is self-contradictory.

[G-Nob]

Beatles are overrated.
America Ferrera sucks.
Jerry Bruckheimer sucks.
James Blunt sucks.
Shia Laboof sucks.
The funniest man on the planet is Don Rickles.

[brettn]

Beatles are overrated.
America Ferrera sucks.
Jerry Bruckheimer sucks.
James Blunt sucks.
Shia Laboof sucks.
The funniest man on the planet is Don Rickles.

These are unpopular opinons?

If they are, then I guess I'm in the minority with you.

[sa_butta]

I still believe the Dolphins are a good football team.

[smeagol]

Getting drunk every time you are out with friends is pretty stupid.

Taking drugs is even dumber.

[td4mvp21]

How can I be pretentious without having standards?

:lmao Smartass comments make me LOL

[Ignignokt]

How can I be pretentious without having standards?

If you would have stopped playing with your assbeads and read the whole sentence, you would have seen that my statement was you had no standards when it comes to picking partners. You can be pretentious and be a slut at the same time.

But appaerantly you and the e-lawyer somehow managed to get stumped by that.

You fools amaze me.

[Ignignokt]

Come on -- this thread IS about unpopular opinions and few opinions could be less popular than one that is self-contradictory.

You're not getting laid with cuckingfunt, quit being an assbag.... oh wait.. maybe you are!:lol

[DarkReign]

Getting drunk every time you are out with friends is pretty stupid.

Taking drugs is even dumber.

Definitely unpopular.