Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Jan 12, 2021.
Step away? What?
I'm fed up and want to go all in.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Not a Star Wars fan eh?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Lol!!!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I’m not asking for more proof because nothing has been proven.
You claim I dismiss women because you think I said all women are emotional and irrational...
Neither you or anyone has shown where I have said that. You didn’t discuss p82 after I explained to you that is not what I meant. In fact you replied “good” in a later post, when I told you that I do not view women as inferior to men. So why do insist on calling me a misogynist. If you’re confused over my posts, then why not discuss it?
The view I expressed is based on the spiritual as well as materialistic well-being of family structures, and is the same as the biblical view you say you understand. If I am a misogynist, is God, Jesus, Timothy, and Paul misogynist also?
I’m not entirely sure how you can reconcile this being a believer in God and Christ.
What you regard as proof assumes I am a misogynist. You assumed from p82 that “so, in other words - women don’t evaluate situations rationally? We’re basically emotional and “irrational?” My question to you is what was in that post to make you come to such a determined and immovable conclusion. To the point where now, my very being is misogynistic, therefore any and everything I say comes under that banner.
Can you not see something wrong with that?
Show where I have dismissed your comment because I am not aware that I have. If Ihave, I will either apologise or explain the so called dismissal.
That’s not true, I gave at least two demonstration on why I thought that response to p82 was emotional.
That doesn’t follow wegs.
But that would fall under the banner of misogyny.
The proper one, not the lefty one Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hope you see the humour.
This is why it is not good to just charge people with labels like misogyny, racist, pervert, rapist, etc. These can stick.
Now you’ve given these atheists a new meme to play with. Imagine someone come on here for the first time, they will think I am a misogynist, because I’m constantly being called one.
But the truth is that I am not a misogynist, and your summary of my posts are just straight up wrong.
Good. Because what you have done is not only irresponsible, and wrong. but spiteful and nasty.
How do you know that?
We use dictionaries as point of reference. I know there are in-depth meanings.
Do you believe that one could become an auto mechanic by pulling up a wiki article?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What have I said that convinces you I am a misogynist? Are you prepared to discuss, or are you going to continue with baseless accusations?
That’s not how it works.
Show the actual posts or comments where you believe I discriminate against women and girls.
Examples of your sexism and what many would classify as misogynistic attitude towards women:
When you mocked and dismissed the notion of equality between men and women:
When you told us that men and women were not equal but that women can be deemed superior when we grow babies in our wombs:
When you advised that the man is "naturally heads over his wife" and you deemed her role to be a mere incubator and inferred that women were emotional and thus, irrational:
You then tried to reiterate this with support from the Bible (while whining that religion doesn't really have a problem when it comes to women):
When you accused Wegs of being emotional and then gave us the real low-down of how women are simply "emotional":
And we're only up to page 5...
Through a few pages of you prattling about how women are emotional, we get to this gem about how men who are emotional are like women, as though it's a negative:
You then tried to argue that a child is better off with a mother and father, instead of a single parent, "especially if the single parent is the mother", as though a woman is unable to bring up a child:
When you tried to gaslight while re-affirming your sexism:
When you (again) only save the 'you're being emotional and irrational' for the only woman responding to you in the thread:
More gaslighting in regards to your sexism:
Followed by more sexism and gaslighting:
That is just from the first 10 pages. I could go on and do this for the entire 40 pages, but really, I have a life and your posts are repulsive.
Now, you complete and utter troll.. Stop asking the same question and making the same demands even after it has been answered repeatedly.
Wait, is wegs required to believe in God and Christ?
Why would that be an issue?
If you take the Bible 100% literally, then yes - they absolutely are. They also support genocide, killing gays and rape. Fortunately for society, very few people take the Bible 100% literally.
Attempting to provide proof that women are emotional and irrational really doesn't help you here.
And in many cases (Weinstein, Maxwell, Trump, Steve King, yourself) it is good that they stick.
You have an ongoing problem with this concept that seems to stem from your belief that a discussion forum is like gossip. With gossip, you can say whatever you want and have a chance to be believed.
For example, let's say you are angry at Wegs for calling you out, and so you gossip about her behind her back with your friends. "She is emotional, irrational, spiteful and nasty! What she is doing is irresponsible and wrong." And they might believe you, since they can't check to see what she's done in the past.
But here on line all they need to do is read her posts. And then they would discover that she is NOT being any of those things. This would reveal that you, not her, were the nasty, spiteful person, attempting to smear her by lying about her.
Can you see the difference there, and why the usual smear tactics don't work here?
I’m a “believer” but Jan seems to think that women should accept misogyny, sexism etc...and that if I don’t accept my “role” in society as being second to men, I’m somehow dissing my faith.
It’s just funny that a guy who posts misogynistic garbage all over the place is man ‘splaining to us all about misogyny. -_-
I haven’t been spiteful at all unless spiteful to you, means truthful. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Maybe Jan has the ultimate know-how on what it means to be a good Christian?
And maybe Jan could then educate everybody. Isn't that what Jesus technically did?
Jesus told men and women how best to live their lives, but Jan focuses on how only women should be conducting themselves. lol
A misogynist has an hatred and prejudice against what men because they are women, is irrational.
His reasoning could be sound, as to why he is the way he is. A person who is prejudice toward women, is simply an unreasoned thought process (according to definition), it does not necessarily involve any type of emotion, or thought for that matter. Such a person changes with each new situation that arises, whereas a misogynist cannot change because his prejudice is deep-rooted, hence to term “hatred”
In the same sentence?
Did she do it for decorationPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You know she meant it literally, and I have proven it to you on numerous occasions.
“Over” but not against.
It s the ‘against women’ that separates a misogynist from a person who has a bias for or against types of folk.
Some would argue that Nissan cars are better that Toyota cars.
Can you think of any other reason why someone could be prejudice against all women, as long as women and girls exist?
That has no bearing in this discussion
1 she said what she said, indicating I was both
2 you do not know her intent at the time of the accusation
3 her testimony after the accusation had been made, may be a ploy to water down the seriousness of the accusation. It would require a proper dialogue to clear up any misunderstandings. But she refuses
Women wear dresses and make up?
Would you regard that as a stereotype, or an observation.
Women are naturally made for giving birth, and being a mother to her children.
Would you regard that as a stereotype?
Women are naturally suited to nurture their children?
Is that a stereotype, or an observation?
Regarding “submission”, I gave a good example of what is meant by submission, and it certainly was how a misogynist would be inclined to see it.
But if there was any misunderstanding about that. I would have happy to discuss.
Wish- washy logic, such as the one you present. can assign anything to anything.
Namby-Pambyism is incapable of any reasonable solution because it is based on the whim of the individual. They can assign anything to anything because they feel to.
You can’t show that I’m being dishonest, you can only make accusation because you lack substance.
If you can label a man sexist because he keep looking at women’s breasts while they’re trying to talk to him, you can label him a misogynist. If the person is favourable in the eyes of the accuser, he will not be accuse of hate. If the person is not favourable, the accusation can become serious where the man gets accused of hateful activity against women.
That is why wegs should not running away from the responsibility of her accusations.
As for you and all the other atheists
Correct. (Important part of that in bold)
Nope. Just misogyny, not hate. As has been explained to you ad nauseum, the two are not the same.
She's not running away from anything.
At this point, you’re merely harassing and bullying me. Not surprising, considering your prejudice of women. But, it feels like you’re bordering violation of forum rules, at this point.
That religion thing again.
Is it in the bible that it's a sin to not be sexually attracted to Jesus?
You said as much:
They're hardly baseless--there's over 40 pages of text explaining in great detail why you are a misogynist.
You're absolutely right. Under normal circumstances, when dealing with honest people, 40 pages of posts are hardly necessary to get a point across. However, when dealing with idiots and/or dishonest trolls, other avenues need be explored--in your case, repetition ad nauseam.
Done, done and done. Just set aside your anti-education idiocy for a while and read the damn thread.
I am bullying you?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Because I have prejudice of women?
That is rich,
I'd love it if you'd bully me.
I'm asking for it.
Only you know why you you are bullying her. But the bullying is not surprising given your misogyny. (I am using the real meaning of misogyny, not your made up one.)
I assume you mean "women" rather than "what men"?
If his reasoning is sound then he is not irrational, by definition of what it means for an argument/reasoning to be sound.
But yet again you insert "because they are women" - despite having explained to you, repeatedly, that it is a tautology, and thus unnecessary. All prejudice against X is because it is X.
So you sill refuse to accept that the meaning of misogynist as used was prejudice toward women? Okay - so you're continuing to be a troll. Fair enough.
Presumably she did it either for emphasis, or because, having explained what she meant by her use of misogynist, she felt you also displayed other characteristics that are covered by the term sexist.
Alas, you have proven nothing. You have simply trolled.
Oh, for Pete's sake - your squirming and scrabbling is utterly pathetic. Now you're trying to say that a prejudice of one thing over another is not the same as a prejudice for one thing and against another... priceless.
Sure. But then you're referring to informed preference, and not prejudice. So stop arguing against strawmen, and please stop trolling.
On the contrary, you are simply failing to comprehend its relevance. Understandable given your apparent difficulty with the English language.
And I have given an example of why she might - i.e. misogynist (prejudice) and sexist (another characteristic of sexist that isn't covered by misogynist). It's not difficult to follow, Jan. But you continue to troll because you don't actually want to address the issue.
She has detailed it. I, and others, have pointed this out to you. Your failure to recognise this is bordering on pathological delusion. And you are trolling.
That's for you to take up with her.
Take all this up with those who you are discussing the issue with.
Then please try and show how what you suggested is an example of prejudice.
It has been shown, Jan. I'm sorry that you don't follow the reasoning, but that in itself is all part of your dishonesty, because I don't believe you're that ignorant.
Perhaps, but not just for looking at one woman's breasts without knowing the why and intent etc.
And I'm sure they'll take that up with the accuser.
That's for you to raise with her.
As for me and all other atheists... what?
Separate names with a comma.