tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post115923539930261576..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: A hair-raising predicamentRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159298457932121592006-09-26T15:20:00.001-04:002006-09-26T15:20:00.001-04:00"Sorry Paul, you 'loose' again.Who said that men a...<I>"Sorry Paul, you 'loose' again.<BR/><BR/>Who said that men are 'head' over cockroaches?<BR/><BR/>From whose perspective?"<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>So you think exterminators should be stopped? Why can we bug-bomb cockroaches, but we can't recognize women's submissive role? Why not exterminate women and cockroaches?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, the two gropes I mentioned were "men" and "cockroaches." You replied, "by whose perspective?" Interesting, since when did cockroaches have "perspectives." Indeed, what are "perspectives" on physicalist assumptions? Can you use the language of physics to describe a "perspective?" So, since there are no "perspectives" on your terms, then in your worldview we can exterminate cockroaches and women, or neither. I await your answer, worm lover.<BR/><BR/><I>"You have the illusion of freedom to select yes/no on any of those questions you pose, and each comes with its own response...cause and effect."</I><BR/><BR/>I find the above so funny! :-) Just liek Dan Berker, this bag o' meat says "freedom" isn't real but yest we have an "ilusion" that we are free. Notice that the bag o' meat has no problem living according to an illusion. You see, that's why I can't be an atheist, don't want to buy into illusions.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"There isn't any COSMIC should involved in whether or not its open season on myself...its about time somebody on this site understands this."</I><BR/><BR/>This is also funny. There is no COSMIC should, but there's the "illusion of should."<BR/><BR/>Despite the unclearness of the statement, what bag o' meat is saying, along with Barker, is that the way things REALLY are is that there are no ethics but we'll, AGAIN, choose to live according to an ILLUSION.<BR/><BR/>Well, as you told Evan, "have fun!"Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159298440998306082006-09-26T15:20:00.000-04:002006-09-26T15:20:00.000-04:00Then I'm going to need your name and address so th...Then I'm going to need your name and address so that I can have some fun.<BR/><BR/>Duck season!<BR/>Wabbit season!Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159297821553437172006-09-26T15:10:00.000-04:002006-09-26T15:10:00.000-04:00Calvindude...I'm glad somebody gets it! Bravo!The...Calvindude...I'm glad somebody gets it! Bravo!<BR/><BR/>There isn't any COSMIC should involved in whether or not its open season on myself...its about time somebody on this site understands this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159296362786283702006-09-26T14:46:00.000-04:002006-09-26T14:46:00.000-04:00Youngeinstein wrote:---Why is there a 'should' in ...Youngeinstein wrote:<BR/>---<BR/>Why is there a 'should' in your questions?<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Good point.<BR/><BR/>There is no should. As such, there is no "should not" either.<BR/><BR/>I declare it's hunting season on Young Einstein. After all, there's no reason why we shouldn't kill him, right?<BR/><BR/>By the same token, there's no "should" when it comes to sexism, racism, or any other ism (it's only an illusion of freedom of choice, which is itself an illusion of...an illusion). So why not?<BR/><BR/>Might makes right. Viva la youngeinstein!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159296259190627472006-09-26T14:44:00.000-04:002006-09-26T14:44:00.000-04:00from your limited perspectiveWhy is my perspective...<I>from your limited perspective</I><BR/><BR/>Why is my perspective limited, rather than your perspective of my perspective being limited?Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159295524688654702006-09-26T14:32:00.000-04:002006-09-26T14:32:00.000-04:00I'm not sure, Evan, but I think you have the illus...I'm not sure, Evan, but I think you have the illusion of making a choice.<BR/><BR/>So...from your limited perspective, have fun! (even if you really can't choose to do so!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159295371537933562006-09-26T14:29:00.000-04:002006-09-26T14:29:00.000-04:00Have fun!Do I really have the choice?<I>Have fun!</I><BR/><BR/>Do I really have the choice?Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159294807646187462006-09-26T14:20:00.000-04:002006-09-26T14:20:00.000-04:00evanmay,Why is there a 'should' in your questions?...evanmay,<BR/><BR/>Why is there a 'should' in your questions?<BR/><BR/>You have the illusion of freedom to select yes/no on any of those questions you pose, and each comes with its own response...cause and effect.<BR/><BR/>Have fun!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159293318395948982006-09-26T13:55:00.000-04:002006-09-26T13:55:00.000-04:00Should we step on cockroaches?Should we eat brocco...Should we step on cockroaches?<BR/><BR/>Should we eat broccoli? Should we eat humans?Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159291427024451622006-09-26T13:23:00.000-04:002006-09-26T13:23:00.000-04:00Sorry Paul, you 'loose' again.Who said that men ar...Sorry Paul, you 'loose' again.<BR/><BR/>Who said that men are 'head' over cockroaches?<BR/><BR/>From whose perspective?<BR/><BR/>They are a far more durable organism that humans are, and most likely will be around much longer than we.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159289312215884332006-09-26T12:48:00.000-04:002006-09-26T12:48:00.000-04:00"The arrogance of men, to think themselves as 'hea...<I>"The arrogance of men, to think themselves as 'head' over women."</I><BR/><BR/>The arrogance of men, to think themselves as 'head' over cockroaches.<BR/><BR/>If we're guilty od sexism, you're guilty of speciesismErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159284993737184682006-09-26T11:36:00.000-04:002006-09-26T11:36:00.000-04:00The arrogance of men, to think themselves as 'head...<I>The arrogance of men, to think themselves as 'head' over women.</I><BR/><BR/>The arrogance of men, to think they can draw breath apart from the sovereign will of God.Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159284911499525472006-09-26T11:35:00.000-04:002006-09-26T11:35:00.000-04:00That's hardly the dichotomy I set up. I set up a d...That's hardly the dichotomy I set up. I set up a dichotomy between the Christian worldview and a naturalistic worldview.<BR/><BR/>The Christian worldview has a basis for husbands and wives loving each other and honoring each other as equals. The naturalistic worldview does not have such a basis. The Christian worldview has a purpose for the family unit and the furthering of the human race. The naturalistic worldview doesn't.Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159284586945273522006-09-26T11:29:00.000-04:002006-09-26T11:29:00.000-04:00It's interesting that those who use the sexist arg...It's interesting that those who use the sexist argument against Christianity never do so in a balanced way. I wonder; are their bibles missing at least 60% of the verses, or do they simply choose to ignore it's whole counsel. <BR/><BR/>Wait, let me try. <BR/><BR/>First I'll simply gloss over the biblical portions exhorting husbands to love their wives sacrificially. I mean it's utterly incomprehensible that a wive would (or should) submit to her husbands headship if she knew that she enjoyed a higher priority in his life than he himself and that every decision he made was for her good. I mean there is just no way. <BR/>(Yes, that is the biblical ideal and I would grant that in practice it is not always so)<BR/><BR/>Next I'll gloss over the prominant woman in the church who had pivotal roles. In my argument I would never bring up the wife and business woman in Proverbs 31? <BR/><BR/>Except I'll harp on the wives submit part and frame my argument with misogynistic language. Yea, that should do it.<BR/><BR/>See this is easy....<BR/><BR/>Colonelmustard, if you would oblige, please define "correct one". What is the underlying standard for making such a judegement? Is this an absolute standard we all can subscribe to? :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159265764696374292006-09-26T06:16:00.000-04:002006-09-26T06:16:00.000-04:00Why the false dichotomy of:1. Woman hating sexist...Why the false dichotomy of:<BR/><BR/>1. Woman hating sexist<BR/><BR/>or<BR/><BR/>2. Bag of meat<BR/><BR/>There are other options, you know. Just because you subscribe to a bronze-age story doesn't mean its the only option, or the correct one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159265435399347062006-09-26T06:10:00.000-04:002006-09-26T06:10:00.000-04:00I'm glad you have no problem pointing out that you...I'm glad you have no problem pointing out that your god is a sexist, as are you.<BR/><BR/>The arrogance of men, to think themselves as 'head' over women.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159244120709632862006-09-26T00:15:00.000-04:002006-09-26T00:15:00.000-04:00Anonymous:Considering that we are all merely lumps...Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>Considering that we are all merely lumps of meat resulting from an evolutionary accident, who cares about advancing the human race? Why not just take egalitarianism to its fullest extent (pervasive homosexuality) and eliminate women from the planet completely? C'mon, man, your worldview's begging for it!<BR/><BR/>My worldview, on the contrary, contains a God who intentionally created both men and women in his image with the purpose of revealing his glory. He has designed it so that Christ's relationship with his bride would be reflected in our marriages, and that through the family unit he would spread his gospel.<BR/><BR/>But if you take divine, creative design out of the equation, there really is no purpose in families, or in furthering the human race at all. Indeed, apart from God’s common, restraining grace, people like you (and me apart from grace) would completely extinguish the world within a 24 hour period.Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159241421332200762006-09-25T23:30:00.000-04:002006-09-25T23:30:00.000-04:00Why wouldn't you want to be accused of sexism? It...Why wouldn't you want to be accused of sexism? Its God's way, is it not?<BR/><BR/>How crazy that the 'giver of life,' the woman, should dare to assume to have any authority of a man. How could her tiny brain be up to such a daunting task?<BR/><BR/>Men are such wonderful rulers, as the world around us can attest.<BR/><BR/>Zip it women, men rule!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com