Thoughts, Beliefs and Feelings vs Scientific/Biological "Truth"

[NUance]

Great topic. I believe in God but also consider myself a hard science type. I'm certainly not aware of any scientific facts that disprove God. I'm not even aware of any scientific facts that make God's creation of the universe any less likely than the Big Bang Theory and eons of random occurrences.

As for gender, I've learned recently that this is an incredibly sensitive topic. Some people who claim to be in favor of equal rights are incredibly thin skinned when you speak about women in frank, matter of fact terms as you would about men. It gets them all worked up and hurts their feelings. Go figure.

:

Edit: As I re-read the OP, I see that my post is a bit off topic. I am speaking more in terms of feelings/science regarding topics such as the existence of God and women's rights. I wasn't really thinking in terms of gender identity.

Help me out Nuance - what would be an ex of something you'd say to a man that when you've said it to a woman that found they're think skinned about?

First of all, you misunderstood my post. Again. It's not saying something *to* a woman (as opposed to a man) that might cause a reaction. It's speaking in frank, matter of fact terms *about* a woman (as you would speak about a man) that causes a thin skinned response in some who are supposedly advocates of equal gender rights.

So here's an example for you. I made a post recently defending the actions of Tom Osborne in regards to his treatment of Lawrence Phillips. Several posters—three posters in particular—jumped all over me in regards to my post. One poster went so far as to suggest that I’m the type of fellow who would say that rape victim asked for it because of what she was wearing. (btw, That comment is absolutely untrue and I was extremely upset by it.) The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post.

You need professional help.

NOTE: This post of StPaul's is not intended to carry on a conversation or make a point relevant to the thread. It's just flaming. This is his 5th warning in the past year. StPaulHusker is on vacation from HB for a while. Carry on.

 

[NUance]

The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post.

Men are more physically imposing and powerful than women. Most people don't have a hard time accepting this as a general, physiological statement with exceptions. This puts women in a position of vulnerability, which means that collectively, as a society, it's our responsibility to look out for them in a way that we wouldn't need to for men (again, in a general sense). We treat men and women differently because they are different, so no, those posters wouldn't have gotten bent out of shape, but that's actually a proper and good thing.

This is most of it. I guess if Phillips had drug the equipment manager down 3 flights of stairs by his hair that'd almost be the equivalent?

Yeah, you pretty much nailed it. Or let's say LP picked a fight with another male athlete[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]say a skinny frosh basketball player[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]dragged him down a couple flights of stairs and then banged his head against a mailbox. If that had happened[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]violence against a smaller male athlete[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]I doubt if there would have been a huge scandal like there was with LP. And people certainly wouldn't get as excited as they do about it, even now, twenty years later.

But let's face it, there are physical differences between men and women. Because men tend to be larger and stronger, society views male-on-female violence to be much worse than an equivalent incidence of male-on-male violence. And I agree with that. That's the way it should be. I've never once hit a women in my lifetime[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]not even once. (Not even my sister when we were kids, and she probably deserved it.) And I found it particularly abhorrent to be accused of supporting rapists, or perhaps being a wife beater myself, in a recent thread—all in response to a post I made defending Tom Osborne's actions in regard to Lawrence Phillips. So I guess the lesson I've learned is that you just can't speak in a frank, matter of fact way on some topics concerning women as you would about men.

 

[Landlord]

The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post.

Men are more physically imposing and powerful than women. Most people don't have a hard time accepting this as a general, physiological statement with exceptions. This puts women in a position of vulnerability, which means that collectively, as a society, it's our responsibility to look out for them in a way that we wouldn't need to for men (again, in a general sense). We treat men and women differently because they are different, so no, those posters wouldn't have gotten bent out of shape, but that's actually a proper and good thing.

This is most of it. I guess if Phillips had drug the equipment manager down 3 flights of stairs by his hair that'd almost be the equivalent?

Yeah, you pretty much nailed it. Or let's say LP picked a fight with another male athlete[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]say a skinny frosh basketball player[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]dragged him down a couple flights of stairs and then banged his head against a mailbox. If that had happened[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]violence against a smaller male athlete[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]I doubt if there would have been a huge scandal like there was with LP. And people certainly wouldn't get as excited as they do about it, even now, twenty years later.

But let's face it, there are physical differences between men and women. Because men tend to be larger and stronger, society views male-on-female violence to be much worse than an equivalent incidence of male-on-male violence. And I agree with that. That's the way it should be. I've never once hit a women in my lifetime[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]not even once. (Not even my sister when we were kids, and she probably deserved it.) And I found it particularly abhorrent to be accused of supporting rapists, or perhaps being a wife beater myself, in a recent thread—all in response to a post I made defending Tom Osborne's actions in regard to Lawrence Phillips. So I guess the lesson I've learned is that you just can't speak in a frank, matter of fact way on some topics concerning women as you would about men.

Your defense of Osborne has nothing to do with why people jumped all over you in that thread, and has nothing to do with LP's actions being worse because they were committed against someone he could physically dominate. What is the point you are getting at?

I talk frankly just fine, about whatever I want. Seems to work out totally okay.

 

[huskerfan2000]

What is normal? The act of procreation is normal, it is how we are built. To say man and man or women and women is normal is ignoring the pure nature by how man continues on this earth.

Without this kind of normal, man ceases to exist.

Can the brain misfire, thus causing normal to change for that person? Well, so far that hasn't been discovered/proven to be true.

 

[NUance]

The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post.

Men are more physically imposing and powerful than women. Most people don't have a hard time accepting this as a general, physiological statement with exceptions. This puts women in a position of vulnerability, which means that collectively, as a society, it's our responsibility to look out for them in a way that we wouldn't need to for men (again, in a general sense). We treat men and women differently because they are different, so no, those posters wouldn't have gotten bent out of shape, but that's actually a proper and good thing.

This is most of it. I guess if Phillips had drug the equipment manager down 3 flights of stairs by his hair that'd almost be the equivalent?

Yeah, you pretty much nailed it. Or let's say LP picked a fight with another male athlete[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]say a skinny frosh basketball player[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]dragged him down a couple flights of stairs and then banged his head against a mailbox. If that had happened[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]violence against a smaller male athlete[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]I doubt if there would have been a huge scandal like there was with LP. And people certainly wouldn't get as excited as they do about it, even now, twenty years later.

But let's face it, there are physical differences between men and women. Because men tend to be larger and stronger, society views male-on-female violence to be much worse than an equivalent incidence of male-on-male violence. And I agree with that. That's the way it should be. I've never once hit a women in my lifetime[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]not even once. (Not even my sister when we were kids, and she probably deserved it.) And I found it particularly abhorrent to be accused of supporting rapists, or perhaps being a wife beater myself, in a recent thread—all in response to a post I made defending Tom Osborne's actions in regard to Lawrence Phillips. So I guess the lesson I've learned is that you just can't speak in a frank, matter of fact way on some topics concerning women as you would about men.

Your defense of Osborne has nothing to do with why people jumped all over you in that thread, and has nothing to do with LP's actions being worse because they were committed against someone he could physically dominate. What is the point you are getting at?

Did you read the post you are responding to? Perhaps you should go back and read it.

I talk frankly just fine, about whatever I want. Seems to work out totally okay.

Says the guy with five warnings on this message board.

* To be fair, all your warnings were from two or more years ago. And three of them have now expired.

 

[Landlord]

What is normal? The act of procreation is normal, it is how we are built. To say man and man or women and women is normal is ignoring the pure nature by how man continues on this earth.

Without this kind of normal, man ceases to exist.

Can the brain misfire, thus causing normal to change for that person? Well, so far that hasn't been discovered/proven to be true.

Animals without society or culture influence, completely normal, bang members of the same sex all the time. What's their explanation?

 

[Landlord]

Says the guy with five warnings on this message board.

* To be fair, all your warnings were from two or more years ago. And three of them have now expired.

The times that I've been warned and suspended have been because I was being an a-hole and breaking the rules, so I rightly deserved the punishment. Had nothing to do with my candidness of speech.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

What is normal? The act of procreation is normal, it is how we are built. To say man and man or women and women is normal is ignoring the pure nature by how man continues on this earth.

Without this kind of normal, man ceases to exist.

Can the brain misfire, thus causing normal to change for that person? Well, so far that hasn't been discovered/proven to be true.

Animals without society or culture influence, completely normal, bang members of the same sex all the time. What's their explanation?

Are you suggesting that humans should give in to any impulses or behavior tendancies they have, simply because it occurs in nature?
Should humans be allowed to kill and eat their young?

 

[Landlord]

What is normal? The act of procreation is normal, it is how we are built. To say man and man or women and women is normal is ignoring the pure nature by how man continues on this earth.

Without this kind of normal, man ceases to exist.

Can the brain misfire, thus causing normal to change for that person? Well, so far that hasn't been discovered/proven to be true.

Animals without society or culture influence, completely normal, bang members of the same sex all the time. What's their explanation?

Are you suggesting that humans should give in to any impulses or behavior tendancies they have, simply because it occurs in nature?

lol no, of course not. I'm suggesting that the argument of "the gays are unnatural because evolution has given us a biological drive to procreate" isn't a rational argument.

 

[Mierin]

Just re-read my post about transgender and I sounded totally ignorant saying they should wear a dress if they want. That was just a generalization. Men should act society's definition of feminine if they feel like it is what I was trying to say. Whatever they think that entails.

I worked at a place where I met about 6 transgender females in various stages and they always got boobs first. Some still had beards but they had giant boobs. As a woman it made me feel like that's how I'm defined. Boobs. Not my personality or anything else. BOOBS. I'm not saying boobs are a bad thing but every single transgender female I've met went straight for them and they were always huge.

 

[huskerfan2000]

What is normal? The act of procreation is normal, it is how we are built. To say man and man or women and women is normal is ignoring the pure nature by how man continues on this earth.

Without this kind of normal, man ceases to exist.

Can the brain misfire, thus causing normal to change for that person? Well, so far that hasn't been discovered/proven to be true.

Animals without society or culture influence, completely normal, bang members of the same sex all the time. What's their explanation?

Are you suggesting that humans should give in to any impulses or behavior tendancies they have, simply because it occurs in nature?

lol no, of course not. I'm suggesting that the argument of "the gays are unnatural because evolution has given us a biological drive to procreate" isn't a rational argument.

who says we evolved? There is no evidence of that evolution. You claim to only deal in facts, or only believe something if it has hard cold facts.. well, there are is scientific evidence that humans evolved. They have tried to link man, but it continues to fail and be proven false.

 

[Mierin]

What is normal? The act of procreation is normal, it is how we are built. To say man and man or women and women is normal is ignoring the pure nature by how man continues on this earth.

Without this kind of normal, man ceases to exist.

Can the brain misfire, thus causing normal to change for that person? Well, so far that hasn't been discovered/proven to be true.

Animals without society or culture influence, completely normal, bang members of the same sex all the time. What's their explanation?

Are you suggesting that humans should give in to any impulses or behavior tendancies they have, simply because it occurs in nature?

lol no, of course not. I'm suggesting that the argument of "the gays are unnatural because evolution has given us a biological drive to procreate" isn't a rational argument.

who says we evolved? There is no evidence of that evolution. You claim to only deal in facts, or only believe something if it has hard cold facts.. well, there are is scientific evidence that humans evolved. They have tried to link man, but it continues to fail and be proven false.

lololol

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

What is normal? The act of procreation is normal, it is how we are built. To say man and man or women and women is normal is ignoring the pure nature by how man continues on this earth.

Without this kind of normal, man ceases to exist.

Can the brain misfire, thus causing normal to change for that person? Well, so far that hasn't been discovered/proven to be true.

Animals without society or culture influence, completely normal, bang members of the same sex all the time. What's their explanation?

Are you suggesting that humans should give in to any impulses or behavior tendancies they have, simply because it occurs in nature?

lol no, of course not. I'm suggesting that the argument of "the gays are unnatural because evolution has given us a biological drive to procreate" isn't a rational argument.

How is it not a rational argument?

You've just interchanged the words "normal" and "natural". If you are going by the definition of "natural" as "occurring in nature", then what you say is true.

But just because something occurs in nature, doesn't necessarily mean it is "normal", or "typical", or "expected according to intended design", which is what I think he was getting at.

 

[Landlord]

What is normal? The act of procreation is normal, it is how we are built. To say man and man or women and women is normal is ignoring the pure nature by how man continues on this earth.

Without this kind of normal, man ceases to exist.

Can the brain misfire, thus causing normal to change for that person? Well, so far that hasn't been discovered/proven to be true.

Animals without society or culture influence, completely normal, bang members of the same sex all the time. What's their explanation?

Are you suggesting that humans should give in to any impulses or behavior tendancies they have, simply because it occurs in nature?

lol no, of course not. I'm suggesting that the argument of "the gays are unnatural because evolution has given us a biological drive to procreate" isn't a rational argument.

How is it not a rational argument?

You've just interchanged the words "normal" and "natural". If you are going by the definition of "natural" as "occurring in nature", then what you say is true.

But just because something occurs in nature, doesn't necessarily mean it is "normal", or "typical", or "expected according to intended design", which is what I think he was getting at.

"What is normal? The act of procreation is normal, it is how we are built."

What he was getting at alluded to the natural order of things being what defines normal. It's a non-argument.

 

[Landlord]

who says we evolved? There is no evidence of that evolution. You claim to only deal in facts, or only believe something if it has hard cold facts.. well, there are is scientific evidence that humans evolved. They have tried to link man, but it continues to fail and be proven false.

First of all I didn't make a claim that I only deal in facts or only believe in cold hard facts.

Second of all... not accepting evolutionary theory with the mountain ranges of data and evidence in 2016 takes a really special, dedicated kind of ignorance. Also what the hell does "they have tried to link man" mean?