Take Down the Bird Feeder!

[Alate_One]

I think Stripe's just random altogether...

lain:

Stripe "argues" the same way Trump does, babbling nonsense, and accusing his opponent of the very thing he is doing. So not exactly random, just pointless.

 

[Alate_One]

Evolution is a universal concept that covers 'social constructs'.

Uhh no. Biological evolution is separate from culture.

Your feminism has robbed you of that concept, and it contradicts you people altogether- the only thing women excel at is birthing and caring for babies. That's what God made women to be- man's helpful companion and birther of more men and women.

Wow. You don't have a wife/girlfriend do you? I doubt you'd manage to find one with an attitude like that. :chuckle: If you do, I feel sorry for her.

I already showed you data showing that on average women are better doctors and drivers. Of course most (though certainly not all) women are fairly good at caring for children. But evolution is about survival and reproduction, you don't survive just taking care of kids, you have to find food, make clothing (in cold regions), build shelters, etc. And in most traditional societies, men aren't the ones doing all of the work. There's some evidence that egalitarianism may have been the original model for human society, before the advent of agriculture.

 

[Crucible]

Uhh no. Biological evolution is separate from culture.

:doh:
You're an idiot.

That's like saying matter is different from physics.
Let it sink in

 

[rocketman]

This one was a prayer, hoping for an actual event. I presumed you knew better but apparently you don't know scripture very well as there are certainly actual events where God commands the deaths of presumably innocent children.

I actually do know that this was his prayer, and why do you presume the people God commanded the deaths of were innocent? And how does this make your case for humans deciding who lives and dies before birth? Do you also presume that you are a god, that you or any other human has the authority to make that call? seems you presume a lot...

So, if it was commanded to kill these children because they belonged to evil peoples of old, how would it not be okay for a woman to choose not to carry a rapist's child?

Unlike yourself I don't presume that I have the answer to why God told them to do this nor do I presume that this action has extended mankind a right to kill babies before they are born. Your trying to self justify based upon your knowledge not trusting in His. Do you think you know more than God or that he has extended you/any human the right to murder?

A life that was created through an evil act. Now many women might choose to carry the child, but I find it hard to get behind government policy that tells the woman she MUST do so.

OK...

Non-sequitur much?

Just pointing out the obvious, you believe what you want to believe as long as it fits your sensibilities, I see that.

This is the problem, you make up your own facts.

Read it and weep, you are full of crap...yet again. The problem with you & your rose colored glasses is that they allow you to conveniently accept what you are being fed because you are willingly blind to anything that directly couterdicts your version of the truth...

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/14...-has-billed-taxpayers-for-elective-abortions/

Not everyone in this nation sees it as murder, and you're again saying that the government should FORCE a woman to carry a child to term whether she wants it or not. For people that are anti government regulation, this strikes me as quite a contradiction.

The first inalienable right in our constitution is the right to life, what gives you or any other high minded liberal the right to take life? or to decide who is allowed to be born?

I have to say this would be far less complicated if we laid eggs or were marsupials. Someone needs to invent an artificial womb. Still, any removal of an embryo at an early stage is likely to be fatal no matter what.

I think people should not make babies if they are not prepared to see it thru but, murdering your child is not a viable answer.

 

[Alate_One]

:doh:
You're an idiot.

No, culture is separate from biological evolution. Culture can be changed without any change in biology. It's not genetic. You can take any person and raise them in another culture. Or maybe you think culture is genetic? :chuckle: That'd explain the sexism.

That's like saying matter is different from physics.
Let it sink in

You're losing badly to a woman in an argument. Let that sink in for a moment. :chuckle:

 

[Crucible]

No, culture is separate from biological evolution. Culture can be changed without any change in biology.

[MENTION=7640]Town Heretic[/MENTION] and [MENTION=10403]Arthur Brain[/MENTION] have seen this discussion, and have offered nothing because they can't actually agree with you on that- they can only entertain your emotional bias, which they are waiting for an opportunity to slide into

The fact is that you don't comprehend evolution- you're conflating two diametrically opposed concepts, which is what liberal bias pretty much is altogether. You're trying to add a miraculous conception of equality into a definitively unfair, unguided universe.

 

[Alate_One]

[MENTION=7640]Town Heretic[/MENTION] and [MENTION=10403]Arthur Brain[/MENTION] have seen this discussion, and have offered nothing because they can't actually agree with you on that- they can only entertain your emotional bias, which they are waiting for an opportunity to slide into

Ooh I'm female and therefore emotional! Another stereotype! Keep going, you'll hit them all and get bingo soon. :chuckle:

The fact is that you don't comprehend evolution- you're conflating two diametrically opposed concepts, which is what liberal bias pretty much is.

:rotfl: Yes, obviously I'm the one that doesn't understand evolution, the biology professor. :chuckle: You need to get over yourself.

Biological evolution is about the change in inherited traits in a population over time.

Culture is just the practices of a particular population, clothing, language, music food, weapons, agriculture, marriage practices etc. You're not born knowing the language or food of your culture, you have to be taught. Teaching doesn't have to be explicit, children are excellent sponges for knowledge.

Sometimes culture can influence evolutionary change when cultures stay the same over long periods. Milk drinking for example caused lactose tolerance to evolve in human populations multiple times.

And cultures can change over time, but they normally do so independently of genetic changes in the population because culture can change much faster than genes. This is one of the advantages humans have over any other creature. A non-human animal moving into the arctic would have to slowly adapt to a colder and colder environment. Humans however, can invent warm clothing which becomes part of their cultural knowledge which is passed down separately from genes and can change much more rapidly.

 

[Crucible]

Ooh I'm female and therefore emotional! Another stereotype! Keep going, you'll hit them all and get bingo soon. :chuckle:

Acting like a female doesn't do you any justice

Biological evolution is about the change in inherited traits in a population over time.

Biological evolution is about the change of ~every single thing of humans period~ according to the theory of evolution. There is no other force guiding society other than evolution according to it- 'social constructs' are evolutionary things.
As soon as you understand that, you will realize the false premise you are perpetuating :chuckle:

 

[jgarden]

To extend the OP's "Take Down the Bird Feeder" analogy, much of America was settled by the government providing free land to railways and European settlers - all at the expense of First Nations people who were herded onto those reservation lands that nobody wanted!

 

[Alate_One]

Acting like a female doesn't do you any justice

Laughing at your ridiculousness is "acting female"?

Biological evolution is about the change of ~every single thing of humans period~ according to the theory of evolution.

No. Biological evolution is only about genetic change over time in a population. Do you really presume to tell me what the definition is when I teach biology? :chuckle: I suppose you are the sort of man that is "wise in his own eyes". I own a half dozen different biology textbooks, and none of them use such a definition as you just gave. And here's the wiki definition for good measure.

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

source

There is no other force guiding society other than evolution according to it- 'social constructs' are evolutionary things.

As soon as you understand that, you will realize the false premise you are perpetuating :chuckle:

Social constructs do change over time, but they're not due to mutation and selection - biological evolution. One important individual can radically change culture, someone you might know did that. Jesus of Nazareth and Muhammad actually did quite a bit of that. Cultural change can spread like wildfire, within a single generation at times.

If a change is not a genetic change over generations, it's not biological evolution. Now the ability to have culture could be said to be derived from evolution, but any one specific culture doesn't come from biological evolution. Culture comes from individual discovery, decisions and the passing on of knowledge, not genes.

It's funny Stripe usually accuses me of saying "everything is evolution", it seems the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[Crucible]

It's funny Stripe usually accuses me of saying "everything is evolution", it seems the shoe is on the other foot.

Atheistic evolution is against you, and theistic creationism is against you.

Both are patriarchal, Abrahamic religion is simply honest about it unlike you ironic liberals

You don't have a case, go preach your feminism to the foolish :wave2:

 

[Alate_One]

Atheistic evolution is against you, and theistic creationism is against you.

Ever heard of theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism?

Both are patriarchal, Abrahamic religion is simply honest about it unlike you ironic liberals

Actually no, as we've already discussed. And Christianity was relatively liberal as far as women were concerned. Christ certainly had no problems dealing with women as well as men. Women were the first to see him resurrected.

But I guess you just love your sexism so much you want to ignore all of that, you wouldn't want a woman to get the upper hand over you.

You don't have a case, go preach your feminism to the foolish :wave2:

Waaah I lost but I'm gonna pretend I won! :chuckle:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Ever heard of theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism?

Actually no, as we've already discussed. And Christianity was relatively liberal as far as women were concerned. Christ certainly had no problems dealing with women as well as men. Women were the first to see him resurrected.

But I guess you just love your sexism so much you want to ignore all of that, you wouldn't want a woman to get the upper hand over you.[emoji14]


Waaah I lost but I'm gonna pretend I won! :chuckle:

The Bible states that God made man at the beginning of creation. Theistic evolution directly contradicts that scripture, and not only that, it undermines the entire Bible.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Crucible]

Christianity was relatively liberal as far as women were concerned.

No it isn't.
That is why it never was, ever,
a liberation to women lain:

Because Christianity doesn't teach one single thing differently of women's role and standing next to men.

You all just make things up is all- you want to conform Christianity to society rather than society to Christianity, just like you have with homosexuality and divorce and every other thing society exhibited before Christianity was introduced.

Pagan Rome, that's what you are :wave2:

 

[Stripe]

Cutting to the chase, so to speak: Clete didn't write it. But thanks for adding at least one bit of humor to your post. Now back to your ongoing fit, in summary: Glad you got it all out. Enjoy all lthat clanging. And as nothing in your response adds anything new or substantive to what you said before, that's "When" for me. Clete's bad enough without adding your grapes to the mix.

Nope.

You've lost all capacity for rational dialogue.

Clete doesn't need to be the author for your wild leap to racism to be interpreted as an attack on his character.

And you've constantly asserted motive in the allegory where no such traits exist.

You need to go have a nice lie down and think through your approach. :thumb:

 

[Town Heretic]

You've lost all capacity for rational dialogue.

No, just my interest in suffering nonsense from people who don't even understand what they've jumped into with a temper and schoolyard behavior. Worse, when caught at it instead of owning the error you do this:

Clete doesn't need to be the author for your wild leap to racism to be interpreted as an attack on his character.

That's ridiculous, but unsurprising. I've been frank in my appraisal of Clete, both in my estimation of his intellect and rhetorical skill and in the undermining of both by an immaturity that distorts and lessens it when he's challenged reasonably.

And you've constantly asserted motive in the allegory where no such traits exist.

Rather, I noted the parallels that are easily enough seen, offered a criticism on the weakness of the attempt and the thinness of the attempt to mask the reason for the poor cobbling and distortion. The author, again not Clete, sets out his motive at the end:

Just my opinion, but maybe it’s time for the government to take down the bird feeder.

The false face given earlier peels away.

I took down the bird feeder...Soon, the back yard was like it used to be ….. Quiet, serene…. And no one demanding their rights to a free meal.

Someone contemptuous enough to be unconcerned with anyone in need because he's bothered by his perception of a rule of ingratitude he presents by virtue of his anecdotal comprehension.

Of course there's the detour into a rambling, taxation as theft subtext mixed with a xenophobic contempt:

Now let’s see. Our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care and free education, and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.

Forgetting the mix in of public goods most citizens of either orientation believe are solid ideas, this voice is put upon and fails to find the tone of someone who ever could have been concerned enough to build the supports/bird house. This is someone looking for a reason to tear down an institution he disdains and trying (badly) to paint himself as the victim while he does it.

Corn flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to ‘press one ‘ to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than ‘Old Glory’ are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.

Squawking, like birds. Those animals I noted. Not like him. Not like people.

As for Clete, like many people, he sees a thing that resonates with him, that feels like an obvious truth and stops thinking about it, really considering it. Because he's too smart to have done that and posted it as something like a truth...It's the danger of the zealot's bias.

 

[Stripe]

No, just my interest in suffering nonsense from people who don't even understand what they've jumped into with a temper and schoolyard behavior.

Now I'm ignorant?

Tell me, what part of OP do you think I do not understand?

And have you learned what an allegory is yet? It doesn't mean people cannot talk about imaginary characters.

Worse, when caught at it instead of owning the error you do this:

What error? :idunno:

Are you just making this up as you go?

That's ridiculous.

No, it's not.

When people post stuff in support of evolution or whatever, we rightly call them evolutionists. You calling OP racist — a bizarre claim — puts Clete in a bad light.

I noted the parallels that are easily enough seen.

They are nowhere to be found. You made them up. There is nothing in OP that suggests the character has any moral failings.

The false face given earlier peels away.

Someone contemptuous enough to be unconcerned with anyone in need because he's bothered by his perception of a rule of ingratitude he presents by virtue of his anecdotal comprehension.

Nope. This is you making up motives that are not spelled out.

Your tactics are utterly unreasonable.

Of course there's the detour into a rambling, taxation as theft subtext mixed with a xenophobic contempt:Forgetting the mix in of public goods most citizens of either orientation believe are solid ideas, this voice is put upon and fails to find the tone of someone who ever could have been concerned enough to build the supports/bird house. This is someone looking for a reason to tear down an institution he disdains and trying (badly) to paint himself as the victim while he does it.

Nope. You're making things up.

Squawking, like birds. Those animals I noted. Not like him. Not like people.

Your desperation is noted.

Like many people, you invent a thing that resonates with you when confronted with a story you do not like. Then you stop thinking about it. You're just too stupid to resist exposing your bias. It's the danger zealots face.

 

[Arthur Brain]

[MENTION=7640]Town Heretic[/MENTION] and [MENTION=10403]Arthur Brain[/MENTION] have seen this discussion, and have offered nothing because they can't actually agree with you on that- they can only entertain your emotional bias, which they are waiting for an opportunity to slide into

Alate doesn't need our help in taking you apart doofus.

The fact is that you don't comprehend evolution- you're conflating two diametrically opposed concepts, which is what liberal bias pretty much is altogether. You're trying to add a miraculous conception of equality into a definitively unfair, unguided universe.

Oh wow, the kids trying to lecture a biology professor about evolution, can't make this stuff up...

:rotfl:

 

[Alate_One]

No it isn't.
That is why it never was, ever,
a liberation to women lain:

Because Christianity doesn't teach one single thing differently of women's role and standing next to men.

There is equality in Christ.

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[Stripe]

There is equality in Christ. Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

That you think this passage supports your notion that men and women are built for the same roles shows you have no understanding of scripture and no willingness to try to comprehend it.

Next you'll be telling us that slaves are "equal" to free people.

Also, notice how far the Darwinists have drawn the topic away from OP? They require space between them and the truth so they can breathe properly.