• Are women generally submissive to men?
    Marriage is a wonderful institution. — River
    I agree.

    You think I'd give it away for free? — River
    Well, how am I supposed to know that? You said you liked being dominated by men sexually, so what is one to assume if you say that? :P You know, "I like X" is different from "I would like X" :P
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    ↪River
    Well that's certainly my reaction when I hear you like being dominated sexually and you list as your favorite philosophers a whole bunch of theists like Augustine, Kierkegaard, Aquinas etc. You know, that sounds quite wild for your heroes I think ;)
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    You say that women should be submissive because only men can make great decisions. Am I wrong in assuming that, in you opinion, great decisions are made by great men? — T Clark
    Yes you are absolutely wrong. I said that because of certain natural advantages, men generally make better leaders than women. This is seen very clearly at the top of the leadership chain - at the very highest levels we see a complete dominance of men over women (Presidents, Generals, CEOs, etc.). At lower levels of leadership things are still in the favour of men, but obviously much less so, because training can overcome natural disadvantages (like lower testosterone levels). Obviously at the highest level the natural advantages do play a larger role than training, cause at such levels of performance, both the men and the women are, roughly, equally trained.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    So, leadership is measured by how much money you make? I don't understand what you're trying to say. — T Clark
    Nope, that was an analogy. Now I'm starting to doubt your intelligence too. Just like you wouldn't claim someone making 80K/year is a big boy or better (financially speaking) than someone making 30K/year, so too you wouldn't claim someone being in charge of a unit at a hospital is a great leader compared to someone who just leads their dog. Get it? They're both insignificant in their respective field (finance and leadership).

    What percent of people would you say are great leaders. I'd say much less than 1 percent. You are concluding that women should be submissive to men because of the performance of less than 1 percent of the population. — T Clark
    Well yes, a very tiny percentage. And no, I didn't say women should be submissive to men because of that.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    ↪Lone Wolf
    >:O
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    Are you married to or dating a woman? You seem to be very ignorant of women. — Lone Wolf
    Apparently he is married >:O
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    And as Michael stated, and I agreed, that evidence is weak and illogical. — T Clark
    Why is it weak and illogical?

    So, only CEOs, presidents of countries, and generals are leaders? — T Clark
    No, but only they are GREAT leaders. Everyone else doesn't really count, they're virtually nothing in terms of leadership.

    Look, if I make $30K a year and you make $80K a year, we're pretty much both equal financially. Nothing big. You wouldn't be a big moneymaker for making $80K while I make $30K. That's pennies. If someone is making $350K a year however, now we're talking about someone starting to become a big boy. Until you're making that much, you're pretty much a nothing financially. When I see people very proud that they're making $80K a year, I always laugh at them. They don't realise that that's pennies in reality. So it's good to know where you objectively stand. You don't say you're a great leader because you run a fucking unit in a hospital. That's BS, but of course people like to feel great about themselves instead of accept the reality of their situation.

    As I said in my previous post, when you can't convince people with your arguments, you insult them. Satisfying, I'm sure, but it undermines your credibility. — T Clark
    Well, I think you should be worried about YOUR credibility, not mine. You're certainly very funny though.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    In my experience, statements like yours and Augustino's come from men who are resentful of women and who don't like them very much. As the saying goes, expressed by I don't know whom - Men are from Illinois, women are from Indiana. — T Clark
    Mate you're just being stupid now. Tiff is a woman for fuck's sake >:O You really have no clue of the world around you *shakes head* ... You said you're not very self-motivated, well it shows by how brainwashed you seem to be, sorry to tell you.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    When you see an absolutely beautiful woman walking down the street – what do you think? — Thinker
    "She's beautiful, so what? Nihil Perditi."

    I might think to myself something like – “I would love to taste that”. Is this wrong? — Thinker
    Yes it is wrong, and very stupid. What would you have gained by "tasting that"? What's the most that you can gain? You'll have sex with that most beautiful woman for a night. The next day she'll be gone. What use is that? Do you enjoy losing? Or what's happening with you? Really, are you so attracted by the carrot that you cannot see how the closer you get the farther it gets? :s I mean sure, if she'd be yours for all eternity, you would be an idiot not to go for it. But otherwise it's wasted effort. Why do you want to waste your own energy because you lack discipline? You know that beauty isn't a guarantee of undying and eternal love right? In fact, the two have little to do with one another. So if you can't have her forever, why have sex with her for one night? If you can't completely have her, why deceive yourself, why humiliate yourself? So that you can regret losing her for the rest of your days? :s It seems to me quite frankly that even from a purely pragmatic point of view (not spiritual) you'd be an idiot to do that. It's like in a business deal I choose the course of action that will permit me to be a millionaire for one night, and then go many millions in debt for the rest of my life. That's very stupid.

    You'll tell your friends - "yeah, 5 years ago I was a big boss, I shagged this absolutely beautiful girl" - and where are you now? A fuckin' drunkard that everyone ignores in a pub, remembering the good ole' days when you thought you were somebody...

    I might even try to start up a polite conversation and I might be bold enough to say something like – “you have the most beautiful red hair”. I am sure at this point the woman would politely disengage the conversation and be on her way. — Thinker
    She might not disengage, because she finds you attractive (or she's pissed off at her boyfriend, or some other petty, and meaningless reason, that no doubt you'll make much more meaningful than it really is), and then, well, then believe it or not, you can go run a little shagathon together ;)
  • Enlightened self interest versus simple altruism.
    Ok, so let's take this example then. In the work place, you can get people to do what your boss wants of them. Isn't it the case that the people are following the company rules, to get things done the way that the boss wants them done, without you enforcing the rules? The people are getting paid to follow the rules, and payment is incentive to them, so that they want to follow rules. It is not the case that the rules are "enforced", and in most countries it would be illegal to enforce the rules. If one does not follow the company rules it may be possible to fire that person, but this is not a case of forcing one to follow the rules, it is case of dismissing the person who does not follow the rules. — Metaphysician Undercover
    :s You are greatly puzzling me. What do you think enforcement of rules is if not the application of punishment for breaking them, whether that punishment is a temporary salary cut, being fired, etc. Rules are enforced precisely when punishments are applied for breaking them. The existence and application of punishment is enforcement.

    Since money allows your boss to get others to do what they are supposed to do, do you think that money is equivalent to power, or is money a form of power? — Metaphysician Undercover
    Money is a form of power, not equivalent to power I would say.

    I think it is the case that many laws exist which are not enforced. There are laws which are willfully followed, and it is simply a matter of people knowing the law, and wanting to follow the law, that supports the law. Clearly, in the work place, the rules are followed not because they are enforced, but for this reason, because people they want to remain a member of the company, take home their salary, so they learn the laws, and follow them. — Metaphysician Undercover
    First you talk about laws, then you talk about company rules. Decide. They're not exactly the same.

    This is the reason why I follow laws, not because the laws are enforced, but because I learn the laws, know them, and then I decide which ones of them, and in which situations, I should and should not follow them. The fact that I decide not to follow some laws some times, despite the threat of punishment by force, indicates that it is not enforcement which inclines me to follow laws. — Metaphysician Undercover
    No it doesn't indicate that. Again, you're jumping to conclusions. It only indicates that enforcement is not sufficient to get you to follow laws.

    Since it is really education, and training, which inclines people to follow laws, thereby supporting the existence of laws, and not enforcement as you keep insisting, the don't you think that the capacity to educate people is also a form of power? — Metaphysician Undercover
    In any case, you're not talking about education, but rather how to get people to believe something. Propaganda has the same aim, and I doubt you'd call that education. Brute force, as I have stated before, is the least effective way to get someone to obey, which is why it generally is used last, when all other methods have failed.

    But force is an abuse of power, an evil, and evil is the manifestation of ignorance. Since you do not recognize true power as knowledge and education, it is quite obvious that you yourself, are uneducated. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Knowledge and education can be sources of power, as can money. Again, power doesn't have only one form. What you fail to note is that power constitutes the ability to get people to do something. There are multiple ways of doing this: one is brute force, another is propaganda, another is manipulation, another is education, etc.

    And by the way, power can be used for both good and evil. Power in-itself is amoral.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama are both good leaders and I don't think either one of them is AGGRESSIVE (capitalized for high testosterone levels). — Bitter Crank
    Are you sure?
  • Problem with the view that language is use
    ↪unenlightened
    8-)
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    You are clearly in great need of absolution. Try a Catholic website. — unenlightened
    Are you talking from experience? >:)
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    You're confusing. Why say "You must mean lesbian, not homosexual"? — Michael
    It was meant to be a funny comment hence the " :P " .
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    Simply stated: As a young woman myself— I like being dominated by a powerful male—this only applies in the the sexual arena. — River
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    Lesbians are homosexual. — Michael
    And homosexuals are gay. Thanks Captain Obvious! >:O
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    I am most certainly not married or dating a woman, as I am not homosexual. — Lone Wolf
    You must mean lesbian, not homosexual :P .
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    Vrai. Ces chiennes enragées. — Bitter Crank
    Tu veux apprendre le Français mon ami? >:O
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    Total control... Bing bing bang bang bing bing bing... you know what that is right? >:O

    You're right, Michael. Mr. Augustino, please lay out some evidence of your position. As Michael notes, your logic so far is faulty. — T Clark
    >:O Mr. Clark, I already cited that less than 5% of Fortune 500 company CEOs are women.

    In my personal experience, I know as many women who are effective leaders as men. I've had many women as bosses. My wife, sister-in-law, and several of my neighbors are nurses with important leadership jobs - running clinic systems, managing intensive care units. The most forceful and competent person I know is my friend Gail. — T Clark
    Sorry, none of that sounds like great leadership.

    None of these people are super achievers. They are normal, everyday women. They're not Joan d'Arc or Golda Meir. — T Clark
    Exactly!

    Are you married to a woman? Do you have a girlfriend? Have you ever had a girlfriend? Where did you get the idea that most women are mostly gentle? — T Clark
    You are aware you are speaking to a woman here in that comment right? Really, you don't even know what the hell you're doing Mr. Clark. You're completely in the dark. No clue what's going on around you. No clue.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    Submission is not necessarily a bad thing. — Thinker
    I did not mean to suggest that submission is a bad thing always, only that vulnerability does not equal submission.
  • The Future Belongs to Christianity?
    (Magic is religion you don't like, religion is magic you do like.) — Bitter Crank
    I actually don't think it matters. Magic is transcendent.

    The 25000 year old paintings were the product of culture, not just some previously uncultured innate urge. If tending-toward-transcendent thinking and acting behavior is innate, we would find its roots in a period which has left nothing but stone tools and chipped stone behind. — Bitter Crank
    From the Wiki article:
    "130,000 years ago – Earliest undisputed evidence for intentional burial. Neanderthals bury their dead at sites such as Krapina in Croatia"
    "300,000 years ago – first (disputed) evidence of intentional burial of the dead. Sites such as Atapuerca in Spain, which has bones of over 32 individuals in a pit within a cave"

    It seems to me that burying one's dead does suggest a strong impulse towards the transcendent, and that is earlier than 25000 years ago. The fact is clear that the human being is entirely different from all other animals, and not just because of reason.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    When a man and woman make love – both are vulnerable – but who is most vulnerable? The woman – lying down – legs spread – submits to a man. — Thinker
    lol... I don't think that's true. As for who is more vulnerable, clearly the one who is physically weaker, that's obvious. But being vulnerable is not the same as being submissive. Indeed, one can be the vulnerable one, and also be the dominant one.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    That is just it, I do not expect them to assume differently, but it is certainly annoying. — Lone Wolf
    Okay, I agree. I also find it annoying when others expect me to be like most other people, but alas, nothing can be done about it.

    And I do not enjoy being seen and treated as something I am not; I just want a little respect. — Lone Wolf
    While I don't know exactly what you're referring to, I'll take a guess - most men I've met (with few exceptions) treat women as sexual objects, but they don't think it's disrespectful. In their minds, they think a girl wants to be treated this way, so that she can feel good about herself, that she has power over them, and is attractive. And many girls do enjoy this actually, although it is immoral and shameful. I certainly dislike seeing it, and generally hate "locker room talk".

    It's good you don't accept such treatment and want to be respected.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    Not smart, not a good businessman, and not a good leader. — Michael
    The point is that even if S&P500 or any other index did better than Trump, that doesn't matter. Why not? Because most investors SIGNIFICANTLY LOSE MONEY. The very best investors, like Warren Buffett, average somewhere close to 15%/annum, which, when you think about it, isn't that much. The fact Trump still is a billionaire, that's more than enough to say that he has been successful. If he just sat on his money doing nothing with them, then yes, you couldn't say he's a good businessman. But he didn't. He actively played his money. The fact he didn't lose them, and increased them, that makes him a good businessman.

    And slightly unrelated, here's my favourite Trump quote: — Michael
    That's the difference between a rhetorical speech, and something put in writing. You wouldn't write something like that, but a speech like that can be, and indeed is, very powerful.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    Well, I don't know why a man would do that. If he is of the arrogant mindset that he is always dominate and should be obeyed in all matters. My example was just that, a humorous potential scenario. — Lone Wolf
    Okay, I see.

    Does domination always use brute force? I think not, but rather the dominate one would be the one who is obeyed most. Manipulation is just a means to an end. — Lone Wolf
    Depends how you define domination. In the end all domination seems to involve the other person having what you want, hence being able to control you. Cease wanting what they have, and they can't control you anymore. All means of control attempt to use your own desires against you. If you desire nothing, nobody can control you. Hence the religious emphasis that is often placed on ascetic practices.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    No, they tend to think men are gullible, and this makes them intellectually inferior, and in some ways it does -- but they're prone to paranoia. — Wosret
    Well of course they tend to think men are gullible, when most men can be controlled by showing a little bit of skin, a few sexy words, etc. What did you expect? Like this:

  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    Mostly this just annoys me when other people, particularly guys, assume me to be just like "all the other girls". I am not, and am tired of being told that I should be. — Lone Wolf
    Well, first of all, most other guys are like most other guys too, so what do you expect them to assume? It's the natural thing to assume since "all other girls" are more common than you, so until someone gets to know you, they can't do any better. Also, if you're not like "all other girls", then quite possibly you're not looking for someone like "all other guys" either, so why does it matter what (most) guys assume?

    I am not, and am tired of being told that I should be. — Lone Wolf
    Well, good for you, but don't expect not to be told how you should be. I'm quite different from the norm too, being told how you should be is something that never seems to stop, just because, well, that's peer pressure. You're strong, unlike other girls, so you can deal with it.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    Some women have a way of making a man think he is in control, but in reality the guy does what the girl wants anyway. That would seem like a very skillful way of dominating. And the guy is not any the wiser...lol. — Lone Wolf
    That is not domination though, that is manipulation. The two are very different. Domination entails brute force used to control generally. Manipulation entails trickery used to control. They are two different means.

    but rather to a particular and often humorous tendency of a man to do whatever his girl tells him to do in simple matters that really don't make a difference — Lone Wolf
    Well, let's see, why wouldn't the man do that? If the matters don't really make a difference, he'd be an idiot not to do them in the first place.

    I ABSOLUTELY do not. — unenlightened
    Seems like you are already engaged in what is called mimesis unenlightened. So am I to take it that, as per your definition, I already hold the dominating position? >:)

    One is dominant in a situation where one has superior knowledge, experience, interest, strength, or whatever. — unenlightened
    Absolutely wrong. One is dominant when one has what another absolutely wants, in the sense that you're using the term dominant (not that I agree with that use). If a man absolutely wants what a woman has, then she will absolutely control him. If on the other hand, a man doesn't absolutely want what a woman has, then she cannot control him, regardless of whatever else is the case. In fact, it is often the case that men resort to promiscuity in an effort not to be controlled by one woman. However, I think they actually have it worse in being controlled by vagina, that is a more serious form of slavery that they need to free themselves from. Once even that chain is thrown off, a man simply cannot be controlled. And I think actually the same applies to women. Once such a man and such a woman meet each other, their relationship is quite secure from the vicissitudes of life, since they do not need anything.

    That's the power of asceticism and renunciation.

    Whereas one is domineering when one wishes to be dominant but isn't, and that is a matter of appearances, and is all about appearing confident when one is actually insecure. — unenlightened
    That depends. One is dominant when they can enforce their will (which is largely a matter of appearance, imo). Again, being dominant has little to do with whether that person feels confident or insecure. Being domineering can be, but not necessarily is, part of being dominant. It's just one possible strategy.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    Are you ready to see yourself – do you have courage? — Thinker
    No, I'm scared!! >:O
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    When a man or woman tells you that they are very smart – what do you think? The first thing I think is the opposite. — Thinker
    I think whether it's true or not, obviously. It would be an emotional reaction due to an inferiority complex if I were to think - fuck, s/he is an arrogant prick, how dare they think they're very smart? I should be saying that about them, not them. That's a stupid reaction to have.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    I think it's true because there is a One Punch Man, but there is no One Punch Woman. The evidence is clear. — Mongrel
    I don't know about a One Punch Man, but there sure as fuck is a One Pound Fish Man!! >:O

  • The Future Belongs to Christianity?
    Which cave paintings indicate that early man had a connection with the transcendent? — VagabondSpectre
    It seems you do have a tendency to ask bullshit questions. I'm sure you could research this yourself if you actually cared.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion
    http://www.historytoday.com/rw-brockway/prehistoric-cave-paintings-and-religion
    https://www.apollon.uio.no/english/articles/2006/python-english.html

    Seems to me like most cave paintings indicate they had a connection with the land and animals they hunted... — VagabondSpectre
    The connection was a religious one, unlike the connection other animals had with the land and the creatures they hunted.

    What about Buddhist and Jainist societies? Didn't some of them operate without the concept of a supreme god? — VagabondSpectre
    Nope, that's absolutely not what I said. I said humans had a connection with the transcendent and a desire for the divine. I'm sure Buddhists and Jainists have that too, no concept of a supreme God needed.

    Furthermore, it might be worth noting that the religions of old share the singular attribute of motivating their aderents to go out and conquer/convert other people to their religion.. — VagabondSpectre
    You have any proof for this nonsense? Religions have not generally aimed at conquering and converting, especially in the very ancient times.

    O.K, what evidence do you have that innate desire for the divine is a natural human drive? (hint: alluding to cave paintings isn't satisfactory). — VagabondSpectre
    Study human history. Compare it to animal history. You can clearly see that whatever other differences, one clear difference is that humans have a NATURAL drive towards the divine, while animals don't.

    I can play rhetorical games too! This one is called "spot the trend"!: — VagabondSpectre
    First of all that comparison is inadequate, because each country/region has a different culture/tradition and some of the poorest countries are badly affected by diseases and wars. So their GDP/capita isn't the only factor playing a role in their happiness. Moreso, if you look at Latin America, they are generally poorer, but happier. What accounts for that happiness is largely their traditional orientation, including religion, because yes, Latin Americans are on the whole quite religious, especially when compared to the West.

    I wonder if the rise in divorce rates has something to do with an increase in freedom (namely the freedom to change your mind about marriage) — VagabondSpectre
    In my eyes, that's not an increase in freedom. That's an increase in freedom to not be committed and devoted, an increase in freedom to be a selfish snitch. I don't want that kind of freedom, you can keep it for yourself. Your kids will pay the price by their broken family.

    I also wonder if this has something to do with the gains that women have made in terms of personal rights within the last century... *Shrug* Who knows! — VagabondSpectre
    LOL! Who needs personal rights and freedoms if they can't even enjoy them? If you can't even have a family because divorce rates are so high, who needs this freedom? What will we do with it? Wipe our buttoms? You're talking as if freedom was a good in itself.

    But I should tell you that you're absolutely free to get married and stay married, so long as you continue to love your partner and she you. — VagabondSpectre
    Well leave me out of discussion, I'm a smart guy. Let's talk about your average man, who isn't that well-educated, isn't aware of all the social trends, doesn't know what kind of women to look for, etc. He's the one who will pay the price, not people like me. And if you tell him that he's absolutely free to get married and stay married, that's like telling a black slave 100 years ago he's absolutely free to run away and live on his own! It's fucking bullshit, and we both know it's bullshit. The social environment isn't conducive, on the whole, towards life-long marriage. Most people cannot escape their social environment, nor should it be expected of them to do so.

    If you fail at marriage you can thank your inability to properly select a life-long mate or your own inability to live up to whatever standards are expected of you from the mates you do choose. — VagabondSpectre
    Yes, if he dies while trying to escape, the slave can thank his inability to run faster or his inability to live up to whatever standards he set for himself. Great one mate >:O

    Being forced to stay in a marriage with an abusive partner is one modern notion of hell on earth. — VagabondSpectre
    Define abusive. If, for example, your wife doesn't want to have as much sex as you do, that doesn't count as abusive. Please remember that.

    You mean like, we teach the kids all the doctrines and parables of Christianity and tell them that's what's moral? — VagabondSpectre
    No, I mean introducing the local religion to children in school, and discussing the concepts involved, whether they be moral, about the afterlife, or otherwise. It seems that the only kind of religious education you can think of is one where people are told "This is what you have to believe. Now believe it". Your imagination is quite poor.

    This scares me a bit. Religion might be more interesting than math, but without math our civilization would be nothing. — VagabondSpectre
    And does it seem to you we have achieved that much? Man does not live on bread alone.

    So when you for instance make the claim like "desire for god has been there since the beginning" — VagabondSpectre
    Nope, that's not what I said. Again, get your facts straight mate. Seems like you can't even understand what I'm telling you.

    No matter which tribe you pull up you can find an example of them getting high by any means (whether they need to ferment the saliva of elders into alcohol, get toad-based poison into their blood stream, or process a plant in a certain way and shoot the powder up their nostrils, they will find a way to inebriate). — VagabondSpectre
    This is false.

    I know you won't like to hear this at all, but spiritual enlightenment is essentially just another kind of mental stimulation that humans fancy, in the end, because it makes them feel good. — VagabondSpectre
    That's according to whom? According to you? Because as far as I know, most people who believe in spiritual enlightenment (take Wayfarer on this forum) would disagree with you.

    It's really not very different from other modes of though which offer different rewards but all of them geared towards the same inexorable goal: happiness. You suggesting (part in parcel) that this life is not for enjoyment is in fact the method by which you've wound up trying to enjoy this life. — VagabondSpectre
    Happiness and pleasure are not the same.

    When America declared it's independence, it mentioned the freedom of man given to them by a god of nature, but beyond that everything in America's founding pertains to the will of the people. — VagabondSpectre
    :s Riiiiiight, a bunch of (mostly) Christians mentioned that freedom is given to man by a God of NATURE! I don't know where you're making this stuff up from, but you may like to provide some sources.

    Ye gods man!, she was clearly joking! — VagabondSpectre
    Right, so I suppose if someone at a party jokes about how he'd like to fuck your wife, that's alright no? He was just joking! Or even better, your wife jokes about giving them a blowjob. That's very "decent". Or your mother jokes about giving a blowjob to a random guy. That's certainly what people should be doing, so long as they're just joking right?

    You're totally right though. society should hold the position that women have the right to be prostitutes but then consequently should immediately shun them for being ungodly and unclean because we think they're vile sinners (even as we make use of their services). — VagabondSpectre
    Society should discourage vice and sin, even if only for the bad social effects it has (including by the way rising divorce rates).

    We like our women pregnant, bound with a ring, barefoot, and in the kitchen, don't we? ;) — VagabondSpectre
    I don't know who taught you this bullshit, but no. We like our women strong, decent, moral, and upstanding, not running around promising blowjobs.

    merely enjoying themselves — VagabondSpectre
    Why do you suppose they should be enjoying themselves?

    You're all vinegar and no honey; mostly stick and only a few carrot shavings. I recommend adapting this strategy if you aim for more success in religio-poltical spheres (unless you want to just play oldies to a crowd of regulars). — VagabondSpectre
    Yes, I wouldn't deceive people with a carrot like you seem to like doing. A carrot that never satisfies them and just makes them hungrier.

    I don't want to risk wasting time on this. If you want to read it and communicate the evidence it might contain for your claims, I welcome you to do so. — VagabondSpectre
    No, I don't have to satisfy your laziness and inability to read a source provided to you because you think it's not good without even reading it. :-}

    Castrating gays has been a christian position since they decided that putting them to death was a bit too harsh. — VagabondSpectre
    No, it was a British position, not a Christian one. The law was written by the British government, not the Church.

    Leviticus 20:13:If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

    This says gays should be put to death and it's their own guilty fault. This is part of the christian doctrine...     — VagabondSpectre
    Actually, again you are bullshitting. The part in Leviticus that you're quoting is part of God's Mosaic Covenant with the Jews at one particular time in history. What does this have to do with Christianity today? The Mosaic Covenant wasn't just a religion, but a state as well. Jewish religious leaders would prescribe the laws as well. Us Christians read that as instructive history (for example you can understand from that that homosexual sex is sinful, and the punishment for sin is death).

    There are more charitable organizations and socially helpful efforts than ever before — VagabondSpectre
    What does that have to do with the virtue of Charity again?

    Belief in the value of life hasn't gone anywhere, it's only the highfalutin arbitrary claims of the ultimate which are beginning to subside in the west. — VagabondSpectre
    I didn't mention anything about the value of life - again I don't know where you're taking this crap from.

    What is our duty? To worship god in pursuit of the next life? — VagabondSpectre
    To live virtuously in a way that honours God.

    Courage hasn't gone anywhere — VagabondSpectre
    One second you say courage hasn't gone anywhere, the other you talk about the millions of teens who can't do anything better but stay glued to social media. Makes much sense.

    We're better off with some traditions dying out, like the idea that women are there to serve men for instance (a Christian value). — VagabondSpectre
    Well serve is the wrong word. Women are there to help men, among other things.

    The rise in divorce rates will bring down society? How? — VagabondSpectre
    Seriously? By destroying families? By making children suffer? By increasing conflicts? By increasing harmful emotions like jealousy, anger, hatred?

    How does the loss of chastity trigger the collapse of society? — VagabondSpectre
    Same as above.

    and selflessness another word for charity, of which there seems to be more than ever before. — VagabondSpectre
    It seems to me you don't understand what charity is.

    I cannot possibly submit to any reading you suggest (in this case on principle as I refuse to treat what is in all likelihood conservative and partisan literature that gets randomly hurled at me as something warranting rebuke — VagabondSpectre
    Right, you want to remain stuck in your narrow self-chosen prison. I see.

    If you want to pick out the relevant bits that demonstrate your point (including at least a brief explanation/example evidence) then I would happily respond to anything and everything you have to say. — VagabondSpectre
    If you're going to be lazy, there's no point in having a conversation.

    But we're already more prosperous than ever... Aren't we? — VagabondSpectre
    No, we aren't. Again, man does not live on bread alone. More bread doesn't mean more prosperous.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    The biggest barrier to running for president is monetary. — Terrapin Station
    If you're not very smart, you won't get your hand on that money.

    Probably if your parents gave you a small loan of $14 million dollars, you'd spend it on bitches on a yacht, not on building a business empire. So yeah. That's why Trump is President, and you're not.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    You seem to be suggesting that Donald Trump has been an effective president. — Michael
    No, I seem to be suggesting his whole life Donald Trump has been very effective.

    No you don't. You just have to be good at convincing people to vote for you, and that doesn't require being a great leader. — Michael
    Not only. You have to organise the entire campaign, organise rallies, organise strategy, build a team, etc. not that easy mate. If it was that easy, we'd all be running for President.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    So in light of that, how has he been effective? — Terrapin Station
    Well, he certainly didn't make it easier for you to have sex yet, if that's what you're asking ;)
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    what has Trump done as president that shows him to be an effective leader? — Michael
    It's too early to talk about that yet. Wait till his Presidency finishes, then we can discuss that.

    If all it takes to be an effective leader is to become a leader then every leader is effective. — Michael
    You have to be a great leader to win a political race to begin with...
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    I watched it. Not once was there any talk about his effectiveness as a president. All he says is that Trump must be above average intelligence because he was a successful reality TV star and managed to stay working in the construction business. — Michael
    And managed to win the Presidency of the U.S. in the circumstances that he won them. So quit playing around, Trump is a lot more effective as a leader than quite possibly 99% of mankind.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    ↪unenlightened
    Also, you confuse actually being dominant, with feeling confident. The two are ABSOLUTELY not the same.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    If one is looking for submissive people to dominate, one is not dominant but submissive to others, and wanting their submissiveness to make one dominant. — unenlightened
    And what makes you think the author of this poll wanted to be dominant in the first place? :s

    Trump is a serial groper because he is not dominant, and has to keep convincing himself that he can dominate women, and boasting about it in 'the locker room' - a sure sign of insecurity. — unenlightened
    Dominance, and insecurity are two different things. Someone could be insecure and yet dominant. Dominance has to do with outward appearance, whereas insecurity has to do with inward feeling.

    Now, the reason for "locker room" talk are very varied. Some people would talk in that manner simply because of the peer pressure, to appear cool. I doubt Trump was very interested in women (he's certainly no match compared to someone like Berlusconi). Billy Bush seemed a lot more interested than Trump, that's why he was prodding him on.

    As for groping, "locker room talk", etc. they are all vices, which hurt one's honour, integrity, and soul. But that's another story that has little to do with dominance or the absence of it.

    ↪Wosret

    Mate, I suggest you post this stuff in the Shoutbox, this is a thread that's about something completely different. Not intending to be rude, but I don't see why it should be sidetracked.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    What in the world would some nonsensical guess about IQ have to do with anything? — Terrapin Station
    You haven't watched the whole video. Watch it. It's not about his IQ, it's about his effectiveness, all around, not only in the White House.
Home » Agustino