Hello everybody

[kentonio]

She was excommunicated for executing priests that performed the sacraments. Why is it that there were no Catholic priests in England - no heirarchy from 1550 to 1850 - over 300 years? It was only restored in 1850, when the priests were allowed to come back after Catholic Emancipation.

Compared to Mary's reign Elizabeths was considered extremely moderate. She tended to only kill people who were actively trying to overthrow her. Maybe if the vatican had spent a bit more time caring about god and a bit less trying to control the monarchies of Europe, Catholics might have had an easier time of it.

Anyway there's no point having this discussion again, you'll just keep trying to claim that Elizabeth was some bloodthirsty tyrant despite being proved repeatedly wrong. I still haven't forgotten you pretending to be an expert on the Tudors and not knowing there were two different Marys.

[Ben Kenobi]

And someone who believes people of different ethnicities are fundamentally different is a racist, and tends to hold views consistent with being a racist.

And someone who believes people of different sexualities are fundamentally different is a homophobe, and tends to hold views consistent with being a homophobe.

So if I were to cite a source that showed that black students do not do as well as white students that would make me racist?

What if I also cited a source showing that women are less likely to work full time after they had children, that would make me sexist?

There are fundamental differences between men and women, that have drastic effects on how they choose to live their lives. Ignoring them doesn't help anyone at all.

That's the problem. You're going along saying that everyone should ignore the elephant in the room, and calling anyone who questions your presuppositions as 'racist', 'sexist', 'homophobic'.

But in the end, namecalling does nothing to address the question at hand, are there fundamental differences between men and women and how each of the other perceives the world?

I'm not saying that the way men see the world is better or worse than woman, I'm saying that they are different. Would I be a racist if I said that cornrows actually work for black people?

[MRT144]

Compared to Mary's reign Elizabeths was considered extremely moderate. She tended to only kill people who were actively trying to overthrow her. Maybe if the vatican had spent a bit more time caring about god and a bit less trying to control the monarchies of Europe, Catholics might have had an easier time of it.

Anyway there's no point having this discussion again, you'll just keep trying to claim that Elizabeth was some bloodthirsty tyrant despite being proved repeatedly wrong. I still haven't forgotten you pretending to be an expert on the Tudors and not knowing there were two different Marys.

Lmao, link needed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Anyway there's no point having this discussion again, you'll just keep trying to claim that Elizabeth was some bloodthirsty tyrant despite being proved repeatedly wrong. I still haven't forgotten you pretending to be an expert on the Tudors and not knowing there were two different Marys.

I love how you denigrate my education while refusing to talk about yours. That really increases your credibility.

[MRT144]

I love how you denigrate my education while refusing to talk about yours. That really increases your credibility.

His credibility is greater than yours. You want Flutie in the HoF for ****s sake.

[Jon Miller]

And someone who believes people of different ethnicities are fundamentally different is a racist, and tends to hold views consistent with being a racist.

And someone who believes people of different sexualities are fundamentally different is a homophobe, and tends to hold views consistent with being a homophobe.

Actually, there is evidence in favor of the first (and probably could exist for the second too). There are some claims that by using medical studies done on whites and applying them to everyone, the medical industry has done a great disservice to the majority of the world.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

His credibility is greater than yours. You want Flutie in the HoF for ****s sake.

Doesn't everyone? Seriously, a helluva a QB. If Elway's in, Flutie should be in too. Flutie was better.

[MRT144]

Doesn't everyone? Seriously, a helluva a QB. If Elway's in, Flutie should be in too. Flutie was better.

I've said this before but, you seem to attach yourself to an idea, a person, an attitude and then CAN NOT LOGICALLY SUPPORT IT BUT DEFEND YOUR LUST WITH THE UTMOST EFFORT.

[rah]

So, you see why this is a poor argument.

"There's no scriptural evidence saying X"

"Oh, I chose to ignore the scriptural evidence saying X".

Ignore/skip, why are we quibbling over semantics. The point is that you don't care about what I have to say so long as you can say, "Priests are pedophiles". Have you hit your quota yet for today rah?

I explained why I didn't consider it relevant (which you conveniently left out)
You made a connection that isn't specifically there. WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT WOMEN CAN"T BE PRIESTS? It's your interpretation (and others that have everything to gain through that interpretation).

Have I once said 'Priests are pedophiles' today?

And where I responded

What the hell does that have to do with the fact that in the past women weren't allowed to be CEOs.

you didn't answer that, you asked another non-relevant question. Typical of you. Answer the damn question.

The fact that women weren't allowed to be CEOs was just blatant Sexism (agree or disagree)
What does willing to die have to do with that?

[Elok]

And the evidence suggests the gender trends might well be environmental and societal rather than genetic.

I don't want to get into a fight about whether men and women are different (because, as always, I'm too lazy to dig for info), but I'd like to point out that even if the differences are environmental and societal, that doesn't much matter if the environment and society aren't going to change significantly.

[MikeH]

Actually, there is evidence in favor of the first (and probably could exist for the second too). There are some claims that by using medical studies done on whites and applying them to everyone, the medical industry has done a great disservice to the majority of the world.

JM

Smaller than the biological differences between men and women that I discounted? Fundamentally a person is not defined by their biology.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've said this before but, you seem to attach yourself to an idea, a person, an attitude and then CAN NOT LOGICALLY SUPPORT IT BUT DEFEND YOUR LUST WITH THE UTMOST EFFORT.

You lust after Flutie? EWWWWWWWW! TMI.

[Flubber]

So if I were to cite a source that showed that black students do not do as well as white students that would make me racist?

What if I also cited a source showing that women are less likely to work full time after they had children, that would make me sexist?

Observations of fact do not make you racist or sexist. However the conclusions you draw from certain facts may be sexist or racist.

I might observe that there are fewer women in higher levels of managment than men. To conclude immediately there is a fundamental difference in men and women such that women are less apt at business would be a sexist statement. WE all grew up in racist and sexist societies and to ignore those societal impacts and instead ascribe any observed different outcomes between races or genders to "fundamental differences" is a shallow analysis and racist or sexist on its face.

[MikeH]

I don't want to get into a fight about whether men and women are different (because, as always, I'm too lazy to dig for info), but I'd like to point out that even if the differences are environmental and societal, that doesn't much matter if the environment and society aren't going to change significantly.

It does because the way you make societal change is to acknowledge that there's a problem. And considering the huge change in societal role of women in the last century as their equality has been acknowledged I don't think you can make the case that society isn't going to change significantly.

[Elok]

I've said this before but, you seem to attach yourself to an idea, a person, an attitude and then CAN NOT LOGICALLY SUPPORT IT BUT DEFEND YOUR LUST WITH THE UTMOST EFFORT.

This is my real objection to BK. The caveman views I can work with. The passive-aggressiveness is obnoxious, but it could be worse. But his persistent bad faith--the way he doesn't even seem to care about truth or falsehood, just "conducive to supporting my beliefs" and "conducive to rejecting my beliefs"--makes it pointless to argue with him. We all do it to a very small extent, but he goes whole hog.