Men vs. Women

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #261125
    Vknid
    Moderator

      The entire BS battle of the sexes is just that, BS.  Like most everything else in the mainstream right now this “battle” serves ONLY to divide.  To put us all into tribes.

      The reality?

      First off, you are either a man or a woman, PERIOD.  And you cannot change it.

      Secondly, both sexes are of equal value.

      Men, they protect, defend and gather resources.

      Women, they give life, the most precious gift.  And they nurture that life so it can grow and evolve.

      If either sex did not exist as it is, none of us would be here.

      The most beautiful thing in this world, is the loving union of a man and a woman that gives way to a new life. None of us would be here without that and it is the bedrock and cornerstone of society.  At what point that ceases to be, so does civilization.

      • This topic was modified 2 years, 4 months ago by Vknid.
      #261178

      Gay people should forever be thankful they’re alive because of straight people.

      #261186
      Mustangride1
      Moderator

        Interesting.

        You could take it out further though. Yes you need a man and woman to make a baby, might be a million ways to put the seed in the egg but you have to have a Man to make Seed and Woman to make Egg.  You are Born one or the other.

        Now taking it out further. The Cornerstone of Society is Family. Look at the Communities with high crime and high drug use, they are the ones without TWO Parents in the house by-enlarge. If you are religious or not, their can be no denying the fact that families and communities with both parents present are much better off.  There is a few exceptions, but those exceptions are the very very rich.

        I

        #261248
        Vknid
        Moderator

          @Mustangride1

          This is the thing about the Bible.   It is not full of arbitrary things just to see if you will follow them.  It’s a common sense guide to life and it’s principles keep humans “between the ditches” (pardon the southern saying). This means morality keeps people happy, healthy and content.

          #261252

          @Vknid

          Except Leviticus, which is an accepted part of the Bible, banning arbitrary things like shaving the sides of your head, not eating mollusks or crustaceans, not eating fruits from a tree planted in a new land for three years, and so on, to the point it’s not decreed as part of the current rulebook by the very same faith that’s fairly confused on how much of the Old Testament they still want to apply

           

          > First off, you are either a man or a woman, PERIOD. And you cannot change it.

          What do we define that by? Are all intersex people just freaks?

           


          @TowLiquor

          > Gay people should forever be thankful they’re alive because of straight people.

          It’s 2022. Couples consisting of bisexual people have children of any orientation, people use in vitro or surrogates to have kids regardless of orientation.

          Would society be where it is without straight people? Definitely not.

          Should ‘Gay people forever be thankful they’re alive to straight people’? That’s a curious way of putting it. I take it you’re in favor of some sort of new drastic resolution between racial groups in America, maybe destruction of Germany, because of who should feel indebted to whom over the past?

           

          They’re not a byproduct, they’re a variance. What they ‘owe’ their parents is exactly the same as every other individual does.

          #261263
          Vknid
          Moderator

            @Venithil

            Those were common sense rules at the time that helped to keep people healthy.  This was superseded by the New Testament.

            Intersex people are very rare.  The exception is not the rule that affects 99.9% of the world. Intentionally taking a super small group and trying to apply it to the at large common group is nothing but an effort to sew division and take power.  You want to play that game you go ahead but do not be surprised when you get disagreement.

            To answer a question better than a supreme court nominee, a woman is an adult human female.  A female is a person typically with reproductive organs like a uterus and a vagina etc and XX chromosomes.

            To directly rebuke your “the exception is the rule” mentality.  I am sure if I asked you how many arms a human had you would say 2.  This does not mean that someone with 1 arm is not human but simply indicates that the vast majority of humans have 2 arms.

            #261467
            Mustangride1
            Moderator

              Variance in species “appearance” is common through nature. But when it comes to sex there is either 1 or 2 but as Humans cannot asexually reproduce there is only Male and Female. You cannot and they have tried, put a vagina in a man and have him make a baby.. You cannot put a cock on a woman and have her make a baby. AKA: “Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina”

              Now ass to the Bible, It is a guide without doubt, I do not care if a person is a Christian or not. If you follow the teachings in it you will be a better person simple as that. Now do Morals keep people happy, healthy and content?

              Morals are in the eye of the person, Laws keep people from acting on Morals. An Example: There are people who say that the Bible says Adulterous people should be stoned. Also immoral people “gays”. Morality to some people would be killing those who committed Adultery or were Gay. It is not Morality that keeps people happy, it is the law in many respects.

              Well the Law with Morality and Ethics. Life is complicated enough without the need to make it more so with trying to complicate a absolute (man and woman).

              #261483
              Vknid
              Moderator

                @Mustangride1

                With all due respect here is my take on this:

                A couple of things.  First, if morality is subjective then there is no morality.  You cannot say there is a standard for behavior but anyone can change it at any time as that would be ridiculous.  Your subjective take on morality is one of the reasons we are in the boat we are in. But yes, it can be a complicated topic I will give you that.

                The thing in the Bible about stoning adulterous people.  People hear that and immediately think of an angry mob in the middle-east somewhere randomly killing people based on a rumor.  Well this is something I have looked into a little bit and there is much context to this.  Those were actual trials and there were many rules around them to the point they were very rare.  Not to mention I believe that is Old Testament stuff which as we both know was superseded by the New Testament.

                Our laws in the United States are based directly on our morality which is a Christian morality taken directly from the Bible.  To speak as if they are not related is incorrect.  In fact I would take that so far as to say much of the west has laws based on a Judeo/Christian values take from those customs.

                Finally, the Bible does not consider homosexual folks as immoral for simply existing.  That is the way God made you.  It is the actions that are sinful just like they would be for anyone else.  We are all sinners and we are all equal in that.  We are all also equal in that it is unhealthy if not dangerous to give into every whim or want.  To do so would to be enslaved by your passions.

                But let’s agree on one thing without a doubt.  Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina.

                • This reply was modified 2 years, 4 months ago by Vknid.
                • This reply was modified 2 years, 4 months ago by Vknid.
                #261488

                @Vknid

                — “Those were common sense rules at the time that helped to keep people healthy.”

                A rule about not shaving your beard or sides of your head keeps people healthy how? A rule about not picking fruit for three years and sacrificing all the fruit in the fourth year keeps them healthy… how? A rule about not wearing clothes from two different types of fabric?

                — “Intersex people are very rare.”

                The total accumulation of all traits and syndromes, mathematically, that were once considered intersex is 1.7% of humanity. That’s comparable to redheads. This is why there were talks of changing how we talk about sex from ‘binary’ to ‘bimodal’, because the frequency of various things previously considered abnormalities has been detected more and more. Now, if we’re talking specifically ambiguous genitals at birth, which, I may add, almost no one opposed to trans surgeries never speak up about when we ‘normalize’ in infancy, the number is low (approx 0.018%), but the fact remains what scientists originally rigidly categorized is slightly less rigid.

                — “a woman is an adult human female.”

                Now define ‘adult’ so we know exactly what sort of definition we’re operating on from you, if you would.

                — “A female is a person *typically* with reproductive organs like a uterus and a vagina etc and XX chromosomes.”

                Typically, huh?

                Who chooses the exceptions? Should I start listing the examples existing at the edges of that qualification?

                — “I am sure if I asked you how many arms a human had you would say 2. This does not mean that someone with 1 arm is not human but simply indicates that the vast majority of humans have 2 arms.”

                And the vast majority of women are people born female. This does not mean someone born with particular set of chromosomes can’t have way more in common with a woman than otherwise, both in neurobiological terms, brain activity patterns, way of thinking, and self perception. The vast majority of men are people born male; this does not mean someone born with particular set of chromosomes can’t have way more in common with a man than otherwise, both in neurobiological terms, brain activity patterns, way of thinking, and self perception.

                 

                We could, like some other cultures, treat trans people as an additional gender role rather than the one they identify with, but that still would require breaking your rigid structure. And thinking of people as more than their bodies  – I wonder who is going to do that, though…

                 


                @Mustangride1

                — “Variance in species “appearance” is common through nature. But when it comes to sex there is either 1 or 2 but as Humans cannot asexually reproduce there is only Male and Female. You cannot and they have tried, put a vagina in a man and have him make a baby. ”

                And there are animals who are both and reproduce sexually, as well as animals that can change from one to the other across the course of their lifespans depending on factors. Plenty of animals also have homosexual behaviors exist within their species naturally, which religious people and conservatives happily denoted as ‘unnatural’ for probably centuries.

                Hundreds of years back, we couldn’t do a lot of things that are medically possible now. Now, we can, up to and including heavy biological alteration, reconstruction of tissues that have differentiated from the same matrix to fit more closely to the other potential arrangement of said tissue. Heck, we had a Swyer syndrome person give birth, and they have XY chromosomes (with female ‘plumbing’ naturally developing). Potential of a transwoman giving birth through a C-section after a uterus transplant within the next few decades is very much real, who knows what’ll be real in 600 years?

                 

                — “Now as to the Bible, It is a guide without doubt, I do not care if a person is a Christian or not. If you follow the teachings in it you will be a better person simple as that. Now do Morals keep people happy, healthy and content?”

                Old Testament includes a lot of prescription to kill, and section “16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. 17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.…” causes a lot of discord on just how right the various denominations of Christianity are in terms of playing judge on which portion of Old Testament remain applicable.

                 

                Bible has a strong moral fiber to it in many sections, but it remains a craft of human culture as much, if not more, than it is any manifestation of divine inspiration, and the wrong person in the right place can make all the harm in the world.

                #261494
                Vknid
                Moderator

                  @Venithil

                  You like to pick situations that effect a tiny minority and try to  shoehorn those issues on the majority.  This is a favorite tool of the radical progressive left and the only reason it is done is to gather power and create division.  Again, don’t be surprised when you get nothing but disagreement thinking like that.

                  “We could, like some other cultures, treat trans people as an additional gender role rather than the one they identify with, but that still would require breaking your rigid structure”

                  Y0u have made some assumptions about what I believe or think based on a few sentences and condemned it.  Yes, reality IS a rigid structure I guess. I have always found it pure hypocrisy for people to demand tolerance or understanding and not be willing to give it.

                  The answer to your allegations of rigidness are simple.  We treat trans folks as what they are.  Mentally troubled. To celebrate there sickness for the purpose of using it as a wedge issue IS EVIL.  This is akin to throwing people into a fire so you can warm your hands.  Instead we should give them the help they need.  If that means AS AN ADULT they choose to change their body (on their own dime) well that clearly is up to them and if that makes them feel better then have at it but that as I understand is a rare situation.

                  Do you know there are people that feel like one or more of their limbs is alien or foreign to them and they want it removed?  This is always treated as a severe mental illness that does sometimes result in the person removing their own limb.  Should instead of helping such folks we celebrate their stunning and brave limb removal?  Should the state pay for their limb removal?  No,  clearly that is insane, but we treat trans folks this way why?  Because it’s sexual?  Or because there is a power grab there that can be made?

                  The people at the top of this pyramid pushing this agenda (causing folks like you to parrot it) do not believe it.  It’s all a way to cause division and gather power.  If Hillary Clinton, AOC or Nancy Pelosi (this goes for the establishment on both sides) thought that by throwing trans people in a wood chipper it would extend their lives they would do it without hesitation.

                  Now look, I am not saying you are a radical leftist don’t get me wrong. And I appreciate the way we can speak about such things without hatred and name calling.  But pushing this kind of thing as OK and normalizing it is bad for society in mu summation.  However, I personally am fine with ADULTS doing what they feel they need to for themselves but that should not include celebrating it or forcing others to agree with it.

                  • This reply was modified 2 years, 4 months ago by Vknid.
                  #261497
                  Mustangride1
                  Moderator

                    Yes their are animals that start out life as One sex then turn to the other, That is NOT HUMANS though, if you are going to make an argument can you at least compare apples to apples.

                    Now back to the Bible… There have been acts long after Christianity’s formation of Stoning for Adulterous behavior “Without trial” there has also been many cases of Murdering people for witchcraft and other offenses against God. Even to this very day in a Nation that is suppose to NOT establish religion or laws of religion we have Blue-laws that are clearly based on religion.

                    The number 1 cause of death in the world has been directly because or and attribute or context of Religion.  It is laws that keep people safe as I said because yes Morality is in the eye of the person.

                    A perfect example: There are people who believe we should all have the VAX, they want it a law and that people cannot go anyplace without it, look at New Orleans and its vax mandate policies as just one example. They believe and have said it is our “Moral responsibility to our-self, family, neighbors and world ” Yet it is Proven the Vax dose not work in fact its proven in rare cases it has killed people and in others caused Health problems. So how Moral is forcing something on someone that is proven NOT to work. Or create laws that discriminate based on you not putting something in you body that is proven not to work?

                    Their Morality is different than those who believe it should be our Liberty to say NO and not have it. There are laws now in some places banning the forcing of the vax or discrimination against those who do not have it. Laws not the bible or someones morality is what is keeping people equal.

                    Equality is what “Moral” should be. All people should be equal and luckily the LAW is what does that “yes it fails at times” Morality is subjective and even differing amongst religious groups of the same Religion. Law is Black n White.

                    #261502

                    > You like to pick situations that effect a tiny minority and try to shoehorn those issues on the majority.

                    Who’s shoehorning it onto you, exactly? There will be aspects of LGBT activism that definitely affect more people than just their immediate vicinity (i.e. american sports as a pathway to education opportunities means trans women in women’s sports are a very serious issue to discuss), but how much, exactly, has this affected your life at large? Maybe it has, I’m not saying it didn’t, but I heard that line a lot from people who genuinely did nothing but repeated it blindly.

                     

                    > Mentally troubled. To celebrate there sickness for the purpose of using it as a wedge issue IS EVIL.

                    All politics and voter-gathering is exploitative at this level. It is simple : Different people have different problems they wish to have addressed, and different groups of people whose problems they are concerned with even if they aren’t affected by them. So left wingers ‘grabbed’ minority concerns, both racial and LGBT, and concerns over long-term social and circumstantial influences pressing onto them as result of the not-so-distinct past, and they begun preaching about solving them. Many left wing politicians have no idea on how to do it, or don’t actually believe they should be doing it, just go for it on a power basis. Right wing politicians concern themselves with the working class, at least on surface, societal stability through pre-existing models of it i.e. nuclear family, and trying to create circumstances under which opportunities at least seem realistic to grab. Many of them don’t actually believe those ideals, either ( Reagan was one of the first to start giving subsidies and tax cuts to corporations, had two wives after divorce; Trump had three; this is JUST in American politics, which is not the only politics there is).

                    Politicians are inherently primarily a manipulator class. A few of them have honestly good intentions, but they’re rare. This doesn’t mean politicians aren’t elected based on manipulating narratives around *real* issues.

                     

                    > To celebrate there sickness for the purpose of using it as a wedge issue IS EVIL.

                    I think we draw different lines on where and what is celebrated. This may be because we come from different parts of the world, however.

                     

                     

                    > Do you know there are people that feel like one or more of their limbs is alien or foreign to them and they want it removed? This is always treated as a severe mental illness that does sometimes result in the person removing their own limb.

                    Both classifications and types of mental health conditions as well as their underlying circumstances differ drastically, and so will the treatments for differing condition. This doesn’t mean, mind you, that a condition can’t be misdiagnosed.

                    > Instead we should give them the help they need. If that means AS AN ADULT they choose to change their body (on their own dime) well that clearly is up to them and if that makes them feel better then have at it but that as I understand is a rare situation.

                    For the record, I believe the lines of ‘early intervention’ proposed by various healthcare specialists around treating dysphoria in kids is drawn notably too early by american left-liberals and similar people. They (healthcare specialists suggesting these treatments) do have more experience in the matter than me, but several crucial factors are being omitted, both in terms of parental responsibility, in terms of misdiagnosis potential, in terms of future choices of an individual subjected to such treatment, and in terms of potential consequences of people subject to such treatment.

                    As mentioned 2 points below, there may also be a monetary agenda involved. TL : DR I don’t believe in puberty blockers for 12 years old. In fact, to me, that’s merely AROUND the age when they should be learning, in the appropriate and activity-discouraging language, that LGBT minorities exist (as opposed to 6-9 as proposed by some left wingers).

                     

                     

                    > No, clearly that is insane, but we treat trans folks this way why? Because it’s sexual?

                    It’s not inherently sexual any more than humanity itself is.

                     

                     

                    > Or because there is a power grab there that can be made?

                    It’s both, actually. Treatment is much, much more profitable than curing a condition, you see; it has been the case for a long time in terms of medical research and medical services. Just as there’s much less incentive to cure various biological illnesses than there is to treat them, if they’re not fatal, there is much less incentive to invent something that could remove gender dysphoria (if such a feat is possible considering its neurobiological roots) or related conditions  (both ‘euphoric’ transpeople and nonbinaries may be purely social or they may be based on a neurodivergence) than there is incentive to improve treatments that alleviate them over time. However, treatment may be worse than cure, but it is better than lack of treatment, 9/10 times.

                     

                     

                    > The people at the top of this pyramid pushing this agenda (causing folks like you to parrot it)

                    I find it funny you think I’m parotting politicians from a country and political climate that isn’t my own (I’m European and the strongest movements in my region are usually people doing ‘Welp America has gone too far’, rather than pro-Democrat narratives) when you’re the one doing the parroting.

                    But you’ve made that point about me, so I’ll be fair and explain it in good faith : No USA ‘politician’ influenced my views towards trans people, or gave me an agenda to parrot. If anything, the internet climate around anti-SJW movements has for years had me convinced my views should be much similar to yours right now, and the vast majority of viewpoints expressed to me both growing up have been conservative. Learning the perspective of the people on the ground, people very much affected by it, was what got me to my current position about the issue, after a period of time where it was between my current and your current position. And not all trans people are some sort of monolith movement merely repeating the same lines over and over again : Social change movements of minorities ally precisely *because* they are minorities and this is the only way they can be heard to institute social changes.

                    I think you are mistaken in your perception, honestly. People in high places do not create the narratives and agendas so easily; instead they capture noble-sounding movements from the populace that have received a platform due to efforts from people on the ground, then bend it to suit themselves while often not knowing what they’re talking about. This is the nature of political manipulation; protecting the status quo (right/conservative) or creating a simpler, less intrusive system (most libertarians) are inherently ideas with slightly less to hijack, though they have been hijacked. Social movements for change that often start with the left (BLM, LGBT-rights movements, etc.) are active and often start off less focused, and thus are easier to hijack. Meanwhile, it’s the people on the ground, not high-up politicians, that are overrepresented in both suicide and violent crime against them to this very day.

                    #261556

                    I find hatred of religion ironic, because if there is no God, then Evolution selected the ancient religions, because they are strong and confer a survival advantage.

                    That advantage is evident: religion teaches that there is always something bigger than people. That belief is absolutely necessary to survival, because it is the essence of reproduction. By reproducing, we admit that we need to be replaced. We must decrease, and the next generation must increase. Reproduction is a confession that the survival of the species is bigger than our preferences, our careers, and our own lives.

                    Humanism, however, considers non-reproductive lifestyles to be good and enlightened, and reproductive lifestyles to be evil and backwards. Humanists, by their actions, declare they want to be the Last Generation, the end of existence. That is why they are willing to exploit children, in direct defiance of the universe.

                    Yet, even if there is no God to determine and judge morality, Evolution evaluates the human race, and will select the “backwards religious” over the “enlightened humanist”.

                    I sometimes suspect this explains at least in part the animosity of humanists against the religious. After all, the humanists are enlightened: they have science; they understand the universe. And yet the universe selects against them, and considers the religious to be strong and worth selecting. It’s a kind of Cain and Abel story. :)

                    As to the original subject, one way or another, something bigger than people determined that people would be men and women. We are not bigger than that something, nor will we ever be.

                    I consider the arrogance that says we can be, however, to be an excellent explanation of the Fermi Paradox. :)

                    #261582

                    By the way, on the subject of the Bible and stoning, the actions of Jesus were consistent with the Old Testament. Here we have the famous scene:

                    “And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.” (John 8:3-6)

                    So, that sets thee stage. I note that the motivations of the Pharisees and of those who bring this up in the first place are often quite similar. :)

                    But let’s check Moses for the reference:

                    “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10)

                    That’s quite clear! But, a conflict quickly becomes apparent: -both- parties were to be executed, the Pharisees claimed to have taken the adulteress in the act, which inherently involves the adulterer, and yet where is he? The Pharisees are hiding him!

                    It’s no surprise therefore, that Jesus stated the following:

                    “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7)

                    That is by no means a generic statement: the Pharisees were sinning in that very instance by protecting the adulterer. Even so, weren’t the actions of Jesus against Moses? After all, according to Moses, both adulterer and adulteress -should- be stoned!

                    Well, let’s turn again to the Old Testament, and check out this statement by the God of the Old Testament (as he is sometimes called):

                    “I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery: for themselves are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots…” (Hosea 4:14)

                    Here, God says himself that he would not single out women for committing adultery, when everyone was an adulterer. In the response of Jesus to Pharisees, he simply followed this rule. As he himself said:

                    “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Matthew 5:17)

                    So, in this famous scene, the Old and New Testaments are in perfect accord.

                    As to the Law of Moses itself, it helps to understand the following:

                    – Accepting the law was voluntary on the part of Israel; God did not impose it on them.
                    – The law was exclusive: it was not for export. The whole point was to make Israel different from everyone else.
                    – The law was pragmatic, not ideal. As Jesus said, “for the hardness of your hearts, Moses wrote you this precept”.

                    And of course, the whole law hung on this rule: “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

                    • This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by Roccandil.
                    #261719
                    Mustangride1
                    Moderator

                      Very good points @Roccandil glad to see someone else understands it.

                      Religion however does not or more to the point ignores it for their own wants or needs. No secret I am a Christian, but I HATE ALL Religion and being a Christian does not mean I am Religious. Those are two very different things.

                      As a Christian I read my bible, I try my best to let the words speak to my heart and soul and follow what God laid out. I also know the bible is mans translation several hundred years later and may well be flawed in some of its wording. I also 100% believe there is intentionally missing books and chapters done so by Religious Organizations. As a Christian the best I can hope for is what is Known and what I feel in my Heart and Soul as that is where God speaks to us.

                      Religion, is what some man or group of men decided to make it based on what they could find in the Bible or by some Prophet telling them it should be. They use it for their gain plain and simple. I have seen so many things I know in my heart are wrong in these business’s, and I say that because that is what they are. Certainly they are no house of the Lord.

                      I have found more Christian togetherness with a preacher under a tent who welcomed all regardless if they paid him or how they were dressed, He got up and preached what the BOOK said and then left it to the congregation to find in their heart what the words meant to them. He prayed for the sick, some laying hands some not but they still prayed and then they helped others accept Christ. There was more love of God in those ragged tints preached by a men often in ragged clothes than in all the Million Dollar buildings where the preacher was always begging for money.

                      Then again, the Greatest of all Preachers seemed to have been in the Wilderness as well, doing the same thing.

                    Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
                    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

                    Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!

                    SIGN UP FOR UPDATES!

                    NAVIGATION