Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The first line was the product of a mistake identification, it was to one of your supporters that I was responding. You took up the cudgel and I fused my opponents into one. My apologies for that.
Right, "because all women are the same, just different faces" to too many men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
On the other hand your above post is a repeat of the rude hostility of your last one to me. If you object to what I have written, you must explain the specific objections if you wish me to know what they are. In that I have made no attempt to restrict yours or anyone else's "parameters of discussion", it baffles me as to why you would write such a thing. I get the feeling you are lashing out at enemies from the past rather than making an effort to understand what was actually written.
So...what exactly have I written that you think is not true? I wrote that the Church was a reflection of the prevailing masculine dominated society rather than the agent of its creation. If you think this is incorrect, then are you arguing that the church was the creator of the dynamic?
You call it rude to be asked for clarification of your gender. Interesting. So you consider being your gender an insult or just being called on your misuse of presumed "rightness" because you are (evidently) male? And no, I mustn't explain. I can say what I like and not address you. It's not all about you. You don't get to decide what everyone does or says. Don't try to psychoanalyze and blame my "past". That's just another contemptible male habit of questioning a female's right to have a differing opinion, which is all I and a few others here did. And don't tell me what I'm arguing or otherwise try to put words in my mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
I was from its infancy, and remain, a supporter of the feminist movement. That does not extend to rewriting the past to fit into a modern feminist agenda. I speak of the way things were, you seem to be taking it as my arguing that things were that way because they were supposed to be that way. And since I have advanced no such argument, you are adrift in your own imagination on this.
How long has it been since you went down to the NAACP and told them that some of your best friends are black? LOL
Frankly you sound adrift in imagining that others have to match your perceptions or they're not correct. Sadly that's not uncommon in older men to think they declare what's what in a discussion and expect everyone to bow to that. In the past people may have had to keep their mouths shut but those days are long gone. Tough luck.
It wasn't an especially intelligent question though, was it? You crafted a silly characterization and inquired if I would like to offer myself as a candidate for the description. Just what sort of response were you expecting? If that represents your idea of a serious question, I would not wish to see your idea of a nonsensical one.
Might I remind everyone here that I am not the topic? I am flattered that you all seem so absorbed in straightening me out, but might we return to the subject at hand now?
The fact that you became the topic should tell you something.
Right, "because all women are the same, just different faces" to too many men.
You call it rude to be asked for clarification of your gender. Interesting. So you consider being your gender an insult or just being called on your misuse of presumed "rightness" because you are (evidently) male? And no, I mustn't explain. I can say what I like and not address you. It's not all about you. You don't get to decide what everyone does or says. Don't try to psychoanalyze and blame my "past". That's just another contemptible male habit of questioning a female's right to have a differing opinion, which is all I and a few others here did. And don't tell me what I'm arguing or otherwise try to put words in my mouth.
How long has it been since you went down to the NAACP and told them that some of your best friends are black? LOL
Frankly you sound adrift in imagining that others have to match your perceptions or they're not correct. Sadly that's not uncommon in older men to think they declare what's what in a discussion and expect everyone to bow to that. In the past people may have had to keep their mouths shut but those days are long gone. Tough luck.
You sound agenda driven and agenda driven people are seldom interesting. You have utterly mistargeted me. Because I disagreed with you concerning the church's responsibility for suppressing women through the ages, you instantly decided that such disagreement could only be coming from a male, chauvinist pig. That wasn't very admirable on your part, was it? It establishes you as the bigot here.
Not everyone nor everything is going to fit into your theory of men, however I suspect you will waste quite a large chunk of your time trying to shoehorn them in the same manner you have attempted to apply to me.
Now, you can continue on this wrong track, or you could actually address this issues rather than the poster.
I maintain that the church was a reflection of a prevailing male dominated society, not the creator of it. Thus, your aim was too narrow. I further maintain that what is important isn't whether the make believe god is male or female, what is important is that it is make believe. Do you have anything to say about that or am I the only topic which interests you?
Agenda driven sounds like a way to politicize. Nope. Just hold a different opinion. That's allowed. Instantly decided? Nope. Decades of experience. I understand where you're coming from better than you realize. And I'm not interested in addressing anything with you. I was having a discussion with others when you butted in and insisted everyone play by your rules. People can hold opinions different from your own. Even women and minorities. Life is hard. White male membership has its privileges, but it also often leaves you guys clueless. Too bad. So Sad. lol
And I'm not interested in addressing anything with you. .
I wish that was true. You mask your disinterest by continuing to respond?
Quote:
I was having a discussion with others when you butted in and insisted everyone play by your rules.
You posted an opinion in a public forum open to all. Exactly how to you decide who is participating as opposed to "butting in?" I would guess that those who agree with you are participants and those who do not are the ones "butting in."
I've no notion of what the last part of your sentence is supposed to mean. I don't make the rules here, City-Data does. You should go chew on their leg if you think there should be a rule which shelters you from disagreement.
Fortunately there is a remedy, don't read them. Apparently you do not seem to be able to stop doing so.
Part of the reason I read the post of some religionists on here is that it's cheap entertainment. Others, while I may disagree with them, have thoughtful posts that deserve some consideration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
lol
