The anti-women left falls back on sexual slurs and dehumanization

[foxpaws]

shag - federali
Archbishop Fulton Sheen said "To a great extent the level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood. ... The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women."

So - I read that as women driven - if the level of civilization is greatly dependent on the 'level of its womanhood' and if history could be 'written in terms of the level of its women' it seems pretty much to me he is indicating that it is a woman's world, not man's. A 'moslty' one way street shag.

Are you really arguing that women aren't asking to be used by men when they are not dressed appropriately?

Really federali - that is a very slippery slope - that is the slope that ends with the rape defense - 'she asked for it'.

So - do you believe that women 'ask for it'?

And yes shag - mating behavior has shaped humans - but so has the lust for power, the belief in a higher power, the drive of charity...

And, most men are rather appreciative than women eat everything

 

[shagdrum]

Archbishop Fulton Sheen said "To a great extent the level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood. ... The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women."

So - I read that as women driven - if the level of civilization is greatly dependent on the 'level of its womanhood' and if history could be 'written in terms of the level of its women' it seems pretty much to me he is indicating that it is a woman's world, not man's. A 'moslty' one way street shag.

Actually, what he is saying is much more nuanced and in fact opposed to what you are saying. It is not viewing the world simplistically as driven by a single gender (as you seem to want to). It is focusing on how the two genders and gender roles interact with and influence each other. To miss that is to miss what the Archbishop is saying.

Really federali - that is a very slippery slope - that is the slope that ends with the rape defense - 'she asked for it'.

In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope... is a classical informal fallacy (but it can also refer to a logically valid argument).

A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.​

And yes shag - mating behavior has shaped humans - but so has the lust for power, the belief in a higher power, the drive of charity...

So, if attracting a mate shapes human behavior what is so absurd about what the archbishop says?

 

[foxpaws]

I see nothing 'nuanced' in what the Archbishop is stating in the 'snip' that federali gave us - there it is pretty clear what he is saying - that women are the driving force behind history - unless there is more to that quote that would indicate that it works both ways - then that is all he said shag - there wasn't any statement or indication that he believes that men's behavior in any way influences what women do. If there is - could you please point that out to me.

And I'll let federali defend this:

Are you really arguing that women aren't asking to be used by men when they are not dressed appropriately?

To me it is pretty much 'in your face' that he thinks women 'ask for it'.

Finding a mate does shape some human behavior shag - but it is a small part - finding food used to be the largest defining factor in human behavior - that has been very diminished with the advent of McDonalds . There are lots of things that influence us shag, finding a mate is just one of many. You, federali, and the Archbishop are isolating and elevating just one of these. How about the whole lead in the food argument for Rome - pretty convincing. How much did lead have to do with the rise and fall of the empire? Probably far more than women.

 

[shagdrum]

I see nothing 'nuanced' in what the Archbishop is stating...

Likely because you simply don't want to see anything other then simplistic woman bashing in the statement.

Maybe you should look beyond rhetoric and emotion to focus on the theoretical roots of the statement. Dismissing a very insightful comment like that and rationalizing that dismissal through cheap straw man arguments only undercuts your own credibility.

Finding a mate does shape some human behavior shag - but it is a small part

Most anyone's experience in high school would beg to differ. It is not a "small" part, by any means.

Your attempts to rhetorically diminish the influence of finding a mate on human behavior are getting more and more desperate...

finding food used to be the largest defining factor in human behavior

And that plays right into the point the Archbishop is raising. Can you see how?

 

[fossten]

Finding a mate does shape some human behavior shag - but it is a small part - finding food used to be the largest defining factor in human behavior - that has been very diminished with the advent of McDonalds . There are lots of things that influence us shag, finding a mate is just one of many.

Do you have any actual evidence for this claim, or are you just speaking from experience?

 

[foxpaws]

Likely because you simply don't want to see anything other then simplistic woman bashing in the statement.

Maybe you should look beyond rhetoric and emotion to focus on the theoretical roots of the statement. Dismissing a very insightful comment like that and rationalizing that dismissal through cheap straw man arguments only undercuts your own credibility.

So, look beyond the statement - is a viable argument? My ascertaining that it creates culpability with regards to men being able to say - 'ain't my fault' is right up front - now we have to pretend we know that the archbishop's statement is insightful and if you look 'beyond' his words you can find out the 'real' underlying meaning of his words.

Well, shag - I can look beyond his statement too - and find a bitter old man who would love to blame everything on women from Eve on... how about that for focusing on the theoretical 'roots' of the statement. Roots don't go much further back in the Catholic Church than the old Eve/Apple/Snake fable...

Most anyone's experience in high school would beg to differ. It is not a "small" part, by any means.

Your attempts to rhetorically diminish the influence of finding a mate on human behavior are getting more and more desperate...

And most of us have going beyond high school mating rituals shag...

And that plays right into the point the Archbishop is raising. Can you see how?

The fact that food gathering was our major defining factor for many thousands of years has what to do with the fact that you actually think that mating is THE defining factor for what - the last 3,000 years. A lot of history took place before we got around to looking beyond dinner. And you might think that mating moved into and has remained has the number one defining factor - but I really think you need to show that shag -

If anything money has replaced food as our defining factor. Things fall into place after getting money - just like they did with food - power, mates, housing. The hunt for the almighty dollar defines us far more than our quest for the perfect mate.

 

[Federali Aundy]

Well, shag - I can look beyond his statement too - and find a bitter old man who would love to blame everything on women from Eve on... how about that for focusing on the theoretical 'roots' of the statement. Roots don't go much further back in the Catholic Church than the old Eve/Apple/Snake fable...

Please read the archbishop’s autobiography and tell me he was a bitter old man. I think he was the most joyful man who ever won an Emmy – yes, that’s right, a Catholic archbishop had a nation-wide TV show and won Emmys for it. It was called “Life is Worth Living” and it painted a wonderful, beautiful image of life and woman because it was one based on reality. The only thing bitter and old I see is the look on the face of Nancy Pelosi and the rest of her feminist witches who reject the reality of their own femininity. Here’s another quote from the archbishop on women. It is far more young and beautiful than the face of modern woman on magazine covers:

“The very emergence of woman into the political, economic, and social life of the world suggests that the world needs a continuity which she alone can supply; for while man is more closely related to things, she is the protector of life. She cannot look at a limping dog, a flower overhanging a vase, without her heart and mind and soul going out to it, as if to bear witness that she has been appointed by God as the very guardian and custodian of life. Although contemporary literature associates her with frivolity and allurement, her instincts find repose only in the preservation of vitality. Her very body commits her to the drama of existence and links her in some way with the rhythm of the cosmos. In her arms, life takes its first breath, and in her arms, life wants to die. The world most often used by soldiers dying on the battlefields is ‘Mother.’”

And the Catholic Church has a far richer history than you seem to be aware of. In fact, it teaches that the greatest mere human that ever walked the earth was a woman – and she was God’s mother. Here’s a quote from Pope Benedict XVI from a couple days ago on the matter:

“In reality, ‘Theotókos’ [the title of Mary as Mother of God] is an audacious title. A woman is Mother of God. One might say: how is this possible? God is eternal, he is the Creator. We are creatures, we are in time: how could a human person be Mother of God, of the Eternal, given that we are all in time, we are all creatures? …As we know well, Aristotelian philosophy tells us that between God and man there exists only a non-reciprocal relationship. Man exists in reference to God, but God, the Eternal, is in himself, he does not change: he cannot have this kind of relationship today and another kind tomorrow. He remains in himself, he does not have a relationship 'ad extra,' he does not have a relationship with me. It is a very logical reflection, but it is a reflection that makes us despair. With the incarnation, with the coming of the ‘Theotókos,’ this has changed radically, because God has drawn us into himself, and God in himself is relationship and makes us participate in his interior relationship.”

It was through woman that God becomes man. Furthermore, the Catholic Church teaches that salvation comes through entering the Church – which is described in a very feminine way: the bride of Christ.

 

[shagdrum]

Well, shag - I can look beyond his statement too

There is a difference between looking beyond the statement to the rationale underlying it and presumptuously and opportunistically distorting the statement to fit your own worldview.

One approach looks to discern the truth and one looks to subvert the truth.

The fact that food gathering was our major defining factor for many thousands of years has what to do with the fact that you actually think that mating is THE defining factor for what - the last 3,000 years. A lot of history took place before we got around to looking beyond dinner. And you might think that mating moved into and has remained has the number one defining factor - but I really think you need to show that shag -

If anything money has replaced food as our defining factor. Things fall into place after getting money - just like they did with food - power, mates, housing. The hunt for the almighty dollar defines us far more than our quest for the perfect mate.

In response to this:

...that plays right into the point the Archbishop is raising. Can you see how?

You could have just said "no" and saved yourself the time it took to write that pointless diatribe.

It is very telling that you have gone from simply claiming that attracting a mate is not the defining factor of human behavior (even though no one was ever making that argument) to trying to claim that money is the defining factor. The argument that any one specific thing is the defining factor of human behavior is foolish and irrational.

 

[04SCTLS]

Things fall into place after getting money

+1

My ambition was to become a millionaire first.
Now I own property and equipment that are the means of production.
I come and go as I please and do whatever I want.
My managers do a great job running the show.
Money is harder to come by than a mate
and better to have first.

 

[shagdrum]

My ambition was to become a millionaire first.

Toward what end?

Money is only a means to an end. Amassing money is not, in and of itself, generally a motivating factor.

Is money and (the trappings/security it buys) a means of attracting and keeping a mate (among other things)?

 

[fossten]

Toward what end?

Money is only a means to an end. Amassing money is not, in and of itself, generally a motivating factor.

Is money and (the trappings/security it buys) a means of attracting and keeping a mate (among other things)?

Ask John Kerry.

 

[04SCTLS]

Money makes happiness a lot more possible.

So money is a means towards happiness.

My parents were middle class.

When I was a kid I wanted to be rich but didn't have a career in mind.

My path was set though I didn't realize it at the time at the age of 15 when I put my dad's car into a ditch and dented the fender.
I took it out joyriding with our scout troop at some loathsomely tedious 2 hr mass.

My 13 yr old brother and I fixed it ourselves and bought a compressor and started doing bodywork and painting the neighbors cars in our parents garage. We were very talented handicrafters and that all led to our current success.

Our business model is ACME from the bugs bunny/ roadrunner cartoon.
We buy used large capital equipment at 1% to 10% of the cost of new
and make it work.
So serendipity (a fortunate accident) is my middle name.

I married late, my wife didn't marry me for my money
(I didn't let her know until I had gotten to know her)

and I've legally protected myself should things turn sour.

I'm helping people and leaving my mark on this planet which will be around long after I'm gone and that is a lot more than most people can say.

There's some real satisfaction in that.

 

[shagdrum]

Money makes happiness a lot more possible.

So money is a means towards happiness.

What do you define as happiness? Having a spouse seems to be part of that, but what is, in your estimation, "the good life"?

money as a means to happiness doesn't necessarily mean that someone simply marries you for your money. Maybe it is simply the security it provides, which can be reflected both directly and indirectly in countless ways. The traditional view of wanting a "provider" and looking for a good provider as a spouse is one aspect of that. It doesn't simply have to be cheap materialism (in the economic sense).

BTW, it is great that you have found work that you love and find rewarding that is also lucrative. We should all be so lucky...

 

[foxpaws]

There is a difference between looking beyond the statement to the rationale underlying it and presumptuously and opportunistically distorting the statement to fit your own worldview.

One approach looks to discern the truth and one looks to subvert the truth.

However, unless you are the archbishop, or could read his mind, your statements regarding 'what he meant' are a presumptive as mine, actually more so. You are distorting his statement to fit your own 'worldview' shag. If you take his statement at face value, and not inject some sort of 'underlying, known only to the faithful' meaning as you are doing, it matches what I stated. That women are the cause for how history has played out... That is very clear in his statement. Your extrapolated explanation has to go into the realm of 'look between the lines'. You can't do that shag - that isn't good 'argument'.

It is very telling that you have gone from simply claiming that attracting a mate is not the defining factor of human behavior (even though no one was ever making that argument) to trying to claim that money is the defining factor. The argument that any one specific thing is the defining factor of human behavior is foolish and irrational.

Weren't you, and the archbishop, and federali the ones stating that history has followed women's behavior. That our past, and our present, and obviously our future, seems to be dependent on the way women decide to behave, present themselves, develop their character? Did I miss something in the discussion Shag - I was lowering myself to your expectations - you seemed to want one thing - one deciding factor - finding a mate - as the 'main' impetus for human change and behavior. So, what is it now shag - just the most important - or maybe not even that - top 3? Top 10?

 

[04SCTLS]

What do you define as happiness? Having a spouse seems to be part of that, but what is, in your estimation, "the good life"?

money as a means to happiness doesn't necessarily mean that someone simply marries you for your money. Maybe it is simply the security it provides, which can be reflected both directly and indirectly in countless ways. The traditional view of wanting a "provider" and looking for a good provider as a spouse is one aspect of that. It doesn't simply have to be cheap materialism (in the economic sense).

BTW, it is great that you have found work that you love and find rewarding that is also lucrative. We should all be so lucky...

Happiness is a warm gun, bang bang shoot shoot LOL!

To me happiness is living like a prince.

Happiness is where people say Yes Sir!

Happiness is listening to Mozart and Beethoven symphonies at loud volumes.

Happiness is having very deep pockets and paying almost no interest.

Happiness is paying key employees hefty bonuses at Christmas time(up to 40% of salary)

and having them work for you like they are the owners.

Happiness is a spouse who loves me.

Happiness is having imagination.

Happiness is being talented smart and clever.

Happiness is holding all the cards without having to play them.

Money is freedom.

Without money you're stuck and you can't do anything.

People always say if they had the money they could do what they wanted.

When you get past academics and get some money you'll better know what I mean.

 

[shagdrum]

However, unless you are the archbishop, or could read his mind, your statements regarding 'what he meant' are a presumptive as mine, actually more so.

Not so much, but it is nice to see that you are admitting that your statements are presumptive.

There is only one basic rationale that makes sense in regards to the statement of the Archbishop. You are intentionally ignoring that rationale and distorting it to fit into your cynical view of gender roles and men in general.

That is not only presumptuous but intellectually arrogant and exceedingly close minded.

 

[shagdrum]

When you get past academics and get some money you'll better know what I mean.

I hope so. But I just graduated in May and the job market still stinks...