(February 23, 2013 at 11:33 am)Rhythm Wrote: So It was a shit and run? We won't be moving forward in our conversation until this is addressed. You might, but I won't, and I'll just keep reminding you. It's called making a point, supporting that point, and staying on that point - which is a good way to engage in a productive conversation. Not that you -have- to do any of that, mind you.

I mean, we -could-, if we wished, just say whatever comes to mind and refuse to own the statements that we have made. We -could-, instead, again if we wished, attempt to steer clear of our own remarks in a variety of ways so as to avoid taking responsibility for the things we choose to say (which may have some value, supposing that whatever we happened to have said was a statement of profound ignorance).....

I've been mocking your earlier behavior.

Really, though, I'm not sure what to say. Evolution is presumed to be able to produce sexual dimorphism in both physical traits and instinctual behavior. In humans, societies can also influence gender roles, so there's continuing debate over just where the line is drawn between nature and nurture, but it's not disputed that there is a line to be drawn. So what's you're freakin point?

My point has been clear from the beginning, that you spoke directly out of your ass. Evolution does not "make" anything happen, it is a description of a process that is the sum total of the reminder of what survives and how that influences future generations. Your continued insistence on the usage of language that I suspect is colored by your own appraisal of the abilities of the entity you believe in leads you to make unfortunate statements about evolution. Statements which might be excused on the basis of using a convenient word for a mutually understood concept - if only it were clear that the concept was mutually understood (which in our case it is clear that it is not).

Further, sexual dimorphism is not synonymous with subservience. Nor is instinctual behavior synonymous with subservience (unless you like to demonstrate an instinctual behavior towards subservience - and in our case tie it directly to a gene). Gender roles are not uniform even among human populations and as far as I'm aware no one has found any gene that differs between societies that do not have this concept of females-as-subservient to males (while few, they do exist). This is what is meant, all those posts ago, about the futility of switching between biological and cultural vocabularies. Evolution is unaware of our culture. But by all means, enlighten me.

You made a statement, you have not supported that statement, and the statement itself arises from a profound misunderstanding of the very subject the statement invokes as an explanation (but to be more accurate, it is only a subject which you wish to malign-in-ignorance). Either you support the statement, modify the statement, retract the statement, or simply choose to discontinue this conversation with me. No matter how you choose to handle our conversation there won't be any passes given. Because the statement was not only incorrect, but an example of colossal douchebaggery- which was then followed by pages, literally pages, of troll.

The next time you want to talk about plain facts or truth, fucking include some.

Edited to add: Rhythm edited his post while I was making this response.

(February 23, 2013 at 12:23 pm)Rhythm Wrote: My point has been clear from the beginning, that you spoke directly out of your ass. Sexual dimorphism is not synonymous with subservience.

I didn't claim that the two are synonymous. you're speaking directly out of your ass.

Quote:Nor does evolution "make" anything happen, it is a description of a process that is the sum total of the reminder of what survives and how that influences future generations.

True, but evolutionists frequently speak as if evolution has a purpose. If I were to start pointing out such instances, you guys would say I was being pedantic.

Quote:You made a statement, you have not supported that statement, and the statement itself arises from a profound misunderstanding of the very subject the statement invokes as an explanation.

What profound misunderstanding is that? Unless you're disputing that evolution can RESULT IN differences in behavior between the sexes of a species, then your objection is that I may have exaggerated the case, not that there is a profound misunderstanding.

(February 23, 2013 at 12:34 pm)John V Wrote: True, but evolutionists frequently speak as if evolution has a purpose. If I were to start pointing out such instances, you guys would say I was being pedantic.

Try us.

Violet, I'm surprised that you kudo'd Rhythm's last post. IIRC you sometimes note submissiveness as a feature of womanhood. Don't you also think there is a biological aspect to gender identity?

(February 22, 2013 at 12:18 pm)Cinjin Wrote: It's very likely that men are actually far more in touch with their emotions and are even better suited to analyzing and understanding them.
Most of the world's greatest poets, artists and song writers are men. Like Summerqueen touched on, saying that we as men do not have or do not comprehend emotional thinking is just completely untrue.

Tell Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Clapton, Elton, Martin, Joel and the billions of others that they don't have emotional thinking.

wow, I didn't see those comments.

umm, I disagree with you Cinjin, you'll find a lot of male artists because opportunities for men to shine were much higher than women in the past.

In college, I had an elective subject called "Visual studies", it was a pure artistic subject -I still wonder why a CS major has to take this ; but I guess it's the case with all electives-, anyways, girls kicked our asses in this class.

I got a shameful "C+", with an embarrassing exam paper & weird looks from my professor -a woman-, who publicly insulted me for not being able to draw straight lines . Most girls passed that class without any effort, they simply had a better taste in art.

But yes, of course some men are capable of emotional thinking, but I meant it was natural in women : )

So we have two theists who have no idea what evolution is and are spouting the naturalistic fallacy left and right. One is resorting to god to back himself up, the other has to pick on people's avatars.

/thread.

(February 23, 2013 at 1:36 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: So we have two theists who have no idea what evolution is and are spouting the naturalistic fallacy left and right. One is resorting to god to back himself up, the other has to pick on people's avatars.

/thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans

One thing I liked the most about this article, is that our brains are actually different..

Quote:With respect to language, males predominantly use their left hemisphere but females use both their right and left hemispheres. The right hemisphere controls emotion, so using the right hemisphere adds more prosody to speech.

You see, I'm not a crazy theist who thinks that god is backing him up...actually god "DOES" back me up

[Sigh]

(February 23, 2013 at 1:17 pm)AtlasS Wrote: But yes, of course some men are capable of emotional thinking, but I meant it was natural in women : )

Hmmm.. I must have been tardy the day they distributed the gene for emotional thinking, it doesn't come naturally to me at all.