(February 25, 2013 at 12:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So I guess that we would expect evolution (as your proposed cause) to result in that difference (whatever it may be)

Did you have trouble with the math, or were you just making stuff up and hoping I wouldn't check it?

Quote:To put it a little more simply, if men were shorter and women taller this would result in less oppression.

I'd say weight and strength are more important than height. You probably would too, and so disingenuously used height alone.

You maintain your position on the relative difference between males and females, I maintain mine. Regardless of who is correct it will not be support for your statement, unless you can demonstrate that a change in said loci has an effect on the relative level of oppression or subservience. If the difference were greater it would be that much easier to demonstrate the veracity of this claim. Damned if you do, damned if you don't - because you didn't think it through before you chose to get loose at the fingertips. What is so difficult to understand about this?

I'd say it's harder for a fat man to catch a skinny female to beat her in the first place. I'm not the one that focused on these attributes or brought them up in support of an ignorant statement, you did that. So I'm not exactly going to feel beholden to you to simply ignore them now when you clearly realize there's no traction in them.

But hell, we're on to weight. Show me the loci for weight (already touched on this) and how relative weight has a direct effect on levels of oppression or submissiveness. It's the same situation with height all over again and you'll fail here as hard as you failed there. Are you going to claim next that I'm being disingenuous when I focus on weight?

Should we instead retreat to strength? We're at least 1/3 of the way to your total abandonment of the support you have offered for your own dismal statement and I'm wondering why we don't just cut out all the foreplay and go straight to the money-shot.

(February 25, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You maintain your position on the relative difference between males and females, I maintain mine. Regardless of who is correct it will not be support for your statement, unless you can demonstrate that a change in said loci has an effect on the relative level of oppression or subservience. What is so difficult to understand about this?

It's not difficult to understand, it's special pleading. Studies in evolution do not necessarily boil down to demonstrating that a change in a certain loci determines the attribute(s) being studied. You know that.

Quote:I'd say it's harder for a fat man to catch a skinny female to beat her in the first place. I'm not the one that focused on these attributes or brought them up in support of an ignorant statement, you did that. So I'm not exactly going to feel beholden to you to simply ignore them now when you clearly realize there's no traction in them.

But hell, we're on to weight. Show me the loci for weight (already touched on this) and how relative weight has a direct effect on levels of oppression or submissiveness. It's the same situation with height all over again and you'll fail here as hard as you failed there. Are you going to claim next that I'm being disingenuous when I focus on weight?

I'll claim you're being disingenuous in asking for "the loci for weight" and its direct effect on levels of oppression. Actually testosterone levels influence both muscle mass and aggression, but I don't care to look up the loci for testosterone levels, if such exists and is known.

Anyway, I'm satisfied with my argument. Take the last word. I'm done on this part of it, unless something new is brought in.

Hopefully luckie will reply to my response, as that should be more interesting.

(February 25, 2013 at 1:27 pm)John V Wrote: It's not difficult to understand, it's special pleading. Studies in evolution do not necessarily boil down to demonstrating that a change in a certain loci determines the attribute(s) being studied. You know that.

Except that we're not talking about studies in evolution, we're talking about your unfortunate statement and the utter lack of support you've been able to manage for it. Should I link it again for you?

Quote:I'll claim you're being disingenuous in asking for "the loci for weight" and its direct effect on levels of oppression. Actually testosterone levels influence both muscle mass and aggression, but I don't care to look up the loci for testosterone levels, if such exists and is known.

Ah, okay, so we skipped some steps and we're now 3/3rds of the way to abandonment - but we've entered the bonus round. Testosterone?

Quote:Anyway, I'm satisfied with my argument. Take the last word. I'm done on this part of it, unless something new is brought in.

What argument? I saw a statement made in absence of fact or understanding pages and pages ago and I've been waiting for the argument since.

Can I just mention... My old church: the salvation army has had women preachers since the 1880s. They've also had women leaders of the church. I think there's also some odd ruling (that I don't understand I mean) that a woman preacher/leader has to be unmarried or a joint leader with her husband if she is... That may have changed.

(February 26, 2013 at 3:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Can I just mention... My old church: the salvation army has had women preachers since the 1880s. They've also had women leaders of the church. I think there's also some odd ruling (that I don't understand I mean) that a woman preacher/leader has to be unmarried or a joint leader with her husband if she is... That may have changed.

Did the men preachers have to be unmarried or in a joint leadership with another man?

No lol. That's the problem. I think it's 'encouraged' that preachers come in pairs with other preachers. Married couples train to be preachers. My first church had two women preachers.

Women preachers are not welcome everywhere though, sadly. Not to mention women pastors.
I had a doctor and she ran a practice with her husband. If she wanted to go work somewhere else she could, but in the religious world she would be limited to where she was without her husband accompanying her.

No no indeed. Women in my church have been fighting that for over 100 years. I saw my preachers challenged on the street for it.