I'm insisting the Christers be just as damn sexist as the bible commands and then I will rail against the fucking bastards for doing so.

Christers that don't live up to their required bible sexism are liberal backsliding apostates that will BURN in the fiery lake FOREVER.

(October 14, 2014 at 1:24 pm)Drich Wrote: You don't seem to mind.

Yes, I do, I'm telling you this right now.

Quote: That's not true at all. Some of us are indeed born with diagnosiable and recognized learning disablities that keep us from learning in the only way soceity teaches our kids. If you cant pick up what is being taught, you are quickly left behind with no hope of ever becomming a productive member of soceity, less devinne intervention.

Having a learning disability is not the same as lacking education. Having a learning disability might be used by some people to define others' roles in society, but as we've established, this isn't right.

Quote:But, again how are these controlling factors any different from any other?

They're different in the sense that one has no choice in these statuses, AND the fact that these statuses don't affect one's ability to fulfill any given role, which is the entire point of equality, trying to ensure that the most qualified person performs the role regardless of irrelevant statuses like sex or race.

It would be like saying someone's role is to stay at home and cook just because they have a penis. It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't have any bearing on their ability to cook, so why even consider that as part of role-defining?

(October 14, 2014 at 12:59 pm)Drich Wrote: Why is a non equal gender role a bad thing?

Because its non-equal.

(October 14, 2014 at 1:23 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Drich, nobody disagrees that some parts of society DO try to assign roles based on these things, we're saying it's wrong to do that, and we should try to change it.

So your saying that we all should be equal across the board?


Haven't given that much thought have you? You currently enjoy a life style provided to you by literal slaves. All the cheap merchandise you buy (All your electronics, textiles/cloths, Food, cars, housing and everything else you can afford and enjoy, has been built on the back of really cheap labor. Labor so cheap that one can not manufacture these products in western soceity and afford to remain in business, so they take manufacturing to a country that allows for slave wages (A wage less than the current cost of living, which endentures the worker to the company who employees them)

Now if we are all truly equal then 'affordable products' get taken off the table. because soceity can not bring everyone up to your standard of living, so that means your standard of living must be brought down to near the poorest of the poor.

Is this the equality you really want? If not then please explain the difference between the social ecconomic status you enjoy for being born to the right parents verses the status someone born in to an indian or chinese factory enjoys, and the gender seperation outlined in scripture?

Support local businesses then

(October 14, 2014 at 1:09 pm)Drich Wrote: If we live in any type of soceity, none of us are truly free. We all have roles to play with in said soceity. So what is the difference here?

The difference is that we get to choose our role in society. Not so much in religion.

(October 14, 2014 at 1:09 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 14, 2014 at 1:08 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Seriously? Um... because discriminating on the basis of sex or race is unjust, demeaning, disrespectful, and any other words your sense of basic decency can formulate to describe it?

Why?

You seriously have to ask? No, I guess you would.

The core principle of morality dictates judgment of action - not of inherent properties. Something you do not have control over is something you should not be judged for. Discrimination based on race or gender goes against this principle and that is why it is unjust, demeaning and disrespectful.

Drich, you've really gone out of the race there. I'm talking about society pressuring people into certain roles based on gender and race and sexuality. Hence the whole discussion about women's roles via the Bible. Globalization of economics and outsourcing of labor and international geopolitics aren't exactly relevant to the current discussion.

(October 14, 2014 at 1:13 pm)Drich Wrote: soceity tells us to fill role based on many different factors. Race, social class, ecconomic status, education to name a few. why are these role restrictions any different than gender?

Social class, economic status and education are within a person's control - i.e. his actions can alter these aspects. Race and gender are not. That's why they are different.

---

(October 14, 2014 at 1:20 pm)Drich Wrote: Nothing if you can demonstrate said authority in which you made your decree.

Otherwise, you are looking for control over another not entitled to you.

Irony alert - that is precisely why most people set religion aside.

(October 14, 2014 at 1:20 pm)Drich Wrote: Which again all of our collective soceities have this control over us, now. What is the difference if the control is based on gender or if it is based on the money you make? It is that exact same level of control.

It is a control based on something you can't alter. That's the difference.

(October 14, 2014 at 1:28 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Having a learning disability is not the same as lacking education.

If one can not learn in the ways the schools have taught forever, then literally that person is without an education. Therfore a learning disablity prevents one from being educated in the way we teach our children. Most people can not afford to send their kids to the few schools who specialize in teaching kids with learning disablities.

Quote:Having a learning disability might be used by some people to define others' roles in society, but as we've established, this isn't right.

that's crap. Do you want a 'doctor' with a learning disablity to do your open heart surgery, or do you want someone who graduated at the top of his class?

Quote:They're different in the sense that one has no choice in these statuses, AND the fact that these statuses don't affect one's ability to fulfill any given role, which is the entire point of equality, trying to ensure that the most qualified person performs the role regardless of irrelevant statuses like sex or race.

It would be like saying someone's role is to stay at home and cook just because they have a penis. It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't have any bearing on their ability to cook, so why even consider that as part of role-defining?

It seems you think that soceity only divides us in areas where we have control. it doesn't. My last post demonstrates this. So my question is if we are willing to be divided in soceity where one is born one way or another, then what is the big deal here?

It's still wrong