My soul doth magnify the Lord.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
For God hath regarded the lowliness of this handmaiden
For behold, from henceforth all generations
shall call me blessed.
God hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
God hath put down the mighty from their seat
and hath exalted the humble and meek.
God hath filled the hungry with good things
and the rich he hath sent empty away.
God, remembering mercy hath helped God's oppressed servant, Israel...
Glory be to God.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be
world without end. Amen.
~Mary, the mother of Jesus
and hath exalted the humble and meek.
God hath filled the hungry with good things
and the rich he hath sent empty away.
God, remembering mercy hath helped God's oppressed servant, Israel...
Glory be to God.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be
world without end. Amen.
~Mary, the mother of Jesus
God has put down the rich and mighty, and lifted up the humble and poor. Happy Holidays, remember the reason for the season ("For I have come to preach GOOD NEWS to the POOR..." ~Jesus, who learned well from his mother)
112 comments:
When will you prove any of your claims about what any of this actually means? You think it's about money. You demand proof for anything I post which even slightly resembles a claim, yet you just spew and expect others to pretend you can back it up, though you never do.
Poor, rich, hungry. Marshal doesn’t know these things. He’s not good with the words.
It also proves that Mary is worthy of veneration. She agreed to it. She didn’t have to. In the East, she is the Theotokos. The god bearer. In the West, the blessed Virgin Mary.
If as Christians we believe not only that the saints go to heaven but they are perfected there, then surely they care for us in perfect love and speak on our behalf.
But that is spirituality.
And since Marshal tries to deny that he knows what rich and poor, haughty and hungry mean… he brutalizes his own capacity for spiritual desire.
Marshal, there are no serious reasons not to take it at face value. That's why.
When Jesus said to the poor and marginalized people following him, "I've come to bring good news to the poor and marginalized..." they recognized what he was saying at face value. When John the Baptist offered his preaching to the poor as proof of his role, there is no reason not to take it at face value. When James the apostle said "Woe to you who are rich, who fail to pay your laborers adequately," we have no reason not to take it literally. And when poor, marginalized Mary spoke of the poor being lifted up and the wealthy/powerful being brought down, we have no reason to not take it at face value.
As Feodor indicates, what reason would anyone have to defer to your non-literal hunches about the text?
Mary's magnificat...
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
Is an echo of Hannah's Prayer, in 1 Samuel...
“The Lord brings death and makes alive;
he brings down to the grave and raises up.
The Lord sends poverty and wealth;
he humbles and he exalts.
He raises the poor from the dust
and lifts the needy from the ash heap;
he seats them with princes
and has them inherit a throne of honor.
For the foundations of the earth are the Lord’s;
on them he has set the world.
In neither of these does it make textual or rational sense to isolate two or three words (rich, poor, powerful, needy, etc) and say that THOSE words shouldn't be taken literally, but the other words - humble, exalt, raise, mercy, salvation, etc - as literal. Same for ALL the many reference to wealth and poverty throughout the Bible. It's just not textually or rationally sound. And it always seems so strange for the so-called "biblical literalists" to always fight so hard against literal understandings of words related to wealth and poverty.
You think it's about money. You demand proof for anything I post which even slightly resembles a claim,
The TEXT says it's talking about wealth and poverty, both in the text and in the context. You regularly make claims (as if they were facts) about notions that are either overtly false or exceedingly dubious and unsupported. Because of your history of citing conspiracy theories and ridiculously false claims, I DO ask YOU to support your dubious claims.
If you make a claim about something that's clear, I don't ask you for support.
That's the difference.
Nonsense. You always demand support for anything you think is a claim. Your current tap-dancing won't change that.
"When Jesus said to the poor and marginalized people following him, "I've come to bring good news to the poor and marginalized...""
Where did Jesus mention "the marginalized people" and stated He came to bring good news to "the marginalized"?
As to what you claim they recognized at face value, you have no way to prove that's true. You just say it because you want to believe He was talking about money.
But when James the apostle said "Woe to you who are rich, who fail to pay your laborers adequately," James was indeed speaking about money. One can tell by the fact he mentions payment to laborers. Your understanding of Scripture is not evidence of serious and/or prayerful study ever having taken place.
Jesus said...
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me.
God has sent me to preach
good news to the poor,
to proclaim release to the prisoners
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to liberate the oppressed,
and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor."
The poor, the prisoners, the blind, the oppressed...
These are all groups who have been marginalized historically, including in Jesus' time. They lived oftentimes literally at the margins of "good society." They were ignored at best and maligned and abused and killed at worst.
I oftentimes will abbreviate all of that to "the poor and marginalized, " as a literally reasonable and correct summary.
Do you think the poor, disabled, imprisoned and oppressed are NOT marginalized?
Also, "poor and marginalized " better gets to the point of biblical teachings throughout Scripture. Sometimes, the passages may be about the orphans, or children, or widows or foreigners or women... and in each case, God, Jesus and the biblical authors are speaking of the literally poor and marginalized.
It's all there in the Bible for those with eyes to see.
Dan
" just say it because you want to believe He was talking about money."
These passages have been historically taken at face value, from the Wesley Brothers to many if not most denominations, to many (most?) others, if I'm not mistaken. It's just there literally in the text and context. If I'm not mistaken, this pretension that THESE texts out of all the Bible are the ones that should be taken metaphorically is a relatively new invention and bit of lazy eisegesis.
Dan
Like 1:53: πλουτοῦντας [Those who are rich]
James 5:1 πλούσιοι [you rich ones]
Same word. Marshal, in his appropriate ignorance (who reads koinè Greek?) wants to act like they’re different senses.
And when Mary sings of god exalting the humble, ταπεινούς, she is referenced by Paul in Romans 12:26 when he writes, “minding not the haughty things, but minding the lowly, ταπεινοῖς.
These are forms of ταπεινὸς, figurative for lowly: low power, low position, poor, of no account.
A little education and well-informed information about context goes a long way towards improved understanding.
You know Marshal has read all this by now. And he has nothing to say. He cannot admit that he's got it wrong. Not even this one simple thing.
He has zero maturity. Zero honor. And this is the state of White people in this country, half of whom are irrationally raging about some lost American Dream that didn't include anyone else but them. Marshal is just one of tens of millions who thrill to brutality.
A little education and well-informed learning is something, for them, that is extremely threatening and deemed dangerous and always to be put down.
Half of us White people are a fascist horde.
Keep this thread open. Neither you nor your troll has made your case and proven me in error in any way. I'm traveling and will address your desperate attempts sometime before the weekend ends.
So the typical production of lies and chicanery IS forthcoming.
Because Marshal can’t think in the first place, he can’t reconstruct his arguments made to you, Dan. And then he blames the emptiness on you.
Against me, Marshal sounds like Hitler talking about “degenerate” artists.
Marshal commented, saying with a bunch of words he was considering whether he should comment. Those were meaningless and so, deleted. Marshal also made ridiculously false claims like liberals thrill in seeing innocent people brutalized. This is, of course, on the face of it, stupidly false and so stupidly false that it's just entirely meaningless, EXCEPT for the threat posed by white conservatives repeating such inane nonsense and stirring up their base to violence and threats.
That, too, was deleted.
Marshal, you remain free to comment here IF you have something to say. Empty words and stupidly false claims will be deleted. This is not an unreasonable position to take. Be a better human, Marshal.
Feodor has the right of it when he points out the complete emptiness of Marshal's "reasoning," or the lack thereof.
What a surprise! You deleted me again with yet another false presentation of my actual words! My concern about posting a comment is factually not "meaningless" as it was based on your history of cowardice and lying. To go through the effort of trying to engage in an adult manner...something you pretend to want, when what you truly want is agreement and compliance without a hint of contradiction or correction...only to then be again deleted on the flimsiest and childish of grounds is not at all "meaningless".
Then you lie about me making false claims about lefties thrilling to see innocent people brutalized. This of course was a response to your boy who thrills in suggesting people like me thrill in brutalizing anyone. The difference is, however, that despite the hyperbole of such a statement, it's far more true of those like you than it could ever be of anyone like me based simply on all you support, promote, celebrate and defend. If you were a man, you would...instead of deleting me...taken each point one at a time and attempt to rebut the claim.
And of course, like your boy, you insist on making it a racial thing, as if white conservatives are a threat to any decent people ever. That's absurd and a claim which would get you deleted if you were honorable and not indulgent in your constant double standards. I mean...where's the support for such a thing? The reality is that it is people like you who "stirs up the conservative base". How much crap do you expect good people to swallow before the taste of it can no longer be tolerated? It's a lefty thing: provoke, provoke, provoke and then when the provocations result in backlash, you cry as if a true victim.
Your shamefulness knows no limits, that's for sure!
I don't deal in "empty words", girl. I deal in only truth until an opponent can prove I've got the truth wrong. You haven't proven jack in your defense of your Scriptural corruptions. I referred to having posted a link to a comprehensive study of the original language as it refers to how "the poor" is used in Scripture. Again, it's quite likely it was in one of the comments you deleted in your typical cowardly manner. It's how you roll. I'd like to present it again, but you can't be trusted. You're a liar and what's more, you have not treated your boy in the same way you insist you do. I did what he did...again with more truth behind it...but you allowed his charge that I thrill to brutalizing to remain.
You both need to stop mocking God by claiming to be Christians. You both clearly aren't.
I don't deal in "empty words", girl.
Classic.😂😂😂
I can admit to dealing in insult, but that only comes after suffering insulting and unjustified condescension for the host of this blog and the boy to whom he gives virtual sanctuary and a very, very long leash.
The word, “for”, there is empty. You’ve contorted what you want to say. Principally because your thinking is contorted. And that, principally because your morality is contorted. Because your spirituality is contorted.
That’s why your fuzzed out mind cannot tell you that the word you need is “from.”
At a certain point written expression reveals the chaotic character of your brutal loving personality.
And at your age, using the word, “girl,” as an insult is just latently immature.
Before I delete your off topic, brutalizing, vulgar and unsupported comments, Marshal, here's the problem you're having.
1. In our real world history, we have a reality where white, conservative straight men set all the rules for a long time. For a long time, that included the sexism of not allowing women to vote or be self-determining and not allowing people of color to vote or be self-determining and the homophobia of not allowing LGBTQ folks to be self-determining.
2. That real world history continues right into our lifetimes. In reality, it's just the last few decades where the tide has started to turn and white conservative men don't have complete control of political and cultural institutions.
3. In the real world, many white conservatives are feeling threatened because they no longer have control and people who dare to disagree with them are demanding and expecting shared power. In response, white conservatives are feeling threatened, boldly calling for you all to "take back our country."
4. It's not YOUR country. It's not your world. That you don't get to make the calls any more just means that we're more evenly and justly represented, giving power to traditionally disempowered people and groups. This is a good thing and you simply don't get to have "your country back." It was never yours.
5. In response, in the real world, many white conservative men, racists, white nationalists, etc, have turned to abusive tactics and violence. The FBI and law enforcement agencies (NEVER bastions of liberalism!) point out this reality as demonstrated by the data.
6. In the context of all that reality, and in the context of your repeated abusive, vulgar, bullying behavior and words and literal threats, I've had to lay down some rules for you specifically. You, Marshal, do not have free reign to make unsupported claims, to spread false claims and to be abusive on my blog.
7. My blog, my rules. I've been clear: YOU can not call people "girls, boys, p*****, w*****, c****" or other vulgar, sexist, racist language, not on my blog. This is a reasonable request, given the real world circumstances laid out above.
8. IF you make reasonable, respectful comments and claims that are SUPPORTED with data, your comments will stay. All vulgar, sexist, racist, and unsupported language will be deleted. Those are your rules that you have to live with IF you want to comment here.
Luke 1:53: πλουτοῦντας [Those who are rich]
James 5:1 πλούσιοι [you rich ones]
Same word. Marshal, in his appropriate ignorance (who reads koinè Greek?) wants to act like they’re different senses.
___
And when Mary sings of god exalting the humble, ταπεινούς, she is referenced by Paul in Romans 12:26 when he writes, “minding not the haughty things, but minding the lowly, ταπεινοῖς. These are forms of ταπεινὸς, figurative for lowly: low power, low position, poor, of no account.
Same word, Marshal
___
Unable to deal with Scripture, Marshal cannot realize he prefers his empty words.
How many English words have multiple meanings depending upon context. Apparently the ancients were morons.
The ancients didn’t call a grown man, girl. And they never claimed the poor just made bad personal decisions. Nor did they ever call an insurrection patriotism. And Jesus didn’t obfuscate and cover up brutality.
What a pathetic and cowardly avoidant response. Using helicopter engineers for your biblical authorities has you habituated to just making it up. And then trying to blame New Testament writers and Koine Greek for laziness?
But that’s you.
Gutless apologist for hate and cruelty and “anything goes” as long as you wave a crap Calvinist banner.
Marshal...
In our world history, white men ruled where they were in the majority of white populations. Men ruled in every culture for most of our world history.
Here are some very easy questions for you to answer (easy, if you recognize simple observable reality and history:
Yes, white men ruled in many places where they were the majority. AND they denied the opportunity for women and non-white men to lead as well.
Do you recognize that reality?
That is, it wasn't just an accident. "Oh look, here are a bunch of white men who happen to be ruling. Isn't that sweet." No, white men were ruling because they disenfranchised women and people of color. That is certainly the case in US history.
Do you recognize that reality?
And in colonial places where white men were NOT the majority, they took power by force and denied leadership by law to those who weren't white men.
Do you recognize that reality?
In many places in the South prior (and after) the Civil War, women and people of color far outnumbered white men. And yet, white men ruled. Do you know why? Because those were the rules white men put in place.
Do you recognize that reality?
And yes, men ruled in probably most (not all) cultures in our history. Because women weren't allowed to, by design.
Do you recognize that reality?
Marshal...
So while you, like your boy, need to make it a white-guilt racism thing, it is a misrepresentation of reality. Typical.
We are talking about and recognizing the reality of world history. It has nothing to do with trying to pressure people to "feel white guilt." It's just reality. In our history - right up until our lifetimes - white men ruled by their own design. NOT by accident, but by plan.
Do you recognize that reality?
And yes, white men denied that liberty to women and people of color, but it wasn't a good thing that they did so. Indeed, it was an affront to human rights and human liberty as we recognize it today.
Do you recognize that reality?
Or is it the case that you think that it was morally acceptable for white men to disenfranchise and disempower women and people of color and LGBTQ people?
And just fyi: I WILL be deleting your comments. I'm just leaving them long enough for you to answer these questions in an adult and respectful manner. I've been quite clear that your abusive, vulgar, demonizing and sexist language will NOT stand here and I've explained to you what vulgar and sexist words and terms will not be allowed. Just because you are a white conservative man does not give you free reign to do whatever you want unimpeded.
This is the problem with the snowflake and emotionally-stilted conservative white folks. You don't want to be constrained by anyone and want to be free to be as abusive and vulgar as you want and feel attacked when you don't have that liberty.
Marshal...
In this country, we've bounced from politically left to right since the beginning in terms of who is running things.
In this country, we've been run by white traditional "christian" men who believed a series of beliefs that allowed for slavery and the denial of basic human rights to women, people of color and LGBTQ folks for our first nearly 200 years. In the years since (our lifetime), we've still been ruled/governed primarily by white mostly conservative men. The "liberals" in the years of our life have been moderates, not especially liberal. It's only in the last 2 decades or so that women, people of color, those who don't identify as traditional Christian and LGBTQ folks have finally been represented to some degree, along with actual liberal-thinking people.
Coincidentally, the last two decades have been the most expansive for human rights in our nation.
We are now in a situation where the most vile and stupid are running things.
A stupidly false and unsupported claim. THIS is the sort of thing that I'm telling you you HAVE to provide support for. Such idiotic claims from you will not remain.
This is especially true for you because you're a "maga"/Trump supporter. Whatever positives you may believe he brought in YOUR mind, the man is clearly and without question the most vile, vulgar and immoral/blatantly "bad" man who has served as president since at least Andrew Jackson (ironically and tellingly, one of Trump's heroes!). At the same time, using the observable known data we have at hand, Trump is clearly one of the least intelligent and emotionally/mentally unstable of our presidents. It's not really debatable.
Now, it COULD be that Trump just talks like a child/idiot and isn't actually as stupid as he portrays himself, but that is feint praise. A person who talks like an idiot for some bizarre/emotionally depraved/con man/manipulative reasons isn't really an improvement on one who is actually as stupid as he portrays himself to be.
The data is not silent on this issue. Look at the words he uses and the "reasoning" he uses. It's a measurable thing that Trump talks stupidly. It's an observable thing that Trump is either mentally unstable or portrays himself as one who is mentally unstable.
Listen to experts, use your mind. Don't be fooled by an idiot, it doesn't speak well of you.
This is according to experts. This is according to Trump's own people who've worked around him. He's just not intelligent or emotionally stable. The point is not debatable.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/05/03/donald-trump-speaks-like-a-sixth-grader-all-politicians-should/
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/donald-trump-brain-health
https://robertreich.org/post/169394006010
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-shared-psychosis-of-donald-trump-and-his-loyalists/
How many English words have multiple meanings depending upon context. Apparently the ancients were morons.
Marshal, Feodor presented you with actual definitions of the word in question. You GUESSING that MAYBE it had another meaning (noting you provide NO support that there IS another meaning) is, itself, meaningless.
Do you acknowledge the meaning of the original word in context as Feodor has educated you about? Do you acknowledge that you have no hard-data reason to doubt that it means something other than what the word actually means? That you "don't like" the actual meaning of the word is not evidence.
Do you acknowledge that reality?
You must answer the questions in bold before commenting further.
Your first response is rife with your typical "do you recognize that reality?" trap. You don't get to define what reality is. You're required to prove it's the reality. In the case of each time you've demanded I answer that question, what you're doing is demanding I agree that your self-serving version of reality, absent important context. To respond in the positive is to agree to that which is not actually reality. It's to agree with Dan. That's different. Thus, it seems fruitless to go any further if you're simply going to delete me because you can't stand being corrected.
Your next response has your preferred "experts", each of whom are no more than Trump-haters who find reasons to rationalize their hate, and then promote those rationalizations as "expert" analysis. Robert Reich, for heaven's sake? You're kidding, right? To you, anyone who disparages Trump is worthy of respect, regardless of whether or not actual facts are presented. That might be enough for you and your boy, but honest people prefer honesty. We're weird that way.
Your third seeks to validate feo's desperate attempt to sound more knowledgeable. As I mentioned more than once, in a previous discussion on this topic of how the word "poor" was used and understood was deleted by you. It was never rebutted, never proven wrong with stronger evidence to the contrary, and yet, you demand of me (evidence to support my claims) I have not seen from your boy for his or from you for yours. That doesn't work for me. I'm told you want adult conversation, yet you act like a petulant little school girl.
Marshal, it's REALLY easy to recognize reality. I asked a very simple, reality-based question, saying:
Yes, white men ruled in many places where they were the majority. AND they denied the opportunity for women and non-white men to lead as well.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?
There is NO trap in that question, I'm just affirming that you understand the reality. It has nothing to do with me or my opinion.
The reality is, in OUR nation (and many others) white men were in control and, BY LAW, they did not allow for women or black people to vote. This is not an opinion question. It's not a judgment question. Women literally could not vote in the US. Black people and enslaved people could not vote (although white men had the freedom to enslave black people).
This is all reality. Do you recognize it. Don't say ONE thing more until you answer this question.
If you want to note the reality that there were in some very limited instances and times, the opportunity for SOME women, SOME people of color to vote, you can note that. BUT NOT before noting the reality that, by law, women and black people nationwide couldn't vote until the 20th century, and the latter half of that for black people.
Why do you fight so hard against reality? You can agree with me when I'm talking about reality, there is no shame in that.
And I am now beginning the process of deleting all your vulgar and sexist and abusive language, leaving just that last comment up, and that only for a brief time.
I've been quite clear: YOU can not use terms like "girl," "boy," "p****," "b****" etc. YOU have a history of being vulgar and abusive and you can't do that here. Just because you're a white man doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. You MUST act with some modicum of decency and respect on this blog.
I will delete you if you don't answer an exceedingly simple question:
DO you recognize the reality that white men in our history were in power in large part because they denied the franchise to women and people of color?
Do you recognize that white men DID create laws that kept women and black people from voting?
It's the reality. It should be simple for you to acknowledge that, Yes, this is the simple reality of it in our real world history.
If you can't/won't answer that, then say, "I can't/won't answer that question." ...and then, move on. Answering reasonable, reality-based questions is the price you will have to pay to comment here.
I'm not banning you. I'm asking that you simply answer the question put to you. This is reasonable adult conversation, little man.
Reality:
Originally the U.S. Constitution didn’t say much about who had the right to vote. The country’s framers left it up to the states to decide. Most states initially limited voting rights to white male property owners. Over time they extended voting rights to nearly all white men. After the Civil War, three amendments were added to
the Constitution. These additions at the federal level freed the slaves, made them citizens and granted them voting rights.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, specifically identified “voters” as male. It was the first time a federal document had done so.
Why were women excluded, both from many individual states’ laws and from the 14th Amendment? The framers of the Constitution—and many who followed them for more than the next 100 years—believed that women were childlike and incapable of independent thought. They believed that women could not be counted on to vote responsibly, so they left women out of states’ voting laws and the Constitutional amendments that granted voting rights to African American men.
https://www.learningforjustice.org/sites/default/files/general/women_couldnt_vote%5B1%5D.pdf
and...
https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/voting-rights-for-women/
and...
https://time.com/5879346/19th-amendment-facts-myths/
and...
https://www.amrevmuseum.org/virtualexhibits/when-women-lost-the-vote-a-revolutionary-story/timeline
You're so very tiresome in your desperate attempt to push your revisionist history.
"Yes, white men ruled in many places where they were the majority. AND they denied the opportunity for women and non-white men to lead as well.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?"
I'm going to respond to this as well as the false notion that only white guys were "oppressive" in this country. But first, the quote above is a revision as well. As Craig notes often, you'll change goal posts and the above does so as well. You do this when the response given to your statements and demands don't go as you figured they would.
The first problem is that whomever is the majority of a population is usually the party in power. But to focus on only where whites were the majority is misleading because wherever a given race was in the majority, their men...those who had the most stuff...were the men in power as well, condescending to any peoples not of their kind and regarding women as legally less than themselves. So again, your racist attempt to demean your own race doesn't work when one truly considers actual reality.
In this country, blacks owned slaves. They did so because as land/business owners, it served their profit seeking as was the case for white slave owners. And before you try to pretend they only bought slaves in order to free them, that wasn't true of all or even most, and it was just as true for whites:
https://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
From the start of the nation, black land owners were allowed to vote, too, even if not everywhere in the nation:
https://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
"DO you recognize the reality that white men in our history were in power in large part because they denied the franchise to women and people of color?"
No. They were in power because they were leaders, educated, industrious, often wealthy, were land owners and willing to take most, if not all, the risk of authority. Their race had nothing to do with it, and they were few in number compared to the vast majority of men also of the same race.
" Do you recognize that white men DID create laws that kept women and black people from voting?"
As I showed in my links above, which you've by now deleted without reading, that isn't accurate. The main point of deciding who could vote was based on ownership of land, the thought being that they were the producers and by virtue of that had actual skin in the game. Race or sex wasn't the factor you want it to be.
"Answering reasonable, reality-based questions is the price you will have to pay to comment here."
Which I always do as I do now. You're not dealing in reality, but in a simpleton's understanding of reality. When serious students of history disagree, you think them privileged by their whiteness or religious fanatics. But I've given more than simply "reasonable" responses, but far more fact-based responses to your questions which don't have more than a superficial...at best...basis. What you're really demanding is that I agree with you in order to comment here. This is why I now always expect to be deleted. I won't agree with that which isn't true.
"I'm not banning you. I'm asking that you simply answer the question put to you. This is reasonable adult conversation, little man."
Well, looky here! IF you refuse to allow my comments to stand on the premise I'm not following your fluid demands, then you're banning me. That you don't technically block me doesn't mean your constant deletions aren't forms of cancelling, censoring or banishment. I answer all questions put to me, you just don't like the answers because you presuppose an answer...one which must be as if you answered yourself. That's not "reasonable" in ANY truly adult conversation. And then to call me "little man" after scolding me for calling your buddy "boy" or you "girl" is simply rank hypocrisy. Call me what you like. I don't regard you as honorable, honest or Christian, anyway, so it doesn't bother me.
moving on...
So, I asked you a simple question.
"Yes, white men ruled in many places where they were the majority. AND they denied the opportunity for women and non-white men to lead as well.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?"
You respond with a bunch of words all over the place but finally come down with this answer (which IS an answer, just a factually incorrect one):
NO! What you've put forth is NOT reality.
I did not say that no black people were ever allowed to vote prior to the 1960s.
I did not say that no women were ever allowed to vote prior to the 1960s (for black women) and 1920s (for most other women.)
Indeed, I made it clear that we had mixed rules and that indeed, some women and black people had the chance to vote. I wasn't talking about the exception. I was talking about the RULE. In general, women and black people could not vote. Even after the white men who were, in fact, in power and making the rules, allowed that white men who were NOT land owners could vote, still, in general, women and black people could not vote, and that was because of the laws that those white men in power put into place.
And don't be naive or ignorant of history: It wasn't that they were putting rules in place that "whoops!" "accidentally" kept women and black people from voting. Men back then had false, sexist opinions like your vulgar and misogynistic "women are the weaker sex." They didn't WANT women or black people to vote because they didn't believe that they had the capacity. Which is sexist and racist by definition.
Do I need to cite the sources to you to educate you or are you not entirely ignorant on the topic?
IF you are trying to say that, NO, the white men in power did NOT create laws/policies that prevented women and people of color from voting, you're just factually wrong. Your many words are just empty nothings.
Marshal...
Your moving the goalposts again. I respond to what you specifically write, and then having done so, you say something slightly different to pretend I'm missing your point.
Marshal, there has been no moving of goal posts. All along I've been asking, and I quote:
Yes, white men ruled in many places where they were the majority.
AND they denied the opportunity for women and non-white men to lead as well.
Do you recognize that reality?
That is, it wasn't just an accident. "Oh look, here are a bunch of white men who happen to be ruling. Isn't that sweet."
No, white men were ruling because they disenfranchised women and people of color [AS A POLICY DECISION - just added that for clarification, in case you're missing the point].
That is certainly the case in US history.
Do you recognize that reality?
Do you recognize our real world history where the white men in power (and that is NOT an attack on white people, it's stating the reality that it WAS WHITE MEN IN POWER, as a real world fact) created rules that kept women and people of color unable to vote?
Marshal...
Your position is clearly to indict white men as being oppressive
It is to indict the ACTUAL WHITE MEN who were ACTUAL MEN who were ACTUALLY WHITE who SPECIFICALLY and DELIBERATELY created laws that kept women and people of color from voting. Which kept enslaved people enslaved. THOSE men were wrong to do so.
CAN YOU AGREE THAT IT IS WRONG to disenfranchise women and people of color?
That it's wrong NOW and it was wrong THEN?
Noting the reality of what actual white men in power did back then to actually disenfranchise women and people of color - WHICH those white men literally did not think were human/adult/rational/"man" enough to have a say in their own destinies - is not an indictment on white people or white men as a class. Just those who would be so stupidly sexist and racist as to create laws to disenfranchise them. It is wrong now to do so and it was wrong then.
That sexist neanderthal brutes consider (irrationally and against all evidence) that women are "the weaker sex..." (and seriously, do you KNOW any women? I've met very few women in the real world who weren't tons stronger than most men... and certainly moreso that the brute neandertals who'd try to "keep them in their place...")... that such brutes existed then and exist now is not support for anything.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the average man might have SOME physical brute strength advantage over the average woman is some kind of evidence that women aren't as strong/stronger than men? DO you seriously measure strength in only ONE way? Why? For all your infantile complaining about taking "rich" and "poor" to have multiple meanings, you can't seriously be trying to reduce "strength" down to ONE measure of strength?
"Women are the weaker sex"?!! Good Mother God in HEAVEN have mercy on this poor vulgar decadent cave man's tiny little bigoted, sexist brainlet.
Marshal...
if not outright rejects, the fact that sentiments were governed by an entirely different understanding of both race and sex, which influenced their decisions on who was eligible to vote and why.
It's not ignoring how commonplace ignorant sexist stupidity was back then. It's to CONDEMN those who were (and are) so ignorant and sexist. Yes, even though there were women and men and people of color who argued that of COURSE women and black people and native peoples had a right to govern themselves, there were MANY MORE who had sexist and racist bigotries in their hearts. Does how commonplace the bigotry was then make it acceptable? OR was it wrong then and is it wrong now?
For someone (conservative types) who argue that morality doesn't change, you sure seem to be making that argument.
Marshal: Do you agree it was wrong THEN and is wrong NOW - ALWAYS wrong - to enslave people? People of color or anyone?
Do you agree that it was wrong then and is wrong now - ALWAYS wrong - do deny women the right to vote and to hold property and to be self-determining?
Good God of mercy, why do we have to ask such questions?
Marshal...
I cited and pasted these words:
Originally the U.S. Constitution didn’t say much about who had the right to vote. The country’s framers left it up to the states to decide.
Most states initially limited voting rights to white male property owners. Over time they extended voting rights to nearly all white men.
In case you're having trouble comprehending, "ORIGINALLY..." At first, at the beginning "THE CONSTITUTION DIDN'T SAY MUCH about who had the right to vote..." THAT IS, it didn't ORIGINALLY deliberately disenfranchise women and people of color.
And on and on the articles go.
You see, progressive types like me are not so simple minded as to say that things are entirely black and white. That NO WOMEN OR BLACK PEOPLE ANYWHERE EVER IN ALL PLACES AND TIMES had a right to vote. Reality is always more nuanced and complicated.
Nonetheless, AS I SAID, the white men in power eventually deliberately crafted/adapted /modified the policies so that women and people of color did not have universal rights to vote or to self-determination.
That is the reality of our history. There's no racism in noting reality, it's just reality.
I don't expect MYSELF to cite sources for things that are common knowledge, but you regularly cite extremist ideas that are outside of mainstream reality/understanding and THAT is why YOU must cite data to support your bigoted, contra-reality claims, if you can.
If you cite something commonly accepted (Vanilla and chocolate ice creams are amongst the most popular flavors of ice cream), I do not challenge it.
BUT, when you cite bigoted, sexist, rationally disproven and just awful nonsense like "women are the weaker sex..." or "the election was stolen!" - ideas that were thoroughly discredited long ago - decades ago! in the case of the former - YOU must support your claims IF you can. Your bigoted, vulgar, low-minded, pissant opinions are meaningless, worthless.
At the same time, what good would it do if those sources aren't specific about who and how many believed as you suggest all "white men" did in those days?
Here again we see your failure at nuanced reading/understanding/reasoning.
I didn't say "ALL WHITE MEN" did stuff in those days. I cited specifically "THE WHITE MEN IN POWER," initially, the landed gentry and approved religious men in power who made such decisions, created such policies, then eventually, those white men who could vote and did vote for other white men who deliberately and specifically crafted laws that disenfranchised and removed self-determination from women and black people and native people.
There were, of course, men, women, black and white and native peoples who supported self-determination and enfranchisement of women and people of color. BUT, they were not in power.
Come on. You can't be so ignorant of our history as to not know this.
Abigail Adams was quite explicit in telling her husband, John Adams, to "Remember the ladies" when crafting laws so that they would be empowered/enfranchised - having both the recognized right to self-determination/ownership of property and enfranchisement - and she warned him to not be so bigoted as his male ancestors on this point.
John Adams (our second president) responded by mocking her, saying...
“I cannot but laugh,” John Adams replied to Abigail Adams’s now-famous call for women’s rights. “We know better,” he said, “than to repeal our Masculine systems.”
The white male leaders in power, by and large (or maybe entirely, at points in our history) viewed women's self-determination as a joke at best and at a threat, at worst. Same for the self-determination of black and native people. The white males in power viewed ALL these marginalized groups as savages, inferior and incapable of responsible self-determination. AND THEY WERE WRONG and BIGOTED to think so.
Were you ignorant of this?
https://www.amrevmuseum.org/virtualexhibits/when-women-lost-the-vote-a-revolutionary-story/pages/how-did-women-gain-the-vote-the-promise-of-1776-for-women
Now, answer the questions in bold asked of you or go away.
Education upon the rights of women and people of color in our western history:
Marriage changed women’s legal status dramatically. When women married, as the vast majority did, they still had legal rights but no longer had autonomy. Instead, they found themselves in positions of almost total dependency on their husbands which the law called coverture...
By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing.
Coverture was based on the assumption that a family functioned best if the male head of a household controlled all of its assets...
Under these new circumstances, the old system of property law faltered. It failed to give adequate protection to women and, at the same time, denied them the ability to safeguard their own interests. In recognition of this dilemma, states began to pass married women’s property acts in the antebellum decades. These acts gave wives the same legal rights as single women with regard to their estates and wages. It was piecemeal legislation, enacted reluctantly by male lawmakers who would have preferred to keep women dependent within the family. Yet the lawmakers recognized that these reforms were essential in a capitalist economy based on movable wealth.
Political rights were a function of control over property for men in the republic, but gender alone was the basis for women’s exclusion from voting or holding office. Simply put, men with property had the right to vote in the early national period but women, no matter how wealthy, did not, even though women paid the same taxes as men. The reasoning behind this discrimination rested on the assumption that married women were liable to coercion by their husbands; if a wife voted, legislators argued, it meant that a man cast two ballots. As one man put it, “How can a fair one refuse her lover?” Yet single women were also denied suffrage, a clear sign that more was at stake than the power of a husband to influence his wife’s choices at the polls.
https://ap.gilderlehrman.org/essay/legal-status-women-1776%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%80%9C1830
It would take until the 1970s before women were able to get credit cards. Before then,
a woman still needed her husband's signature.
The struggle for women to be financially independent of their husbands extended well into the 20th century.
https://www.thoughtco.com/property-rights-of-women-35295780
cont'd...
Married women had no rights to their bodies. That meant that not only would a husband have a claim to any wages generated by his wife’s labor or to the fruits of her body (her children), but he also had an absolute right to sexual access. Within marriage, a wife’s consent was implied, so under the law, all sex-related activity, including rape, was legitimate. His total mastery of this fellow human being stopped short, but just short, of death. Of course, a man wasn’t allowed to beat his wife to death, but he could beat her...
Coverture was what Abigail Adams was talking about in her famous “Remember the Ladies” letter to John, written in the spring of 1776 as he and the Continental Congress were contemplating what an independent America would look like. Contrary to popular assumptions, she was not asking John for the vote or for what we would understand to be “equal rights.” Rather, when she advised: “Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could,” Abigail was talking about the absolute power husbands held in coverture. Abigail even obliquely referred to the shame of physical abuse when she proposed: “Why then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the Lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity (?)”
John’s reply dismissed her plea as a joke—he called it “saucy”—but in later correspondence with other lawmakers, he worried about the issue. If the American colonists had a right to rebel against their “virtual representation” in Parliament, why should women be virtually represented by men? But the issue was too thorny for the men of the time and so, even as they created a shiny new machine of government, with a Constitution and modern systems of law on both the federal and state levels, they allowed the creaky, pre-modern device of coverture to remain on the books.
So what happened to coverture? The short answer is that it has been eroded bit by bit. But it has never been fully abolished. The ghost of coverture has always haunted women’s lives and continues to do so. Coverture is why women weren’t regularly allowed on juries until the 1960s, and marital rape wasn’t a crime until the 1980s.
https://www.womenshistory.org/articles/coverture-word-you-probably-dont-know-should
Marshal...
It's only natural that laws would be enacted which reflect that in a culture which, unlike you, put God's Will as of great importance in everyday life...including laws government enacted.
Are you saying it was RIGHT that the white men in power disenfranchised women? OR can you agree that it was a great and horrible wrong?
January 8, 2024 at 5:39 PM
"Here again we see your failure at nuanced reading/understanding/reasoning.
I didn't say "ALL WHITE MEN" did stuff in those days. I cited specifically "THE WHITE MEN IN POWER,""
That's not me lacking failing in any way but to consider all the nonsensical ways in which you'll try to claim intellectual superiority you don't have. Clearly I'm well aware you're speaking of white men in power because that's the thrust of your subjective rendering of history. Why would I need to say "in power" every time as that was established from very early?
"There were, of course, men, women, black and white and native peoples who supported self-determination and enfranchisement of women and people of color. BUT, they were not in power.
Come on. You can't be so ignorant of our history as to not know this."
Clearly I said this myself. Why pretend I didn't except as a cowardly concession you've failed in your initial claims? Furthermore, it's a ridiculous thing to highlight, as if all people don't believe themselves worthy of "self-determination" or having a say in the affairs of the community in which they live. Or maybe you're ignorant of that!
"Abigail Adams was quite explicit in telling her husband, John Adams, to "Remember the ladies" when crafting laws so that they would be empowered/enfranchised - having both the recognized right to self-determination/ownership of property and enfranchisement - and she warned him to not be so bigoted as his male ancestors on this point.
John Adams (our second president) responded by mocking her, saying...
“I cannot but laugh,” John Adams replied to Abigail Adams’s now-famous call for women’s rights. “We know better,” he said, “than to repeal our Masculine systems.”"
I'm aware of this, but this is out of context. It doesn't suggest the intention was to deny women anything. You would need to supply all that clarifies his meaning before insisting he cared nothing about "remembering the ladies". Indeed, you would need to provide evidence of what Abigail meant. Was she speaking of voting rights, or simply not being ignored as having no value?. Where's your evidence?
Unsupported and stupidly false claims you've made include:
Shame on your for your blasphemy (referring to God as a Mother - you know, like Jesus did when he referred to God as a mother hen) as well as your blatant hypocrisy. But that's how you modern progressives roll: can't win a debate? Insult instead.
except for modern progressives seeking to condescend to those who aren't convinced by your subjective and self-serving positions. You ask them only to bludgeon your debate opponents, not because there's any legitimate reason to ask them.
I agree that Democrats were indeed wrong to treat people differently based on superficial characteristics as they still do now.
And NO ONE has proven that the 2020 election was not stolen.
which means you're a liar, because you don't either. Again, the expression refers to the physical, not things like strength of character.
You ask a question, the answer isn't what you expected, nor does it serve your ends, so you tweak the question and pretend it's what you meant all along.
And on and on and on and on and on and on it goes. Each of your comments inevitably has these lame, childish attempts at claims that are easily disproven by reality and which you don't even TRY to support with data. They're empty claims.
I've given you a pass on plenty of these nonsense claims for years now. No more. IF you are making irrational, unsupported, false on the face of it claims, THEN YOU must support it with data (and you can't, since they're false) and if you DON'T provide support, these nonsense claims will be deleted.
I don't have to prove that the moon is not made of cheese if you make that claim. I don't have to prove that white men were in power and created rules that disenfranchised women and non-white people, I don't have to prove that the election was NOT stolen. IF and WHEN you make conspiracy theory level claims, then YOU are the outlier and thus, the onus is on you to support them.
I don't have to prove I'm not a liar when I dare to disagree with your religion and your hunches, that the Democrats of today are not the same as the Democrats back in early US history, that Trump is a perverted corrupt idiot, the data is all there.
THAT is why such posts are deleted. And that you take so many words to post such unsupported and stupidly false claims WITHOUT ever trying to support them, well, you just become a bully and a nuisance to adult conversations. That's the point. You're no longer engaging (if you ever did) in good faith conversations.
Move on and post your conspiracy theories and limpid attempted threats and bullying and vulgar disrespect somewhere else.
The weaker sex? Science that shows women are stronger than men
Weak definition:
1. lacking the power to perform physically demanding tasks; lacking physical strength and energy.
2. liable to break or give way under pressure; easily damaged.
(first of all, doesn't that sound JUST like you and modern evangelical conservative men? You all are just so fragile...)
“Pretty much at every age, women seem to survive better than men,” says Steven Austad, an international expert on ageing, and chair of the biology department at the University of Alabama. For almost two decades, he has been studying one of the best-known yet under-researched facts of human biology: that women live longer than men.
His longevity database shows that all over the world and as far back as records have been kept, women outlive men by around five or six years. He describes them as being more “robust”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/11/the-weaker-sex-science-that-shows-women-are-stronger-than-men
https://socialsciences.ucsc.edu/news-events/news/zihlman-guardian.html
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/jan/15/scientists-confirm-what-women-always-knew-men-really-are-the-weaker-sex
https://www.mysanantonio.com/lifestyle/article/history-shows-women-not-the-weaker-sex-3703096.php
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1926/04/the-weaker-sex-a-scientific-ramble/304037/
While it is easy to laugh at the missteps in medicine of yesteryear, we must contend with the attitudes they have ingrained in our health systems. The myth of female physiological inferiority has been debunked, and yet women continue to be treated through the lens of frailty.
https://delamed.org/programs/archives-and-history/from-the-archives/the-weaker-sex/
[Should have read limp, not limpid...]
Marshal...
you haven't established that the intention was to disenfranchise anyone, but rather was a consequence of what the true intentions were, which were in no way malevolent.
I'm saying what the founders were recorded as saying: That they believed women and non-white people were not competent to represent themselves. They believed, as you do in your sexist bigotry and ignorance, that women were the "weaker sex" NOT meaning that women, on average, had less upper body strength than men, but that they were physically, intellectually, mentally and emotionally (and spiritually in some cases) weaker than men and not competent to represent themselves.
This is the reality, it's not in dispute, it's based on what they said and the dominant thought amongst many leaders, teachers, preachers and thinkers of the day. So, to the degree that they truly have believed these vulgar, shallow, ignorant, sexist, racist thoughts, they patronizingly thought they were doing the right thing.
They weren't. It was and remains a set of opinions based upon empty-headed bigotry not supported by the data, although it was supported by religious tradition and the opinions of many men (and many women, who bought into what their husbands, leaders and preachers were telling them).
LAST TIME: DO YOU AGREE that these opinions WERE based on religious and/or cultural bigotry and irrational, bad understanding of women and non-white people?
This is not really in dispute, but do you understand that and do you agree?
Do you agree that it is WRONG to deny the right to vote and right to self-determination to women and non-white people? That it was wrong then and is wrong now?
ONLY DIRECT and clear answers to THESE questions will be permitted. Your other nonsense claims and unsupported sexist, bigoted opinions will soon be deleted, but I'm giving you a chance to at least one time directly answer the questions put to you and demanded by a good faith argument.
This is not "cave man" times. It's not colonial, slavery, dark ages time. It's modern times and these questions are not in question in any significant way. Just answer.
You're intentionally indulging in clear fallacy by suggesting...without evidence...that all "white male leaders in power (a redundancy)" thought exactly the same way about these people.
I literally did not say ALL WHITE MALE LEADERS. I clearly indicated that there WERE exceptions. This is a stupidly childishly false claim.
But what I actually said - "white male leaders in power" literally created laws that disenfranchised women and people of color. THAT is an historical fact. Further, it is an historical fact that white males thought that women and people of color were "inferior" or "lesser" or "incompetent" and not able to govern themselves. This is a matter of historical record. Hell, even that "noble" Republican, Lincoln, thought as much.
I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermingling with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.
And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior.
I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the WHITE race.
https://www.nytimes.com/1860/12/28/archives/mr-lincoln-and-negro-equality.html
And yes, it is true that his position evolved over time, to be clear. Still, he held very racist notions on the topic of race. Lincoln remained silent on the topic of supporting women voting, so far as I can tell. That is, he never came out in support of women having the right to self-determination and the franchise.
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/suffragists-invoke-lincoln-1910
So, the facts remain:
1. I did not say "ALL white men thought the same" (I was quite clear that there were exceptions)
2. The men in power, by and large, wanted to LIMIT women and black people from voting.
3. Those white men/leaders who thought thusly said repeatedly it was because of the inferiority and lack of competency of women and non-white people. This is, of course and by definition, sexism and racism.
Along those lines, some racist quotes by the founders:
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2471X4/
Also...
https://www.nprillinois.org/statehouse/2004-02-01/lincoln-race-the-great-emancipator-didnt-advocate-racial-equality-but-was-he-a-racist
I'm saying, as I've been saying since the start, that you haven't established that the intention was to disenfranchise anyone, but rather was a consequence of what the true intentions were, which were in no way malevolent.
Are you so ignorant of history as to think that these white men in power thought that women and black people were equals who deserved - as equal humans - the right to self-determination and the right to vote?
You can't possibly be that blind to reality, to history, but you tell me.
DO YOU THINK THAT these white men in power thought that women SHOULD have the right to self determination? The right to vote? DO YOU THINK that these white men in power thought that black people SHOULD have the right to self-determination and the right to vote?
You are exposing some serious ignorance, little man. You are exposing how you lend support and credence to the vulgar racists and sexists of history. You are in the wrong century/era, little vulgar neanderthal.
Marshal asked in a now-deleted comment:
First of all, the "mother hen" passage is Jesus referring to Himself. Are you really suggesting Jesus identified as a woman simply because He spoke of doing something in a way a mother hen does?
Jesus IS God, if you believe Jesus in the Bible is God, which is the typical conservative belief. So, when Jesus spoke of the Mother Hen, IF he was speaking of himself, he was speaking of God, according to YOUR rationale.
I do not think that Jesus was saying that Jesus, the human, thought that he was a woman. He is speaking of God loving like a MOTHER HEN.
I don't know if you realize this or not, but GOD DOES NOT HAVE A PENIS.
Do you THINK in your head that God has a penis? Or a vagina? NO, there is no indication of any of that. That the Bible often refers to God as "father" or "him," DOES NOT MEAN THAT GOD HAS A PENIS. NOR THAT GOD IS A MAN/MALE.
Do you think otherwise? Do you think that God secretly has a penis?
Good God in heaven, Mother LORD, save us from your weak-minded sexist followers!
Further, there is literally NOTHING in the Bible or in reason or in decency that suggests in the slightest that referring to God as Mother is in any way at all in the whole wide world and in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is in any way AT ALL "blasphemous." You confuse your misogynistic bigotry with God and, little man, God is NOT YOU.
Another question you MUST answer before you say anything:
DO YOU THINK GOD HAS A PENIS? DO YOU THINK GOD IS A MALE? Do you recognize that this is biblically speaking, nonsense?
Marshal, in a now-deleted comment:
no where does Jesus refer to God in Heaven as "Mother". NO WHERE!
So what? I DON'T CARE that Jesus nor the Bible refer to God as Mother (the Bible does, fyi) nor that your little fragile male ego is threatened by such an idea.
https://www.womensordination.org/resources-old/female-images-of-god-in-the-bible/
Do you think I should be concerned about your impotent, weak, fragile little male ego?
Also, here is EVERY PLACE in the Bible where it says God is threatened by the notion of God as woman AND here is every place in the bible that says it's "blasphemous" to refer to God as a woman... EVERY PLACE:
...
...
...
...
...
....
.......
[crickets chirping.]
....
....
...do you get the point? Your STUPID and flaccid-weak-male-ego claim that it is "blasphemous" to refer to God as Mother is entirely UNbiblical and just plain stupid and entirely unsupported.
Do you recognize that reality?
Grow up, little weak, impotent, fragile man-child.
Marshal, in a now-deleted comment:
as well as your blatant hypocrisy. But that's how you modern progressives roll: can't win a debate? Insult instead."
This of course refers to the name calling which accompanied the blasphemy, name calling
When I note, factually, that you are arguing at a childish level, that isn't name-calling, it's accurately noting the level of your "reasoning." ANY adult can see that God does not condemn, nor call "blasphemous," the act of referring to God as Mother, not anywhere in the bible. It is the response of a child, unfamiliar with the Bible, to call such an action "blasphemous." It is the response of a child to say that women are the "weaker sex" or that "weaker sex" must ONLY refer to the average upper body strength of a man versus a woman. It is the response of a child to say, "But... but MEN can beat up women!" as if that is evidence of "strength" and "weakness."
Grow up, little man. Noting that you are behaving childishly/irrationally is just noting reality, not an insult.
Do you think that IF someone is acting childishly, using unsophisticated, less-than-rational, less-than-adult reasoning that NOTING that reality is "insulting..."?
I am respectfully and reasonably asking and expecting that you answer the reasonable questions in bold. Failure to do so will result in a deleted comment. Choosing to engage in demeaning, disrespectful, unsupported and threatening/sexist/racist language will also result in a deleted comment.
You are welcome to reason here and make comments, AS a respectful, rational adult.
Whether you do or not is on you.
I noted...
"Men back then had false, sexist opinions like your vulgar and misogynistic "women are the weaker sex.""
Marshal said in a now-deleted comment:
Excuse me, but it's biological fact that women are the weaker of the two sexes. The phrase refers to...as it always has...physical ability
? Really? DO you believe in your little fragile boy brain that, back then, those bigots who thought women were the weaker sex, thought that they should not vote or be able to hold property because, on average, women were physically weaker than, on average, the average male? Do you think THAT is why they denied women the right to vote or own property or be self-determining?
Do you think, in your fragile boy brain, that ALL those who are, on average, physically weaker should be denied a right to vote?
Do you recognize how crazy such a position is?
Answer questions in bold before trying to put any more comments here.
What "evidence" proves women aren't the weaker sex, Dan? Bring it! I'll wait here while you can't. The expression is a stark and obvious reflection of the physiological differences between the sexes
I've already provided those links above. The question remains:
Do you think that ALL those who are, on average, weaker physically than the average male should not be able to vote, or is it just women who should not be allowed to vote or be self-determining if they're physically weaker (lacking in upper body strength) on average than the average male?
Do you not recognize how amazingly inane and pathetically inept such a claim is?
WHY do you keep referring to physical strength as some kind of rational measure of determining self-determination and enfranchisement when it's so sexist, irrational and just plain brain-dead stupid such an idea is?
Marshal, in a now-deleted comment:
It may have been true in the Democrat controlled southern slave states, but demands proof that "sexism" and "racism" was the reason laws disenfranchised women and non-whites elsewhere.
The conservative southern states did, indeed, remove voting rights for women and black people for racist and sexist reasons - they did not want the slaves having a right to self-determination any more than they wanted women to have a right to self-determination. But this is true of the conservative and religious white male leaders in the north, as well. It's been shown, by their own words. They literally viewed women as "the weaker sex" and thought that was sufficient to show that they were not qualified to be self-determining and have a right to vote. This has been shown by their own words.
Do you have ANY reason to suggest that the bigoted/sexist white men in the north and south truly thought that women and black people SHOULD be self-determining and have a right to vote? If so, based upon what?
This is a given. You are making the outlier, contra-evidential claims. Support them or admit that you can't. Admit that both the white men leading in the south and north DID NOT THINK that women or black people were qualified to vote and make their own decisions/be self-determining. I recognize that the progressive, rational liberals of the day supported listening to black people and women, but what of the white leaders who denied them the right to vote and own property/be self-determining?
Understand this: IF you want to try to address the irrational and sexist "weaker sex" claim you and the founders believe/d in, you MUST begin with a definition of weaker.
YOU are choosing to define "weak" in one way only: That the average man has more body strength than the average women. That's only ONE way of defining/addressing weak. As a point of fact in the real world, WEAK has multiple definitions. You could be weak-minded like you and other sexists are, for instance.
So, you MUST answer WHY are we limiting "weak" to your limited sexist definition of relying upon average physical body strength (ie, who could win in arm wrestling)?
Do you REALLY think that arm wrestling or a punching fight are the best/most rational ways of understanding "weakness and strength?" WHY would anyone care about YOUR personal preference on definition?
Also, you MUST answer why being (on average) physically weaker in arm wrestling or punching/fighting makes one incapable of being self-determining/having a vote? REMEMBER the point/context in which you and the founders bring up "the weaker sex" is to deny women the right to self determination and to vote. WHY is being physically weaker make one incapable of voting? Does this apply to weaker men, as well?
It's irrational and unsupported by any kind of common sense. You can begin by answering THOSE questions. Failure to do so will result in deletion.
Only direct answers to the actual questions asked will remain or even be read. I'm reading your non-answers just enough to see that you're not answering them and then deleting them.
START WITH THESE LAST BOLD QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR SEXIST NOTIONS OF "WEAKNESS."
ANYTHING ELSE WILL BE DELETED.
January 10, 2024 at 6:26 PM
no where does Jesus refer to God in Heaven as "Mother". NO WHERE!
"So what? I DON'T CARE that Jesus nor the Bible refer to God as Mother (the Bible does, fyi) nor that your little fragile male ego is threatened by such an idea."
I'm not at all surprised you don't care what Jesus or the Bible says.
"https://www.womensordination.org/resources-old/female-images-of-god-in-the-bible/"
Ah! Not at all surprised you would find a woman's group and cite from them that which is nothing more than them projecting their preferences onto Scripture in just the way you so commonly do. Most aren't even close to referring to God or Christ in feminine terms simply because...AGAIN...they're simply doing that which is common for women to do or describing what they do as similar to an animal (like the eagle reference, which, by your logic makes it OK to refer to God as an eagle---"Eagle God in heaven!!!" You fail again.
"Do you think I should be concerned about your impotent, weak, fragile little male ego?"
Even if I actually had an "impotent, weak, fragile little male ego", I wouldn't care if you were concerned or not. But you're deflecting from Whose Ego you ought to be concerned. But really, if between us there's anyone with a fragile ego, that is clearly you! HA!
"Also, here is EVERY PLACE in the Bible where it says God is threatened by the notion of God as woman AND here is every place in the bible that says it's "blasphemous" to refer to God as a woman... EVERY PLACE:"
Once again we see you insist something must be spelled out in specific words in a specific way or you can dismiss the point. I never suggested God is "threatened" by the likes of your or any fool thing you say (which is pretty much everything you say). Why would He? He is the Supreme Being after all. You're nothing.
"...do you get the point? Your STUPID and flaccid-weak-male-ego claim that it is "blasphemous" to refer to God as Mother is entirely UNbiblical and just plain stupid and entirely unsupported."
How many examples of blasphemy is even in the Bible? Do you need some specific reference to your form of blasphemy in order for it to be blasphemous? How is that Biblical? Does Scripture list every possible manifestation of blasphemy, or does it provide a more general notion of disrespect and irreverence for God? All references to God, especially by Himself in whatever of the three persons one chooses to speak, are masculine. Who are you to depict Him as other than masculine contrary to His own self-description. Again, how do you modern progressives reserve the right to misgender God after He's clearly identified Himself in masculine terms? He may do things more commonly associated with women, but He never refers to Himself as "mother" or "woman" or any other feminine entity. When I referred to you as a little girl because of your petulant behavior, think how you you whined and then deleted me. Yet you think God should not be respected more so than that? Shame on you.
"Do you recognize that reality?"
It's not reality because you speak of what the Bible doesn't say while ignoring what it does about reverence, respect and regard for God. Thus, I recognize you are once again assuming the authority to dictate what reality is according to how it suits you personally...not because it's actually reality.
"Grow up, little weak, impotent, fragile man-child."
"Little weak, impotent, fragile man-child"??? I though insults were prohibited at this blog as inconsistent with "adult" conversation? What the hell?
January 10, 2024 at 6:34 PM
"When I note, factually, that you are arguing at a childish level, that isn't name-calling, it's accurately noting the level of your "reasoning.""
No. You're noting subjectively and in a clearly self-serving way. You're not providing any legitimate justification for such condescension. Indeed, such condescension comes without any justification of any kind or quality even being offered. You just insult.
"ANY adult can see that God does not condemn, nor call "blasphemous," the act of referring to God as Mother, not anywhere in the bible."
Actual adults do not need to have every blasphemous manifestation specifically spelled out in Scripture to recognize disrespectful references. It's part of what makes them adults. Mature discernment. Adults also don't attack those who call them out for blasphemy after insisting on adult behavior during discourse. As you put it, God refers to Himself as "Father"...not "Mother". That He describes Himself doing that which is similar to what women or mothers do is not God referring to Himself as "mother" or "woman". That's just you radical feminist modern progressives making self-serving assumptions. Good luck with that. But hey...based on your arguments, you've got no call to delete me if I refer to you as a little girl! If it's OK to say such about God, how can it possible be forbidden or disrespectful to do so with you??
"It is the response of a child, unfamiliar with the Bible, to call such an action "blasphemous.""
I wouldn't know, because I'm an adult who is familiar enough with Scripture to understand what blasphemy is, and you're doing it. Do you ever do anything more typical of a woman or girl? Ever? If so, then you can't delete me for referring to you in feminine terms. Indeed, your whining alone rationalizes it well.
"It is the response of a child to say that women are the "weaker sex" or that "weaker sex" must ONLY refer to the average upper body strength of a man versus a woman."
This is absurd. It's the response of all honest people of each of the two genders. Men are physically stronger than women, more able to take a punch, especially from a man and certainly from a woman. You've provided absolutely nothing which rebuts this truth in any way. I've shredded your links you offered in your lame attempt (again, actually reading links you hope will stifle contradiction might help in the future).
"It is the response of a child to say, "But... but MEN can beat up women!" as if that is evidence of "strength" and "weakness.""
Uh...actually it's legitimate evidence for men's superior strength. Thus, again, it's the response of all honest people everywhere. Men can lift more. Men can open more jars. Men can jump higher. Throw farther. None of this is unknown. Indeed, this what "common knowledge" actually looks like.
"Grow up, little man. Noting that you are behaving childishly/irrationally is just noting reality, not an insult."
No, Dan. It's an insult. Nothing I've done or said justifies asserting I'm behaving childishly OR "irrationally", though your responses to the truths I present are indeed "irrational"! And hey..."Little man"??? I thought insults were prohibited at this blog as inconsistent with "adult" conversation? What the hell?
"Do you think that IF someone is acting childishly, using unsophisticated, less-than-rational, less-than-adult reasoning that NOTING that reality is "insulting..."?"
How do these question further the conversation? Childish is attacking me for noting you are not supporting your claims with actual evidence...that what you've provided in hopes of proving something don't address the issue on the table, either now or then...or ever. I point out how they fail and you then accuse me rather than giving a better explanation or more evidence which is more directly to the point.
"I am respectfully and reasonably asking and expecting that you answer the reasonable questions in bold."
I've respectfully and reasonably responded to all questions in bold. Now, I'm respectfully and reasonably expecting that you explain how my answer fall short after explaining how each question is relevant to whatever it is we're discussing at the time you ask it. At this point, after all your antics, the topic is in question. It's long ago moved on from the actual post, where you also didn't support your position.
"Failure to do so will result in a deleted comment."
That's not why you delete me.
"Choosing to engage in demeaning, disrespectful, unsupported and threatening/sexist/racist language will also result in a deleted comment."
Except when you do so to me. Got it.
"You are welcome to reason here and make comments, AS a respectful, rational adult."
You say that, but then you delete me under false pretenses.
So, you finally get around to rather on-point replies to questions. I asked WHY should we consider the notion of a Mother God as "blasphemous..."? Your responses...
no where does Jesus refer to God in Heaven as "Mother". NO WHERE!
So? Nowhere does Jesus or the Bible refer to the Trinity. Is THAT blasphemous? You're just choosing a term that, to you personally, YOU happen to find it threatening and "offensive" and "blasphemous" for NO biblical reason beyond you happen to think that. YOUR opinion on the matter does not make it blasphemous. The absence of a term being used does not make it blasphemous. IF that's what it took, then Trinity, Inerrancy and other modern ideas you hold to would be blasphemous.
Not at all surprised you would find a woman's group and cite from them that which is nothing more than them projecting their preferences onto Scripture in just the way you so commonly do.
This is another of the many examples where you make a claim with NO PROOF to support it. Just because you choose to take offense to a "woman's group" and their opinions does NOT mean that they are projecting. THAT is an unsupported claim you have NO proof of. THAT is why your comments get deleted. You don't know those women and clearly you don't know me well enough to make such claims. In my case, it's a stupidly false claim.
How many examples of blasphemy is even in the Bible? Do you need some specific reference to your form of blasphemy in order for it to be blasphemous? How is that Biblical?
Not many. "Blasphemy" is one of those tools that men in power have used over the years to demonize and denigrate and tear down those who merely disagree with those men's opinions. How is the term used in the Bible?
Blasphemy definition: "In English "blasphemy" denotes any utterance that insults God"
And...
"The Old Testament At least five different Hebrew verbs are translated "blaspheme" in English translations. Translators choose "blaspheme" when, for instance, the verbs "curse" (qalal [l;l'q]), "revile" (gadap [@;d"G]), or "despise" (herep) are used with God as the object.
However, to curse or insult God is an especially grave sin."
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/blasphemy/
But HOW is referring to God the Mother, God the Parent of The Woman God an INSULT to God? I GET how sexist men who consider women the "weaker sex" or think less of women think that comparing God to a "mere woman" is offensive, but that's only in the bigot's brain. People the world over throughout history have honored the notion of a Mother's Love as amongst the strongest, most powerful and delightful loves there is. Referring to God the Mother is a way of recognizing the great nurturing Love of a creator God who gave birth to us all. It simply isn't, in any rational consideration, an "insult or curse..."
So answer that question:
How in the name of all that is Holy and Motherly referring to God the Mother insulting or a curse...??!
You then go on to respond to - BUT NOT ANSWER - why we should consider women the "weaker sex" the way that YOU brazenly do and the way that misogynists throughout history have.
You respond...
This is absurd. It's the response of all honest people of each of the two genders. Men are physically stronger than women, more able to take a punch, especially from a man and certainly from a woman.
But factually, it ISN'T the response of all honest people. To reduce strength down to ONE general bodily strength test that, on average, women may have less physical strength than, on average, men may have... BUT HONEST PEOPLE don't say that means women are "weaker" than men, in all ways.
Again: BY DEFINITION, Weak is not limited to physical bodily strength. That is YOUR invention.
Now, IF you and other bigots want to say, "Well, on average, women have less physical bodily strength at things like arm wrestling or throwing punches than men do, on average, THEREFORE, I consider women the 'weaker sex' in all categories of strength consideration."
IS THAT what you want to say?
That because women on average are more likely to lose at arm wrestling than men on average, they are weaker intellectually, weaker when it comes to will power, to determination, to longevity of their bodily life, to spiritual discernment, to reasoning and all other matters where people can be weaker and stronger? Is that REALLY what you want to say?
Also, you still need to answer this:
Is being physically weaker on average a reason to deny the vote or the right to self-determination?
Do you think that men of the day back in the bad old days of open misogyny actually considered women, as a gender, to be their moral, intellectual, rational, spiritual equals? Or do you think that men, typically, back then DID consider them their equals and not lesser or "weaker" in every way because women, on average, have less physical strength than men, on average?
Do you recognize how wrong and weak it is for the misogynists back then who DID consider women to be overall inferior to men and weaker in every respect than men to have held those positions? To deny women their rights for those reasons?
Can you cite even ONE founding "father" who gave a speech or raised a bill to give women the right to vote? EVEN ONE LINE FROM ONE SPEECH?
Answer the bold questions.
Referring to my calling your bigotry and sexism and misogyny as childish and a sign of a weak male fragility, you said...
Except when you do so to me. Got it.
In this world, we have a history of the abuse and oppression of women. Including in our history in the US. Including right up until into our lifetimes (and still, as evidenced by your words). Now, if Dan and Marshal are in a disagreement about the best bicycle and I call you out as being childish and foolish, that's a bit of an overreaction/over-response for the topic. BUT, in the real world where women are STILL fighting for their rights, strongly denouncing oppressive language - and noting how childish and immature the thinking and "reasoning" that leads to it - well, I think it's called for.
On the other hand, your abusive words towards liberals because they WON'T go along with your sexism or revisionist history (where your revisionism is in support of/defense of the racists and slavers and misogynists back in the bad old days), well, to refer to our reasoning as "childish" just isn't apt. And your other, more abusive language (including your language that demeans girls and women) is just more a part of the problem.
There is a notable difference. Perhaps your bigotry and partisanship blinds you to that - the same way that Trump supporters/MAGA types can't tell the difference between the way Trump's vulgar corruption and hostility to basic constitutional agreements IS a threat to a free republic, whereas the same charges the other way around just don't fit. Regardless, on MY blog, I've been clear about the things YOU can't say. Live by those rules or be deleted.
January 10, 2024 at 7:02 PM
"What "evidence" proves women aren't the weaker sex, Dan? Bring it! I'll wait here while you can't. The expression is a stark and obvious reflection of the physiological differences between the sexes"
"I've already provided those links above."
As I've clearly pointed out, none of your links...even allowing for how you simply padded the list with links using the same source (a common tactic of the modern progressive)...none of them address the claim that women are physically weaker, despite referring to that expression. Those links spoke of longevity. (Once again, it would serve you to actually read...as in "study"...the links you want to provide in order to avoid again embarrassing yourself.) As such I remain without any evidence which contradicts that obvious fact.
"The question remains:
Do you think that ALL those who are, on average, weaker physically than the average male should not be able to vote, or is it just women who should not be allowed to vote or be self-determining if they're physically weaker (lacking in upper body strength) on average than the average male?"
No. Why you felt in necessary to ask this inane question yet again defies understanding. This is most especially true given I never mentioned the expression as a reason...let alone a sole reason...for anyone denying women anything. I guess you need something to defeat rather than to concede, so you focus on whatever you think is easiest to succeed in that endeavor, even if it means suggesting intention none of my comments justify.
"Do you not recognize how amazingly inane and pathetically inept such a claim is?"
Sure, but not as inane and pathetically inept as to insist I made any such claim. This is why deleting me is always a bad idea, unless destroying evidence which shows I didn't do what you claim I did is the point.
"WHY do you keep referring to physical strength as some kind of rational measure of determining self-determination and enfranchisement when it's so sexist, irrational and just plain brain-dead stupid such an idea is?"
I've not done that even once! YOU'VE referred to the expression many times more than I have, and in doing so you've tried to assert I've mentioned it as a reason to deny women in order to rationalize accusing me of that which isn't true. What's up with that? I mean, I thought insults were prohibited at this blog as inconsistent with "adult" conversation? What the hell?
So go back and find my first use of the expression and find where I've offered it up as an excuse to deny women anything. I'll just wait here while you don't.
Marshal...
none of them address the claim that women are physically weaker, despite referring to that expression. Those links spoke of longevity.
1. Factually speaking, women are NOT "physically weaker..." women, on AVERAGE are weaker physically than the average man. That is, the average woman may not be able to defeat the average man in arm wrestling. SOME women are physically stronger than SOME men, because of course, the are. But on average, women are, on average, weaker than men, on average.
2. BUT (and you MUST understand this) PHYSICAL bodily strength - the ability to do more push ups or win in arm wrestling or "beat up" another human - is only ONE measure of Strength.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT VERY SIMPLE REALITY?
3. As to why you initially brought up the "weaker sex" comment (YOU brought it up for some reason, not me), by all means, tell me why YOU brought it up?
4. As a point of fact based upon their words and known reality about men (and many women) back in the day, bigots referred to women as the "weaker sex" because they did not believe them capable/adept to vote or hold property, that THIS was the responsibility of men. So, what THEY meant by "weaker sex" is that women shouldn't vote.
Again, you can't find one single quote of a founding "father" who argued that women should vote or own their own property. NOT ONE of them pushed legislature to allow women to vote and hold their own property.
Do you recognize that reality?
5. Do you recognize it was wrong for white men in power to create laws that prevented women from voting?
January 10, 2024 at 7:30 PM
"The conservative southern states did, indeed, remove voting rights for women and black people for racist and sexist reasons"
You're doing it again. You're making vague generalizations devoid of any context. But then, it's common place for the modern progressive to distort words and meanings, to be fluid with the concepts of context and nuance, to corrupt a reality in order to force it to conform to the modern progressive agenda. The only fact which matters is that those states were Democrat controlled states and their attitudes about sex and race remains unchanged.
"...they did not want the slaves having a right to self-determination"
Uh...that's because they were slaves. In which culture where slavery was lawful would anyone believe it was a good idea to allow them the ability to determine their own lives? But I'll go further...when do we see most people in power allow for those not in power to have the same level of power and ability of "self-determination" as possessed by those people in power? You were in authority over your kids. Did you allow them free reign over their own lives during that time? You act as if this is unnatural for one in power to abdicate that power. Even few in any government felt so inclined. Even Geo Washington didn't abdicate while he was in power, but simply limited how long his position in government should remain. But did he cede power over his own workers at Mt. Vernon? So the idea that those in slave holding states would give their slaves the power to dictate means they actually aren't slaves, servants aren't servants and one's children have complete autonomy. It's an absurd notion.
But others did indeed feel the black people were worthy of leading their own lives as they saw fit, even if they had a notion that their racial differences didn't rationalize living side-by-side. That in itself isn't necessarily a racial thing. But in your weak mind you insist there's no other notion that can't be regarded as "racist" if it means segregating one group of people from another, regardless of the like minds of the two people.
Still others...those more like modern conservatives...saw all human beings as equals under the law. They were few at that time compared to the rest. We remain a smaller segment of our society than morality would demand. But that's how your kind like it. Treating people according to differences.
"...any more than they wanted women to have a right to self-determination."
But not for the same reasons, and not for reasons of rank sexist attitude. We today may not find their beliefs to reflect what our modern understandings can tolerate, but at the time they were "common knowledge", "self-evident" and you pretend they're just 21st century misogynists of the 18th and 19th centuries. What nonsense!
"But this is true of the conservative and religious white male leaders in the north, as well. It's been shown, by their own words."
No words you've presented which confirm your assertion.
"They literally viewed women as "the weaker sex" and thought that was sufficient to show that they were not qualified to be self-determining and have a right to vote. This has been shown by their own words."
Present an essay or a thesis which confirms this. It's not enough to say they thought women weren't good enough. It requires presenting their understandings of that period, and with that understanding fully explained, are their conclusions thus rational? Here's where you fail. You're supposing they were evil for not having the knowledge we now have. Yet, were they really so off base in at least some of their positions? Are women exactly equal to men in an identical sense such that there are no traits which mitigates any or all support for identical consideration? That's not how you modern progressives roll now! What makes you think it more horrible to those with lesser knowledge? I don't think your type even cares to enter into any considerations, pretending you're righteous in the mere insistence that there's no reason to question treating women the same in law just because the notion appeals to your shallow thinking. I could better argue for women's right than could any modern progressive because I wouldn't hold as true that which hasn't been proven to be so. Nothing is "self-evident" except that which some wish to regard as such. It's a choice to regard something as "self-evident".
"Do you have ANY reason to suggest that the bigoted/sexist white men in the north and south truly thought that women and black people SHOULD be self-determining and have a right to vote? If so, based upon what?"
Another question which doesn't have any relation to the issue at hand. All that's at issue is which legislation was enacted for the sole purpose of denying rights or privileges to anybody, as opposed to some other reason.
"This is a given. You are making the outlier, contra-evidential claims."
Except that I've made no claims. You can't point to one, copy/paste it and supply the date and time of its posting. I didn't even refer to the expression "the weaker sex" in terms of making a claim, until you wet yourself over my having made mention of it. Yet, there's no doubt that women are physically weaker than men and your attempts to provide links to support a contrary opinion failed to do so, as I clearly and accurately pointed out.
"Support them or admit that you can't."
You first. Support your claim I made claims you assert I've made. Support the claim that women aren't the weaker sex in terms of physical ability. Do something that affirms you're truly concerned about having an adult conversation.
"Admit that both the white men leading in the south and north DID NOT THINK that women or black people were qualified to vote and make their own decisions/be self-determining."
Why should I when I have not been arguing against that? You've been trying to force that into my mouth rather than deal with what actually came out of it.
"I recognize that the progressive, rational liberals of the day supported listening to black people and women, but what of the white leaders who denied them the right to vote and own property/be self-determining?"
This is a lame attempt to pretend those who sought freedom and equality for the slaves and for women were that era's "modern progressives". Nonsense. They were far more like my kind as we do not think in terms of factions, groups or anything other than "all Americans". Don't even dare try to suggest that YOUR kind of people had anything to do with suffrage of any kind in that era.
January 11, 2024 at 5:06 PM
"Understand this: IF you want to try to address the irrational and sexist "weaker sex" claim you and the founders believe/d in, you MUST begin with a definition of weaker."
Understand this: If you want to try and assert I'm pushing any claim of any kind, you must first establish that I'm actually pushing the claim you assert I'm making. I'm under no obligation of defending that which I haven't said.
But, for you to think there's something unusual in recognizing that women are physically inferior to me requires evidence you haven't provided in order to dispute it. Because you can't support your claim that laws were passed for the sole reason of denying anybody voting rights, you cling to this expression made in passing, not as a profound part of any argument.
"YOU are choosing to define "weak" in one way only: That the average man has more body strength than the average women. That's only ONE way of defining/addressing weak."
I define weak in this context in the way the term was originally set forth...a commentary about which sex is physically stronger. It's you who chose without basis to assume it was a basis for denying voting rights, as if physical strength ever had anything to do with it. Go back and find my first mention of the expression and then try to argue I was referring to it as the sole basis for denying rights. I'll wait here while you fail to find such legitimate argument.
"As a point of fact in the real world, WEAK has multiple definitions."
Your arguments, for example, are incredibly weak and dishonest as well, given they don't reflect anything regarding my positions. You don't even accurately represent a damned thing I say!
"You could be weak-minded like you and other sexists are, for instance."
"Weak-minded"?? "Sexist"??? I thought insults were prohibited at this blog as inconsistent with "adult" conversation? What the hell? You can't demonstrate any weakness in my argument, especially until you recognize what my argument is, which clearly you haven't done yet. You certainly can't prove I'm "sexist" based on anything I've said. Stating scientific, biological fact isn't "sexist". We here in the adult world call it "honesty".
"So, you MUST answer WHY are we limiting "weak" to your limited sexist definition of relying upon average physical body strength (ie, who could win in arm wrestling)?"
Uh... because the expression refers to physical ability. It always has. I've not sought to apply it to anything else, but you've tried to pretend I'm implying something more. That's pretty much lying on purpose.
"Do you REALLY think that arm wrestling or a punching fight are the best/most rational ways of understanding "weakness and strength?" WHY would anyone care about YOUR personal preference on definition?"
NO... there's things like how much weight one can lift, how many times and for how long. There's a host of ways to measure physical strength. I can't believe even you find this to be a news flash. What other ways are there to measure physical weakness or strength?
No. Really. I get it. You're trying to pretend the expression referred to something more than mere physical strength. It didn't. It doesn't now. Women are indeed the weaker sex. That's not a slight or a "sexist" shot at women. It's a reality. Perhaps you've never encountered a female you could best in any physical competition. That doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means you're pathetic.
"Also, you MUST answer why being (on average) physically weaker in arm wrestling or punching/fighting makes one incapable of being self-determining/having a vote?"
No I don't, since it's not an argument I've made or defended.
"REMEMBER the point/context in which you and the founders bring up "the weaker sex" is to deny women the right to self determination and to vote."
Where has that been stated anywhere in this conversation? Hint: Only by you. I've never suggested that for myself OR the founders. Thus, the following questions: "WHY is being physically weaker make one incapable of voting? Does this apply to weaker men, as well?" are stupidly unnecessary and without justification.
"It's irrational and unsupported by any kind of common sense. You can begin by answering THOSE questions. Failure to do so will result in deletion."
You should at least reserve deletions for things I actually say. You're putting words in my mouth, demanding I supply evidence to support the words you put in my mouth, and then threaten to delete me if I don't support the words you put in my mouth. Knock yourself out, liar.
more still coming...there's so much false stuff of yours to correct
STOP.
Answer these questions before making any other comments:
1. YOU were the one who introduced the sexist myth of women as "the weaker sex" into this conversation. YOU did that, not me. I did delete that vulgar and sexist irrational attack because it was unsupported and stupidly false on the face of it.
WHY DID YOU BRING UP THIS NONSENSE SEXIST MYTH in the first place in a conversation about voting rights for women IF NOT to defend the white men who denied them the right to vote. As I recall, the point you were making was that those misogynists believed women were the weaker sex and thus considered themselves correct in denying them the vote. But you tell me. WHY did you use that sexist, now-discredited phrase in the first place?
2. In defense of the sexists and racist white men who denied women and black people the right to vote and, you know, be free and stuff, you said:
The main point of deciding who could vote was based on ownership of land, the thought being that they were the producers and by virtue of that had actual skin in the game. Race or sex wasn't the factor you want it to be.
Is it your hunch, then, that those white men in power were FINE with the idea of women and black people voting and it was ONLY about the class warfare notion that "ONLY MEN WITH PROPERTY should get a vote..."?
3. IF SO, provide even ONE QUOTE where these white men leaders say that women and people of color had equal rights and should have equal rights and equal votes/be allowed to vote and own land... can you do that?
4. If not, can you admit that sexism and racism very much played a part in creating rules that denied the vote and freedom to women and people of color?
Answer the questions directly. AND, if you make a claim, ("the main point of deciding who could vote...") SUPPORT IT. In rational adult conversations about history, it is well known and well-accepted that the white men in power DID think themselves literally superior to women and people of color/native people in matters of running the country. YOU are making the claim outside of recognized history that these white men were not motivated by racism and sexism/misogyny. The onus is on YOU to support any claims of that sort.
Failure to support any claims you make will be deleted.
5. Also, I STILL want to know if you would denounce those white men in power for denying the right to vote to women and people of color... can you say that, given what we know now, OF COURSE, that was a great wrong and affront to our better ideals of liberty for all?
And if that's the case:
Do you believe that older, more ignorant people in more ignorant times (when it comes to human rights) were clearly wrong then to enslave people OR is it the case that you think people in a more primitive/less-enlightened time were NOT wrong to deny rights to women and people of color and that morality has evolved?
I define weak in this context in the way the term was originally set forth...a commentary about which sex is physically stronger.
PROVE IT. This is an unsupported (and stupidly false) claim on the face of it. PROVE IT WITH HARD DATA or admit that you do not know that this is the case and you can't prove this theory of yours, it's just a hunch you have that you can't support.
Some information, Darwin on the "weaker sex" and their intellectual inferiority (and really, this is common knowledge, how do you not know this?):
We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on Hereditary Genius, that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of women.
or, from the same source...
He [Hall Caine] criticizes the New Woman [movement] by stating what he believes to be their ultimate failure—the failure to address the simple “fact” that men and women are unequal...
...For Caine, the New Woman movement is a failure because for all their hopes for women, women are still the weaker sex, a “fact” known to the western civilization and written in the Bible itself.
The proto-feminist, Mary Wollstonecroft, speaks to the bigotry built into this "weaker sex" myth - that women were "second-class" by design, not by reality or nature.
Wollstonecraft states that women are second class citizens because they are more concerned with their appearance and attracting a husband than exercising their minds.
Marriage was ironically, the only avenue by which a woman could rise in society; hence, lack of education and the emphasis on marriage reinforced the notion that women were the weaker sex. The system of patriarchy kept women as second class citizens and in turn, led to the belief that women were weaker.
https://digitalcommons.pittstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1165&context=etd
Again, how do you not know this? Have you not read the great literature from earlier centuries? Frankenstein, Moby Dick, Sherlock Holmes, Little Women (!)... the Bible(!!)? I can't confirm it but believe the etymology of the "weaker sex" myth is directly tied to Peter's "weaker vessel" phrase in 1 Peter 3? Do you not know how in the pantheon of literature throughout history in most cases, women are considered second class, weaker spiritually (they were the ones who were fooled by the serpent, after all!), weaker emotionally, sometimes, weaker intellectually. They were considered the weaker sex in multiple ways, not just bodily strength (on average).
If you have read these great literature pieces in the past, look at the again... they are replete with condescending sexism, viewing women as Less Than men.
CS Lewis:
“If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say ‘Poor Mr. X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.’ I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own ‘headship.’ There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule….
The relations of the family to the outer world – what might be called its foreign policy – must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world…. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife”
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/mere-christianity/
More...
In colonial America and in Europe, people commonly believed that women were the
“weaker vessel”—morally and mentally deficient and physically inferior to men. As the
weaker sex, women were subordinate to men and subject to male authority—first to their
fathers and then to their husbands. Patriarchal norms prevailed; within the family and
society, men were the “head,” the “governing body.” Women were expected to be wives
and mothers and to lead quiet, unassuming private lives...
...Cloistered life for Spanish Catholic nuns in colonial Mexico utilized gender and religious controls to instill discipline, including controlling women who asserted their intellect. Known for her brilliance and creative writing, Sister Juana argued on behalf of female intelligence. Her punishment resulted in coercive silencing and the destruction of her library...
...Male control of religious institutions and instruction fortified the restrictions that constricted women’s lives. Christian teachings stressed womanly virtue, humility, submission, modesty, and public silence. Although this perception would change, seventeenth-century women were still linked with Eve as bearing the primary responsibility for the expulsion from the Garden of Eden."
https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/samplechapter/0/2/0/5/0205743153.pdf
The people of colonial times and since (and before) did not consider women to be equal in rights or capacity to men. This is not an unknown part of our history.
Ah! Finally on to Jan 12!
January 12, 2024 at 7:25 AM
"So, you finally get around to rather on-point replies to questions."
That's funny. You say that as if I haven't been doing that all along. And your response when anyone says something similar to you? "I can't help it if you can't understand!" All my replies are direct and on point until such time you choose to explain how any are not. That never happens. EVER!
"I asked WHY should we consider the notion of a Mother God as "blasphemous..."? Your responses..."
...were spot on and accurate according to the definition of the word.
"no where does Jesus refer to God in Heaven as "Mother". NO WHERE!"
This is true. So if Christ has enough reverence for the Father to refer to Him ONLY as "the Father", where do you get off supposing referring to "the Father" as "Mother" is in any way appropriate and not disrespectful. I asked before, if you run the line that "misgendering" is wrong, and throughout all of human history God has always been described in male terms, that pretty much indicates how low your regard and reverence for the Father actually is.
"So? Nowhere does Jesus or the Bible refer to the Trinity. Is THAT blasphemous?"
That's not even the same thing, especially given the point is how Jesus refers to God and frankly, how He taught us to refer to Him. You might recall this prayer which we were taught to pray which He began "Our Father, Who art in heaven..." Thus, in light of that, I would ask, which feminist group are you trying to impress by taking such a liberty with that Person of the Trinity?
As to "trinity", Scripture clearly speaks of it without giving it that name. It's a teaching tool at worst that scholars and actual Christians have assigned to a concept, just as PSA is a word used to describe another essential Christian teaching. By your "logic", mankind giving names or labels to concepts clearly taught in Scripture erases those truths from existence.
"You're just choosing a term that, to you personally, YOU happen to find it threatening and "offensive" and "blasphemous" for NO biblical reason beyond you happen to think that."
I'm sure it comforts you to tell yourself that, but the fact is you taking such liberties is clearly disrespectful. Again, you think it's cool because of a handful of verses in which God/Jesus describe an act They would or might indulge by associating it with those who are most easily understood to do so in everyday life. It's allegorical. A metaphor. It isn't self-identifying as feminine. That's YOUR modern progressive eisegesis...NOT something supported by any serious or prayerful study of Scripture.
"YOUR opinion on the matter does not make it blasphemous."
My accurate understanding of the word and your taking that unjustified liberty does. Indeed, I don't simply assume an opinion without just cause. You've provided that.
"The absence of a term being used does not make it blasphemous."
Good thing I never so much as hinted as such a nonsensical notion. The disrespect in presuming you can surreptitiously misgender God does. I mean, why even do such a thing? You do it for personal gain. That doesn't help you when facing a charge of blasphemy.
"Blasphemy definition: "In English "blasphemy" denotes any utterance that insults God""
So I was right, then. Thanks for the help. Misgendering is insult according to the modern progressive. Jesus/God identifies in masculine terms.
"And...
"The Old Testament At least five different Hebrew verbs are translated "blaspheme" in English translations. Translators choose "blaspheme" when, for instance, the verbs "curse" (qalal [l;l'q]), "revile" (gadap [@;d"G]), or "despise" (herep) are used with God as the object.
However, to curse or insult God is an especially grave sin.""
You already helped my case, but I more appreciate the added evidence which supports it. Again. Thank you very much.
"But HOW is referring to God the Mother, God the Parent of The Woman God an INSULT to God?"
I could not have been more clear each time I explained it multiple times already and yet again just above in this comment.
January 12, 2024 at 7:37 AM
"You then go on to respond to - BUT NOT ANSWER - why we should consider women the "weaker sex" the way that YOU brazenly do and the way that misogynists throughout history have."
Yeah, I tend to be "brazen" in my presentation of blatantly true stuff. I'm weird that way. Nice to know some misogynists have done it, too! Too bad it's so uncommon among modern progressives. It's the cause of so much strife and suffering in the world today. UH OH! Is that a claim I'm going to have to support? Maybe later. Let's try to stay on point for a change.
You respond...
This is absurd. It's the response of all honest people of each of the two genders. Men are physically stronger than women, more able to take a punch, especially from a man and certainly from a woman.
But factually, it ISN'T the response of all honest people. To reduce strength down to ONE general bodily strength test that, on average, women may have less physical strength than, on average, men may have... BUT HONEST PEOPLE don't say that means women are "weaker" than men, in all ways.
"Again: BY DEFINITION, Weak is not limited to physical bodily strength. That is YOUR invention."
No, that's the actual definition, and all other uses of the term are metaphorical or analogies. This fact is made plain by a simple search of as many dictionaries as one can find, and how "physical" ability is the primary explanation of the word. Even in cases, such as "weak floorboards" suggests the physical ability of the floor to support weight.
"Now, IF you and other bigots want to say, "Well, on average, women have less physical bodily strength at things like arm wrestling or throwing punches than men do, on average, THEREFORE, I consider women the 'weaker sex' in all categories of strength consideration.""
I'm not a bigot, so you're intentionally lying about me again.
"IS THAT what you want to say?"
What I want to say is the same as I've been saying all along with regard to this expression. It refers to the biological fact that women are physically weaker than men. Period. End of story.
"That because women on average are more likely to lose at arm wrestling than men on average, they are weaker intellectually, weaker when it comes to will power, to determination, to longevity of their bodily life, to spiritual discernment, to reasoning and all other matters where people can be weaker and stronger? Is that REALLY what you want to say?"
No, but clearly you have no choice but to embellish what I've said (i.e. put words in my mouth I didn't myself say) in your dishonest attempt to find fault.
"Is being physically weaker on average a reason to deny the vote or the right to self-determination?"
Not to my way of thinking. And given I've said nothing whatsoever to suggest that, you have no justification for even asking me the question EXCEPT in your false and vain attempt to find fault.
"Do you think that men of the day back in the bad old days of open misogyny actually considered women, as a gender, to be their moral, intellectual, rational, spiritual equals? Or do you think that men, typically, back then DID consider them their equals and not lesser or "weaker" in every way because women, on average, have less physical strength than men, on average?"
I think men back then were quite varied in how they regarded women, with some being despotic and some being incredibly loving and protective...with some have low regard for the potential of women and others judging each woman they've met individually based on capabilities they've observed. I also think...nay, KNOW...that you continue on this path in order to avoid providing evidence of any law passed with the specific purpose of disenfranchising anyone on the basis of immutable characteristics. You're hoping the challenge goes away because you have no way of backing that up and are too proud to concede a damned thing ever.
"Do you recognize how wrong and weak it is for the misogynists back then who DID consider women to be overall inferior to men and weaker in every respect than men to have held those positions? To deny women their rights for those reasons?"
Yeah. But you're assuming misogyny or sexism drove these laws about which your panties are in a bunch. One can recognize traits of the opposite gender which are inferior to one's own as well as those which are superior without being either a misogynist or a bigot of any kind, and then go on to suppose certain tasks or privileges can be denied as a result. The reasoning might be false, but unless there's intention to ignore that, there's no wrong having taken place. This is what nuance actually looks like. Thus, you need to prove ill intent was behind any disenfranchisement which took place before assigning labels like "misogynist", "bigot" or any of the other pearl clutching adjectives you insist on using. You refusal to do so confuses more about what "embracing grace" means.
"Can you cite even ONE founding "father" who gave a speech or raised a bill to give women the right to vote? EVEN ONE LINE FROM ONE SPEECH?"
No. But that's wholly irrelevant, especially since it doesn't reflect any position I've taken. Hint: the only position I've taken over the vast majority of comments is that you won't support your claim that there was intention solely to deprive certain groups of rights. That's a general way to put it, but it'll do.
And on I go to see how your next questions manifest your desperation to avoid concession at any cost. Very telling!
January 12, 2024 at 7:45 AM
"Referring to my calling your bigotry and sexism and misogyny as childish and a sign of a weak male fragility, you said..."
"Except when you do so to me. Got it."
And that's the way you roll. More importantly, referring to your calling me bigoted, sexist, misogynist with a "weak male fragility", you're remarkable in your total absence of evidence in support of that opinion. It's just an unjustified pejorative, and I thought insults were prohibited at this blog as inconsistent with "adult" conversation? So what the hell?
"In this world, we have a history of the abuse and oppression of women. Including in our history in the US. Including right up until into our lifetimes"
Irrelevant as it's a point not in contention.
"(and still, as evidenced by your words)."
An unsupported claim you simply assert without making the slightest effort to show it could possibly be true.
"Now, if Dan and Marshal are in a disagreement about the best bicycle and I call you out as being childish and foolish, that's a bit of an overreaction/over-response for the topic."
That's hilarious. You say that as if it wouldn't happen. But it would be no more justified than it is now.
"BUT, in the real world where women are STILL fighting for their rights, strongly denouncing oppressive language - and noting how childish and immature the thinking and "reasoning" that leads to it - well, I think it's called for."
Not surprised at all. But you only think it's called for when debating poorly against me on issues regarding women...or blacks...or homosexuals...or anybody. You fail to make your case and the only reason has to be some flaw in my character, as if I control what fool things you say which don't help your case. While you constantly insist to me that things aren't true simply because I say they are (which never ever happens), you do so with remarkable regularity and excuse it with all manner of weasel options like "it's self-evidently true" or you latest variation on the theme "it's common knowledge". Another form of "Nyuh uh", but never any actual data or evidence which supports your opinion.
"On the other hand, your abusive words towards liberals because they WON'T go along with your sexism or revisionist history"
I've never revised anything, and you've never proven I have. Please stop lying.
"well, to refer to our reasoning as "childish" just isn't apt."
Don't say "our". I'm only talking to YOU, not some group whose members never weigh in. YOUR reasoning IS childish because it inevitably concludes with insults and then deletions. Adults with adult reasoning receive adult counter arguments. Frankly, the vast majority of my comments are far better examples of adult discourse than anything you provide.
"And your other, more abusive language (including your language that demeans girls and women) is just more a part of the problem."
Yeah...I can get coarse now and then, particularly when those with bad ideas, positions and perspectives dare to condescend rather than responding in an adult manner to sincere criticisms and questions. Not an excuse of unChristian behavior on my part, but a true representation of how it comes to pass. Harder to support when you delete me rather than engage like an adult.
So often you demand "answer these questions first before commenting further", while I haven't finished answer earlier questions you demanded I had to answer. I can't wait for an intelligent question which relates directly to the issue on the table.
January 12, 2024 at 4:24 PM
"1. Factually speaking, women are NOT "physically weaker..." women, on AVERAGE are weaker physically than the average man."
Thus, factually speaking, women ARE physically weaker than men. Occasional exceptions don't negate that fact.
"That is, the average woman may not be able to defeat the average man in arm wrestling. SOME women are physically stronger than SOME men, because of course, the are. But on average, women are, on average, weaker than men, on average."
See above. Jeez.
"2. BUT (and you MUST understand this) PHYSICAL bodily strength - the ability to do more push ups or win in arm wrestling or "beat up" another human - is only ONE measure of Strength.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT VERY SIMPLE REALITY?"
It's the only measure relevant to the expression, "women are the weaker sex". You seem to want to pretend otherwise.
"3. As to why you initially brought up the "weaker sex" comment (YOU brought it up for some reason, not me), by all means, tell me why YOU brought it up?"
The first mention of the expression comes in at Jan. 8 @ 4:34 PM. Prior to this date and time, I can find no mention of it by me in comments previous to it. Now, I know I did mention it, but somehow it got deleted, so I'm not willing to certify the context in which I did. What I'm confident in is that I didn't bring it up to give you a reason to go off on a tangent afar from the challenge you've never addressed regarding the intention of laws enacted which resulted in women being denied the vote. I have no reason to believe you'll bother now, because that's not how you roll. Indeed, we were already on a tangent apart from the actual topic of your post and you've drawn it even farther away going on about how you hate the fact that women are the weaker sex. You should do a post on that expression, and then you can draw the conversation off on a tangent there, too, after I shred whatever falsehoods or misunderstandings you present there.
"4. As a point of fact based upon their words and known reality about men (and many women) back in the day, bigots referred to women as the "weaker sex" because they did not believe them capable/adept to vote or hold property, that THIS was the responsibility of men. So, what THEY meant by "weaker sex" is that women shouldn't vote."
Citations, please. You've offered nothing but your assertion. You also don't support the assertion it was rank bigotry rather than what many found to be sound arguments back in that time. If the widespread belief justified there decisions about what women could or would be allowed to do or not do, then "bigotry" is just your unChristian attack on men you don't know.
I believe, and it also has a basis in the few links you've offered in a misbegotten belief it proves anything you've been saying, the use of the expression was no more than a rhetorical starting point in any speech, essay or explanation for why men should do some things and women shouldn't. Thus, it's a throw-away line. It refers to physical strength and that's a fact. But given some men are stronger than others, your insistence that inferior physical strength was even on the list of reasons why they felt only certain men should vote is absurd.
"Again, you can't find one single quote of a founding "father" who argued that women should vote or own their own property. NOT ONE of them pushed legislature to allow women to vote and hold their own property."
I don't even need to try. I'm quite certain you didn't! What you NEED to be doing is seeking out any speech which shows any of them seeking legislation to deny women simply because they're women and/or the weaker sex.
"Do you recognize that reality?"
Doesn't matter as it's a point not at all in contention.
"5. Do you recognize it was wrong for white men in power to create laws that prevented women from voting?"
No, because it was a different time and their basis for doing so has not been provided by you. More specifically, that it was the result of rank bigotry and misogyny/sexism. When you can provide something like that, then the question will be justified. Until then, whether it was right or wrong remains up in the air.
This is how adult conversation works. Asserting as fact that which you've no provided proof for the purpose and then demanding I agree it's reality is not how adult conversation works.
As an aside, I have no doubt I could defend your positions more effectively than you ever could, and I know most, if not all of them are wrong in some usually very obvious way. You're just not good at it. Just sayin'.
January 13, 2024 at 10:45 AM
"STOP.
Answer these questions before making any other comments:"
There you go again! Stop making this demand until I've caught up with answer past questions you demanded I answer before making any other comments! JEEZ!!
"1. YOU were the one who introduced the sexist myth of women as "the weaker sex" into this conversation. YOU did that, not me."
As I acknowledged in the previous comment or two, why I did so was not as some point worth all these keystrokes taking us on this tangent. YOU did that, not me.
"I did delete that vulgar and sexist irrational attack because it was unsupported and stupidly false on the face of it."
Are you saying referring to the expression that women are "the weaker sex" is a vulgar and sexist irrational attack? That's a biological fact, which is also far more "self-evidently true" and "common knowledge" than anything you've ever said is either! What's "stupidly false" is to say otherwise without evidence. Go ahead...find a woman as tall as you, weighing as much as you, who is your age, and works out the same amount you do, and with both of you trying with all your might, see which of you can bench the most weight. I don't even need to make a prediction which of you would lift more.
"WHY DID YOU BRING UP THIS NONSENSE SEXIST MYTH in the first place in a conversation about voting rights for women IF NOT to defend the white men who denied them the right to vote."
As I stated in the last comment, I believe it the expression was only used to launch into a more relevant list of reasons why women might be denied anything. But that assumes any legislation was solely to deny women as opposed to serving a higher purpose sincerely believed. So more than an attempt to defend anybody, I've done no more than rip on your assumptions about how and why women were denied. Like all your positions, assumption is all you need, but that's not how adults do it.
"As I recall, the point you were making was that those misogynists believed women were the weaker sex and thus considered themselves correct in denying them the vote."
Now, why in the world would you ever be reduced to trying to recall my point? Why would that be? Oh...I know! It's because you deleted my comment where I first mentioned the expression to which you psychotically cling so tightly! There's a lesson there somewhere. If you can't divine it, let me know. I'm here for you.
"But you tell me. WHY did you use that sexist, now-discredited phrase in the first place?"
I told you already why I think I mentioned this absolute fact of human biology which has never been discredited ever in human history, and certainly...humorously...not here. Stating fact is never sexist, bigoted or misogynist. Stating fact only frightens modern progressives into disordered anxiety.
"2. In defense of the sexists and racist white men who denied women and black people the right to vote and, you know, be free and stuff, you said:"
Why do you keep lying about me? I wasn't defending anybody. I simply continue to demonstrate that you refuse to support your claims with actual unassailable evidence. How is that defending anyone?
"The main point of deciding who could vote was based on ownership of land, the thought being that they were the producers and by virtue of that had actual skin in the game. Race or sex wasn't the factor you want it to be."
Yeah. That's correct and you've provided nothing which disputes it. The best part is that it shows you how it serves you (whether it actually does or not is not my point here) to refrain from deleting me with nonsensical excuses to explain why. You can't possible indict me on what I said without producing what I've said. Unfortunately you can't indict me when you DO produce what I said, but you'll never succeed by deleting what I said. Your welcome.
"Is it your hunch, then, that those white men in power were FINE with the idea of women and black people voting and it was ONLY about the class warfare notion that "ONLY MEN WITH PROPERTY should get a vote..."?"
I don't believe that's the most accurate way of saying it, but I applaud the fact it bears some resemblance to actual reality. But it still lacks context enough to provide you justification for condemning their legislative decisions. That's the problem you insist on ignoring. While you speak of nuance, you pretend there is none regarding how and why they did things which resulted in what you find appalling consequences.
"3. IF SO, provide even ONE QUOTE where these white men leaders say that women and people of color had equal rights and should have equal rights and equal votes/be allowed to vote and own land... can you do that?"
Your "if so" gives me license to refuse to try since it also points to "if not" being just as likely. Given it's not "my hunch" but a weird desire by you that it must be.
"4. If not, can you admit that sexism and racism very much played a part in creating rules that denied the vote and freedom to women and people of color?"
No. Because not admitting the hunch you created for me is really my hunch doesn't lead to this unintelligent conclusion. But what's also noteworthy...and not in a good way for you...is your re-entry of racism where over the last two or three days you were fixated on women being denied over you insistence I meant what I didn't by mentioning "the weaker sex". Why is that? For awhile you spoke always of both, and then focused on one, and now think you can ask a question while the conversation is still focused on women which again must include blacks. Another sign you're not really interested or capable of adult conversation.
Racism and sexism has always existed and still does. Clearly that's something which IS "common knowledge" no one denies. But you insist on painting the whole of 18th century America as nothing but! Where do you get off daring to pretend you know people from that long ago well enough to make such a sweeping claim after scolding me that I don't know the feminists from the link you posted? Once again...and you damned well need to concede this if you wish to posture as a Christian...taking a position or engaging in a behavior which has a negative effect...especially collaterally...on some people doesn't indicate bigotry of any kind. They didn't have our knowledge back then (though some had some of it intuitively) and people tend to act on what they know or believe is true, even if it turns out later to be totally not. The best you can say if you insist on being insulting is that the consequences of their actions seem bigoted. You'll need more than your opinion, though, to assert bigoted intent. You've provided nothing to that end.
"Answer the questions directly. AND, if you make a claim, ("the main point of deciding who could vote...") SUPPORT IT."
You first. And don't give me that "common knowledge" dodge. In the meantime, I suggested one or two possibilities along the way, but I've made no claims at all aside from your clearly bad behavior.
"In rational adult conversations about history, it is well known and well-accepted that the white men in power DID think themselves literally superior to women and people of color/native people in matters of running the country."
Oops! Too late. This is the "common knowledge" dodge again! That's not how adult debate works. But jokes aside, this statement is far too general to be of any use. One can think of one's self as absolutely superior to someone else and have good reason. Why would such a person act contrary to what is regarded as true? How would such a person be acting morally by ignoring what's regarded as true?
January 13, 2024 at 11:17 AM
"I define weak in this context in the way the term was originally set forth...a commentary about which sex is physically stronger."
"PROVE IT. This is an unsupported (and stupidly false) claim on the face of it. PROVE IT WITH HARD DATA or admit that you do not know that this is the case and you can't prove this theory of yours, it's just a hunch you have that you can't support."
I'm not sure what you're petulantly demanding here: was the expression was originally set forth as a commentary on which sex is physically stronger, or that it's a fact.
If the former, I've been trying to find something which refers to its original meaning and have been unsuccessful after wading through all manner of attempts to dispel the fact of it. As to the fact of it, it is proven in 99.9% of every physical competition between males and females after both are physically matured. Riley Gaines can help you out if need be, but again, a team of school boys beat the USA Women's National Soccer Team rather handily. I don't know how much harder the data needs to be than any of these examples for you to concede the truth that women are the weaker sex. Added to that, not even most feminists believe they are safe to go anywhere they want without protection, usually of a man or two. Another bit of data is the lowering of physical standards for women for consideration in the military, law enforcement and fire departments. Why would they do that if women weren't weaker? Here's one more: why do you think they've always separated male and female criminals in male and female prisons? With this and more staring mankind in the face, it's hard to believe the expression wasn't initially coined in reference to the fact of physical strength, regardless of what other intentions are behind its use.
"Some information, Darwin on the "weaker sex" and their intellectual inferiority (and really, this is common knowledge, how do you not know this?):"
First, there's very little from Darwin that is currently held as reliable fact. You might want to refrain from citing debunked "experts", especially when they're not focused on the point of what the expression was coined to reflect. Physical strength.
Secondly, there's very little to clarify exactly that which Darwin is criticizing in the work of the other guy. You simply cite him because it validates in your mind what you're trying to put forth, again using opinions as facts as well as suggesting everyone felt the same way. This is absurd given the quotes themselves as he is criticizing an opposing view.
"or, from the same source...
He [Hall Caine] criticizes the New Woman [movement] by stating what he believes to be their ultimate failure—the failure to address the simple “fact” that men and women are unequal..."
This part above is at least true and remains so today. In the feminist whine, rarely are the stark differences between the sexes acknowledged, much less addressed as they must be. I think it's obvious by virtue of the small sampling that "unequal" here means "not identical" as opposed to something like "equal under the law".
"...For Caine, the New Woman movement is a failure because for all their hopes for women, women are still the weaker sex, a “fact” known to the western civilization and written in the Bible itself."
This lacks context in order to determine intent on the part of Darwin. He could simply be stating that women are physically weaker which is indeed a fact.
But here's context not provided for your initial quote which mirrors the obvious:
"It is not probable that the greater strength of man was primarily acquired through the inherited effects of his having worked harder than women for his own subsistence and that of his family; for the women in all barbarous nations are compelled to work at least as hard as the men."
Clearly, the recognition of women as biologically weaker than men cannot be criticized since it's so obvious. Despite what the author goes on to say immediately after, this is a clear reference to that fact of biology. Darwin only supposed life over the generations served to maintain that physical disparity.
"The proto-feminist, Mary Wollstonecroft, speaks to the bigotry built into this "weaker sex" myth - that women were "second-class" by design, not by reality or nature."
Ah...here we see the insistence the expression must be examined in terms of bigotry, as if it's original meaning was more than a reflection of biological fact. But what is ignored is that, as your kind abused Scripture to rationalize your ill treatment of black people you enslaved, so too have actual sexists and misogynists abused the expression to appease their bigotry. But again, no one who acknowledges biological fact can justifiably be accused of bigotry by the acknowledgement alone, or by how others abuse facts. I fully and boldly acknowledge the reality of female physical inferiority, yet I don't regard them as "second class". Honest men and women do women a grave disservice by pretending women aren't the weaker sex. This acknowledgement of this biological fact has lead to their protection from actual sexists and misogynists. IF they weren't physically weaker, they'd never have been oppressed in any way simply by virtue of being women. They could have defended themselves. Clearly this should provide more of a lesson about what constitutes "common knowledge" and "self-evident truth". I'm not so delusional as to believe it will have any positive effect on the likes of you.
"Wollstonecraft states that women are second class citizens because they are more concerned with their appearance and attracting a husband than exercising their minds.
Marriage was ironically, the only avenue by which a woman could rise in society; hence, lack of education and the emphasis on marriage reinforced the notion that women were the weaker sex. The system of patriarchy kept women as second class citizens and in turn, led to the belief that women were weaker."
This is rank opinion, not evidence supported fact. It applies explanation based on after the fact realities. That is, it is again akin to modern progressives insisting the current state of the black community is solely the result of racism and bigotry without acknowledging more pertinent factors. This also suggests any perception of second class was the "self" version.
What's more, it's an incredibly stupid thing to say that women are "second class" because they're more concerned about their appearance. I doubt even actual sexists use that line!
"Again, how do you not know this? Have you not read the great literature from earlier centuries? Frankenstein, Moby Dick, Sherlock Holmes, Little Women (!)... the Bible(!!)?"
Some of those I've read. But the issue isn't whether or not some regarded women inferior due to rank prejudice, but whether for the times in which they lived, their regard for women as the weaker sex had any legit basis. For the purpose of your feigned outrage and false notions about the expression in question, the physical inferiority of women is a legit basis. Not the only basis, but one of them. The others are barely mentioned to any extent which identifies, describes and/or explains them.
"I can't confirm it but believe the etymology of the "weaker sex" myth is directly tied to Peter's "weaker vessel" phrase in 1 Peter 3?"
That's a possibility and not hard to concede those who, like you, corrupted Scriptural meaning to rationalize enslaving black people, did so to abuse women. But given Peter's recognizing the reality of women being weaker, both physically AND in a societal/cultural reality of the time, it was an encouragement to men to be their protectors and defenders. Not to abuse them.
"Do you not know how in the pantheon of literature throughout history in most cases, women are considered second class, weaker spiritually (they were the ones who were fooled by the serpent, after all!), weaker emotionally, sometimes, weaker intellectually. They were considered the weaker sex in multiple ways, not just bodily strength (on average)."
Doesn't matter how literature regarded them. The question is are they weaker physically as the expression originally highlighted and was that and the metaphorical use of the expression behind any laws which resulted in fewer rights? Your link, and its references to "the pantheon of literature" indicates that for a variety of reasons, they were rationally regarded such. To provide them with rights before they had similar education men had seems a bad idea, likely seemed especially bad at the time and thus hard to blame them even if they DID deny them solely on the basis of their sex. Far more beneficial to society and the culture, therefore, would have been to ensure their education to be on par with men, THEN talk about voting rights.
"If you have read these great literature pieces in the past, look at the again... they are replete with condescending sexism, viewing women as Less Than men."
Shall I read them with the eye of a 21st Century Male, or through the eyes of the men of that time (and most women, as it happens)? Regardless, I'd be reading of how some men condescended. Just as Scripture teaches, each sex has their own roles to fulfill. Men of intellect might seem to those modern progressives lacking in that regard to only be sexist by maintaining gender roles in however they legislate.
January 13, 2024 at 11:41 AM
This comment, like that previous, is simply more highlighting that which is not in contention, and thus provides nothing which satisfies the challenge long put to you and dodged ever since.
Let me restate that challenge in terms which may be more understandable to you:
While you wish to lament that women and blacks were disenfranchised from voting and "self-determination" by "white men in power", what's missing in your wailing is any proof or evidence their intention in enacting laws was specifically to do disenfranchise regardless of any negative effect because they were simply racists and sexists, and NOT thinking in terms of what they sincerely believed was best for the nation.
Right now, many of your kind wish to lower the voting age to 16, while others (I think Vivek Ramaswamy is one notable example) wishes to raise the voting age back to 21 or even a bit higher. Most people much older than 16 or 18 or even 21 would assert with much justification that people so young lack the capacity to make such a monumental choice. Those now with the right would certainly feel disenfranchised. But does that matter to the reasoning behind the proposal when the sentiment behind it is generally true? And what of those younger than 18? Are they "disenfranchised" because they don't have voting privileges? I would say "yes", but it doesn't at all make giving them the vote a wise move and beneficial to the nation. So any condescension toward the young is accompanied by reasoned argument which have the support of life experiences. Thus, in this case, with just a smattering of explanation, we can see that the move to block lowering the age, and even the desire to raise it, isn't attributable to rank animus, as use of the terms "sexist", "misogynist" or "racist" imply by definition.
So summing up some things, first.
First, perhaps the easiest: Marshal's "weaker sex" misogyny:
1. Marshal thinks that "women are the weaker sex" and he defends the misogyny because he, personally, takes that to mean that it's referring ONLY to the AVERAGE strength of an average woman versus an average man.
2. Marshal stubbornly chooses to irrationally use only ONE definition of weakness, ignoring the reality of other common definitions.
3. Marshal continues to ignore the sexist arrogance where misogynists (no doubt, some "well-meaning" men) have used that phrase for centuries to demean women and "keep them in their place."
4. Marshal ignores the reality that, depending on how you define/consider/weigh "weaker," it is also entirely factually to note that MEN are the weaker sex, if you want to make generalizations. Men like Marshal routinely show themselves to be emotionally fragile/weak/fearful of losing their power and "their country," for instance. Men don't have the stamina to live as long as women, nor the strength of wisdom to make good, rational health choices to allow them to do so.
Don't bother commenting further with the "weaker sex" bigotry ever again on this blog. That sort of grade school, irrational misogyny will not remain on my blog. No more than the use of the "N" word or various abusive terms that refer to women.
Continuing on the last "weaker sex" misogyny, Marshal said, "Let them eat cake!"
Far more beneficial to society and the culture, therefore, would have been to ensure their education to be on par with men, THEN talk about voting rights.
Oh, those poor women didn't take it upon themselves to get themselves educated... but wait! WHO blocked women from getting an education? The white men in power, the white men leading the churches who told "the weaker sex" to "stay home where they belonged..."
You CAN'T have white men in power setting policies by THEIR WHITE MALE CHOICE that denies women the opportunity to own stuff, to self-determination and to get an education AND THEN say, "Well, it's only because they're uneducated..." Don't be naive or ignorant of history, man.
No more comments on this. You're just wrong and being wrong-headed. OF COURSE, white men in power by and large denied women the right to self-determination and the vote by policy because those white men "thought it best." To hell with that kind of sick misogynistic patriarchy.
I don't know how you can't understand basic history and reality.
Secondly: Was it wrong or not to enslave people, to deny women and black people to not have the right to education, ownership or voting? A series of questions with OBVIOUS answers. But I asked Marshal...
"5. Also, I STILL want to know if you would denounce those white men in power for denying the right to vote to women and people of color... can you say that, given what we know now, OF COURSE, that was a great wrong and affront to our better ideals of liberty for all?"
And Marshal can't take that simple rational moral step...
No. I wouldn't. Because unlike you, I wouldn't assume their intentions. I don't now. [sic]
I also asked...
"Do you believe that older, more ignorant people in more ignorant times (when it comes to human rights) were clearly wrong then to enslave people OR is it the case that you think people in a more primitive/less-enlightened time were NOT wrong to deny rights to women and people of color and that morality has evolved?"
And Marshal STILL couldn't take a firm stand, saying instead... this...?
I believe your kind was wrong for enslaving people back then, but at the same time, you've stated emphatically in other discussions how wrong it is to condemn people by abusing the passage of Jesus and the adulteress, so, there's that. Scripture teaches against kidnapping, so there's that, too. It doesn't matter what color a person is. Real conservatives and Christians don't care. But unlike you, we know that morality hasn't evolved at all. It's still the same as when God created it.
So, I THINK that Marshal kind of sort of thinks that morality DOES NOT CHANGE ("morality hasn't evolved at all...") AND YET, he can't/won't condemn denying the right to vote to women and black people.
No need to comment. We get it. You're trying to have it both ways. You don't want to condemn the sexist/racist actions of the founding fathers and so, don't want to call THOSE white men wrong... but you also want to try to say that morality doesn't change.
We get it. You're being inconsistent and you're not willing to admit it. OR, maybe you don't think they were wrong for denying the BASIC RIGHT to vote to women and black people, but you don't want to say that out loud, either.
Regardless, we see your hypocritical inconsistency, even if you don't. Also, re: "I don't know their intentions..." I wasn't asking if you thought their INTENTIONS were noble or based on good ideas or not. I wasn't asking if you could say clearly and without equivocation that DENYING the right to vote to women is WRONG? Period. Can you say that DENYING the right to vote to black people is WRONG? Period.
I'm done asking. Don't bother responding.
Unless you want to clarify and actually answer the question directly ("YES, I think it is wrong to deny the right to vote to women and black people. It is wrong now and it was wrong then!" OR "No. I DON'T think it is wrong to deny the right to vote to women and black people. It isn't wrong now and it wasn't wrong then..."), just don't bother. I don't want to hear more abdication of moral decency or explanations why you won't answer questions directly.
Suffice to say: OF COURSE, it is now and always has been wrong to deny representation to people, to deny education to people, to deny self-determination to people. ANY people. It is especially wrong to do so for historically oppressed people. And of course, it is wrong to enslave people. Period. It has always been wrong. Because of course it is.
If you think otherwise, well, you're just wrong and living in the wrong millennia.
Marshal, in defending the disenfranchisement of women and black people, said...
many of your kind wish to lower the voting age to 16, while others (I think Vivek Ramaswamy is one notable example) wishes to raise the voting age back to 21 or even a bit higher. Most people much older than 16 or 18 or even 21 would assert with much justification that people so young lack the capacity to make such a monumental choice. Those now with the right would certainly feel disenfranchised. But does that matter to the reasoning behind the proposal when the sentiment behind it is generally true? And what of those younger than 18? Are they "disenfranchised" because they don't have voting privileges? I would say "yes", but it doesn't at all make giving them the vote a wise move and beneficial to the nation. So any condescension toward the young is accompanied by reasoned argument which have the support of life experiences.
The difference? WOMEN AREN'T CHILDREN. BLACK PEOPLE AREN'T CHILDREN.
And THAT is the bigotry, the sexism, the racism, the misogyny of the "founding fathers" and those white men in charge for the first 100+ years. That they PATRONIZINGLY look down upon women and people of color in the bigotry of the oppressive white patriarchy as children or sub-human and perhaps do so with the "best of intentions," well, that doesn't change the irrationality or immorality of their oppression.
More of what the historically-aware know of our history:
Before organizing, suffrage opponents bonded without an official institution. Artists created political cartoons that mocked suffragists. Religious leaders spoke out against women’s political activism from the pulpit. Articles attacked women who took part in public life. Even without a coordinating institution, opposition to suffrage remained popular.
In the 1860s, opponents of woman suffrage began to organize locally. Massachusetts was home to leading suffrage advocates, and it was also one of the first states with an organized anti-suffrage group. In the 1880s, anti-suffrage activists joined together and eventually became known as the Massachusetts Association Opposed to the Further Extension of Suffrage to Women.
Also included in the link are many articles and cartoons lampooning/mocking women who seek equal rights and the chance to vote.
Seriously, you need to get out of your echo chambers and read actual literature from the time. WHITE MEN (and many others who listened to those white men and the white male preachers of the time) were opposed to women having a right to vote. It's known history.
By and large (except for the more progressive white men), the same is true for recognizing the rights of black people.
https://www.crusadeforthevote.org/naows-opposition
Also referencing January 15, 2024 at 12:55 PM in case you deleted the beginning and regardless if you ultimately delete this as well.
"So summing up some things, first.
First, perhaps the easiest: Marshal's "weaker sex" misogyny:"
...wherein we see what is said to be "easiest" still fails in multiple ways, the most egregious being blatant falsehood.
"1. Marshal thinks that "women are the weaker sex" and he defends the misogyny because he, personally, takes that to mean that it's referring ONLY to the AVERAGE strength of an average woman versus an average man."
Right off, falsehood. I don't "think" women are the weaker sex. It's a biological fact. Again, rational thinking people can't help but assume your problem with this stems from never physically besting a woman ever in your life. But stating this self-evident truth...common knowledge to people everywhere of both sexes...is never "misogyny" no matter how many times you puke out this lie. Given you haven't come within a universe of proving this biological fact to be wrong, and even if that was possible, you've no justification for asserting speaking the phrase indicates hatred or dislike for, contempt of or ingrained prejudice against women. It's a baseless insult and you said insults were prohibited at this blog as inconsistent with "adult" conversation? So what the hell?
As for the expression itself, you're purposely conflating what it means versus the intention of some who say it.
"2. Marshal stubbornly chooses to irrationally use only ONE definition of weakness, ignoring the reality of other common definitions."
Weakness is always the opposite of strong regardless of the context in which it is used. It's by definition a word referring to physical capability or lack thereof. You're speaking to its metaphorical use. Your moral weakness, for example, is an example of the word being used metaphorically as one's moral state isn't a physical thing. So there's not multiple definitions so much as multiple applications of the word mean physical frailty. I have no problem with that, but your emotional weakness can't handle the truth.
"3. Marshal continues to ignore the sexist arrogance where misogynists (no doubt, some "well-meaning" men) have used that phrase for centuries to demean women and "keep them in their place.""
Not even once has this "ignorance" manifested in any comment I've submitted regardless if you deleted it or allowed it to remain. But it's wholly irrelevant that the expression has been abused. It doesn't change what it means.
January 15, 2024 at 1:33 PM
"Continuing on the last "weaker sex" misogyny, Marshal said, "Let them eat cake!""
Not even close. Nothing in my commentaries was anywhere near dismissive like this. Stop lying.
"Far more beneficial to society and the culture, therefore, would have been to ensure their education to be on par with men, THEN talk about voting rights."
"Oh, those poor women didn't take it upon themselves to get themselves educated... but wait! WHO blocked women from getting an education? The white men in power, the white men leading the churches who told "the weaker sex" to "stay home where they belonged...""
Good gosh! THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING! Those "white men in power" keeping women down, if they truly thought women incapable intellectually, and by your understanding because they were prevented from being educated, could have been pressured by other "white men in power" but favoring suffrage to make sure the women were educated in the same way as were men. Keep in mind, my comments only go where yours lead. So if you're going to whine about one thing, you can't then whine about my response when it is also acknowledge the conditions about which you whine and supposes what could have been done to make it better. It's all moot anyway, so back off!
"You CAN'T have white men in power setting policies by THEIR WHITE MALE CHOICE that denies women the opportunity to own stuff, to self-determination and to get an education AND THEN say, "Well, it's only because they're uneducated..." Don't be naive or ignorant of history, man."
Why are you suggesting I'M saying these things? Just so you can accuse me of being naive or ignorant of history while you don't know the history well enough to STILL refuse to answer my challenge. It's absurd.
"No more comments on this. You're just wrong and being wrong-headed. OF COURSE, white men in power by and large denied women the right to self-determination and the vote by policy because those white men "thought it best.""
This isn't what I've been saying at all, and despite how many times I correct your intentional misrepresentations and fabrications, you insist on lying still! You're again saying the point was disenfranchise. I'm saying you haven't come within a universe of supporting that premise. Now you want to pretend I've been saying what you wish I was saying and that I can't speak to the issue about which you're being totally dishonest for no other reason than to portray me badly. DAN'S EMBRACING GRACE AGAIN!
"To hell with that kind of sick misogynistic patriarchy."
To hell with your lying in order to avoid doing what you demand of me.
"I don't know how you can't understand basic history and reality."
I don't know how you pretend I don't understand history or "reality" while doing nothing to support your premise. Never....NEVER!...have I so much as suggested that women were disadvantaged. Go ahead and reproduce the comment where I did. If you can't...or won't...it's because you're lying now...AGAIN!
January 15, 2024 at 6:42 PM
"Secondly: Was it wrong or not to enslave people, to deny women and black people to not have the right to education, ownership or voting? A series of questions with OBVIOUS answers."
IF obvious, then unnecessary to ask. Also, this series of questions has no relevance to a conversation which isn't about the morality of what was done, but the motivations and intentions behind what was done. This series is another deflection from the obligation to provide support for a premise regarding the "why".
"But I asked Marshal...
"5. Also, I STILL want to know if you would denounce those white men in power for denying the right to vote to women and people of color... can you say that, given what we know now, OF COURSE, that was a great wrong and affront to our better ideals of liberty for all?"
And Marshal can't take that simple rational moral step..."
"No. I wouldn't. Because unlike you, I wouldn't assume their intentions. I don't now."
It's the correct answer because the issue on the table is exactly about intentions. We deny people voting privileges now and with reasons which make sense to us. But your question again implies their only intention to disenfranchise and you refuse to acknowledge you have no basis for that, preferring to think changing the subject to the morality of it is reasonable. How can we judge the morality of any action without knowing the intention behind it? Because you find the consequence disagreeable? That's childish, but typical of the modern progressive as the prefer to believe the supposed disparity in arrests of blacks versus white can only be racism.
"I also asked...
"Do you believe that older, more ignorant people in more ignorant times (when it comes to human rights) were clearly wrong then to enslave people OR is it the case that you think people in a more primitive/less-enlightened time were NOT wrong to deny rights to women and people of color and that morality has evolved?"
And Marshal STILL couldn't take a firm stand, saying instead... this...?"
"I believe your kind was wrong for enslaving people back then, but at the same time, you've stated emphatically in other discussions how wrong it is to condemn people by abusing the passage of Jesus and the adulteress, so, there's that. Scripture teaches against kidnapping, so there's that, too. It doesn't matter what color a person is. Real conservatives and Christians don't care. But unlike you, we know that morality hasn't evolved at all. It's still the same as when God created it."
The correct answer, but I'll clarify one point. You've said it's wrong to condemn people because Jesus didn't condemn the adultress, but now you want me to condemn people of long ago without any hint as to why they acted in a way which resulted in voting privileges denied to women and blacks. Clearly it's just a matter of you assuming the authority to dictate who can or can't be condemned and for what.
"Regardless, we see your hypocritical inconsistency, even if you don't. Also, re: "I don't know their intentions..." I wasn't asking if you thought their INTENTIONS were noble or based on good ideas or not. I wasn't asking if you could say clearly and without equivocation that DENYING the right to vote to women is WRONG? Period. Can you say that DENYING the right to vote to black people is WRONG? Period."
You see what you want to see and what you want to see now is inconsistencies in comments you couldn't find if someone put a gun to your head and demanded them. But I AM asking if their intentions were noble despite it resulting in some being denied voting privileges. They may well have been but all you care about is insisting because of the result, their intentions had to be racist and misogynist.
As to your final question in that quote, it's irrelevant and asked without necessity of any kind but the hope of finding fault. I ain't giving you any help in determining whether or not you'll act like the adult Christian you pretend to be. (See? I KNOW your intention...unless you can provide an explanation why the question matters in the least.)
"I'm done asking. Don't bother responding."
Too late. But the problem is that you felt the need to ask such an irrelevant question.
"Unless you want to clarify and actually answer the question directly ("YES, I think it is wrong to deny the right to vote to women and black people. It is wrong now and it was wrong then!" OR "No. I DON'T think it is wrong to deny the right to vote to women and black people. It isn't wrong now and it wasn't wrong then..."), just don't bother. I don't want to hear more abdication of moral decency or explanations why you won't answer questions directly."
I'm not the one doing any "abdication" of anything, except the non-existent obligation to ask your diversionary irrelevant questions. What relevance could this question possibly have to the issue of providing the intentions behind actions which resulted in denial of privileges to some people? You're the one suggesting that only racism and misogyny were behind those actions. That's a claim for which you would demand support if I made it (or if I simply stated what was behind the actions was nothing but love and pudding). So don't pretend I'm dodging anything but questions posed as a dodge from your doing what you demand of me.
January 15, 2024 at 6:49 PM
"Suffice to say: OF COURSE, it is now and always has been wrong to deny representation to people, to deny education to people, to deny self-determination to people. ANY people. It is especially wrong to do so for historically oppressed people. And of course, it is wrong to enslave people. Period. It has always been wrong. Because of course it is."
Points not at all in contention, though you must feel really good and proud stating this despite its incredible irrelevance to the issue at hand.
OF course you say this as one who denies those things to people in utero, so pardon me if I'm not impressed.
"Suffice to say: OF COURSE, it is now and always has been wrong to deny representation to people, to deny education to people, to deny self-determination to people. ANY people. It is especially wrong to do so for historically oppressed people. And of course, it is wrong to enslave people. Period. It has always been wrong. Because of course it is."
Marshal...
Points not at all in contention, though you must feel really good and proud stating this despite its incredible irrelevance to the issue at hand.
But they ARE in contention because when I asked you point blank if you would condemn the white men in power for when they factually denied the vote to women and black people, YOU RESPONDED:
No.
No, you said, you would NOT condemn it. Period. And you gave your "rationale..."
No. I wouldn't. Because unlike you, I wouldn't assume their intentions. I don't now. [sic]
So, LAST CHANCE:
Were those white men in power who created rules that prevented women and black people from voting WRONG to do so?
Marshal...
They may well have been but all you care about is insisting because of the result, their intentions had to be racist and misogynist.
I've always been quite clear: I don't give a damn about their INTENTIONS. Their ACTIONS were by definition racist and sexist and misogynist. The Nazis may have had good intentions. Klansmen may have had good intentions. I'm not talking about "intentions." I'm talking about observable reality of their known actions. WHEN one thinks that women and black people are not adult and capable or even human enough to vote and be independent and self-determining, THEN one holds racist and sexist opinions AND when one creates policies that prevent women and black people from voting, THEN one has created sexist, racist policies.
Do you agree?
This is probably a part of the modern maga movement: Y'all get your feelings hurt and emotionally fragile when we note the reality of the sexism and racism of early US white male leaders (among others) and even of the Confederate traitors to our nation, as if noting the factually, observably racist and sexist policies and actions and words they had and created is somehow unfair because they were "good people" or whatever it is you all think about them. Your opinions about their leadership or the times does not change the facts about the racism and sexism of their actions and beliefs.
January 15, 2024 at 6:53 PM
"The difference? WOMEN AREN'T CHILDREN. BLACK PEOPLE AREN'T CHILDREN."
Uh...you're clearly intentionally choosing to speak with regard to those under 18 being denied. But it's modern progressives insisting 16 should be the cutoff age and not 18! These are the same people who, in their nonsensical gun grabbing arguments include those 18-20 and "children" killed by gun violence.
But that's not an argument anyway, as there are plenty younger than 18...even as young as 15 or 16 who aren't only very mature (they make YOU look like the school boy!), but are really into politics. Why deny them? Because it's a widely held position that generally speaking, those younger than 18 aren't capable of making such choices (though lefties believe they should be able to castrate themselves or having their breast removed!). That there was sincerely held beliefs (not necessarily the exact same beliefs) which resulted in those privileges being denied in in the past is that which you haven't provided evidence to dispute.
"And THAT is the bigotry, the sexism, the racism, the misogyny of the "founding fathers" and those white men in charge for the first 100+ years. That they PATRONIZINGLY look down upon women and people of color in the bigotry of the oppressive white patriarchy as children or sub-human and perhaps do so with the "best of intentions," well, that doesn't change the irrationality or immorality of their oppression."
It absolutely does until you can prove that rank hatred, dislike, contempt or an ingrained prejudice compelled any laws which denied voting rights to anybody. Now again, I've no doubt that played a role in how your kind of the time treated black people, but still, there must surely be come evidence tied to any law which had that result. Where is it?
The fact has been made clear over a week ago...you just want to believe that the founders were rank bigots and haters and that's the end of it. Where's the freaking nuance in that crap?
Marshal has read my words over the years and still doesn't understand their meaning. Which is part of the problem of modern conservatives and history and reading comprehension. You said...
You've said it's wrong to condemn people because Jesus didn't condemn the adultress, but now you want me to condemn people of long ago without any hint as to why they acted in a way which resulted in voting privileges denied to women and blacks.
NO. No, I didn't. Nowhere ever in all the history of everything have I ever one time EVER said that it's wrong to condemn people/actions because Jesus didn't condemn the woman so-called "caught in adultery..."
Noting the grace and brave rebellion of Jesus against deadly religi-fascism and legalism of his religious zealots is not to say that nothing should be condemned. I've regularly pointed out the prophets condemning the rich and oppressors. I've regularly noted Jesus' hostile rebukes of the religious oppressors and how he chased the rich oppressors out of the temple. OF COURSE, there are some things that should be condemned (although not because a line in the Bible says so, just to be clear and to try to prevent you from misunderstanding again).
So, no. You're just flatly factually wrong.
How about admitting as much?
January 16, 2024 at 1:42 PM
"I've always been quite clear: I don't give a damn about their INTENTIONS."
There's that "grace embracing" again. Intentions determine the moral judgement of any action. If Dan shoots to death his neighbor and is executed despite insisting the neighbor was about to kill his kids, don't you think your intentions should matter before someone passes judgement on your deadly action? Tell me you'd just let them take you put you to death. Tell me that.
"Their ACTIONS were by definition racist and sexist and misogynist."
How do you know with knowing their intentions? Are you some kind of Amazing Kreskin? You're certainly not an American or a Christian with that mentality.
"The Nazis may have had good intentions. Klansmen may have had good intentions."
We know full well their intentions. Who the hell are you trying to kid?
"I'm talking about observable reality of their known actions."
But the actions you're NOT talking about are those related to the legislation which resulted in denial of voting privileges. Their actions elsewhere do NOT guarantee anything about legislation without providing intentions. They may have had such intentions, but still not apply them to any legislation which had the result which gives you the vapors.
"WHEN one thinks that women and black people are not adult and capable or even human enough to vote and be independent and self-determining, THEN one holds racist and sexist opinions AND when one creates policies that prevent women and black people from voting, THEN one has created sexist, racist policies."
First, who are these people who felt this way and which states did they represent?
Secondly, how do you prove those sentiments had anything to do with law they enacted which denied privileges. You're merely assuming because you're not the Christian you say you are.
Third, policies are only sexist or racist when the point is to produce a sexist or racist result. Where was that the case?
"Do you agree?"
Clearly not and for the clear and moral reasons I stated.
"This is probably a part of the modern maga movement: Y'all get your feelings hurt and emotionally fragile when we note the reality of the sexism and racism of early US white male leaders (among others) and even of the Confederate traitors to our nation, as if noting the factually, observably racist and sexist policies and actions and words they had and created is somehow unfair because they were "good people" or whatever it is you all think about them."
Wow! Where do you get your weed? That's quite a fantasy about the MAGA movement!
"Your opinions about their leadership or the times does not change the facts about the racism and sexism of their actions and beliefs."
I haven't expressed any opinions about them. I've expressed possibilities to address you unsupported belief that laws which denied voting rights were enacted for the sole reason of denying voting rights. How it appears is one thing. What the truth is might be the same thing, but until you can provide the info which exposes the truth, it's just you making shit up.
What's more, actions and beliefs are not the same thing, they aren't always connected. You can kill that neighbor trying to kill your family and still believe it's wrong to kill and not be lying or a hypocrite. You get this simple concept, don't you?
Marshal...
Intentions determine the moral judgement of any action. If Dan shoots to death his neighbor and is executed despite insisting the neighbor was about to kill his kids, don't you think your intentions should matter before someone passes judgement on your deadly action?
Are you kidding me? You TRULY think that intentions determine the moral judgement of any action? THAT is the hill you want to die on?
So, IF the Nazis thought they were right, THEN their actions were not immoral?
IF gay folks marry because they intend to honor God/be loving and just, THEN that action is not immoral (according to your vulgar, irrational, anti-moral theory)?
What you're missing is CONTEXT. IF Dan's intention in shooting his neighbor is to save his children (Dan thought) AND YET, there was no reason for Dan to guess that he was about to kill the children, then NO. Dan acted irrationally and immorally by executing an innocent man. Intent does matter to some degree, but SO does context. Intention drawn from irrational conspiracy theories does NOT make an action just/not immoral.
The nuts who assaulted the police and tried to stop the election being certified on Jan 6 were acting based on a nutty conspiracy theory that was false. That doesn't make their actions moral. It just makes them violently irrational and immoral.
You can't honestly believe your irrational and anti-moral claim, can you?
How do you know with knowing their intentions?
IF they truly believed that black people were inferior (as we know to be commonly held position) or that women were inferior and "the weaker sex" (as we know to be a commonly held position), THEN their intentions were literally based on sexist/racist assumptions BY DEFINITION.
Believing women to be inferior, black people to be inferior (as they believed) IS literally sexist and racist.
What are you failing to understand about this?
Do you think in your little head that these sexists and racists actually DID believe that women and black people were white men's equals?
If so, then you're just historically ignorant.
"The Nazis may have had good intentions. Klansmen may have had good intentions."
We know full well their intentions. Who the hell are you trying to kid?
I'm sorry, do you truly think that the KKK wasn't a white Christian men's organization created in their sick heads to protect white women and Christians... that they thought they were WRONG in what they did?
But the similarities and direct connections between religion and the Klan were anything but imagined. In the 1920s, America’s most famous crusading fundamentalist, Billy Sunday, made some efforts to keep his distance from the Klan. But Klansmen tended to see the revivalist as a kindred spirit. Without cozying up too much to the organization, Sunday found ways to praise the robbed terrorists. Other traveling preachers like Bob Jones, Alma White, B. B. Crimm, Charlie Taylor, and Raymond T. Richey lauded the white supremacist groups in their sermons and publications. Billy Sunday’s ardent prohibitionism, biblical literalism, and nativism made him particularly attractive in the eyes of Klan members.
https://voices.uchicago.edu/religionculture/2017/06/26/the-klan-white-christianity-and-the-past-and-present-a-response-to-kelly-j-baker-by-randall-j-stephens/
They built an altar, set fire to a cross, took an oath of allegiance to the “Invisible Empire” and announced the revival of the Ku Klux Klan.
Beneath a makeshift altar glowing in the flickering flames of the burning cross, they laid a U.S. flag, a sword and a Holy Bible.
“The angels that have anxiously watched the reformation from its beginnings,” said Simmons, who declared himself Imperial Wizard, “must have hovered about Stone Mountain and shouted hosannas to the highest heavens.”
...Restricting membership to white Christians, the Klan wore white robes to symbolize “purity,” burned crosses to signify “the Light of Christ” and picked selective scriptures from the Bible to preach white supremacy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/04/08/the-preacher-who-used-christianity-to-revive-the-ku-klux-klan/
This is not an unknown Thing. OF COURSE, members in the KKK THINK/thought/STILL think that their intentions are pure (snow white pure, they probably would say). I'm certain that the Nazis thought the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
Generally speaking, those who engage in oppression and violence do so because THEY THINK they are the ones taking a stand for righteousness. Do you have ANY data to suggest otherwise?
Read history, brother. Understand it.
I asked:
"Are you kidding me? You TRULY think that intentions determine the moral judgement of any action? THAT is the hill you want to die on?"
Marshal said
Yeah. In criminal cases it's referred to as "motive". Motive is the intention of the accused.
Motive/intent MIGHT be a mitigating factor, but it doesn't make one innocent. The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions. BUT, if you are denying human rights to others, then I truly don't care what your intentions are, it remains an awful, evil, wrong thing to do.
IT WAS WRONG for white men in power to deny the vote and liberty to women and people of color. WHATEVER their intentions were, it was wrong.
So, we get it, you're in this vague place where you WANT to say intentions matter when it comes to racists and misogynists taking away human rights, BUT when it comes to two gay guys simply wanting to marry and share their lives together in love, THEN their motives are "clearly wrong..." Or something.
This is just irrational, Marshal. I get your position. You don't need to restate it.
As to your comments, they are so fully of unsupported claims, many/most of which are just factually wrong, that I'm deleting them. As you've been told: IF you want to pass on extremist/rationally marginalized claims and theories, you can ONLY do that if you support the claims. Unsupported hunches from you about crazy ideas (like your inability to denounce the racists and sexists who literally thought women and black people were inferior to white men, thus, who were literally racists and sexists) will be deleted. Period.
Let's make this easier moving forward, Marshal: FROM NOW ON, when you want to make a claim, then keep your comment short and just make that ONE claim. Then I can deal with it. If it's an extremist viewpoint outside of standard understanding of history, science or reality, then it will likely be deleted UNLESS you can support it. But then, you won't be able to support it because it's bigotry-driven, not data-driven or supported by, you know, reality and stuff.
ONE CLAIM per post, Marshal.
Marshal continues to defend the racists and sexists/misogynists who denied human rights to women and people of color. He does so without support. Marshal continues to offer multiple claims WITHOUT support.
Here's an example:
Clearly YOU shouldn't be allowed to vote given your obvious moral corruption, lack of sound thinking and the consequences the nation has suffered as a result of supporting a complete moron over a proven commodity.
There simply is no support given for this inane, baseless claim. Anyone who looks at my life (and not just me, but those like me), they can see a basically good fella, married to one woman for 40 years, a faithful father and husband... whose children and wife love him and support him, a life-long church-goer and Christian for 50 years, who has been a Sunday School teacher, deacon and music leader. They can see a fella whose current job is supporting folks with disabilities to get jobs (and multiple other ways) who does so because he believes in human rights for all and that includes the right to the dignity of work. They can see someone who, along with his church, has worked for peace, for support of immigrants, the homeless, the mentally ill, and our LGBTQ family. They can see a man who has never murdered, raped, cheated, been unfaithful, assaulted or otherwise intentionally caused harm to anyone and, indeed, has taken steps to stop harm from being inflicted upon others.
ALL of this is in no way me trying to boast, just noting the reality of my life and others like me and to try to say that I'm corrupt (AND THAT, while defending your pervert prince, THE SINGLE most overtly corrupt and dishonest and vulgar and criminal president in US history!) is just irrational and something that you not only didn't TRY to support, you CAN'T support.
Words have meanings.
Same for the other claims in this unsupported attack against an imperfect but relatively decent human, which is part and parcel of the actual corruption of modern Maga-types, along with the KKK-types who ally with them.
THAT is an example of a clearly unsupported and stupidly false claim. You are very much the weak student of your pervert mentor. Be a better human, Marshal.
You're an abject, inveterate liar. I do not defend racists or sexists. Ever. What's more, while lying, you do absolutely nothing to support this stupidly false claim you continue to lodge against me. Stop pretending you're a Christian. Christ is mocked by every assertion that you are one.
Post a Comment