Comments on: An Indulgent Mother http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/09/26/an-indulgent-mother/ Helping Mankind Overcome Religion Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:51:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: site http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/09/26/an-indulgent-mother/#comment-55486 site Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:20:37 +0000 http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/09/26/an-indulgent-mother/#comment-55486 <strong>hi...</strong> wonderful post...

hi…

wonderful post…

]]> By: I Am http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/09/26/an-indulgent-mother/#comment-2321 I Am Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:15:29 +0000 http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/09/26/an-indulgent-mother/#comment-2321 Hey, guys. Let's try to keep it civil. You can be intellectually ruthless, but I hope we can keep the discourse a couple of levels above threats and name-calling. This exchange is the first one I've ever even CONSIDERED censoring on this blog.

Hey, guys. Let’s try to keep it civil. You can be intellectually ruthless, but I hope we can keep the discourse a couple of levels above threats and name-calling. This exchange is the first one I’ve ever even CONSIDERED censoring on this blog.

]]> By: Sean http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/09/26/an-indulgent-mother/#comment-2319 Sean Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:46:25 +0000 http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/09/26/an-indulgent-mother/#comment-2319 I’ll just go ahead and guess the internet is the only place a basement-dwelling internet troll like you can make such statements without getting a broken nose. >>>>>>>>> So what does that make you? But, trust me, anything I would say on the internet I would have no reservation saying to your face. At least I wouldn’t have mistaken you from a female feminist, now I know you’re just the male variety. >>>>>>>>>>> There was still no error in my original statement. >>>>>>>>>>> Sure you are. You said “Women in the Bible are . . . rape-able within a set of prescribed “Godly” laws.” This is false. Now to suggest otherwise, not only are you wrong, you're a liar too. >>>>>>>>>>> I only pointed out that EVEN under the conditions you claim are kind to women, it STILL is not remotely egalitarian. >>>>>>>>>>>> Who cares? By what standard does that which you call egalitarian magically become true except in your own mind? >>>>>>>>>>> And as for “collectivist drivel”, I don’t know where you get off thinking that results in the slightest way from atheistic thinking. I AM a demi-socialist in that I think government can be (and has historically been) a way for many people to patch up lives that are falling apart >>>>>>>>>>> As I said, collectivist drivel. >>>>>>>>>>>> – I have done quite a lot of volunteering and social work and have seen it first-hand. >>>>>>>>>>> Big deal. I’m glad you volunteered. I’d hate to think I actually paid for your services through the extortion racket we call taxation ;-P >>>>>>>>>>>>> I’d argue about the benefits of a semi-socialized nation versus the every-man-for-himself mentality that so many cold-hearted persons seem to espouse lately, but I still don’t get where you think that’s an atheistic philosophy. >>>>>>>>>>>>> How warm your heart may feel and your self-congratulatory pats on the back aside, the fact is that governmental largess has enslaved countless people who now think they have a right to freely take the fruits of the labor of others. Not only that, but they’re a voting block bought and paid for and they’ll do what they’re told on election day. No wonder it gives you the warm and fuzzies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, most of the atheists I know are at least somewhat socialist in principle– recognizing a need for people to help people through the larger mechanism of our shared government– but have you never heard of Ayn Rand? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure have. One of my favorite atheists. Albeit she was guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept which she decried in others. Don’t get me wrong, while I agree with her laissez faire capitalism (another biblical concept, even though she confused Romanists with Christians), I don’t think her epistemology supports her economics in the slightest. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to make a real case, make it. If you just want to sneer at me because this is the net and I can’t fuck you up for talking trash about my manhood, then this conversation is over. Your choice. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn’t realize I had hit a nerve. Sorry you’re so sensitive. I had no idea. Sean

I’ll just go ahead and guess the internet is the only place a basement-dwelling internet troll like you can make such statements without getting a broken nose.
>>>>>>>>>

So what does that make you? But, trust me, anything I would say on the internet I would have no reservation saying to your face. At least I wouldn’t have mistaken you from a female feminist, now I know you’re just the male variety.

>>>>>>>>>>>
There was still no error in my original statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>

Sure you are. You said “Women in the Bible are . . . rape-able within a set of prescribed “Godly” laws.” This is false. Now to suggest otherwise, not only are you wrong, you’re a liar too.

>>>>>>>>>>>
I only pointed out that EVEN under the conditions you claim are kind to women, it STILL is not remotely egalitarian.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

Who cares? By what standard does that which you call egalitarian magically become true except in your own mind?

>>>>>>>>>>>
And as for “collectivist drivel”, I don’t know where you get off thinking that results in the slightest way from atheistic thinking. I AM a demi-socialist in that I think government can be (and has historically been) a way for many people to patch up lives that are falling apart
>>>>>>>>>>>

As I said, collectivist drivel.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
– I have done quite a lot of volunteering and social work and have seen it first-hand.
>>>>>>>>>>>

Big deal. I’m glad you volunteered. I’d hate to think I actually paid for your services through the extortion racket we call taxation ;-P

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’d argue about the benefits of a semi-socialized nation versus the every-man-for-himself mentality that so many cold-hearted persons seem to espouse lately, but I still don’t get where you think that’s an atheistic philosophy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How warm your heart may feel and your self-congratulatory pats on the back aside, the fact is that governmental largess has enslaved countless people who now think they have a right to freely take the fruits of the labor of others. Not only that, but they’re a voting block bought and paid for and they’ll do what they’re told on election day. No wonder it gives you the warm and fuzzies.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, most of the atheists I know are at least somewhat socialist in principle– recognizing a need for people to help people through the larger mechanism of our shared government– but have you never heard of Ayn Rand?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sure have. One of my favorite atheists. Albeit she was guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept which she decried in others. Don’t get me wrong, while I agree with her laissez faire capitalism (another biblical concept, even though she confused Romanists with Christians), I don’t think her epistemology supports her economics in the slightest.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to make a real case, make it. If you just want to sneer at me because this is the net and I can’t fuck you up for talking trash about my manhood, then this conversation is over. Your choice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I didn’t realize I had hit a nerve. Sorry you’re so sensitive. I had no idea.

Sean

]]> By: UnapologeticAtheist http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/09/26/an-indulgent-mother/#comment-2309 UnapologeticAtheist Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:52:53 +0000 http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/09/26/an-indulgent-mother/#comment-2309 I was detecting a bit of "you silly woman" in your tone, at the last post. That's why I clarified my gender. It's a little pathetic that the worst you can do is try to challenge my manhood. I'll just go ahead and guess the internet is the only place a basement-dwelling internet troll like you can make such statements without getting a broken nose. There was still no error in my original statement. I only pointed out that EVEN under the conditions you claim are kind to women, it STILL is not remotely egalitarian. Even in the best case, you're still full of crap, in other words. You can declare victory all day, but you're the only one who thinks so. Keep lying to yourself-- it's easy to do, since you clearly don't consider women your equals, and this lets you continue on with your smug "my place in the world is assured by holy writ" thinking. And as for "collectivist drivel", I don't know where you get off thinking that results in the slightest way from atheistic thinking. I AM a demi-socialist in that I think government can be (and has historically been) a way for many people to patch up lives that are falling apart-- I have done quite a lot of volunteering and social work and have seen it first-hand. I'd argue about the benefits of a semi-socialized nation versus the every-man-for-himself mentality that so many cold-hearted persons seem to espouse lately, but I still don't get where you think that's an atheistic philosophy. Yes, most of the atheists I know are at least somewhat socialist in principle-- recognizing a need for people to help people through the larger mechanism of our shared government-- but have you never heard of Ayn Rand? I know quite a few utterly godless people whose libertarianism would make YOU look like a socialist, no matter how far out to the economic right-wing you happen to be. Seriously, have you never heard of anarcho-capitalist atheists? I find it difficult to believe-- so were you crazy, forgetful, or just being willfully disingenuous? So, as you said, thanks for proving my case-- you clearly are just looking to make atheism look bad by any means possible, and failing because you have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to make a real case, make it. If you just want to sneer at me because this is the net and I can't fuck you up for talking trash about my manhood, then this conversation is over. Your choice.

I was detecting a bit of “you silly woman” in your tone, at the last post. That’s why I clarified my gender. It’s a little pathetic that the worst you can do is try to challenge my manhood. I’ll just go ahead and guess the internet is the only place a basement-dwelling internet troll like you can make such statements without getting a broken nose.

There was still no error in my original statement. I only pointed out that EVEN under the conditions you claim are kind to women, it STILL is not remotely egalitarian. Even in the best case, you’re still full of crap, in other words. You can declare victory all day, but you’re the only one who thinks so. Keep lying to yourself– it’s easy to do, since you clearly don’t consider women your equals, and this lets you continue on with your smug “my place in the world is assured by holy writ” thinking.

And as for “collectivist drivel”, I don’t know where you get off thinking that results in the slightest way from atheistic thinking. I AM a demi-socialist in that I think government can be (and has historically been) a way for many people to patch up lives that are falling apart– I have done quite a lot of volunteering and social work and have seen it first-hand. I’d argue about the benefits of a semi-socialized nation versus the every-man-for-himself mentality that so many cold-hearted persons seem to espouse lately, but I still don’t get where you think that’s an atheistic philosophy. Yes, most of the atheists I know are at least somewhat socialist in principle– recognizing a need for people to help people through the larger mechanism of our shared government– but have you never heard of Ayn Rand? I know quite a few utterly godless people whose libertarianism would make YOU look like a socialist, no matter how far out to the economic right-wing you happen to be. Seriously, have you never heard of anarcho-capitalist atheists? I find it difficult to believe– so were you crazy, forgetful, or just being willfully disingenuous?

So, as you said, thanks for proving my case– you clearly are just looking to make atheism look bad by any means possible, and failing because you have no idea what you are talking about.

If you want to make a real case, make it. If you just want to sneer at me because this is the net and I can’t fuck you up for talking trash about my manhood, then this conversation is over. Your choice.

]]> By: Sean http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/09/26/an-indulgent-mother/#comment-2298 Sean Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:17:55 +0000 http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/09/26/an-indulgent-mother/#comment-2298 Are you insane? Or just pretending? >>>>>>>> I guess I was wondering the same about you? >>>>>>>>> First, I’m a man. Just so we’re clear on this. >>>>>>>>> I didn’t mean to threaten what little masculinity you may have left. My apologies. >>>>>>>> You can justify verse 25 any way you want, but it is still saying that a man who forces himself upon a daughter can buy her way out. In a culture that offered a dowry for a daughter’s marriage, to pay the father suggests it is little more than a property-purchase agreement. So if this is not rape, it reinforces the ownership principle I stated above. This is not women as people, it is women as pets. This is not egalitarianism, no matter how you try to sugar-coat it with excuses. >>>>>>>>> Well, at least we’ve established that your original diatribe was errant. Thanks for making my case :) >>>>>>>>> I don’t know what you mean by “the government dole” except to imply that women who are unmarried and raising children with welfare help are “slaves” to some awful lifestyle. Many use that “dole” to provide for children and continue their education, or work hard to rise up as contributing members of society. For every person trapped, there is another person who is helped. So for every hard-working single mother out there who needs that “dole” to connect the ends, I have to just say: bite me. >>>>>>>>>> LOL :) What a load of collectivist drivel. More proof that individual liberty cannot be supported in the totalitarian dystopia which is the logical outcome of atheist philosophy. The other outcome is name calling and I can see that’s about all you’re good for. Long live the compassionate slavery of the welfare state ;-P Sean

Are you insane? Or just pretending?
>>>>>>>>

I guess I was wondering the same about you?

>>>>>>>>>
First, I’m a man. Just so we’re clear on this.
>>>>>>>>>

I didn’t mean to threaten what little masculinity you may have left. My apologies.

>>>>>>>>
You can justify verse 25 any way you want, but it is still saying that a man who forces himself upon a daughter can buy her way out. In a culture that offered a dowry for a daughter’s marriage, to pay the father suggests it is little more than a property-purchase agreement. So if this is not rape, it reinforces the ownership principle I stated above. This is not women as people, it is women as pets. This is not egalitarianism, no matter how you try to sugar-coat it with excuses.
>>>>>>>>>

Well, at least we’ve established that your original diatribe was errant. Thanks for making my case :)

>>>>>>>>>
I don’t know what you mean by “the government dole” except to imply that women who are unmarried and raising children with welfare help are “slaves” to some awful lifestyle. Many use that “dole” to provide for children and continue their education, or work hard to rise up as contributing members of society. For every person trapped, there is another person who is helped. So for every hard-working single mother out there who needs that “dole” to connect the ends, I have to just say: bite me.
>>>>>>>>>>

LOL :) What a load of collectivist drivel. More proof that individual liberty cannot be supported in the totalitarian dystopia which is the logical outcome of atheist philosophy. The other outcome is name calling and I can see that’s about all you’re good for. Long live the compassionate slavery of the welfare state ;-P

Sean

]]>