Take Down the Bird Feeder!

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
President-elect Donald Trump should be first in "Clete's" list of "freeloaders" - he's made $billions, enjoyed the benefits of the "American Dream" but hasn't contributed a cent in taxes for years.
:darwinsm: You think Trump earned his billions through welfare?

You Darwinists are the stupidest pack of morons.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app
 
Last edited:

Alate_One

Well-known member
When you want to show that social constructs are not a part of evolution, go on and do it. I don't mind waiting forever, because that's what it will be. Because you're not a authority on evolution :chuckle:
I'll restate this for you since you're incapable of understanding or accepting information contrary to your ideas. You are most certainly no authority on anything that's been discussed in this thread.

Social constructs vary widely among different groups of humans, and change over short periods of time. They're not genetic, nor based on evolutionary history. Females are, obviously the bearers and primary raisers of children in most societies, but that doesn't mean they don't have other roles even in primitive societies. I've already linked you several sources for that, but you reject them because apparently you think women are only fit to be sex/childbearing slaves. Which is also why you will likely never bear offspring absent an overturning in societal norms. :p

Today we see society and social constructs changing considerably in this regard because of technological change enabling women to control childbearing, and obtain a better education freeing them to take on larger and more varied roles. Cultures change most due to technology, not evolutionary forces. Historical events such as the invention of agriculture and the industrial revolution have already changed society considerably.

Social constructs can be whatever we want them to be because there's no underlying biological imperative as far as social roles go that technology cannot alter in one way or another.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Then you shouldn't write those sort of things.
I differ with your characterization for the reasons given.

Doing that is nothing more than name calling.
It really isn't, for the reasons given prior.

OK, so it's you who made the errors then.
In as much as I credited you with the lesser of two errors.

And given that I explained how it didn't have to be Clete who was the author for you be calling him racist, it looks like you're just looking for things to say.
That you don't distinguish between assertion and explanation is one reason it's fruitless to discuss with you. The other being your tendency to mix in low-brow, personally charged insult as an integral part of a response, even when you aren't the object of any insult.

I don't judge your thoughts; I judged your words. You leaped on the attack calling OP racist. To do so was utterly ridiculous.
No, I noted the subtext. Most of my objections weren't rooted in it, but it was a thing worth noting while peeling the false face of the author away from his attempt to sell the narrative. The author is defending a sort of person who is looking to justify particular actions. He sells that person as altruistic and well meaning, and put upon by angry animals. The fact that the altruist is described using a human and the recipients of his largess are described as animals, eventually dangerous, intruding and malcontent, isn't accidental. And all of it is subject to scrutiny, which I gave it.

That's why I phrased my irritation the way I did, while noting your inability to regroup once committed and a nearly bizarre attempt to argue me into a position I simply didn't take.
That's me again. Are you using a phone or something that interferes with the quote function?

You've had this explained to you numerous times. When people post stuff supporting Darwinism, we call them evolutionists. That you think Clete's post is racist reflects poorly on Clete, regardless of who wrote it.
I think it reflects a particular weakness that I spoke to in particular. And there's a good deal of difference between your original assertion that I was calling Clete a racist, which I clearly didn't, and saying his choice to promote the piece reflects poorly on him, which it does and for the reasons I set out.

And all of this is just a side issue. OP is not racist. You made that up.
That's your assessment. I think you're mistaken for the reasons given.

Seriously? You can't be this dense.
It's such a profoundly dull comment I had to find something worthwhile to do with it. Or, the subtext is, "Stop wasting time with the side-bar that addresses nothing substantive or meaningful".

English, dude. English.

Calm down, think through what you want to say and just say it plainly.
I trimmed that down not long after, but you're omitting the context contained in the sentence that proceeded it. Here's the culled version, though it also rests on the established subject:

"Birds aren't imaginary characters, but I don't see that it matters. What does is what they represented, or rather misrepresented."

In that context it isn't difficult to read at all, though it's easy enough to misrepresent in an effort to make a dismissive point of no particular importance. What does(matter) is what they (the imaginary characters) represented, or rather (as used by the author) misrepresented.

Nope. You ascribe racism where none is involved.
That's your reading. I think it's mistaken for the reasons set out prior.

"Asserting that government programs can be better regulated than the image painted in OP is just asserting that OP has no value, while you have shown nothing that indicates it is not accurate. You're begging the question. It's a logical fallacy; you should give those up."
That's the assertion all right, but not a proof. You decided what was being asserted then blew the ref whistle. Or, you're really only penalizing your own shortfall in examination.

I don't think you have any place talking about manners after your contributions.
I think you'd have a hard time making the case. I was taught you don't start a fight because you can't win an argument, but if someone throws a punch you put them on their pants. In argument you can manage that with humor. If you do it well enough you can sometimes cause the other party to reconsider. And often enough, if I catch something that I didn't in reading over a response before posting it, I'll go back and edit it out as quickly as I can. The post you're noting is a good example. The wolves bit, while appropriate given, was culled in a slightly later edit (so much so that it doesn't show up as an edit). Mostly because I don't find that fruitful and I thought there was a better, more restrained response to your wondering for a collective about whether I'm the racist: "Then "we" don't know much about me worth knowing."

I've also publicly apologized on a few occasions when I reconsidered my approach to a poster and found it unacceptable. I don't see evidence of editing or owning in your efforts, which is part of why I don't seek you out for engaging on a point and have for some time limited myself to necessary responses.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
.... I was taught you don't start a fight because you can't win an argument, but if someone throws a punch you put them on their pants. ...


you were taught that by who?

some sissymary?


cause "put them on their pants" sounds really really gay :nono:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
So...what are the odds that last bit from Sod was a mature reflection on the salient points of the argument coupled with an intelligent criticism of particulars? :plain:

The alternative being some love note about or to, well, you know, me.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
I'll restate this for you since you're incapable of understanding or accepting information contrary to your ideas. You are most certainly no authority on anything that's been discussed in this thread.

Social constructs vary widely among different groups of humans, and change over short periods of time. They're not genetic, nor based on evolutionary history. Females are, obviously the bearers and primary raisers of children in most societies, but that doesn't mean they don't have other roles even in primitive societies. I've already linked you several sources for that, but you reject them because apparently you think women are only fit to be sex/childbearing slaves. Which is also why you will likely never bear offspring absent an overturning in societal norms. :p

Today we see society and social constructs changing considerably in this regard because of technological change enabling women to control childbearing, and obtain a better education freeing them to take on larger and more varied roles. Cultures change most due to technology, not evolutionary forces. Historical events such as the invention of agriculture and the industrial revolution have already changed society considerably.

Social constructs can be whatever we want them to be because there's no underlying biological imperative as far as social roles go that technology cannot alter in one way or another.

You're trying to insert an imaginative agenda into science and it simply fails. There's nothing scientific in what you have stated, it's an attempt to cleave social workings from evolution when social workings are a direct reflection and mechanism of evolution altogether.

Social constructs have not changed at all, there's just an illusion of such- women are simply doing things which require more men to involve their selves in to compensate for it. That is why no actual professor on the subjects of biology or evolution has ever taken what you all say seriously :wave2:
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
f1-medium1.gif


~Social constructs~
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
So...what are the odds that last bit from Sod was a mature reflection on the salient points of the argument coupled with an intelligent criticism of particulars? :plain:

The alternative being some love note about or to, well, you know, me.




what are the odds that you don't really understand the concept of ignore? :darwinsm:



BAM!


right on "your pants", mary! :darwinsm:
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
You're trying to insert an imaginative agenda into science and it simply fails. There's nothing scientific in what you have stated, it's an attempt to cleave social workings from evolution when social workings are a direct reflection and mechanism of evolution altogether.

Social constructs have not changed at all, there's just an illusion of such- women are simply doing things which require more men to involve their selves in to compensate for it. That is why no actual professor on the subjects of biology or evolution has ever taken what you all say seriously :wave2:


i come from a "hard" science background - heavy on chemistry, physics, engineering

we mocked those involved in the "soft" sciences like biology and atmospheric science, etc


and totally scorned those involved in the social "sciences" :chuckle:
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
i come from a "hard" science background - heavy on chemistry, physics, engineering

we mocked those involved in the "soft" sciences like biology and atmospheric science, etc


and totally scorned those involved in the social "sciences" :chuckle:

She comes off as a feminist undergraduate-turned-professional teacher's aide who has simply over-classified herself.

A liberal agenda takes precedence with her, not science. That's all a lot of college students amount to.

There's a reason why so many of them, despite a secure and financial opportunity, do not receive PhDs- you can buy an education, you can't buy intelligence :rolleyes:
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
She comes off as a feminist undergraduate-turned-professional teacher's aide who has simply over-classified herself.

A liberal agenda takes precedence with her, not science. That's all a lot of college students amount to.

There's a reason why so many of them, despite a secure and financial opportunity, do not receive PhDs- you can buy an education, you can't buy intelligence :rolleyes:

You can't even buy a clue doofus. Anyone familiar with Alate knows she's eminently qualified in biology. You OTOH are just some dumb kid with no particular knowledge about anything who just rants a lot and is incredibly boring. Just go back to the games console, it's probably about the only thing you may be any good at.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
You can't even buy a clue doofus. Anyone familiar with Alate knows she's eminently qualified in biology.

Define 'qualified' :chuckle:

You OTOH are just some dumb kid with no particular knowledge about anything

Is that why nobody can refute what I stated- Darwin II doesn't seem to know much more beyond anyone else :idunno:
I know the type, you all treat them as a monolith.

You're just a tool, dude.

Just go back to the games console, it's probably about the only thing you may be any good at.

Find a different thing to say :wave2:
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Define 'qualified' :chuckle:
You've never explained YOUR qualifications. Care to enlighten us?

Is that why nobody can refute what I stated- Darwin II doesn't seem to know much more beyond anyone else :idunno:
I know the type, you all treat them as a monolith.
I've refuted you a half dozen times. You're simply pulling a Trump. Reality doesn't exist for you, you ignore contrary information.

Paper on gender roles coming into being as a result of the plough


Find a different thing to say :wave2:
You might want to take your own advice.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
I've refuted you a half dozen times.

Except you haven't. You've gone on and explained what speciation is a half a dozen times, trying to conflate it to the whole of evolution.

You're dumbing down evolution to fit your feminism- we're full circle right at the point where you were wrong and are depending on your credentials to somehow miracle your falsehood as truth.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Except you haven't. You've gone on and explained what speciation is a half a dozen times, trying to conflate it to the whole of evolution.
Uhh no I didn't explain speciation. I gave you the definition of biological evolution: changes in heritable characteristics (genes) in a population over time. That doesn't necessarily equate to speciation, though speciation is included as well as larger changes such as the evolution of new features. Maybe you should start here and keep reading . . .

You're dumbing down evolution to fit your feminism- we're full circle right at the point where you were wrong and are depending on your credentials to somehow miracle your falsehood as truth.
If the actual definition of evolution is so "dumb", what is your definition of biological evolution?
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Uhh no I didn't explain speciation. I gave you the definition of biological evolution: changes in heritable characteristics (genes) in a population over time. That doesn't necessarily equate to speciation, though speciation is included as well as larger changes such as the evolution of new features. Maybe you should start here and keep reading . . .

Maybe you should stop trying to find lame, technical ways to make it look like you're the only person who knows anything about anything. You're trying to compensate, and it doesn't do you any good.
Social constructs are both a reflection and a drive of evolution, and it exists within most all creatures. Why don't you just admit that your feminism is an attempt to repeal such constructs, that it is not evidenced, that women still mainly excel in their roles, and it isn't some evil patriarchy holding you all back :rolleyes:
 
Top