Thoughts, Beliefs and Feelings vs Scientific/Biological "Truth"

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

Let me get this straight 2000... at no point in our history has man evolved. That's what you want to claim?

Yep, at no time in mans history has man evolved from any other animal.

In the "evolution happened . . . but not for humans" version of creationism, how old is planet earth?

 

It's hard to keep all these fictional stories straight because they all seem to move the goalposts in different directions.

 

 

 

I have no idea!

[BigRedBuster]

He is correct.

 

Once humans existed, they didn't evolve from anything else.

[Landlord]

He is correct.

 

Once humans existed, they didn't evolve from anything else.

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

It's an interesting subject -- or was -- since it's been debated since the dawn of time, approx. 6,000 years ago.

 

I know the transgender issue was just one example offered in the OP, but it's a fair one. The subject is pretty new to most of us, and the research is rushing to catch up, but it's only a generation removed from how homosexuality was viewed in both science and the social norm. The psychiatric community considered homosexuality an abnormal and treatable medical condition for years. Smart guys with big degrees used to blame it on over-protective mothers and weak father figures. As it shakes out, homosexuality occurs in roughly 8% of the population, whether they like it or not, a figure that appears consistent throughout cultures and likely across human history. Anecdotal evidence of dog-humping aside, it also appears that homosexuality is rife in the animal kingdom. This one's on God. There appears to be no tragic shortfall in procreation.

 

Natural? Normal? Who knows? The occurrence of homosexuality appears to be as frequent and random as left-handedness. Is that all there is to it? Maybe.

 

I think the new awareness of gender fluidity is a lot like this. Just because we're not all familiar or comfortable with it doesn't mean it's not a "fact." The point being, we don't have the right to define someone else's normal. Especially when it doesn't hurt us a bit.

 

As for the War on Science out there: honestly, if you want to dismiss what the experts say on global warming, human sexuality, evolution and any other ideological leaning, I encourage you to boycott planes, automobiles, smartphones, Viagra and dialysis machines because they were also created by people who knew a lot more about the subject than you do.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

Great topic. I believe in God but also consider myself a hard science type. I'm certainly not aware of any scientific facts that disprove God. I'm not even aware of any scientific facts that make God's creation of the universe any less likely than the Big Bang Theory and eons of random occurrences.

 

As for gender, I've learned recently that this is an incredibly sensitive topic. Some people who claim to be in favor of equal rights are incredibly thin skinned when you speak about women in frank, matter of fact terms as you would about men. It gets them all worked up and hurts their feelings. Go figure. :

 

Edit: As I re-read the OP, I see that my post is a bit off topic. I am speaking more in terms of feelings/science regarding topics such as the existence of God and women's rights. I wasn't really thinking in terms of gender identity.

Help me out Nuance - what would be an ex of something you'd say to a man that when you've said it to a woman that found they're think skinned about?

 

 

First of all, you misunderstood my post. Again. It's not saying something *to* a woman (as opposed to a man) that might cause a reaction. It's speaking in frank, matter of fact terms *about* a woman (as you would speak about a man) that causes a thin skinned response in some who are supposedly advocates of equal gender rights.

 

So here's an example for you. I made a post recently defending the actions of Tom Osborne in regards to his treatment of Lawrence Phillips. Several posters—three posters in particular—jumped all over me in regards to my post. One poster went so far as to suggest that I’m the type of fellow who would say that rape victim asked for it because of what she was wearing. (btw, That comment is absolutely untrue and I was extremely upset by it.) The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post.

 

 

You need professional help.

 

 

NOTE: This post of StPaul's is not intended to carry on a conversation or make a point relevant to the thread. It's just flaming. This is his 5th warning in the past year. StPaulHusker is on vacation from HB for a while. Carry on.

 

 

You brought it over from another thread, NUance. And even as you strive to clarify your position, you invite legitimate criticism.

 

I may have been one of the posters on the Phillips thread you mention here. I continue to find you on very shaky ground with your assertions.

 

If holding your feet to the fire is flaming, toss me in with StPaul.

 

Thin-skinned moderation and personally-driven banishments can be a real buzzkill.

[NM11046]

 

 

Great topic. I believe in God but also consider myself a hard science type. I'm certainly not aware of any scientific facts that disprove God. I'm not even aware of any scientific facts that make God's creation of the universe any less likely than the Big Bang Theory and eons of random occurrences.

 

As for gender, I've learned recently that this is an incredibly sensitive topic. Some people who claim to be in favor of equal rights are incredibly thin skinned when you speak about women in frank, matter of fact terms as you would about men. It gets them all worked up and hurts their feelings. Go figure. :

 

Edit: As I re-read the OP, I see that my post is a bit off topic. I am speaking more in terms of feelings/science regarding topics such as the existence of God and women's rights. I wasn't really thinking in terms of gender identity.

Help me out Nuance - what would be an ex of something you'd say to a man that when you've said it to a woman that found they're think skinned about?

 

 

First of all, you misunderstood my post. Again. It's not saying something *to* a woman (as opposed to a man) that might cause a reaction. It's speaking in frank, matter of fact terms *about* a woman (as you would speak about a man) that causes a thin skinned response in some who are supposedly advocates of equal gender rights.

 

So here's an example for you. I made a post recently defending the actions of Tom Osborne in regards to his treatment of Lawrence Phillips. Several posters—three posters in particular—jumped all over me in regards to my post. One poster went so far as to suggest that I’m the type of fellow who would say that rape victim asked for it because of what she was wearing. (btw, That comment is absolutely untrue and I was extremely upset by it.) The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post.

 

My apologies, obviously I read your content in a different tone than you intend.

 

I'll own up to being one of the folks that commented on your LP statements, and I was the one who brought the example of a woman dressing provocatively being perceived as "asking for it" by some. Sorry I hurt your feelings. You missed the point of my comments, which was nothing is an excuse for a man to beat a woman. Not anger, not a financial settlement - nothing. My perspective is that there is no excuse for a man to beat a man either. Whether he is bigger and stronger or weaker and smaller. Whether they are teammates, friends or enemies or whether one gets a financial settlement or not. It's not a matter of who is needing protection it's a matter of everyone needing respect, and the shifting social acceptance (or lack therof) of a man being able to physically harm anyone.

 

Obviously it was more than just me that misunderstood or took issue with how you phrased your comments. I wouldn't call that being "thin skinned" but being self aware. To put a spin on it, and taking equal rights out of the conversation, looking to talk candidly about a person, is it ok to say that you can lock a child in a bathroom because they didn't eat their dinner? That it's acceptable for a cop to beat a man because he can sue?

 

Circling back, obviously these are feelings right? Based on societal norms? Or are they beliefs instilled by elders, authorities etc? Does that explain why our views differ to some extent? You are surrounded by different people with different beliefs than I am?

[NUance]

 

 

 

 

 

Great topic. I believe in God but also consider myself a hard science type. I'm certainly not aware of any scientific facts that disprove God. I'm not even aware of any scientific facts that make God's creation of the universe any less likely than the Big Bang Theory and eons of random occurrences.

 

As for gender, I've learned recently that this is an incredibly sensitive topic. Some people who claim to be in favor of equal rights are incredibly thin skinned when you speak about women in frank, matter of fact terms as you would about men. It gets them all worked up and hurts their feelings. Go figure. :

 

Edit: As I re-read the OP, I see that my post is a bit off topic. I am speaking more in terms of feelings/science regarding topics such as the existence of God and women's rights. I wasn't really thinking in terms of gender identity.

Help me out Nuance - what would be an ex of something you'd say to a man that when you've said it to a woman that found they're think skinned about?

 

 

First of all, you misunderstood my post. Again. It's not saying something *to* a woman (as opposed to a man) that might cause a reaction. It's speaking in frank, matter of fact terms *about* a woman (as you would speak about a man) that causes a thin skinned response in some who are supposedly advocates of equal gender rights.

 

So here's an example for you. I made a post recently defending the actions of Tom Osborne in regards to his treatment of Lawrence Phillips. Several posters—three posters in particular—jumped all over me in regards to my post. One poster went so far as to suggest that I’m the type of fellow who would say that rape victim asked for it because of what she was wearing. (btw, That comment is absolutely untrue and I was extremely upset by it.) The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post.

 

 

You need professional help.

 

 

NOTE: This post of StPaul's is not intended to carry on a conversation or make a point relevant to the thread. It's just flaming. This is his 5th warning in the past year. StPaulHusker is on vacation from HB for a while. Carry on.

 

 

You brought it over from another thread, NUance. And even as you strive to clarify your position, you invite legitimate criticism.

 

I may have been one of the posters on the Phillips thread you mention here. I continue to find you on very shaky ground with your assertions.

 

If holding your feet to the fire is flaming, toss me in with StPaul.

 

Thin-skinned moderation and personally-driven banishments can be a real buzzkill.

 

 

Apparently the HB posters who reported StPaulHusker's four other infractions this past year felt that he was being a buzzkill as well.

[Landlord]

BTW, here's a recent massive study done on sexuality and gender, that results in a lot of conclusions of "the evidence isn't there to make any solid claims either way and the media/pop culture is being irresponsible"

 

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great topic. I believe in God but also consider myself a hard science type. I'm certainly not aware of any scientific facts that disprove God. I'm not even aware of any scientific facts that make God's creation of the universe any less likely than the Big Bang Theory and eons of random occurrences.

 

As for gender, I've learned recently that this is an incredibly sensitive topic. Some people who claim to be in favor of equal rights are incredibly thin skinned when you speak about women in frank, matter of fact terms as you would about men. It gets them all worked up and hurts their feelings. Go figure. :

 

Edit: As I re-read the OP, I see that my post is a bit off topic. I am speaking more in terms of feelings/science regarding topics such as the existence of God and women's rights. I wasn't really thinking in terms of gender identity.

Help me out Nuance - what would be an ex of something you'd say to a man that when you've said it to a woman that found they're think skinned about?

 

 

First of all, you misunderstood my post. Again. It's not saying something *to* a woman (as opposed to a man) that might cause a reaction. It's speaking in frank, matter of fact terms *about* a woman (as you would speak about a man) that causes a thin skinned response in some who are supposedly advocates of equal gender rights.

 

So here's an example for you. I made a post recently defending the actions of Tom Osborne in regards to his treatment of Lawrence Phillips. Several posters—three posters in particular—jumped all over me in regards to my post. One poster went so far as to suggest that I’m the type of fellow who would say that rape victim asked for it because of what she was wearing. (btw, That comment is absolutely untrue and I was extremely upset by it.) The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post.

 

 

You need professional help.

 

 

NOTE: This post of StPaul's is not intended to carry on a conversation or make a point relevant to the thread. It's just flaming. This is his 5th warning in the past year. StPaulHusker is on vacation from HB for a while. Carry on.

 

 

You brought it over from another thread, NUance. And even as you strive to clarify your position, you invite legitimate criticism.

 

I may have been one of the posters on the Phillips thread you mention here. I continue to find you on very shaky ground with your assertions.

 

If holding your feet to the fire is flaming, toss me in with StPaul.

 

Thin-skinned moderation and personally-driven banishments can be a real buzzkill.

 

 

Apparently the HB posters who reported StPaulHusker's four other infractions this past year felt that he was being a buzzkill as well.

 

 

That's a terrible apology for your actions.

 

Try again.

[NUance]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great topic. I believe in God but also consider myself a hard science type. I'm certainly not aware of any scientific facts that disprove God. I'm not even aware of any scientific facts that make God's creation of the universe any less likely than the Big Bang Theory and eons of random occurrences.

 

As for gender, I've learned recently that this is an incredibly sensitive topic. Some people who claim to be in favor of equal rights are incredibly thin skinned when you speak about women in frank, matter of fact terms as you would about men. It gets them all worked up and hurts their feelings. Go figure. :

 

Edit: As I re-read the OP, I see that my post is a bit off topic. I am speaking more in terms of feelings/science regarding topics such as the existence of God and women's rights. I wasn't really thinking in terms of gender identity.

Help me out Nuance - what would be an ex of something you'd say to a man that when you've said it to a woman that found they're think skinned about?

 

 

First of all, you misunderstood my post. Again. It's not saying something *to* a woman (as opposed to a man) that might cause a reaction. It's speaking in frank, matter of fact terms *about* a woman (as you would speak about a man) that causes a thin skinned response in some who are supposedly advocates of equal gender rights.

 

So here's an example for you. I made a post recently defending the actions of Tom Osborne in regards to his treatment of Lawrence Phillips. Several posters—three posters in particular—jumped all over me in regards to my post. One poster went so far as to suggest that I’m the type of fellow who would say that rape victim asked for it because of what she was wearing. (btw, That comment is absolutely untrue and I was extremely upset by it.) The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post.

 

 

You need professional help.

 

 

NOTE: This post of StPaul's is not intended to carry on a conversation or make a point relevant to the thread. It's just flaming. This is his 5th warning in the past year. StPaulHusker is on vacation from HB for a while. Carry on.

 

 

You brought it over from another thread, NUance. And even as you strive to clarify your position, you invite legitimate criticism.

 

I may have been one of the posters on the Phillips thread you mention here. I continue to find you on very shaky ground with your assertions.

 

If holding your feet to the fire is flaming, toss me in with StPaul.

 

Thin-skinned moderation and personally-driven banishments can be a real buzzkill.

 

 

Apparently the HB posters who reported StPaulHusker's four other infractions this past year felt that he was being a buzzkill as well.

 

 

That's a terrible apology for your actions.

 

Try again.

 

 

Yeah, that would have been a poor apology. If it had been an apology.

 

The point I was making was that this was SPH's fifth infraction. Within a year. That's quite a few infractions, wouldn't you say? His vacation was deserved. So let's just leave it at that.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Is there any reason why the LP discussion is in this thread? Because I'm not really seeing a good one.

[JJ Husker]

Is there any reason why the LP discussion is in this thread? Because I'm not really seeing a good one.

Because a reaction generated by the prior discussion on this topic was brought up as an example (legitimately and innocently so) pertinent to this topic. Unfortunately one poster (possibly more...) failed to understand the obvious point being made and instead chose to respond, out of place, in this topic, with their usual over the top level of righteous indignation whenever the subject of Lawrence Phillips and Tom Osborne is broached, by making yet more bizarre claims about a moderator on this board and what could be construed as a personal attack that did not contribute to this discussion at all. Anyway, that is why it is in here.

[Landlord]

something something something about not being able to speak in frank terms about women because they're too taboo and petite for us men to "tell it like it is" or something

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

 

 

 

Great topic. I believe in God but also consider myself a hard science type. I'm certainly not aware of any scientific facts that disprove God. I'm not even aware of any scientific facts that make God's creation of the universe any less likely than the Big Bang Theory and eons of random occurrences.

 

As for gender, I've learned recently that this is an incredibly sensitive topic. Some people who claim to be in favor of equal rights are incredibly thin skinned when you speak about women in frank, matter of fact terms as you would about men. It gets them all worked up and hurts their feelings. Go figure. :

 

Edit: As I re-read the OP, I see that my post is a bit off topic. I am speaking more in terms of feelings/science regarding topics such as the existence of God and women's rights. I wasn't really thinking in terms of gender identity.

Help me out Nuance - what would be an ex of something you'd say to a man that when you've said it to a woman that found they're think skinned about?

 

 

First of all, you misunderstood my post. Again. It's not saying something *to* a woman (as opposed to a man) that might cause a reaction. It's speaking in frank, matter of fact terms *about* a woman (as you would speak about a man) that causes a thin skinned response in some who are supposedly advocates of equal gender rights.

 

So here's an example for you. I made a post recently defending the actions of Tom Osborne in regards to his treatment of Lawrence Phillips. Several posters—three posters in particular—jumped all over me in regards to my post. One poster went so far as to suggest that I’m the type of fellow who would say that rape victim asked for it because of what she was wearing. (btw, That comment is absolutely untrue and I was extremely upset by it.) The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post.

 

 

You need professional help.

 

 

NOTE: This post of StPaul's is not intended to carry on a conversation or make a point relevant to the thread. It's just flaming. This is his 5th warning in the past year. StPaulHusker is on vacation from HB for a while. Carry on.

 

 

You brought it over from another thread, NUance. And even as you strive to clarify your position, you invite legitimate criticism.

 

I may have been one of the posters on the Phillips thread you mention here. I continue to find you on very shaky ground with your assertions.

 

If holding your feet to the fire is flaming, toss me in with StPaul.

 

Thin-skinned moderation and personally-driven banishments can be a real buzzkill.

 

 

I have one that has decided to go after me as well, not that I think that is what is happening here. I get a trolling violation for responding to a trolling comment which resulted in me getting the post removed and a warning point. The other guy.. nothing.

 

THEN that mod sends me a trolling message.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great topic. I believe in God but also consider myself a hard science type. I'm certainly not aware of any scientific facts that disprove God. I'm not even aware of any scientific facts that make God's creation of the universe any less likely than the Big Bang Theory and eons of random occurrences.

 

As for gender, I've learned recently that this is an incredibly sensitive topic. Some people who claim to be in favor of equal rights are incredibly thin skinned when you speak about women in frank, matter of fact terms as you would about men. It gets them all worked up and hurts their feelings. Go figure. :

 

Edit: As I re-read the OP, I see that my post is a bit off topic. I am speaking more in terms of feelings/science regarding topics such as the existence of God and women's rights. I wasn't really thinking in terms of gender identity.

Help me out Nuance - what would be an ex of something you'd say to a man that when you've said it to a woman that found they're think skinned about?

 

First of all, you misunderstood my post. Again. It's not saying something *to* a woman (as opposed to a man) that might cause a reaction. It's speaking in frank, matter of fact terms *about* a woman (as you would speak about a man) that causes a thin skinned response in some who are supposedly advocates of equal gender rights.

 

So here's an example for you. I made a post recently defending the actions of Tom Osborne in regards to his treatment of Lawrence Phillips. Several posters—three posters in particular—jumped all over me in regards to my post. One poster went so far as to suggest that I’m the type of fellow who would say that rape victim asked for it because of what she was wearing. (btw, That comment is absolutely untrue and I was extremely upset by it.) The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post.

 

You need professional help.

 

NOTE: This post of StPaul's is not intended to carry on a conversation or make a point relevant to the thread. It's just flaming. This is his 5th warning in the past year. StPaulHusker is on vacation from HB for a while. Carry on.

 

You brought it over from another thread, NUance. And even as you strive to clarify your position, you invite legitimate criticism.

 

I may have been one of the posters on the Phillips thread you mention here. I continue to find you on very shaky ground with your assertions.

 

If holding your feet to the fire is flaming, toss me in with StPaul.

 

Thin-skinned moderation and personally-driven banishments can be a real buzzkill.

 

I have one that has decided to go after me as well, not that I think that is what is happening here. I get a trolling violation for responding to a trolling comment which resulted in me getting the post removed and a warning point. The other guy.. nothing.

 

THEN that mod sends me a trolling message.

 

You know what I would do if I were you? I would keep pushing this issue to the hilt in the regular forums. I would make at least 20 more posts about how you are being trolled and mistreated. Make sure your posts have nothing to do with the subject matter of the topic (BTW, you're doing a very good job of this so far) Anyway....if you do that, a mod will take notice and will hopefully do the right thing....that thing that should've happened long ago.