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

[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.

 

 

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.

 

 

That would depend on who was defining and administering infractions, wouldn't you say?

 

Post #80 got 7 reputation points today, so it's not just me.

 

I think at least some introspection is in order, NUance.