But women in general *are* more emotional then men. I'm not as certain about the rational part. As much as liberal society has tried to tell us their the same, men and women are different! There's nothing sexist about recognizing that. Better to celebrate those differences.
So, would you say that we are all a product of our environment also???
Originally posted by ivanhoeLook, there are issues about which reasonable people can disagree. I read philosophers every day with whom I disagree, but I don't think they are less rational than I. So your first claim is false.
bbarr: " I seem to be under the erroneous assumption that men are more rational than women, .... "
I've got the impression that you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is less rational than you. I even got the impression that ...[text shortened]... f (ex)students have to overcome the "I am fantastic" attitude.
Also, children and puppies are less rational than I am, but I despise neither children nor puppies. So your second claim is also false.
In my post above I was trying to respond earnestly to a nice post by Kirk. In return, you attack me. Sadly, I've begun to expect little more from you than personal attacks.
Originally posted by kirksey957
First of all, you and Bennett are a lot smarter than me. The debate between you two is sometimes beyond my limited understanding. However, I think the feedback you are getting is that you are 1) taking him too seriously and 2) you are getting upset over ideas. The forums are an exchange of ideas. It is not like Bennett is out there killing people, but ...[text shortened]... in this story for you, but let's face it, those of us who frequent the forums do love to argue.
Yes I take bbarr seriously. If he was the only one with such ideas I would not worry about him at all.
No, I agree, Bennett will not go out killing people, but others will, using his (and other ethicist's ideas) to rationalise and justify their actions. That's the reason why these theories are being designed. What else could be their purpose ? Being a philosopher is not a hobby. It is not a game. Maybe that is one of the reasons why I am so upset. As you can see in the Netherlands ideas will eventually be carried out. Bennett is an intelligent and able guy and in my view he is falling for the wrong ideas, which are becoming more and more popular. As I've stated before Bennett is, compared to other western philosophers, rather moderate in his ideas of killing people.
The ideas and opinions about bioethics I want to express here on RHP are not easy to express. First of all because they cause a lot of people to become emotional. That is understandable. I also have my emotions and I have to control them. A lot of people are making remarks in my direction which are hard to digest. I also have to control the feelings caused by these reactions. As you can imagine these emotions are not always pleasant and certainly not easy to handle. But I always say to myself: All right, if you cannot stand the heat, ......
Second. The facts, ideas and opinions about the developments in bioethics I want to communicate are complicated and numerous. I cannot do that in a few posts or even in a few threads. However I think these issues are very important and I firmly believe that in our democracies people should be aware of the very important and not always reassuring developments that are taking place in the field of the relative new science of bioethics. Nobody asks the people what should be done ....... it is done by a small intellectual elite. It is a pity that the popular mass media do not give much attention to these issues.
.
.
Originally posted by bbarrYou want compliments and praise ? That will boost your ego. You need constructive criticism from someone who does not intend to stick his head up your ***.
Look, there are issues about which reasonable people can disagree. I read philosophers every day with whom I disagree, but I don't think they are irrational. So your first claim is false.
Also, children and puppies are less rational tha ...[text shortened]... begun to expect little more from you than personal attacks.
.
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr: "I read philosophers every day with whom I disagree, but I don't think they are irrational."
Look, there are issues about which reasonable people can disagree. I read philosophers every day with whom I disagree, but I don't think they are irrational. So your first claim is false.
Also, children and puppies are less rational than I am, but I despise neither children nor puppies. So your second claim is also false.
In my post above I was tryin ...[text shortened]... n, you attack me. Sadly, I've begun to expect little more from you than personal attacks.
I did not claim that. You should read my post more carefully.
bbarr: " .... but I despise neither children nor puppies."
They probably do not contradict you when you are talking about rational things and philosophy .....
Originally posted by Coletti
But women in general *are* more emotional then men. I'm not as certain about the rational part. As much as liberal society has tried to tell us their the same, men and women are different! There's nothing sexist about recognizing that. Better to celebrate those differences.
So, would you say that we are all a product of our environment also???
To whom are you adressing your question ?
Originally posted by Coletti
bbarr actually. He implied that that believing that women are more emotional then men is a sexist attitude. I disagree. But I'd like your comments also.
From my experience woman are indeed more emotional than most men. Does this mean that they are less rational ? That all depends. From what I've experienced (and now I have to be careful) women are very able of getting what they want. Sometimes "rational" men are not even aware of the fact that the female is trying to do just that. They just don't know what is happening until it is too late ....... 😀
Any idea of what I'm talking about ?
Back to the topic of the movie...😕
Someone said earlier that they would be emotionally crippled after they saw the movie. Believe me, it is a full-on gore expierience. It doesn't help that Gibson as a director, has a pretty gorey view on the Lord's Sons' death.
I have seen it, and recommend it to all. The only downside (away from all the violence) is that if you can't speak Latin or Aramaic, you have to do a lot of reading subtitles. Sure, it's a touch of realism, and makes you focus on what they are saying, but it is hard to read about 2 hours of biblical references, and such, especially for an (please don't slam me about this...) an Atheist, but for a Christian, maybe it will be better.
I'm not trying to draw a religous war here.
PS - Having 68 posts after posting maybe... I dunno... 12-24 hrs is OK by my standards.
EDIT - PPS - Pradtf posted after me by about 2 seconds...
PPPS - This is the longest post I have ever made!
PPPPS - ?
PPPPPS - I remember now. How do I find out what posts have been recommended for me?
First of all isn't this a wee bit overdone ?
no
Are you trying to suggest that this is not true ? Although I cannot write the whole context around it, it still is true.
has bbarr said he advocates killing or killing under certain conditions? there is a considerable difference. why don't you reiterate what bbarr has said precisely so your objections can be framed in proper context. i would like to know exactly what you think bbarr has said - then we can go back over the posts to see if your statement is verifiable or not.
how I was treated by the honorable Freethinkers on this site
i am somewhat aware of the situation that took place a few months back. much of it was no doubt deplorable though i can't recall details since i rarely went to the forums then. if you say you were treated badly, then i believe you and it saddens me.
freethinkers aren't all from the same mold. some admittedly may show a slight tendency for over-excitement like the other day when one practically accused me of being a christian just because i thought jesus was a great guy. i do not think it is correct to discriminate against freethinkers as a group. rather, it makes more sense to present argument and counter-argument honestly and courteously without direct and speculative character disparagement.
I am convinced that bbarr is able to respond in a suitable way if an opponent is stating things he doesn't like.
perhaps i have not seen these, but i have certainly not found anything remotely offensive in any of his posts that i can recall. on the contrary, i find his posts are usually of considerable value and we are fortunate to have him spend the time and energy he does here. would you not agree? similarly, i can often say the same about you.
it would be an unfortunate loss for rhp if either of you one day just got fed up with it all and left these forums because some participants had degenerated to a level where they were unable to extend the minimal courtesies.
Maybe it is time to take another step in discovering what this western Culture of Death is all about. ...... do you know the utilitarian philosopher Paul Singer ?
primarily in the context of animal rights - started his animal liberation. tell me more if you'd like to.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by Colettiit is a sexist attitude.
believing that women are more emotional then men is a sexist attitude.
if you have defined 'emotional' (whatever you mean by that) and can show that all women fit that criteria better than all men only then would you be correct. this statement is similar to "men are physically stronger than women" which is just as obviously false.
your original statement though was "women in general *are* more emotional then men" which may have a better chance. if a statistical analysis were done your statement might be 'proven' to be correct for that analysis, but extrapolation beyond, spatially or temporally may prove to be incorrect.
liberal society (whatever that is) doesn't try to tell us that men and women are the same - only that they should have the same opportunities and be valued as individuals rather than for whether their reproductive organs are internal or external.
finally, the 'emotive' response may indeed have a lot to do with the particular stimuli. say we have 2 stereotypes in a bar: the lovey-dovey emotional woman and the unfeeling mister machoguy. so a stimulus in the form of an offensive and slightly inebriated drunk appears attempting to be offensive. how will each of our stereotypes act? we don'l really know, but there is a stereotypical possibility that man might get mad and punch the guy out, whereas the woman might see if someone can take the drunk to the nearest rehab center. so who was being 'emotional'?
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfPradtf: "has bbarr said he advocates killing or killing under certain conditions?"
[b]First of all isn't this a wee bit overdone ?
no
Are you trying to suggest that this is not true ? Although I cannot write the whole context around it, it still is true.
has bbarr said he advocates killing or killing under ...[text shortened]... iberation. tell me more if you'd like to.
in friendship,
prad[/b]
Well, I hope that everybody who followed the debate is aware of the difference and is aware of what bbarr said. Just to avoid any misunderstandings: He said "under certain conditions".
Pradtf: "i would like to know exactly what you think bbarr has said - then we can go back over the posts to see if your statement is verifiable or not "
The discussion will undoubtedly continue. I'm interested in the developments in the field of bioethics. Evaluating the discussion with bbarr can be very interesting and usefull, but it would take too much time. It would become very boring in my opinion. However I do not intend to stop someone who sees a need for doing just that.
Pradtf: " ....... like the other day when one practically accused me of being a christian just because i thought jesus was a great guy."
I was hoping you would see that as a compliment ..... but an accusation ... an accusation presupposes guilt ... isn't that true ? Well, Christian people can do the job of being the scapegoat for those who need one. But wait ... I even got a better Scapegoat for them. He is starring in the film we are talking about in this thread ... no, I'm not referring to Mel Gibson ..... yes, I'm talking about Him. People are talking about whether it were the Jews or the Romans or whoever that killed the Christ. I'll tell you Pradtf, every Christian should know that he himself was in the crowd shouting "Crucify Him" ... I was in that crowd and I was shouting "Crucify Him" ...
IvanH: "do you know the utilitarian philosopher Paul Singer ?"
Pradtf: "primarily in the context of animal rights - started his animal liberation. tell me more if you'd like to."
I will tell you more about him ... later, not now.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
just to avoid any misunderstandings: He said "under certain conditions".
good. that clarification is very important.
I was hoping you would see that as a compliment
i did see it as a compliment 😀
(it happened on these forums you even posted in the thread).
but i didn't want to let him think so 😀
in friendship,
prad