@philokalia saidWhat I was actually asking has obviously gone whoosh over your head. I wasn't asking you if you think of yourself as a woman.
Implying that I think of myself as a woman, which I am not.
I was asking you if you ~ according to your own words ~ apparently not being allowed to teach men, to lead men, or to have authority over men was because you believe have you have the "temperament" of a woman and should therefore not lead, should be submissive, keep quiet in accordance with the Bible verse we are referring to.
@philokalia saidI don't think I have "lost the debate" at all. Are you declaring that I have?
While you think I am some kind of "beta" because I have acknowledged these insults, I would suggest that you resorting to insults indicates that you are upset or feel you have lost the debate.
How beta males respond to women who are not submissive, and who do have authority over men - or who don't "keep quiet" - is surely relevant.
beta males ~ I think the word you use is "milquetoast", that's pretty much the same as "beta male", right? ~ very often have a different "temperament" when it comes to how they perceive and cope with women.
This rather obvious point, again, seems to have rather gone over your head - regardless of you feeling you have won the debate.
When I asked you: "Do you think your views on the correct role of women ~ and the "fundamental differences in temperament" you have pointedly not explained or described in any relevant way ~ has got something to do with you being a beta male?", I think an alpha male answer would have been a simple "no".
But instead, you have bristled in a beta male kind of way.
@fmf saidAw, so you hve the right to read into my responses as somehow indicative of a beta male or not, but no one has the right to point out that your resorting to personal insults is perhaps an indicator that you've lost? Lol, whatever, guy. Do what you want with your time.
I don't think I have "lost the debate" at all. Are you declaring that I have?
How beta males respond to women who are not submissive, and who do have authority over men - or who don't "keep quiet" - is surely relevant.
beta males ~ I think the word you use is "milquetoast", that's pretty much the same as "beta male", right? ~ very often have a different "temperament" when ...[text shortened]... answer would have been a simple "no".
But instead, you have bristled in a beta male kind of way.
++
Milquetoast describes a whole collection of ideas that I think are weak, unformed, and unprincipled, and od not necessarily have anything to do with who they are as a person. I would not claim to make such a judgment. In fact, I would deny any such ability.
But that doesn't make me special. it makes me just like any other poster.
++
I didn't "bristle." I pointed out that you were insulting me.
You are using insults in the debate, and you have not provided measured, good responses to any of my content. I have also shown that you have a general ignorance of how the Church works and the rationale behind things.
Feel free to get back on topic.
I do not feel pressured to respond to you if it is just going to be about insults & forum drama.
@philokalia saidHow is it an "insult"?
I didn't "bristle." I pointed out that you were insulting me.
@philokalia saidYour stuff about your branch of corporate Christianity ~ the Greek Orthodox Church ~ doesn't rise much above Appeal to Tradition and Appeal to Authority, and other 'It is because it is'-type "rationales" and, for me doesn't contain much more moral or philosophical content than a description of the inner workings of the Indonesian Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries might.
I have also shown that you have a general ignorance of how the Church works and the rationale behind things.
@philokalia saidDo you think your views on the supposedly 'correct' role of women ~ and the "fundamental differences in temperament" you have talked about, unconvincingly I might say ~ have got something to do with feelings of male insecurity on your part?
Feel free to get back on topic.
@fmf saidHaha no man, I'm not insecure.
Do you think your views on the supposedly 'correct' role of women ~ and the "fundamental differences in temperament" you have talked about, unconvincingly I might say ~ have got something to do with feelings of male insecurity on your part?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYes, you are better off not getting married.
Was Paul right about women?
@philokalia saidYour rationalization for your 'religious' outlook makes it sound like it, though. Yes, ok, you might get a buzz out of being a foreigner in Seoul, you might have your tattoos and piercings, you might like getting blind drunk in a bar, pogo-ing to punk music, talking about the IQ of black people online, you may bristle at being asked if you were a beta male and see it as an "insult", and feel important having sex outside of marriage - with your priest's blessing etc.
Haha no man, I'm not insecure.
But I'm not even talking about those kinds of compensations for deep down feelings of insecurity.
I'm talking about your pompous and rather pathetic "scientific" reasons for women not being 'able' or 'allowed' to have a leadership role over you in religious or spiritual matters. It smacks of institutionalised male insecurity. Just saying, that's all.
Oh wow, that is an interesting mix of assertions. Many of them don't apply. In fact, even when I spoke of drinking here when I first signed up, it was done in the context of someone who was quitting alcohol. I did an entire year completely sober, and while I enjoy alcohol occasionally againe, I have not actually been drunk.
The other things are common tropes used against me that aren't accurate.
For instance, what is the cause of a low IQ? I have contested that I do not know what it is, but that there is perhaps a genetic component, which is exactly what the Wikipedia article says about the heritability of IQ [1]. How can I be faulted? I have only talked about something that is politically relevant, and I have only tentatively put forward what is currently understood by science.
I have also cited scientific research on the personality differences of men and women.
I guess I am fully guilty of saying things that are unpopular, but never without reason, and never without love for others.
We are all equal before God.
Moreover, everybody knows that IQ is only relatively important. The real source of intelligence and wisdom is the will, properly aligned. In fact, this is the only source of intelligence.
[1] "There has been significant controversy in the academic community about the heritability of IQ since research on the issue began in the late nineteenth century.[2] Intelligence in the normal range is a polygenic trait, meaning that it is influenced by more than one gene,[3][4] specifically over 500 genes.[5]
Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%[6] with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%[7] and 86%.[8]. IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics, for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood. This phenomenon is known as the Wilson Effect.[9] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores;[10] however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects.[11][12]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
@philokalia saidJust stuff you've revealed in public, all of which seem to apply very well.
Oh wow, that is an interesting mix of assertions. Many of them don't apply.
@philokalia saidWhatever you think you may have done, you haven't given any credible reasons for women supposedly not being 'able' or 'allowed' to have a leadership role over you in religious or spiritual matters. Quoting "science" smacks of the institutionalised male insecurity/misogyny that you have obviously bought into.
I have also cited scientific research on the personality differences of men and women.
@philokalia saidYour obsession with people's intelligence and with IQ makes you sound insecure.
For instance, what is the cause of a low IQ?
For instance, what is the cause of a low IQ? I have contested that I do not know what it is, but that there is perhaps a genetic component, which is exactly what the Wikipedia article says about the heritability of IQ [1]. How can I be faulted?@philokalia said
[1] "There has been significant controversy in the academic community about the heritability of IQ since research on the issue began in the late nineteenth century.[2] Intelligence in the normal range is a polygenic trait, meaning that it is influenced by more than one gene,[3][4] specifically over 500 genes.[5]
Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%[6] with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%[7] and 86%.[8]. IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics, for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood. This phenomenon is known as the Wilson Effect.[9] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores;[10] however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects.[11][12]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
As I said, you do talking about the IQ of black people online.