USA – Super Power … but Super Smart?
- Thread starter Slippery_When_Oiled
- Start date
Your inability to differentiate between liberalism and conservatism, and the fact that you’re getting torn to shreds in your Anti-civilization thread must be bring about your emotional trauma.Ziggy Montana said:
beautydigger said:
Let me put an end to this...
Homosexuality is NOT a liberal ideal; neither is abortion. Would you also say that all liberals are people who likes to abort babies? No. Because it doesn't make sense. "Liberalism" is about acceptance and choice. It is relatively new-age idea which is about change and accepting change; as opposed to "conservatism". Conservatives are more conservative... DUH ! They are less adopted to change. That's the core of the ideals; it has NOTHING to do with sexuality. Imagine if in year 2010, and we make contact with Martians or whatnot, Liberals would be for "inter-species" marriage while Conservatives would be against it. Does that make us "alien-lovers"?
Please identify people's believies by cause and not be "what appears to be".
Last edited:
No, the point is liberals think emotionally (so do women), conservatives think critically.Ziggy Montana said:
And I can not speak for JustBob.
beautydigger said:
Only if you suggest that Emotional Thinking and Critical Thinking is muturally exclusive.
They are not.
In a way, yes... Liberals "care" more... You "could" attribute that as a woman's "thing". But caring is a POSITIVE attribute, so you are praising us. As for "Critical Thinking", more university students vote liberal than conversative. If you "think critically" you're more likely to accept change; which is more liberal than conservative.
Why do you think more women go to universities than men? It has become a Liberal indoctrination with professors like Ward Churchill and a real man can not speak his mind or be failed. Buy the way, how is your Womans studies class going.John_Cage said:
beautydigger said:
Just to clarify, I am in Bio-chemistry (60% of the classes are women, that's the way it is in Biology classes; the opposite is true for engineering or computers).
... Are you serious? You think there's "anti-men" tendency in Universities around North America? Personally I do agree there's more women in universities, but it's not due to any "anti-men" secret project. Men like to be independent and are more likely to get a full time job than women (in college). Lots of men tend to work at age 18-25, but that figure is less for women. Women don't mind spending years learning, because they believe in knowledge (lots of men do too, but there are also packets of men who believe in working and making money right out of high school). That's the reason why there are more women in university and college. If you score just as high as a woman on your tests, how the hell can a teacher fail you? I am always top of my class and I always state my opinions (in cases of humanities or moral classes); no one ever failed me (and I have really offensive views sometimes). Don't be like that weirdo who shoot all those women at poly-tech... it's so stupid.
Remember, university admit students based on merit (in Canada), which is why we have an imbalanced distribution of sexes, races in universities. It doesn't mean there is a "anti-whatever" secret project funded by the liberals.
Anti-real men, something you would know nothing about.John_Cage said:
The university will accept anyone who has the money (Canada). Do you really have any concept of what is going on in this world.
This is classic liberalism at its best. Using the souls of dead women. If you were not so indoctrinated by liberalism you would be ashamed. But everybody knows liberalism teaches to feel no shame.John_Cage said:
Women having souls is a deceitful statement liberals make. See the scientific evidence here below:beautydigger said:
Women Probably Don't Have Souls!
Landover Baptist Creation Scientist, Dr. Fred Neiman, announced findings related to his research into the female soul early this week. "The absence of either salvation or condemnation for women finds extensive support in the Word of God." He reported. "Jesus said that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9), God determined that men would be lonely living alone, so he created women purely to keep men company and serve their needs (Genesis 2:18-22). Women are therefore completely subordinate to men (1 Corinthians 11:3). It stands to reason, though, that once men enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they will be one with God, and will no longer be lonely and in need of mortal companionship. Thus, the reason behind having women will no longer exist. Women, like the members of the animal kingdom, will fall by the wayside."
Dr. Neiman went on to say that, "once men reunite with their maker, they will no longer be burdened with the care of women. After all, women were inferior creations from the start. Women are fond of self-indulgence (Isaiah 32:9-11). They are silly and easily led into error (2 Timothy 3:6). They are subtle and deceitful (Proverbs 7:10; Ecclesiastes 7:26). They are zealous in promoting superstition and idolatry (Jeremiah 7:18; Ezekiel 13:17, 23). And they are active in instigating to iniquity (Numbers 31:15-16; 1 Kings 21:25; Nehemiah 13:26). It was the inherent weakness of women that led them to be deceived by Satan (Genesis 3:1-6; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:14). Consequently, women were cursed from the start (Genesis 3:16). There is simply no room in heaven for such flawed and inadequate beings."
Pastor Deacon Fred warned the congregation that there was no reason to be alarmed. "Dr. Neiman's conclusions still need to be formalized," he assured. "I am certain that our team of religious experts will find some way around these Scriptures." Some of the women present were visibly shaken by the report. A teary eyed Sister Taffy Crockett said through choked sobs, "I've heard of colored women not having souls... but me? NO! This is outrageous!"
Pastor did have some comforting words for the ladies of Landover. "I personally want to assure all female members of this church that until we examine Dr. Neiman's research to our complete satisfaction, consider yourselves saved."
Note: The above report has been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. No funding from any energy companies was received.
Last edited:
I knew "No Shame" would bring out the religious women in you Squiggy.
Now get back to that bullshit propaganda thread you love so much.
Now get back to that bullshit propaganda thread you love so much.
Last edited:
beautydigger said:
... Are you saying "real" men have no money? Are "real" men the ones who clean my car? What are you saying? You have to be poor and work on your hands and knees to be a "real" man? Universities don't have financial aid?
Look, it's a classic fallacy... Identifing one's self as the "REAL" whatever, because you lack understanding of who you are and what is what.
Reasons it's a fallacy:
1. Who are you to define "men" (according to you, men are poor and often get left out of university)?
2. It's society who decide what "men" are like; Based on what men used to do (provide for his family), I would say the more successful men are the actual "model" for men (not your average Joe who thinks he's a "man" cause he spits and hates women).
3. Generalization itself usually leads to a fallacy (thus it's hard to define "men").
beautydigger said:
Well, if this tragedy was to be "never" mentioned again... How will people learn? Are you the same kind of person who deny the holocaust because you don't want to "invoke" their souls? I mentioned this event to show you what your kind of hatred leads to; not to use their "souls".
Last edited:
beautydigger said:
Huff.. Huff... Catching my breath now that I finally stopped laughing. Damn I think I broke a bone when I fell off my chair... BD's statement is so funny!!
BD, where did you get this kind of statement? How in hell, on what scientifical evidence, did you base yourseld to say something so full of shit?
Conservatives are the ones who the most will refer to religion, tradition, customs, all in order to explain their actions. For them, no question asked, that's the way to do things. What's that if it's not a total lack of criticism? "Can't get an idea on my own so, I'll rely on god, my ancestors and the way things always been in order to know what to do next." That's criticism? I don't think so!
As far as who is complexed, I don't think Ziggy is, contrairy to some other peoples here...
Similar threads
