So the Mormon's aren't true Christians? A fine example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
So you can't be a Christian unless you follow your narrow interpretation of the Bible? Tell me, do you also regard self-identified Christians as hypocrites if they don't keep kosher?

But the question is, what is "average"? People's roles in society have changed drastically. If you tell someone something offensive, I can guarantee you that girls and guys will get upset by it.

What is "girl" clothes? Girls wear clothes that were once considered "guy" clothes. Why can't guys do the same? It's only cloth and really the purpose of clothes is to keep us warm.

People don't necessarily act certain ways to "be special". If a guy cries, chances are he's doing it because of the way he is emotionally and not because he thinks "Oh, this'll make me unique! Look at me!"

Basically from what you've said, I've gotten that you think that girls misinterpret things, get fussy, and need to do the talking while you smile and nod. I also got that you think that guys either are not as emotional or react physically when upset.

If that's not what you meant, sorry. But that seems to me to be a pretty sweeping generalization of both genders. You mention that you have friends of both genders who break this mold and that you don't mind as it makes them unique. Fine, but then you say that it's an "issue" when teenage boys act "effeminate". Every person's unique. You said so yourself! So what's the difference?

I just hate it when people make sweeping generalizations about groups of people.

It's not even that complicated. Christians are the most annoying to non-Christians.

The reason Christianity is picked on is because it's one of the largest religions in the world. It's like how whenever a huge craze comes up (Pokemon, D&D, etc), there are people who make fun of it and people who complain how it's harmful, useless, ruining the youth, etc.

If something's so big, of course there's going to be criticism. You can't expect something to be universally popular.

No religions should be the object of ridicule or scorn in my opinion. It's the people in the religion who do the stuff we pick on, not the religion itself.

Ah, so you don't want people discussing your philosophy. You just want people to start questioning the power structure, whatever that means.

They have people who do that for a living.

Well there you go. If you were going to one-up that nefarious cad, Tadao, you would use the girl you settled with because you had to sleep with someone.

Why would you want christians to call him on it? You just said that most of them don't care that much about gay marriage.

It sounds like you want them to have a problem with gay marriage. If that happened, it would provide an answer to the title of this thread.

usually people separate marxism and communism.

lol, splitting hairs.

I like how if you attack his philosophy you are just splitting hairs. YOU HAVENT ATTACKED THE ESSSSEEENCE.

Soooo original ;\

the first rule of kulturkampf is you do not talk about kulturkampf :lol

I do not think that it should have to be explained why LDS is ridiculous. Do a small amount of research and if you disagree with me I will laugh at you.

Christianity should not be the main target because Islam is far more sick and laughable.

Well, you know that dietary laws were pretty much overturned by Christ, don't you?

And you know that Mormons follow a secondary book that is absurd, don't you?

I am not one to judge the measure of Christianity but I am also not the one who is going to include strange, polygamist cults as Christian.

And what are Muslims?

Islam is about as big as Christianity, as I remember.

Your last statement is generally fair, by the way.

I want people to call him onit because I hate the way politicians pose for religion, and more than that, I hate Barack Obama and the DNC; I strongly dislike all of the Republicans as well.

I think these people should have no power -- let alone power over our goddamned economy.

I base these conclusions off of what I envision normal behavior for men and women to be, which society seeks to change in two ways.

Look at the wikipedia article for the female brain and the male brain compared -- chemicals are different in these two which actualize different feelings and reactions to things.

Males have inherently different base than females -- it's science.

The notion that women should pursue careers over family orientated goals and be looked down upon for not doing so is absurd; the notion that men should behave like women, be more moderated in their behavior and emasculated is what I oppose.

Individuals will always be different but we are seeing generations of people enslaved to a cultural concept that is equally as ridiculous as that of the 1950s that acted as if women were incapable of performing jobs as well as mine.

Well, discuss the philosophy and re-interpret it, do whatever you want; I just think the heirarchy of the world today needs to be destroyed and we need to end the current hegemony of pop culture. We need to end the way that the education system indoctrinates kids into a culture of meaninglessness and sensitivity.

We need to end the government's roles within our lives.

Do you agree with any of this?

Hey now, Kahl, it is splitting hairs.

I do not believe in forcing roles down anyones throats but I feel that the current system is forcing roles as it stands.

When I was young and into Communism we'd ask each other what kind of Communist the other was.

Marxist-Leninist... Trotskyist... Maoist... etc.

It was generally a cute time for everyone.

"I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of man I am. You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science. "


It's hard to say. It's all so vague. I can't tell what you would like done, specifically, to end things like the "hegemony of pop culture" and the "culture of meaninglessness and sensitivity".

dude we have to light buildings on fire int he shape of a smiley face havent you watched fight club

I think you'll find that a lot of people that are outspoken about atheism (Dawkins, Hitchins, etc.) say that all religions are bullshit, but pay special attention to Christianity because it has the most effect on their daily lives.
If Muslims tried to impose their beliefs on US/UK schools/politics/whatever you can bet that it would be shot down in two seconds (possibly not so in England but we're working on it). The fact that Christian values are taken so seriously in, for example, politics really annoys people because of the whole church/state separation thing.

There is also the fact that criticising Islam is far more likely to get you a letter bomb though the mail box, which may put some people off.

So you used to be into bureaucratic planning, but now you're not. Well done.

If the examples of Beijing or Stalin or whatever are going to be the base for what we call communism now, well I guess I'll deal with it. In this thread at any rate. Misguided, state owned, bureaucratic nonsense? No, it will never work, I'll agree with you, and leave you guys to it.

That's what burns me up, when people think that what Stalin did was actually Communism. Stalin wasn't even supposed to have led the USSR. Lennin even asked for everyone to make sure that Trotsky took over next, not Stalin.

Right. I really can't see how your whole "Islam isn't nearly as targeted" thing works when there're people after September 11th who have taken on the "only good Muslim is a dead Muslim" idea. Which, I think, is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the only three religions in the world who worship one God (the rest are polythesitic). They started in the same area and have the same people in their religions.

So that's how you think genders are. Fair enough to a degree. Men and women do have different hormone and chemical balances. But that only accounts for so much.

There are plenty of women who think that they should concentrate on careers. There are just as many women who prefer to be stay-at-home moms who cook and clean while their husbands go to work. There are women who take care of kids while keeping a job. I don't feel that society insists that a woman put career ahead of everything else.

I also don't see any notion that men ought to behave "like women". I fail to see how being "moderated in behavior" is something wrong. Some men simply are more emotional or at least show it (just because a person doesn't cry outright doesn't mean they don't cry).

Another thing to consider is that people don't act "feminine" or "masculine" 24/7. There're girls who are on sports teams who also dress up and go to prom with their boyfriends. There're guys who are plenty tough but also are sensitive. My brother can be aggressive, but he also cries and is emotional. My cousin is funny and sensitive, but he also takes wrestling and once hit another guy who wouldn't stop bothering him. My best friend is all for equal rights for women, but she also dresses up for dances and goes out on dates.

I guess what I'm saying is that "feminine" and "masculine" aren't switches. A person isn't one or the other. Everyone is - and always has - had a blend of the traits you consider to fall into these categories. Simply because it's become culturally acceptable to show these traits doesn't mean it's just started happening.

PENIS

Who gives a shit? For someone who isn't a Christian, you certainly have your panties in a knot over who is and who isn't. And by the way, the mainstream LDS hasn't practiced polygamy in over 100 years, not that it contradicts the Bible to do so.

you know, the hatebreed ethics seminar was about us lol'ing @ you, not w/ you.

Just so we're clear.

Communism is ridiculous precisely because its utopian and theoretically inevitable. It's pointless to even bring into a discussion.

Criticizing your philosophy is not SPLITTING HAIRS. It's philosophizing. Learn the difference, numb nuts.

Apparently you think you should be able to use any stupid reasoning to support your argument. IT DOESNT AFFECT THE ESSENCE. It does, actually.

Why does # 3 sound like cultural, ethnic, spirtual cleansing? Oh, but thats ok though right? After all we have #1, we have our morality. It will not tolerate anyone else's ideas of what's moral. We reject what is decient because to do so is dignified. We reject the control others force upon us to tolerate others decency because we have the liberty do so, and that makes it ok. People who are decent, and tolerant, and work to acheive peace are vain and untruthful. People should not get paid for their time. People should not enlighten themselfes with higher learning because the simpler you are the easier it is to believe in #1-7.

No thank you. I have the liberty to reject your morals, because I can see the truth behind them.

After reading to you explanations to support your thesis I can conclude that you have acheived only # 7. Number 6 is within reach though if you have time to post as often as you do.