>> ^Trancecoach:

I'm not denying the existence of misogyny, but I do wonder why, if men are paid more then women, anyone would hire a man? Why not hire a woman in a man's place, pay them 80 cents on the dollar, and make a killing?

The use of the word if suggests that men being paid more than women might not really be happening. You then ask a question whose obvious answer would be "misogyny," as if this was some sort of refutation of the fact that pay discrimination exists.
>> ^Trancecoach:
I don't understand what you mean by accusing someone of misandry as a form of misogyny. You'll have to explain that to me.

Rachel says "it is factually true that women get paid less than men for doing equal work." You respond (in part) "the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society"

Let's make this more abstract:

Rachel asserts that A is true, and cites data from studies to back it up.

You assert that perpetuating the falsehood A is harmful to society.

I am asserting that A really is true, and disputing it is harmful to society.
>> ^Trancecoach:
Personally, I found Warren Farrell's book, Why Men Earn More to be fairly illuminating with regards to these issues.

Does he have data that refutes A? Or does he just have some explanation for why A is happening that makes A seem morally acceptable, and that reversing A through legislation would be harmful to society?

Rachel (and I) always thought the anti-pay equality folks believed some form of the latter. Now they (and you) are implying they have the former. Implying that it is now an established fact that A is not true about the world we live in, and people who repeat A are spreading myths and lies either out of ignorance or misandry.

I'm saying that denying the truth of A is both a lie and dismissal of the legitimate concerns of women that amounts to a misogynist act.

And just to be explicit, Proposition A = Women get paid less than men for doing equal work.

I'm not denying the existence of misogyny, but I do wonder why, if men are paid more then women, anyone would hire a man? Why not hire a woman in a man's place, pay them 80 cents on the dollar, and make a killing?

I don't understand what you mean by accusing someone of misandry as a form of misogyny. You'll have to explain that to me.

Personally, I found Warren Farrell's book, Why Men Earn More to be fairly illuminating with regards to these issues.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Not all of the studies and census statistics are as clear cut as Rachel makes it seem in this clip. For one thing, statistically speaking, more men's "value" or "worth" is based on their income, and are therefore willing (or are socially coerced) to work in particular kinds of jobs that women are not (such as physically riskier jobs, longer commutes, more frequent travel, longer hours, for example), for a greater number hours per week and/or days per week, and/or more years over the course of their lives than women. By contrast, women's worth or value is based less on their income and are therefore more willing (or socially allowed) to work in jobs that have a greater range of flexibility in terms of experience, time, and physical impact.
I'm not seeing any data. In any case, we're talking about different pay for equal work. We're not talking about average male salary vs. average female salary in aggregate, we're talking about men and women with the same position, same education,working the same hours, producing equivalent work, under the same working conditions...and they're being paid less.
>> ^Trancecoach:

The question we should be asking is what is lost by the income disparity? If the society is complicit in a gender bias as evidenced by an income disparity, it is just as complicit in the social pressures that are imposed on what is valued on the basis of gender and why.
The confrontation with misandry is a third rail, politically speaking, but, the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society.
A fair point, but we're not talking about the "myth of male power", we're saying "misogyny exists, and we have data that proves it, but Republicans say it's a fairytale."
From where I sit, the a big part of misogyny is the rank dismissal of all claims that misogyny is real, or failing that, that misogyny is bad. To accuse someone, even lightheartedly, of engaging in misandry by presenting hard data saying "misogyny exists, and is widespread", is itself misogyny.
Just like the whole bit where Republicans accuse people of being racist against white people for pointing out that white people discriminate against black people, and that by talking about it we're just perpetuating the problem we're trying to solve...

I'm looking forward to Lantern53's reply. He is clearly a learned fellow that can illuminate us all with this well thought out insights into the American socio-political macrocosm.

In reply to this comment by Kerotan:
It must have been a european thing, it was on every mobile phone, and on every advert break, at one point there was a number one song that beat coldplay to the top of the chart, chris martin later went onto a talk show to try and demonstrate he was not bitter about being pipped to post by a digital animation, and thus performed a cold play song interspersed with some of the crazy frogs signature noises.

It is at this point where I admit I know too much about the crazy frog , also I must apologise for my acidic tone earlier, I did (and still kinda do) have a stick my arse causing irritation.
In reply to this comment by PlayhousePals:
In reply to this comment by Kerotan:
The crazy frog, the most faddish meme from the early millenniums, from a time when the word meme didn't even hold currency. It boggles my mind that anyone finds it anything other than annoying.
In reply to this comment by PlayhousePals:
In reply to this comment by Kerotan:
So glad I could downvote this POS.


Thrilled to have made your day ... my work here is done =oD


AH!I missed that fad ... good to know. Now I understand peoples strong aversion. Thanks for the illumination =o)


No need to apologize ... I'm not very "social network" savvy. It's taking awhile to catch on to things in the relatively short time I've been here on the Sift. It's quite the learning curve and I'm developing a thick skin in the process ... heheh =oO


Without honest comments like yours I might never get a clue, so thanks for helping me out =oD

In reply to this comment by Kerotan:
The crazy frog, the most faddish meme from the early millenniums, from a time when the word meme didn't even hold currency. It boggles my mind that anyone finds it anything other than annoying.
In reply to this comment by PlayhousePals:
In reply to this comment by Kerotan:
So glad I could downvote this POS.


Thrilled to have made your day ... my work here is done =oD


AH!I missed that fad ... good to know. Now I understand peoples strong aversion. Thanks for the illumination =o)

>> ^rychan:

Downvoted for being intentionally misleading. This isn't "Breaking the speed of light" by any reasonable definition. The video half admits that by the end, but still starts out by claiming to "Break the speed of light". I hate crap like this.


But it does beg the question, "what is it that's moving?" What is an image? Is it just data? Is it a series of points being illuminated in sequence?

In the pixel model, there is a distinct on/off state for each pixel. What about the dot from the laser. It's continuous. Or is it? This thing raises a lot of very deep questions. I don't think it's "intentionally" misleading at all. Just difficult and provocative. That makes it good.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Heh - I used to think the sound of stuck pigs was unpleasant but seeing the Garlician/Vampiric reaction to one tiny, inoffensive comment from Shinyblurry has provided me with quite a bit of amusement. I think this - if nothing else - is sufficient evidence to entirely disprove Bill Maher (as if anything he ever said needed disproving). The reaction that atheists have to topics such as this proves conclusively that they are as filled with hate, anger, blind faith, and zealotry as any misguided religious organization. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck - then by gum it is a duck.

Actually, most of the responses to shiny were funny, eloquent and well reasoned. Although I will agree that a few were just rude.

The reaction basically proves that some atheists can be assholes. Big surprise. However, there is an "atheist dogma" that insists on vitriol. I will also say that many theists don't share their religions blind adherence to despicable or ridiculous positions. People are people, theist or atheist and there will always be good or bad people in both groups.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

And Atheism acts like a religion, talks like a religion, requires faith like a religion, has 'sacraments' like a religion, and has doctrines/tenants/and chatechisms like a religion. Therefore it is a religion - and no amount of stuck-piggery squealing changes that basic reality.

You're either really ignorant or being totally disingenuous. Frankly, neither would surprise me. Instead of making bullshit statements, how about you back them up with some "basic reality"? You cannot confuse the personal beliefs or ideologies of individual atheists with the concept itself, even if a large percentage of atheists happen to share them. BTW, it's "catechism".

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
On a side note - I am also quite amused with the hypocrisy of Athiests when it comes to Obama and his war on religion. Last week Obama said that he deliberately passes laws and pushes agendas because he thinks that is what Jesus wants.

Hang on, Obama is at war with religion while at the same time passing laws and pushing agendas based on religious belief?

At least, you're consistently inconsistent... carry on...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Now if George W. Bush had said that, then every Athiest Trog-Lib-Dyte would have started screaming bloody murder. And yet when a leftist radical twit like Obama does it the fiery indignation of the liberal left about the "Wall of Seperation" suddenly goes all quiet. Most illuminating... Most illuminating indeed for anyone who isn't blinded by partisan idiocy. Leftist goons also seem utterly uninterested in the "Wall of Seperation" when it comes to Obama's war on private charity hospitals. What a bunch of pathetic losers.


I assume you're referring to Obama saying that Jesus wants people to pay higher taxes? Well, aside from the fact that that is entirely consistent with the teachings of Christ (don't remember Christ ever encouraging anyone to go to war or benefit the rich), frankly we have better things to do than criticise Obama when he's doing what we want. Personally, I don't really have a problem with (most of) the moral teachings of Jesus. I would prefer a president that bases his decisions on rationale, but since that will never happen I will settle for one that doesn't claim that god told him to kill arabs or fix gays or whatever.

And that's the crux of the issue. Many people "on the left" (nothing to do with atheism, you'll note) are disenfranchised with Obama. They wanted a progressive, but got a centre-right politician. But they're also realists. They look at Obama, and then look at the alternatives (when only one of your candidates accepts scientific reality and lost and the least insane of the rest is a young earth creationist who wants to repeal the civil rights act, you know you have problems), and they go "best of a bad lot"

Heh - I used to think the sound of stuck pigs was unpleasant but seeing the Garlician/Vampiric reaction to one tiny, inoffensive comment from Shinyblurry has provided me with quite a bit of amusement. I think this - if nothing else - is sufficient evidence to entirely disprove Bill Maher (as if anything he ever said needed disproving). The reaction that atheists have to topics such as this proves conclusively that they are as filled with hate, anger, blind faith, and zealotry as any misguided religious organization. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck - then by gum it is a duck. And Atheism acts like a religion, talks like a religion, requires faith like a religion, has 'sacraments' like a religion, and has doctrines/tenants/and chatechisms like a religion. Therefore it is a religion - and no amount of stuck-piggery squealing changes that basic reality.

On a side note - I am also quite amused with the hypocrisy of Athiests when it comes to Obama and his war on religion. Last week Obama said that he deliberately passes laws and pushes agendas because he thinks that is what Jesus wants. Now if George W. Bush had said that, then every Athiest Trog-Lib-Dyte would have started screaming bloody murder. And yet when a leftist radical twit like Obama does it the fiery indignation of the liberal left about the "Wall of Seperation" suddenly goes all quiet. Most illuminating... Most illuminating indeed for anyone who isn't blinded by partisan idiocy. Leftist goons also seem utterly uninterested in the "Wall of Seperation" when it comes to Obama's war on private charity hospitals. What a bunch of pathetic losers.

If by spirit, I can infer electrical state, then I'm cool with that.

In general, faith is a mechanism to stop asking questions, this is what I mean when it detracts curiosity. I'm glad yours is not like that.

>> ^enoch:

@qwiz665
right on brother.
i am glad you posted that last comment.people needed to see that you were not some rabid atheist raging against a theosophic world.
you rage against bigotry,incuriosity,hypocrisy and the dumbing down of your fellow man by way of religious decree.
and on that point my brother i would stand side by side with you.
on your points that my faith somehow detracts from my curiosity or wonder is patently wrong.it is quite the opposite and i am sure it is for most people of faith.the fundamentalist is the one who struggles with new discoveries,because those discoveries may contradict holy writ.
i am not shackled by such limitations.
in fact,every discovery man has made has only illuminated the wonder and brilliance of this creative universe.
if we were to trim down the myriad redundancies between my faith and an atheist it would simply be this:(this of for you too @ghark)
we are creatures of spirit made manifest by flesh.
thats it.we are spiritual beings.
that spirit is the spark of the divine and reflects the nature of the divine.
bill hicks said it right:

@qwiz665
right on brother.
i am glad you posted that last comment.people needed to see that you were not some rabid atheist raging against a theosophic world.
you rage against bigotry,incuriosity,hypocrisy and the dumbing down of your fellow man by way of religious decree.
and on that point my brother i would stand side by side with you.

on your points that my faith somehow detracts from my curiosity or wonder is patently wrong.it is quite the opposite and i am sure it is for most people of faith.the fundamentalist is the one who struggles with new discoveries,because those discoveries may contradict holy writ.
i am not shackled by such limitations.
in fact,every discovery man has made has only illuminated the wonder and brilliance of this creative universe.

if we were to trim down the myriad redundancies between my faith and an atheist it would simply be this:(this of for you too @ghark)
we are creatures of spirit made manifest by flesh.
thats it.we are spiritual beings.
that spirit is the spark of the divine and reflects the nature of the divine.
bill hicks said it right:

oh, no need to apologise. i did assume it was directed at me personally, so my bad.
/manly handshake with a twist

In reply to this comment by enoch:
you know i just reread my comment on the military post.
i didnt mean to come across as condescending.i am full aware of your interest in psychology and was just trying to add a personal perspective.

guess i could have chosen my words more carefully.i was using your comment to illuminate on a broader scale how they basically brainwash you in boot camp.
i truly did not mean for it to come across in any other way.
i just used your comment as a spring board but it really wasnt directed towards you.

epic fail on my part.
forgive? /bats eyes

you know i just reread my comment on the military post.
i didnt mean to come across as condescending.i am full aware of your interest in psychology and was just trying to add a personal perspective.

guess i could have chosen my words more carefully.i was using your comment to illuminate on a broader scale how they basically brainwash you in boot camp.
i truly did not mean for it to come across in any other way.
i just used your comment as a spring board but it really wasnt directed towards you.

epic fail on my part.
forgive? /bats eyes

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^kir_mokum:
i'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between racism coming from white people and racism coming from black or indigenous people then you need a lot more education. probably in the fields of history and psychology.

I don't really think there is a difference. I had nothing to do with black slaves or the exploitation of an indigenous population, and nor did my parents. Or their parents. Sins of our of great great grandfathers? This guy is no more justified in attacking the colour of my skin than a Klansman or a Nazi.

Still, this is a drunk throwing insults at strangers. Its not exactly a lynching by men in white capes. I'm not sure what QMs point here is. That we view racism differently coming from a Black guy than from a White guy? I think we all know and understand why that is.
Oh, and shame on the automatic downvotes.

I was ready to argue with you--then I read the second paragraph--then I read the late addition. You are assuming the downvotes are automatic; using what? You don't know why anyone downvoted (except me--see comment above).

I'd like to know what your argument against the first paragraph that my second then negated.


Automatic was the wrong word, it was not my intention to imply the downvotes were baseless, or purely based on that fact its QM. Influenced perhaps, but then thats as much his fault for making tactless (at best) video descriptions. Regardless, you needn't justify your prerogative to downvote to me.

I didn't upvote the video because I did not find it entertaining or illuminating in any way. The comments are somewhat more interesting and made me wonder if the video was quite so pointless afterall.

Oh look someone who doesn't understand that when you're testing new drugs, that you occasionally find something that does something else. Ever hear of Rogaine, that magical drug for hair loss recovery? Did you know it was originally a heart medication. So was viagra. I'm sure that understanding the differences between the two will be illuminating. Besides, killing microscopic parasites is hard, unless you want to kill the patient.

I'm sure it'll further amaze you that some of the immunoboosters used in cancer treatment are the class-a drugs for treating aids now.

>> ^wraith:

Oh look, someone with a "The Invisible Hand Of The Market will sheperd and protect us all" attitude!
(From wikipedia)
I don't know of a single death from Erectile Dysfunction that could have been prevented if Viagra would have been invented earlier.
>>

remember i am a gnostic so i read the gospels...differently.
i also include ALL the gospels not just those conveniently canonized by the council of nicea.
which is the direction my comment was pointing at.

Ahh, yes, I remember. Before I became a Christian I had gnostic beliefs. I believed in the demiurge for instance, and considered the gospels found in the dead sea scrolls authoratative. However, after much research and some spiritual experience, I have changed my mind. I could bring up objections as to their dates, as many were written far after the fact in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, but my main objection is that I do not believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

What gnosticism does is turn Christianity into a dualistic system, with matter being called evil and spirit being good. It recasts the Father as the "demiurge", a petty and evil tyrant who totally bungled the creation. It subtly shifts the blame for the fall from mankind to God. So now man is no longer to blame for sin, but is just a victim to the brute fact of being born in the material world that an evil demigod created. So naturally, rebellion against all his authority is justified.

Futher, the saving work of Christ is turned on its head. Rather than defeating death and sin on the cross, he came to defeat ignorance of the spiritual realities as teacher of secret knowledge (gnosis). Rather than being saved through substitutionary atonement and spiritual rebirth, we must save ourselves by climbing the ladder of spiritual truths and illuminating our "divine spark". All systems of morality and ethics are perceived as relative truths governing the material reality and irrelevent to the true salvation of gnosis.

So, if I could sum up: God is the devil, rebellion is good, man saves himself (enlightenment), death is a release, and do whatever you want. I think I've heard that somewhere, before..

This is in contrast to what Jesus said:

John 19:30

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Meaning, the work is done. There is nothing more any human can do, or ever could do. He got us the victory, and God put everything under His feet:

Matthew 28:18

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

It is only through Him, and His finished work, that we are liberated

simply put:
the powerful institution known as the church (be it catholic or baptist) have co-opted and twisted the message to fit a narrative which empowers the institution and keeps them relevant.this translates into wealth and political power and influence.
this is the absolute antithesis of christs teachings.
christ held the key.he offered it openly and freely.
THIS disempowered those who desired control and was exactly the point.
those who held seats of power saw this threat clearly and if you cant beat em....co-opt them

While I agree the catholic church perverted the message for their own gain, I think your idea of what the message actually says is a far cry from what the disciples or the early church fathers knew it to say. The baptist church is very much in line with that message. John, for instance, wrote against gnostic teaching when he said:

1 John 4:3

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

He wrote this because of gnostic claims that Jesus was not united to a body but only appeared that way.

for centuries the catholic church has been the greatest offender but in the past 50 years other institutions have wrestled their way to prominent control and espouse a contradictory and perverted message in order to manipulate their own people in order to gain more influence and power.all in the name of god.

i counsel many,MANY a people who were former fundamentalist,catholics,methodists,lutheran who found themselves in a crisis of faith due to this very perversion.
lets remember that for centuries the bible was an incomplete text (still is imo)and was written in languages the common man could not read (hell,most people were illiterate at that time).it was the printing press and the translation into english (and many many other languages) that freed the common man to read the very thing his entire belief system was based on.
this is a good thing.

Yes, I agree, it is a very good thing that everyone is able to read the word of God; the catholic church definitely engineered that situation of massive ignorance when they banned all translations except the latin vulgate. I also agree that the massive apostacy in the church is leading many people to reject the church altogether. This is very sad and unfortunate, and many of us have much to answer for. It is written that in the last days, many would fall away and believe false doctrines, and because of the increase of sin, the love of many would grow cold.

I must ask you though, what are you teaching these people? Are you telling them there is no such thing as sin and they need to save themselves?

you have a unique starting point in understanding the bible.simply by the fact you were not indoctrinated as a child and can study,research and formulate your own understanding of biblical teachings based solely on your own studies.

This has been an advantage, in that I can better relate to the secular world than most Christians. Even more of an advantage was my spiritual journey of about 8 years before becoming a Christian, where I explored all of the various religions and belief systems.

i have witnessed over a fairly short amount of time an evolution in your comments and responses pertaining to faith and belief.
this is such a good thing to see for it tells me your ravenous curiosity has driven you to attempt to understand.
the path is long and never truly ends but at least you ask the questions and do not blindly follow.
i am interested in seeing where you are in a year...or two..or twenty.
because nothing saddens me more than to discuss religion with someone who is incurious and seeks to be told what to think or how to feel in regards to faith and belief.

I am not incurious, no. I have followed God without any doctrine at all, so it isn't a frightening prospect to consider things from many different angles. One of the reason I do so much witnessing to atheists is because their questions bring me to many different areas of inquiry, and serve to illuminate and enhance my understanding.

I understand the objections people have, because I've had them too. My experience, especially my spiritual experience, has confirmed to me the truth of the word of God, which is universally applicable and experiential in nature. The Holy Spirit guides into all truth, and through Christ, I lack nothing. So, God has answered my objections. This is the truth I recognize:

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

When you shift the basis of your reason from God to man, you have made yourself Lord over Him. If it only by trusting God to provide the answers that you can understand anything.

if christianity had more people like you and less people like pat robertson or ted haggard,the discussion would be so much more..interesting.
you seek to KNOW.you seek wisdom.that is a very very arduous path and can be a solitary one.
i encounter so many people who seem to conflate the ability to recite biblical chapter and verse as somehow translating to wisdom.
this is a falsehood and the epitome of lazy and is also the reason why they become enraged and will many times resort to the most intellectually dishonest trap of deeming the person who revealed their laziness as coming from the devil.

Christianity has many people like me, but too many who are half-hearted in their faith. What I am interested in is the truth, and not something that merely comforts me. I would rather die than live out a comfortable lie. All wisdom comes from God, it is something He gives freely. Whatever understanding I have is from Him, and not something I accomplished by myself. A lot of Christians are content with a superficial understanding of their faith, but this is mostly due to sin. They take what they want from the message and ignore the parts that command that they change their ways. This leads to much error and ignorance.

What I believe about the devil is that he is the father of all lies. I do not think that someone who believes a lie worships the devil, but I do believe that all those who sin are a slave to sin. There is a difference between worshipping the devil and being fooled by him. Some people do worship him knowingly, but most are simply following doctrines that he created to lead people away from the truth.

so i applaud the path you have chosen.
does this mean you will come to the same conclusions as i?
hehe..probably not.we will most likely still disagree but that does not mean i will not appreciate you as a human being nor dismiss your insights simply due to our disagreeing.

as always,
your brother.

Thanks bro. Neither would I throw out your observations based on our disagreement. I believe Jesus is the only way to know God, and I hope you will come to this conclusion as well, but in the meantime I am sure there is a lot of fruitful dialogue to be had. I have learned a few things from investigating various point you have brought up, and appreciate your insight. I respect your right to believe as you want, and I extend my hand to you as a fellow human being in the image of our Creator.

>> ^enoch