while I love this joke. . . . chemists will write it different. . . un-ionized.
or, maybe, say "neutral" or "ground-state". . . . .
Longest Thread Ever
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
while I love this joke. . . . chemists will write it different. . . un-ionized.
or, maybe, say "neutral" or "ground-state". . . . .
male logic is in itself a "cage" of sorts. . . . In general, our thinking, male or female, tends toward caginess.
Like an architect designing a building can conceive of something different, and carpenters can build it. . . . once the building is there, it shapes the humans who go in it in some ways for as long as it stands. So with ideas, once you accept them, and for as long as you use them, they are structures to your thinking, and can be a "cage".
One Brow likes his cage, and is not about to get out of it. If you buy his view, it'll be a cage for you, too. I don't think I have found a way out, really, I just keep trying to move the furniture around in mine. . . . .
Your Ebonics is rusty. . . .let me help you out. . . .
OOOOOOhhhhhh. Op Rah got da 'thority awwight. 'n She got da Paaawwwwaaaahhhh tooooo.
If you just keep adding things up, you won't go wrong. "A" is for "additional posts" in this neck of the woods.. . . .
Gandhi did have some friends/supporters from liberal media of his time. He was also a British-educated lawyer who was a good student of the British power elites, and learned how to use their methods as well as effectively counter them. He spoke their language, and defied them in their own style. Made it difficult for them to dismiss him as he was in every regard, their equal. But he was also something they were not. He lived by his principles, personally.
He won his own people by doing all this from their own level, their own circumstances, and their own values. . . . .
The word: genius. Better yet: true. Better still. . . . : integrity. Still a socialist, though. The world could benefit from socialists like him, though.
Last edited:
I didn't say one way or the other, so there is nothing to agree with.
What you are not addressing is the fact that all of these individual fulcrum's are interconnected and moving one affects them all. This is like living in an HOA, you all may be individuals, but each of you as individuals have a say in the association as a whole as well. It's more than just a "me" thing.
Yes, actual authority is important. A key point in this is that the source of the authority comes from God in this instance. If the Church gives authority to someone that God is not actually backing, it turns into apparent authority where it looks like they are an agent of God, but they truly have no legitimate/actual authority. That can cause problems. You seem to be implying that this authority can be changed on a whim by man, but the only being that can change this is God. If you do not believe in God in the same way, then you see this from a worldly view.
Question for you. Ghandi, did he have authority? Martin Luther King Jr., did he have authority. Mother Theresa, did she have authority? Confucius, did he have authority? Plato, did he have authority? Nelson Mandela, Albert Einstein, Madame Curie, William Shakespeare, Leonardo Da Vinci, Hellen Keller, Thomas Paine, Oprah, Martin Luther... I could go on and on. Was it authority that made them great?
I understand that for an LDS person, or a person still holding an LDS notion of "authority", there is a specific definition of "authority" that is deemed as traceable to the Universal Standard Authority. A lot of folks think "authority" requires some higher level of official sanction or official position in the affirmed correct value system. OB would likely relate to this as having the sanction of "experts" in one field or another of human endeavor, or maybe even "government" recognition.
Jesus might have felt he had authority because of his special relation to the Father, for example, and he might have felt obliged to honor the office of the Chief Priest or Pharisees or priests of his day "as they sit in Moses' seat". . . . but clearly, he also viewed integrity and truth as bearing authority on their own merits, and ranked that above a mere "office" or "recognition" by any presumed source of validation.
Gandhi did not claim "authority", but "virtue". Martin Luther claimed "scripture". Mother Theresa claimed "compassion". Confucious claimed "wisdom". Plato claimed "reason". Albert Einstein claimed "math" and "intuition". Madam Curie claimed persistence and dedication, Shakespeare claimed understanding, Da Vinci claimed imagination, Thomas Paine claimed liberty.
Martin Luther King, Jr., Helen Keller, Oprah, and Nelson Mandela all claimed Nietzschean progressivism to the vulgar cheers of an uncomprehending press. Helen Keller was an innocent exploited by sophisitcates, Oprah is a calculating wench, King Jr. had elemental character in his own right, but exploited association with a crowd of exploiters. . .. willing to ride the wave of political activism. If only anybody actually believed in or paid attention to what he said, it might have actually made a difference. . . . as it is, the black folk were only exploited and turned into the stockade to be kept as a leige class for the special exploitation of the elites. . . .. dependents belonging to the government. . . . mere puppets for socialism. . . .
Nelson Mandela lacked the essentials of personal truth but was a good stooge for the use of statists. I call him out because of his atrocities(necklacing) and other immoralities. Right out the Trotskiite notebook. Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot are his "set" of cohorts.
The folks who fall into the favoritism of statists will have the blessing and "authority" of the statists, but can do nothing fundamental to lift folks out of the statists' powers.
Last edited:
If you are trying to break authority down to the different levels, that's fine, but as it relates to authority to act in the name of God you have to have that given to you from God.
If you want to act in the name of the USA, you have to have that authority given to you by the people of the USA.
If you want to act in the name of your local chess club, you have to have that authority given to you by the chess club members.
You just need to realize that the chess club president will have an uphill battle when trying to sit and vote in congress meetings if he was not voted in to congress. You can try, see how far you get, but when it's all said and done and push comes to shove you will be sent home and any decisions you make for congress will not be valid.
They all most likely have different methods of bestowing that approval, but it should be express authority for it to be binding. If you are taking authority you can also do that as far as you are allowed, but it is most likely not binding.
It is also possible that OB and I have not reconciled the point that in a church that believes in God, that authority must come from God. If OB does not believe in God he will have troubles believing and understanding this and will approach it from a here and now social or other perspective. Tough to reconcile ideas when you are in different places. This is why in order to understand the perspective of someone else as much as you possibly can, you need to first understand the base point where your views diverge.
I can for the most part understand what OB is saying, he can understand what I am saying for the most part, and we can agree to disagree.
We can continue to discuss or argue the finer points of things and hopefully come to a mutual respect of each other, but realize that we are in different places.
The limitations and roles conditioned by society. Themes on women belonging in the home, being subservient, etc.
If we had a God, or a pantheon, that spoke for themself/themselves, and set things up directly, I would have no reason to object. Instead, we have many different people claiming for speak for God/the gods, and their messages are not always consistent. You can certainly find religious people who think the fulcrum needs to be set by the couple involved, and not in a place set by society. Why does your claims of God's opinions hold more weight for the rules of society than theirs? Why would theirs hold more than yours?
No one is asking you to move your fulcrum, they just want to be free to move theirs. Do you really want to say that your discomfort with their choice of a position is sufficient reason to disallow their moving it?
I used the phrase "if you want to say that" as an indication that you have not said that. If you had said that, I would have used "when you said that". I'm aware that you would not say it so directly, of course. It's merely the inevitable consequence of what you have said, a consequence you deny to yourself.
History has taught us that when those with authority claim they can maintain 'separate but equal', the reality becomes unequality. When only men have authority, all decisions made come from the perspective of men.
Besides, I would use math like:
Men = (1 ± 1)+(3 ± 2)+(4 ± 3)+(4 ± 2)
Women = (6 ± 5)+(2 ± 2)+(2 ± 2)+(2 ± 1)
People come in wondrous variety, not pre-made forms.
Yet, earlier in this very post you were complaining of me putting words in your mouth, from a similar statement. I was very clear on what I thought was demeaning to you (the rationalization that women can be equal when denied equal authority).
Ghandi did not just act alone, he organized with others and took a role as leader. For example, in South Africa he formed the Natal Indian Congress. His most effective work came when he was as a leader with various organizations.
He had the direct backing and protection of Frederick III. He was able to banish the Zwickau prophets. He became the head of a large congregation.
Feel free to say that. However, Luther wasn't any more visionary or radical than Giodano Bruno, he didn't have any more personal power, from what I can tell. From what I can see, the reason Luther founded a religious movement, and Bruno inspired some conversation, was the effective use of authority.
The existence of competing authorities, or power struggles within an authority, are not signs of a lack of authority.
So the only way you will believe in God is if he directly speaks to you and tells you what he wants?
As to society, we should all have a say, but that's a point. I should be able to speak my mind and push what I feel is important as much as the next person.
We are in a society, and all in this together. What makes you think we are all on our own teeter totter? If that was the case, who cares and sit on the ground wherever you want. As it is, it's my analogy and we are all on one teeter totter.
Saying "if you want to say that" implies that I want to say "that". So you start this paragraph by saying you are not actually putting words into my mouth, but go on to accuse me of wanting to and claiming I am denying myself. Let me channel my inner OB and let you know that I know you are playing word games, that you cannot actually see into my soul or innermost desires, and that you need to stop pretending not to believe in God. I learned these things based on our conversations.
Your logic is unequal. Treating everyone the same is unequal. Forcing everyone to be your version of "equal" is unequal.
I believe I said equal weight, not that they were twins or exactly the same.
A 10 lb bucket of corn and a 10 lb bucket of iron have the same weight. Are they the same, no. Can you do the same things with them, no.
They have different functions, but are both important in their own right.
Sometimes a square peg needs a square hole of close to the same size. Sure you can trim the corners of the square peg to make it fit, but do you want to do that? Maybe this world needs square and round pegs.
Back to authority when it relates to religion and church. We believe in God, it is the basis of religion. We believe Christ directs his church. We believe Christ speaks to his prophets on the earth who have authority to act in His name and run his Church the way he wants it run. Once a church stops listening to Christ and starts listening to society, you may as well just rename the church to "The Church of Society", because it's not Christ's church anymore.
If any decisions are made by a man and not revelation from God, that's when there are issues. Otherwise it's not coming from the perspective of men nor should it, it's coming from the perspective of God/Christ.
I apologize for not understanding precisely what about my beliefs was the demeaning part to me, and for thinking it was my belief in God.
I do though reject your demeaning words that seek to belittle what I believe.
Men and women can have equal value, and equal weight without being clones.
I prefer a world of men and women as opposed to Imperial Stormtroopers.
The way I got to be "chess club president" was by starting it. And I wrote the "Constitution" for it in an incredibly complex way that had three branches of government with supposed powers of balancing each other out, but if anyone ever actually read it or understood is debatable. In practice, I was the Emperor of my Chess Club. I used to play up to six contenders at once, and if anyone beat me they were King for the day. If I went to Congress representing my chess club, it's entirely possible I could befuddle the whole mass of elected representatives and convince everyone they are incompetent to challenge me, especially if I had a willing mainstream media at my back and all the TV news anchors were saying I represented "Hope and Change". All in all I would have as much authority to grant exemptions to Obamacare as Obama does.
At the very least, it would be more convincing if there were unison on what this supposed God wants.
As long as those pushes don't affect other people, or have sound secular reasons for their effect, absolutely.
Perhaps we meant different things by it, then. I took it as a statement that there was some balance between men and women in relationships, and used moving the fulcrum as an example of how different couples should be able to find their own balance. In that interpretation, the balance between I and my wife, or between two gay men, etc., has little effect on your balance. What did you mean by your analogy? If largely the same thing, how does my changing the fulcrum in my marriage affect you?
I specifically said you did not want to say men and women are unequal. ("I'm aware that you would not say it so directly, of course."). I also said that this unequality was an inevitable consequence of your position on not allowing women authority. When you put those to together, you are demeaning (not denying) yourself by maintaining this facade.
I didn't recommend treating everyone the same, just giving everyone the same opportunities. By forcing all men into the 'can potentially be tasked with job A but not job B' category and all women into 'can potentially be tasked with job B but not job A' category, you are treating very different men (and women) as being the same. Your criticism applies much more strongly to your position.
I agree. I just think men can sometimes be corn and sometimes be iron, and the same for women; while you want to say one gender can only be corn and the other can only be iron. Why not let each bucket show it's contents, instead of assuming all the green buckets are iron and the orange ones are corn?
I not trying to convince that God does or does not ask. I'm just asking you to acknowledge what your decision means in practice.
I agree with both of those statements. I also think that men are not clones of each other, nor are women, and as a consequence, some men are truly suited for what is classified as 'woman's work', and vice-versa.