Intellectualism is feminine?

[SDBmania]

Originally posted by Elfynne
#1 P.I.M.P.,

Yes, I know what you mean by your reference to the book of Genesis. I was also raised a Christian, but I have since come to wonder if that whole story wasn't allegorical in some way....

And men are supposed to be the strong ones, so I don't blame you for not wanting to fvck a she-male. I wouldn't want to fvck a girly man, either. But being strong and brave doesn't make a woman butch. And showing some sensitivity doesn't make a man wussy.

Agreed here.

I don't think that the story of Adam and Eve is a factual. Many scholars believe that it is mythology, because of it's style of writting. And I'm sorry, but the story isn't very believeable to me.

At any rate, pimp, what's wrong with showing your sensitive side? I mean there is a time and place for it, but there are many ways to exspress strength other then physical might. Intellegence happens to be one of them.

 

[jakethasnake]

Originally posted by Jvesti
I theorize that low test male "intellectuals"

have JUST enough testosterone to be driven to discuss and debate ideas. But maybe not enough to take action in risky showy type of ways. They serve a focused purpose in society. Because high T levels will make you hungry to act on something. T levels raise during competition or victory. I know for one when in my business I anticipate competition I hate to discuss intellectual stuff I just like to act and do. In fact I get agitated at the person. I'm sure you guys noticed that when you play in a serious sports game like football and you HAVE to win this one. Your focus sharpens, you aren't interested in discussing ****, you get pumped and either rambunctious or quiet and dead serious depending on what youre perceived need is. This is because your T levels swing high during times like this.

Can you picture discussing this and that when you are in an army and staring across the field at a formidable enemy about to go to battle. You just don't, you shut up and do. There's a reason for that.

I also can guess that females that are intellectual might have two components, very intelligent and high T for a female.

Very valid points. But also realize that testosterone, like ANYTHING has a boiling point where the returns obtained start decreasing once you reach a certain level.


Too much Testosterone, and you get violence, irrational thinking, poor decision making, etc. It is important to have testosterone, but too much isn't good either. However, I think it is better to err slightly to the more testosteronized end than the opposite. But not TOO much so.

 

[Don Pablo]

In fact, too much testosterone (can be caused by steroids) makes the body up estrogen production to compensate, which can make you more effeminate (sp?). It's great to have, but too much is bad.

 

[CyranoDeBergerac]

Intellect is not itself inherently feminine. Its just another tool, like anything else. Men are physiologically wired to master their environment. Women are physiologically wired to integrate themselves within their environments. Because men focus on the physical and external, its seems we quite literally enact the warrior/hunter model.

Elfynne, I can't speak for the other guys here, but life is a series of battles for me. I'm more than up to the task, but it corrodes the soul.

I like a woman who can hold her own, but I need comforter, not a comrade-in-arms. I fight for a woman. If a woman can fight for herself, why am I even bothering with her?

-Cyrano

 

[babemaster2000]

I like a woman who can hold her own, but I need comforter, not a comrade-in-arms. I fight for a woman. If a woman can fight for herself, why am I even bothering with her?

nice Cyrano, by any chance, did you read Wild at Heart?

In a household, I think Cyrano's way is the best, the man as the head of the family.

 

[ShortTimer]

Originally posted by rgeere
Women are thinkers

I have two friends I'd like you to meet: bull and sh!t.

Who were the first philosophers of great influence? MEN

Who laid the foundation for modern science? Aristotle, a MAN.

Who made wine, beer and milk safe to drink? Louis Pasteur, a MAN.

Who made this conversation even possible because they invented the internet? DARPA, run by a bunch of MEN.

The number of influential women thinkers I can count on one hand, the number of male thinkers would take a calculator. And don't give me this BS that women were held down and that's why they haven't been able to contribute: they didn't step up because there too dumb.

Originally posted by Jvesti
Think of college professors and ivory tower college nerds... Example: Noam Chomsky

Because of their powerfull minds intellectuals are also able to create powerful self-delutions and false-realities for themselves to live in. The above jackass (Noam, or "Nome" as I like to call him) is a good example.

 

[SDBmania]

Originally posted by ShortTimer
I have two friends I'd like you to meet: bull and sh!t.

Who were the first philosophers of great influence? MEN

Who laid the foundation for modern science? Aristotle, a MAN.

Who made wine, beer and milk safe to drink? Louis Pasteur, a MAN.

Who made this conversation even possible because they invented the internet? DARPA, run by a bunch of MEN.

The number of influential women thinkers I can count on one hand, the number of male thinkers would take a calculator. And don't give me this BS that women were held down and that's why they haven't been able to contribute: they didn't step up because there too dumb.



Because of their powerfull minds intellectuals are also able to create powerful self-delutions and false-realities for themselves to live in. The above jackass (Noam, or "Nome" as I like to call him) is a good example.

Ouch, yeah umm. I have to dissagree with you there a bit. While what some of what you say is true, now a days, women are becoming more powerful. You do realise that there are plenty of intellegent women out there right? Scientists, buisness, and many other careers? Women for a long time WERE kept from having freedom, duh! Same with blacks, are you going to say that they aren't intellegent too? Are you saying that the Civil Rights movement is bad? I'm confused here!

 

[California Love]

Originally posted by SDBmania
Ouch, yeah umm. I have to dissagree with you there a bit. While what some of what you say is true, now a days, women are becoming more powerful. You do realise that there are plenty of intellegent women out there right? Scientists, buisness, and many other careers? Women for a long time WERE kept from having freedom, duh! Same with blacks, are you going to say that they aren't intellegent too? Are you saying that the Civil Rights movement is bad? I'm confused here!

Women are becoming more powerful, true. They are not getting smarter however. They are getting b1tchier and more dominant because the number of whipped men is on the rise. Cognition is still dominated by men. In many situations, women are better at interaction and are often more trustworthy.



Years and years of taking care of the home vs. work in the outside world has created many differences in man and woman.

 

[jakethasnake]

One must take into account the historical hegemony of males in the fields of academia and science - that which was oppressively enforced. If women were not discriminated against, it's not unreasonable to assume that we would see a similar number of female inventors, political leaders, etc. One must not forget that. By the above reasonings, I suppose one could say that blacks are intellectually inferior because they historically haven't shown much achievement in those fields. We all know that's not entirely true, as blacks have historically had less oppurtunities in those fields than other people. The same could be said about Asians in atheltics - most Asian cultures over-emphasize the academic/mental while brashly disregarding or under-emphasizing the physical. Hence we have a couple of generations of less-than-athletic Asians. But even that is changing as the sports infrastructure is changing in Asia, and as world-class Asian atheltes emerge constantly.



Basically, one musn't forget the impact of ENVIRONMENT on the achievments of a certain group, such as women.

 

[entropy]

 

[MetalFortress]

Originally posted by Elfynne
I would definitely go 50/50. I know how stressful it is for men...to have that constant burden on their shoulders, that they have to take care of everyone else just because they are men and THEY have to be the providers.

Who says it has to be stressful? I would rather do this than 50/50.

 

[rgeere]

Originally posted by SDBmania
Agreed here.

I don't think that the story of Adam and Eve is a factual. Many scholars believe that it is mythology, because of it's style of writting. And I'm sorry, but the story isn't very believeable to me.

The creation story in genesis has a ciastic structure that shares the same source as ying and yang does in zen buddhism. Saying that the creation account has no basis in reality is not looking at the account in the right perspective and probably doesn't understand the internal principle behind it. Whether it is literal or not makes no diffrence in this regard.

 

[Blue Phoenix]

Philosophical Discussion

Come on guys,

Intellectualism is a powerful tool for the one that "posses" it!

Doens't matter if male of female.

Depending on how you use your intellectualism, you can be happier, richer and a better person overwall! Or you can be b!tchier, more arrogant, someone that uses his intelect to fool the others... It depends.

You have just advantages.., FIrst:

1. You can prevent someone into fooling you!
2. If you suspect someone is trying to fool you, you can use your "intellectualism" and try to know the truth!
3. You can live happier!

Yeah guys. I've been living by this philosophy!

E.g: Someone was sending me a lot of emails, that I didnt ask for!

So, I'm extensively using my "intellectualism" in order to find the person that is responsible for this! I'm tired of those wolves!

Let's try to find them!

 

[SDBmania]

Originally posted by rgeere
The creation story in genesis has a ciastic structure that shares the same source as ying and yang does in zen buddhism. Saying that the creation account has no basis in reality is not looking at the account in the right perspective and probably doesn't understand the internal principle behind it. Whether it is literal or not makes no diffrence in this regard.

I think it's basis in reality is that it was made up to teach a lesson, so it has a purpose, but I don't think that it actually happened(the story I mean).

 

[rgeere]

Originally posted by SDBmania
I think it's basis in reality is that it was made up to teach a lesson, so it has a purpose, but I don't think that it actually happened(the story I mean).

You don't understand, the book of genesis in it's own concept does teach the truth and does explain the creation of man in that man was created in the image of God.


God is an active/passive entity in which everything that exist and co-exist has been patterned after. Electricity, the X and Y chromosomes, male and female, 1 & 0 computer logic, light and darkness, the sun, moon, and stars are all patterned after God as an active/passive entity.

This is evident in the ciastic structure as presented in the creation story.

 

[SDBmania]

Originally posted by rgeere
You don't understand, the book of genesis in it's own concept does teach the truth and does explain the creation of man in that man was created in the image of God.


God is an active/passive entity in which everything that exist and co-exist has been patterned after. Electricity, the X and Y chromosomes, male and female, 1 & 0 computer logic, light and darkness, the sun, moon, and stars are all patterned after God as an active/passive entity.

This is evident in the ciastic structure as presented in the creation story.

Yeah I know that. I wasn't talking about the first chapter of Genisis, I was talking about the second chapter(Adam and Eve). I do accept the first chapter as the story of creation, but the second chapter seems to contradict the first chapter at least to me.

 

[rgeere]

Originally posted by SDBmania
Yeah I know that. I wasn't talking about the first chapter of Genisis, I was talking about the second chapter(Adam and Eve). I do accept the first chapter as the story of creation, but the second chapter seems to contradict the first chapter at least to me.

The second chapter and on starts to narrate things, though the first seems to generalize alot. I can't see a reason why God would want to make eve out of adam, though. Technically it should be the other way around if you compare it with the first chapter.

And teasing Adam by making him walk around and naming the animals so he can briefly view them having sex to get jealous and wonder what was up with not having a counterpart was possibly a little cruel in my opinion. I would be pissed if I was adam, shame we can't get God to poof a woman out of thin air or from a rib or something in this day and age. Would make things a whole lot easier.

 

[California Love]

www.infidelguy.com


A great site for downloading audio debates on christianity vs various other stances.

 

[Superman X]

Don't you guys feel even a little stupid condemning how effeminate and useless intellectualism is in an online intellectual debate?

 

[rgeere]

Originally posted by Superman X
Don't you guys feel even a little stupid condemning how effeminate and useless intellectualism is in an online intellectual debate?

As long as there is logic were ok. Once we start talking about illogical crap that has no coherency in context whatsoever then you can officially say that we have lost all sense of our manhood.