Xbander
-
Posts
46 -
Joined
Recent Profile Visitors
650 profile views
Xbander's Achievements
Newbie (1/14)
-16
Reputation
-
Rolling a natural 20 for perception. What do you see? "Everything"
-
I see the points for fertility, but still it would make sense with late 20s, not late teens, as Stefan suggests a few times with the caller. In your late teens/early 20s, practically nobody in America can support a family, since all you're good for at that time are minimum wage jobs. You have to be getting help from somewhere else to pull off something like that now.
-
Sure, I wouldn't mind calling in. It's been a few years since I was last on the show quoting Stefan, let's do it. Do I still go right to the front of the line for questioning something Stefan has said, or what kind of waiting list am I looking at?
-
Then I was mistaken, sometimes I mix up the podcasts with the videos, or that woman has been on the show more than once recently and said the exact same things again. Particularly the dialog "men love women...but men hate feminism...I apologize on behalf of women." Mike, can you or Stef (or anyone) defend Stef's position that it would be better for a married woman to postpone a career, stay at home and engage in child-rearing "late teens, early 20s" on a single income, when most people at that age can barely afford to live on their own in 2016? That would be very bad advice for most people in today's economy according to reason and evidence. Wouldn't it? "I stopped reading..." is not a counter-argument.
-
Mark the bathrooms XX or XY, and that's what you are. You are not an attack helicopter. Case closed.
-
On December 27th, 2016, Stefan reloaded a YouTube video that he uploaded several weeks prior, titled "Woman rejects feminism, triggers SJWs". There is something Stefan is missing in his argument, he says that late teens/early 20s is the best time to have children for health and fertility reasons, and encourages women to go with child-rearing first, career later, but at this point in a person's life, most people have very little money and can barely afford to live on their own. Picture it: Young couple, the woman stays at home to be a young mother, WHERE is the money coming from? The father's crummy job changing tires or stocking overnight at Walmart? You can't raise a family in 2016 with an income like that. More money has to come from somewhere. Living in Toronto, being older and well-to-do with his successful wife, Stef's position isn't in touch with the current economic situation for the age group he is encouraging to have children. Am I wrong? Did I misunderstand his statement?
-
Thank you all for the valuable input.
-
I don't. I was simply asking if other men experienced the same instances.
-
I understand, but that wasn't the question.
-
My inquiry is not "Am I crazy?" that the responses so far have misconstrued. My question is, in your negative experiences with women, is being called "crazy" a common insult? I thought the context was clear. When you are severing ties with someone in an uncouth manner, insults are usually hurled.
-
I've been a married man for 7 years now, no kids, no abuse in my background, no rap sheet. As an insult from women in my life, I have been called "crazy" at different times, in the context of "F you, you're F'n crazy" or "get away from me, you're crazy". It's always been as a parting shot, from women I've had bad experiences with that ended in bitter fights. This is not a common occurrence, but it stands out as the times that it has happened that puzzle me, because that has been their go-to insult. I'm an average guy, I have many friends and loved ones. I talk to people regularly, other people close to me have never called me crazy. These were not all from women that I had intimacy with, some were just friends. My question for men is, (assuming you're a sane, rational group) Have you experienced the same when ending it with a woman? If "crazy" is that common of an insult, what could be the reason behind that choice of words?
-
I understand. It's Joel Osteen, and his longstanding criticism is still going from what I hear. He never mentions hell, punishment, vengeance etc. he can go several weeks on end without uttering "sin" even once in a sermon. Getting him to condemn anyone is like getting blood out of a turnip. The guy lives what he preaches. On a similar note, Unitarian Universalist churches are very comfortable for atheists, jews, and other nonbelievers. That is a denomination best known for zero wrath, hellfire, or condemnation. While Joel is neither Unitarian nor Universalist, he is often labeled as one by his critics.
-
I guess the planet of pink unicorns isn't so far away, because I can easily search for churches with particular doctrines that don't put emphasis on sin. There's even a popular preacher on nationwide broadcasts for almost 15 years, and the biggest complaint Christians have about him is "You leave out sin! You don't condemn anyone or anything!" Maybe you've heard of this fellow, he's also a best-selling author, do I have to say his name here, or do you want to retract that statement? And no, my parents never did any such indoctrination. Talk about setting up a strawman, jeezaloo, that was some extreme misrepresentation, Alin.
-
That is a far cry from what is actually taught in church, especially to children. Some churches don't emphasize sin, and other churches don't believe we are sinful at all (they are rare). At his age, such theological concepts escape a child. I could quote verses at his age, and recite what I learned from church regarding "sin" but it had no impact, especially the love and affection I received from my parents nullified any 'original sin' mentality. I know how bad religion can be. A lot of things *can* be bad. My example with radio waves is that it's not about senses, but logic. With someone considering an either/or dilemma of a God-belief, or the overarching meta-narrative of evolutionism is not a sensory experience, it's an exercise in logic. Considering ones ultimate origin is not abusive in the least, because there are no truly rational proven 'origin' teachings at this point in history. It's just that one has the monopoly of state funding behind it, and is the only option of atheists. Forcing your child to believe something, whether deity(s) or atheism is abusive across the board.
-
It's a little boy re-enacting something he saw in church. It's no less cruel and no less rational than if he were playing with a test tube and trying to re-enact the 1952 failed (yet celebrated) Miller and Urey's experiment of how life began on earth. Or if he puts on a lab coat and starts talking like Carl Sagan "...billions of years ago...". It's not harmful for children to believe in say 'santa claus' as long as they are allowed to come to rational decisions later. If you want real childhood indoctrination into religion, see the movie 'Marjoe" by Marjoe Gortner. Not necessarily their "senses" but rather, rational thought. There are many things undedectable by the 5 senses which we just have to believe in by evidence, take radio waves for example. Our bodies can't detect them at all, I know it's a small detail, but it's important. Whether you prefer to believe a deity-centered or accident-centered explanation of our ultimate origins, one is not more or less 'abusive' than the other. What becomes abusive is when you are forced to believe in something (you must--or else!), by which public schools have violated and abused an entire generation with under the auspices of science, aka, scientific by association.
