Adahn

[QUOTE=indifference][color=Indigo][/color] [color=Indigo]That?s a bit of an assumption, as appearances do not reflect the whole truth. I fit the description of looking soft and fragile and yet I assure you I am more than capable of winning an arm-wrestling match against many of my guy friends. That?s like judging a book by it?s cover, it won?t tell you what?s really inside.[/color][/QUOTE] I understand that I'm making an assumption, and I didn't say all women I see are weak. However, with our society's obsession with thinness, many, many of the women in my college are quite thin. It's not natural to 'slim-down' like that. The result is that the majority of women I see are quite fragile. I don't say it to be condescending. I just hope that they don't find themselves in a situation where physical strength is necessary. Strength is just as important in trying to harm someone as it is in trying to protect or save someone. [QUOTE=indifference] [color=Indigo]Actually quite often the real problem is that many women are caught by surprise when they are attacked. I can?t give you my source of statistics as I work for a crisis center for women and information of that nature is considered private, but quite a few of those who are attacked are hit before they even know someone is there.[/color][color=Indigo] If you were to let them know the attacker is coming, how many do you think would fight back? And possibly win? It?s difficult to fight back when the attacker has the upper hand by either hitting you hard enough to nearly knock you out or if they pin you down so it would require greater strength than a normal to wiggle free. For example by throwing a net over you, your movements are restricted preventing you from using your full strength properly. Most would be rapists are cowards who strike before you even know they are there. I assure you many do fight back and win in spite of the surprise factor involved. I dealt with a case earlier this year where the woman managed to not only take the knife from the attacker but when she got done beating him up for attacking her in the first place, he had to be taken to the hospital. Being attacked without waring is not a true representation of how strong a woman is as it is quite often not an equal fight due to the fact that they are being attacked without warning. [/color] [color=Indigo][/color][/QUOTE] I got my statistic of '1 in 4' from a woman who works in the same place as you do, who also happens to be in my Sociology class. I hope that you can support that for me, since many people doubt my reasoning. I read an article written by a feminist who was attacked from behind, physically assaulted, raped, and left for dead. I know that in such a situation, in would be difficult to recover from the first blow, but I think a stronger body would have a better chance of resisting the concussive blow. I'm glad for the woman who turned on her attacker, and I wish all women were as capable as her. Sandy, I'm really having trouble getting certain things through to you. I don't know if you're just being difficult, or if you truly don't understand. [quote name='Sandy'] Seriously, where do you get those numbers?! Are you saying that one out of every four women gets raped or what?[/quote] Ask indifference. I got my numbers from someone in her situation, and those numbers were supported by my professor. [Quote=Sandy] Nevertheless, female sex seems to be quite an unfamiliar thing to you, if your concept of womanhood includes dresses and soap operas and low self-esteem and fragile bodies. Trust me, most of the women at least in the western cultures fall far from those characteristics.[/Quote] Was I describing womanhood? No. I was describing acts and mannerisms that are unsuitable for someone who needs to maintain a masculine identity. It is a coincidence (and one worth pondering) that to be masculine, one must distinguish oneself from everything considered feminine. [Quote=Sandy] It's kind of sweet that you cling onto the traditional, chivalrous attitude that women are something that need physical (and economical?) protection from men, but honestly, they can manage to live quite well without men, as well. ;)[/Quote] You misunderstand me completely. I see the society that constructs women as helpless, and I am very strongly opposed to it. For example, in any ad featuring a man and a woman, the man is posed in a forceful manner, while the woman looks up at him innocently. Another example is that hurting women has grave social and legal consequences. Why is this so? Women are seen as helpless, unable to defend themselves, and weak. I don't say these things with pride in my voice. I want women to be stronger. I want them to be able to stand up for themselves. I know there are women who are strong, and I'm glad for them. I'm more concerned for those who are not. [Quote=Sandy] You said yourself that you think both sexes are equal, but in many things you've said, you've shown the exact opposite.[/Quote] I think on average, men have a higher physical potential than men, because that is the only genetically dependent ability I can think of. You are saying here that I have shown how I think the sexes are unequal, correct? I think men and women, in all other areas, have equal potential. However, gender is socially constructed in such a way that the potential for the average woman is severely diminished. I shouldn't have to tell you these things, Sandy. You know them to be true. I hope you can come to understand the world around you, because with your current perspective, I fear you will live your life in ignorance of some very important, relevant ideas. As for the whole 'fighting' thing, you're just not getting it, and I'm not going to try any harder to explain it to you. So please, just drop it. Stark, we both know why the girl never saves the boy. It's a good question to ask people to get them to think, though. It's the same reason Sleeping Beauty isn't Sleeping Handsome and Jasmine doesn't rescue Aladdin from the hourglass. Whether we like it or not, it is a part of our society. You can either accept it or try to change it. That's what I'm trying to do here, to help more people see what's going on around them. I don't claim to understand it completely, but I know enough to see it.

[quote name='Red']Not really. It still boils down to the fact that you'll be hitting someone and vice versa. Fighting is normally the byproduct of anger, the situation is irrelevant until you have to explain or justify your actions.[/quote] My clarification of 'fighting' was only for the purpose of putting myself in a situation where I would fight a girl. I'd fight a girl if she had the intention and ability to cause me great harm. [QUOTE=Red] Believing it to be true is precisely why I called it those two things. [b]American society does not force anybody to be anything.[/b] There are people who still hold certain values to do with family living far too close to heart, and some women are pulled into that way of life through experiences of their own family units; but succumbing to feminine ideals? [/QUOTE] Red, your arguments indicate that you are very uninformed. I'm in a Sociology class, and have read many, many articles illustrating how gender is constructed in our society. If you seriously want evidence, I will be happy to name for you the specific articles with a brief summary on their applicability. The overwhelming evidence gathered by sociologists supports the fact that aspects of femininity and masculinity are social requirements. For your benefit, I will attempt to describe it for you. Throw away your masculinity. Back down from every confrontation. Take every insult you hear and don't return anything. Stop dressing the way boys dress. Stop talking the way boys talk. Start wearing dresses and start conversations with your friends about Soap Operas. Defy all the unwritten rules of masculinity, and tell me who you have become to our society. You will be seen as worthless. People will ignore you or ostracize you. People will hate you. Everyone around you will turn on you. And now after considering all this, tell me again that [b]American society does not force anybody to be anything.[/b] [QUOTE=Red] [b] Who decides what the feminine ideals are? The individual woman![/b] There's not a lifestyle trap that every single woman in America will fall into - they can choose to sidestep it should they so wish. A person does not have to conform to a view they may regard as backward, even if it's held by a grand majority.[/QUOTE] You're honestly telling me that femininity has nothing to do with society? You want to tell me that women [b]choose[/b] to stay skinny and petite? Women stress about their weight because they want to? They dread being fat because of their own aversion to it? Girls start going on diets before they enter middle school because it's their decision? You're telling me that women choose to hate their bodies? And one more thing, don't tell me that women don't hate their bodies, because women's concern about beauty is so alien to you and I that we cannot imagine doing the things they do to themselves. [QUOTE=Red] And what in the world do you mean by survive socially? It seems to me that they do just fine. The idea that there is immense pressure for a woman to fulfil a certain role is one that is still holding society back.[/QUOTE] It is your opinion that there is no pressure on women to fulfill their feminine role that keeps America blind to the very real problems women face daily. [QUOTE=Red] Er, no, it's not. If society put it's hand in the fire, would you do it too? Nobody [i]has[/i] to do or become anything.[/QUOTE] Show me that you don't have to uphold the rules of masculinity to live in our society, and I'll believe you. [QUOTE=Red] What obsession with feminine weakness, by the way? The only place where I've seen even remotely similar is back home in Ireland - a very small town where nigh on every single elderly woman has been the housewife for 30 years plus. Even among a population that still regards the 50's as the good ol' days, their views on women have rapidly changed due to events over recent years.[/QUOTE] If you go to college, look at the women around you. Almost all of them are soft and fragile. How many of them could beat you in an arm-wrestling match? [QUOTE=Red] In 19 years, I've met maybe three people who to the core, think that women are naturally weak. I could make a grand statistic out of that and pass it off as fact, but I won't, because I can't tell what the entire countries views on women are at this particular moment.[/QUOTE] I've said that society makes them weak in a way that genetics cannot match. [QUOTE=Red] How exactly do you know all this, and where is your evidence? Pulling what seem to be entirely random numbers out of thin air doesn't make a cohesive argument for your point.[/QUOTE] I know this because I've read hours upon hours of literature by Doctors in the field of Sociology. My 'random numbers' (so far 99%, 1% and 25%) are my own estimates, and I never said they were statistically sound in any other way. I made the incorrect assumption that everybody knew what was going on around them due to my immersion in the subject. I apologize for this, and if it is absolutely necessary, I will quote specific articles to press my point. I could just say 'take my word for it', but I think another statement will be more useful for your understanding. Open your eyes. Sandy, what are the odds that a woman will be raped in her lifetime? 1 in 4, according to statistics. How many rapes that occur could be prevented if strength in women were socially acceptable? I don't even want to guess, because I hate rape with such a passion that learning society's role in its perpetuation would make of me a deviant bent on the destruction of our society. Physical strength/skill are effective preventative measures to sexual assault. How many stories of wife beatings would we have if women had the physical strength to stand up for themselves? I understand why you think it is unimportant for [i]me[/i] to be physically strong, but surely you can see the personal benefits of strength for women, Sandy.

[quote name='Red']'True' fighting? Fighting is fighting, there's no true kind.[/quote]Fighting for your life and fighting because you're angry are different. I'm speaking of the former, where (for whatever reason) the situation involves my opponent's intent to kill me. [QUOTE=Red] From where I'm sitting, it looks incredibly male biased & very judgemental of a woman's physical ability. My 'estimate' would be far beyond that, but neither of us can really know until you line up every 19 year old woman in your country and fight them one by one. Due to the fact that I can't pull random statistics from the air, I would place a rather large bet on more than 1% being able to win instead.[/QUOTE]As 'male-biased' and 'judgmental' as my statement is, I believe it to be true. The point is that women are constructed to be weak in our society. If I had things my way, my future wife and my sister would be as strong as I am. I see women as vulnerable because American society forces them to be vulnerable. They cannot survive socially in our country if they do not succumb to feminine ideals. If this obsession with feminine weakness were not a part of our culture, I would estimate that no less than 25% of women my age would be able to hold their own against me. Genetics plays a role in the construction of women as weak, but our society's role is much more potent. [QUOTE=Red] I used to regularly spar with girls many years my junior, and they kicked my backside all over the place. Fighting ability is not decided by your physical prowess, nor sex. Yes, men & women are born with certain genetic attributes that initially seperate them, but that 'gap' has been proven easy to overcome.[/QUOTE]Those girls that can kick your backside are the exception. It is easy for [i]exceptional individuals [/i]to overcome the gap, but the vast majority (~99%) are trapped in the ways I have stated above. Retribution, you may feel that you don't need someone to complete you, but how close have you gotten to someone? I've found my woman, and I need her like I need air. Two years ago, I would have agreed with you. Love can do amazing things, and I hope you are prepared for it when the time comes. EDIT: Oh, Caesura, you reminded me of something. I give phsycial beauty to women, no contest. I don't take pride in my physical strength, but I will defend my right to be fat, ugly, and porcine in nature to the death:animesmil

[font=Verdana][size=2]Good, I have enough in the poll! I won't close it though, because it just had to be [i]at least[/i] 40.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2]Very interesting article, Delta. I have relatives from the Phillipines (My aunt is a native, and my cousins are half-filipino). It makes me glad to know that there are places where women don't stress over their appearance.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2]Poor, misguided Sandy. I only identified the one difference I see between males and females (physical strength) in terms of ability. It is an observation, and not one I'm bragging about. I see women, and their bodies just scream "weak, vulnerable, helpless." It is not their fault, it's our society's. Don't get so beat up about my statement. Your aversion to it says more about you than it does me.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2]As for Delta's bolded statement about compliments, I think it was a good piece of advice. The reason women fret about how they look is a mixture between their perception of themselves, and the perceptions of others. If you compliment a women about her appearance, it will make her feel better about herself. Sure, it will make her want to continue looking good, which is what you have an aversion to. It will also let her know that she doesn't need to change (i.e. plastic surgery, liposuction). If you let women know that they are beautiful, it will help them to see themselves that way.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2]I'm sure there are many social factors at work in the Phillipines, but I also believe that the wealth of compliments heaped on women there has a drastic effect on their self-esteem. Our culture's construction of femininity, however, is based on an unrealistic ideal of beauty meant to keep women in a perpetual state of low self-esteem. If you dish out heartfelt, honest compliments occasionally, you are doing your part to combat the injustices women face in their daily lives.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font]

Very nice replies, and thanks to everyone who voted! kuroinuyoukai, I just started the thread, and all I want is for people to speak freely;). Don't worry about things I've said about myself, just say what you feel. Stark, believe it or not, I'm also in a Sociology class this term. It's part of an honors class that is half-taught by a psychologist, and half-taught by a sociologist, to give the students a broader perspective on ideas concerning the self and the other. Bloodseeker, I stand by my statement. [Quote=Bloodseeker] 1. The idea that you can beat up a girl isn't something to be proud of. Only the weakest guys would get their ***** beat by your average girl.[/quote] I didn't say I was proud of it, I said it was the one area I can see myself as superior to women in general. [Quote=Bloodseeker] 2. "Defeat" her in "combat"? This isn't an anime or a D&D session. Bad choice of words.[/quote] No, it's a good choice of words. The only situation where I would engage a woman would be if that woman intended to kill me. That's the only situation where true fighting can take place. [Quote=Bloodseeker] 3. I think that you're forgetting that more than one percent of the female population either knows real martial arts or are on enough steroids to be just as strong as your average guy.[/quote] I explicitly stated that the woman would have to be roughly my age (19). While your statement about martial arts and steroids [i]may[/i] be true of the entire female population, I believe my estimate of 1% is fair for my age group, if not a little generous. It seems to me that you've taken serious offense to what I've said. Perhaps you could better explain to me why my statements offend you so? It seems we have some Sociologists here, so I might as well go in more depth. In class, we just finished reading an article titled "Cultural dopes and she-devils" which is concerned with plastic surgery, calling it an 'idealogical dilemma'. The article is a very interesting Geertzian analysis of how women come to see themselves as 'not normal', and make themselves the 'exception', justifying their decision to alter their image at great pain to their body and self. Also, you may find the videos/articles called 'killing us softly' interesting in the construction of feminine beauty through advertising. I would be happy to discuss your understanding of femininity (or masculinity) based on what you have studied in Sociology class.

[font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]I know we've had threads like this before, but I have an excuse for this one. For my statistics class, I need to take a random sample of at least size 40 for a population. I'm not a very social creature, so taking the survey from a forum is much easier than taking one from the students at my college.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]So, all you forumgoers, please help me out here, and participate in my harmless little poll. Since I'm asking such a simple question, I don't expect there to be any bias in the answers.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]In order to generate a discussion, I have a question for you.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]What does it mean to be a male or female to you? You may compare yourself with the opposite sex if you desire, though it isn't necessary.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]Being a man, I see myself as capable of fighting. I also think that if I were engaged in combat with a woman roughly my age, I would be able to defeat that woman effortlessly. Women are structured to be physically weak in America. There are exceptions, but not enough for me to think that more than 1% of the female population could fight me and win.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]Mentally, I don't see myself as inferior or superior to women, in general. Everyone has a fair chance to be intelligent, and I can't judge people by their sex.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]Being a man means I will get a job, make money, and support a family. I will protect my family, and raise my children with my wife. My wife will be my equal, a complement to me that will complete me. Without her, despite my strength, I am not whole. Physical strength is my claim as a man. All other strengths depend on the person.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font]

[font=Trebuchet MS][/font][font=Trebuchet MS][size=1]I speak from experience.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=1][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=1]I met my fiance' on Otakuboards. We communicated through PM for a while, then e-mail, then we lost contact. By chance, I e-mailed her as I was starting my first year in college. She got back in touch with me, and we started communicating on AIM. By this point, we had not had any type of romantic relationship.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=1][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=1]We talked for quite a while through IM every day, and were friendly and honest with each other. I didn't expect a relationship to develop. However, a hurricane hit where she lives and knocked out her power. I found I was desperate to talk to her. I frantically e-mailed her, and even tried to find out where she lived from what little information I had, so I could see how power was being restored in her county. I made her an innocent movie about how my fan broke.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=1][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=1]After she got power back, we both realized how much we missed talking to each other. Our relationship progressed, and I ended up getting plane tickets to visit her over Christmas break. We were in love even before I arrived, and our meeting was wonderful. After I left, she came to visit me for spring break, and I spent all of last summer with her. Now, she's coming here for Christmas. Whenever we're apart, we count the days until we get back together again.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=1][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=1]She'll be coming here this spring break, and I'll spend this summer with her in Florida. Come next Christmas, we plan on getting married around the time we first met in person.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=1][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=1]It's hard being apart, but not hard enough to make us give up. We've done everything in our power to be together, and it has taken priority over everything else. I look forward to building my life with her, and am thankful every day that we found and loved each other.[/size][/font]

[font=Trebuchet MS]Thanks for the comments everyone! I probably could have come up with a better title, but I picked that after I finished the piece, and I was a little drained. This was all written right here on OB without any drafting or planning, so when I brought it to a close, I didn't have the energy to give it a more thoughtful name. I can't help but be systematic in my writing, so all the moments ended the same way. It was difficult to write 'disappeared' seven different ways, and those endings probably took me more time to write than any other line. In the end, Jason's implied death was intentional. I couldn't help but end the piece with his final moments after beginning with his earliest. It gives the piece a kind of ordered symmetry that I demand of myself. I'm glad you all liked it. I may start another story that I have an idea for, but I'm afraid I will be biting off more than I can chew, as it would be much more lengthy. If I do begin it, I look forward to your comments. [/font]

Is SmileForMe a stalker? The whole arrow pointing at the name gives me the impression that SmileForMe wants BookGirl to smile for him/her so he/she can see it. I see this going one of two ways. It will either become a romance, or a scary IM stalker thingy. What's much more likely, however, is that I am wrong. In this world there are things that I can see, and things that I can't see. Needless to say, there are lots more things that I can't see than things I can. I therefore have a 99.9999% chance of being wrong. If I'm right, then I'd better go buy a lottery ticket because I'm feeling lucky. Other than that, it's short, but interesting. I await the next installment, that I may make more predictions on the plot.

[QUOTE=Amorphous]Comments, constructive critiscism, anything at all would be quite accepted and appreciated. Six feet deeper [b]then[/b] before. Six minutes longer [b]then[/b] before. [/QUOTE] I do believe that when making a comparison, [i]than[/i] is the correct word, unless you are saying 'then' on purpose. Other than that, I'm having trouble identifying the objects of the poem. There are two of them, and they are close somehow. In order to get an image of what's going on, it needs to be more clear about who/what the poem is centered on. Without that, the imagery is ineffective, a mere backdrop without actors in front of it. I'm not trained in any type of poetic interpretation, but I have a fair amount of intelligence. I, the layman, am not able to get anything from it. If it was meant to go over my head in this way, then perhaps I am not the target audience. Without a focus on the objects, the poem just doesn't flow (for me).

[quote name='Derald][font=Lucida Console][size=1][color=DarkRed]Hey, can't you be unrealistic for a second? After all, why criticize this when you posted a thread on a magical frog.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote] I can't be anything other than realistic. If you look at my post, you can see that I'm not criticizing the thread, but rather responding to the scenario. I am intelligent enough to realize that it is complete b.s. If the doctors were right, then I suppose I wouldn't do anything special in my last living hour. To sum it up, I would live my life as if it weren't about to end.

Jason woke up screaming. Something soft and rubbery was pressed to his lips. Reflexively, he began to feed as he opened his eyes. The familiar face of his mother made him relax completely as he gazed lovingly up at her. He reached his tiny hand up towards his mother as she drifted away from him. His gloved hand caught the baseball. He pulled his arm back down, taking the ball out of the mitt and sending it sailing towards his father. His father threw the ball back at him and disappeared as it sailed towards him. The punch caught Jason in the left cheek, sending him sprawling to the ground. He spit out a bloody tooth, wiping the corner of his mouth with his sleeve. He got up and leaped towards his assailant, who receded into nothingness. The bedsprings squeaked as Jason landed next to his girlfriend. She gave him a devilish look and pulled him to her. He kissed her fiercely as he grabbed the blanket and threw it over the both of them. He crawled on top of her just as she faded out of existence. Jason reached for his alarm to stop its incessant racket. He pulled the blankets off of himself as he rolled onto his back, staring blankly at the ceiling. He heard his wife calling to him from downstairs. He groaned as he climbed out of bed and opened his bedroom door. He looked down the stairs and saw his young daughter's face beaming up at him. He smiled back at her, and she moved backwards into darkness. Jason glanced over the edge of his paper to see his son opening the door for his prom date. Jason straightened his glasses and gave his son a nod, tossing him the keys to his car. His son snatched them out of the air and closed the door behind him as he left, filling the room with emptiness. Jason wondered where the bright, smiling little girl on his knee came from, before remembering that it was his granddaughter. She gave him a big hug and kissed him on his old, wrinkled cheek. He hugged her back before setting her lightly on the ground. She blew him a kiss before running off into oblivion. Jason went to sleep smiling.

The scenario is unrealistic. The time between contraction of the virus, the onset of symptoms, and the results of a blood test would be considerable. To predict one's suspected survival to be within one hour is too baffling to even allow one to take it seriously. Therefore, after being told of my situation, I would declare shenanigans on the doctors, sue them for millions of dollars, and live happily (and richly) ever after.

[font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]What are your views on creation? Was it God, aliens, evolution? Where does everything come from? Where do babies come from? Why are we here? How did the earth get here? If we're all going to die eventually, why should anything exist? Are there other creatures out there that have an intelligent perception? Can the universe exist without anything/anyone to perceive it?[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]I'm just screwin' with ya.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]I'm thinking about a different kind of creation. I'm thinking about what man creates. I have a desire to create something. Sometimes I wish I could write something new and interesting, and have it read all over. I want to make something different. I want to create something that prevents cancer, AIDS, and death.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]I want to know if this desire to create is instinctual. Is it in you? What do you want to create? What have you created? Anything beautiful? Anything you're proud of?[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]I also want to know what you think of the 'creation drive'. Do you think it's instinctual? Do you think it's a product of our environments? Is it both? Neither?[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]Before I make my own decision on the matter, I want to know what you all think and feel.[/size][/font]

[font=Trebuchet MS]From the writing and the comments made by the author afterwards, I believe that this piece was an emotionally charged response to an exciting idea the author had. I've done the same thing when I've had an idea. I get all excited about the connections I've made, and everything makes sense. The words just come. The author was in this mental state when he wrote the piece. This piece was not written for an audience, it was written for the author. He is the only one who understands the connections. He thinks we are blind because [u]we[/u] don't see them, but this is because they are all [u]he[/u] can see. If the author wants to parody [u]Fight Club,[/u] he has a useful collection of ideas in this piece. However, the piece does not stand alone. A parody of [u]Fight Club[/u] for the purpose of bringing to light the author's views on art in the U.S. would be a daunting task. If this is what the author intended in this piece, then he has failed. Nobody will read this and understand the author's views without reading his explanation. Intellectually engaging pieces should explain themselves. My advice is for the author to either finish what he has started by completing the parody, or to bring his ideas into the Lounge, where his ideas would be more effective. Justifying the piece by explaining the ideas behind it does not make it a good piece, it makes it a bad piece. EDIT: This post was written before the above post was seen. [/font]

[font=Trebuchet MS]Welcome to my thought process. This first part will read a little like a story. So, there I was, sitting in one of the computer labs on campus. I had some free time before class, so naturally I was looking at potentially entertaining sites. It was Friday, so I religiously checked SA and eBaum's to see if there were any funny updates. They were okay for a while, but I eventually got bored. Crossing my fingers, I checked Maddox, but there was nothing new. Being a college student, I went to collegehumor in search of jokes. I read a lot of jokes, including one about an engineering student and a frog. Basically, the frog said it would turn into a beautiful woman for a week if the student kissed it, but the student said he didn't have time for a girlfriend, but a talking frog was cool, so he kept it in his pocket. Today at work, I was running a machine. After a while, it gets rather mindless and automatic, so my mind started to wander. For some reason, the frog joke surfaced. I imagined I'd found a talking frog, except instead of turning into a beautiful woman, it would turn into whatever I wanted it to be. Needless to say, a fair amount of time went by while I explored my options. I settled on a strange idea. I wanted it to turn into a symbiote. I wanted to be able to talk to it in my head, and I wanted it to increase all my abilities, giving me a companion and making me a better person. I had decided that this was what I wanted, but then a strange idea came to me. What I wanted sounded a lot like a relationship with God. Someone who would be a part of me, who I could talk to, and who would make me a better person. It made more sense the more I explored it. I'm not going to pull out a big, dusty bible and try to find evidence for it, but I will say a few things. God as a symbiote. The Bible refers to the human body as a 'temple' where God resides. The whole concept of accepting God/Jesus involves 'taking him into yourself'. Supernaturality is not required to explain symbiotes. If God is indeed an intelligent symbiote, then it would be difficult to identify Him against His will, scientifically. There you have it, the relationship between man and God could be described as symbiotic. Feel free to either discuss this, or if you find it uninteresting/too offensive, then I will take the edge off of it for you. If you came upon a talking frog that said it would become whatever you desired it to be if you kissed it, what would you have it be? I will limit your choices in one way. Whatever it is to become, it must have its own unique consciousness. Everything else is up to your imagination. Enjoy. [/font]

[font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]The freedom to speak goes hand in hand with the freedom to ignore. Where do you draw the line? You've crossed the line when what you say cannot legally be ignored.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]As for everything else, if you can't ignore it, that's your problem.[/size][/font]

[font=Trebuchet MS]Let's explore gender. Put yourself in the shoes of the opposite gender. Put yourself in a situation you think would be appropriate for someone of that gender. Write about your experience from this perspective, not as someone observing the situation, but as someone living in it. Feel free to get as creative as you desire (and feel is appropriate). Also, if you read something that strikes you in some way, write how you feel about it. I'll kick it off, so enjoy! I walk through the park, closing my eyes and smiling as the soft breeze caresses my skin. I bend down and pick a lone flower, bringing it to my nose and inhaling its pleasing fragrance. I twirl it in my fingers, delighting in its beauty, before sticking it in my hair and continuing my pleasant stroll. [/font]

With more information comes a broader perspective. The Christians have enough control over their own children that evolution poses them no direct threat. There will be enough discussion about evolution among peers and other adult figures that the children's ability to make their own choices about their beliefs is not threatened. The Christians see I.D. being implemented as an easy way to reach millions of children in the hopes of saving their souls. Christians, I know you think the large social group that represents you is doing a good thing by pushing I.D. to be taught in schools, because in the end it would be a good thing from your perspective. The way you're doing it though, is not right. The Christian religion is quite harmless on a personal level, and may even push people to be better. However, when the group acts together like this, inviting conflict, it is dangerous, and no longer good. The ends do not justify the means, Christians. Saving souls is only good if it is done the right way. Pushing for I.D. is the easy way out. If you want to save children, step up your youth programs in schools. Please, keep it out of the courtrooms, for God's sake, and your own. EDIT: Are there no responses? Have I dealt the killing blow? If so, I think I'll start keeping track. This makes one.

[size=2]Brasil is content to enjoy the ride of life, traversing the train cars and living happily with what they have to offer, unconcerned with the destination, because the destination isn't worth worrying about.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]We're all on the same train here, and we can't escape it. When the train stops to let someone off, they leave, and the train just keeps going. What happens to the people when they get off? Where do they go? We can't see them anymore, they're already out of sight.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]The train is the only thing we can see. We don't know where it's headed, and we don't know what happens to the people when we get off. We do have a choice, however, in what we believe.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Brasil believes in the train. Brasil believes in what he can see.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]There are so many possibilities, and the train analogy really is quite perfect, Brasil, so don't take my comments as derogatory.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I believe the train tracks are circular. What then, is our destination? The answer is easy. Our destination is right where we are.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][/size]

[size=2]Forgive me for attempting to turn this nice thread into an intellectual discussion.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]First of all, in reply to the topic of the thread, my perfect woman would be a woman I could love, and who could love me back. Does anybody really need more than that? You may be surprised that your ideal lover and your actual lover are quite different. Your mental construction of the perfect man/woman relies heavily on the social construction of sexuality in your culture. Love, I believe, comes from a place that can be affected by these social constructions, but is independent of them in enough ways that your description of the perfect man or woman contrasts greatly from who you could share perfect love with.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]A question, now. How much of a role do the social constructions of sexuality in your culture play in your description of the ideal man/woman?[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]If you need help understanding what social constructions are, look at the media in all its forms. Magazines, movies, t.v. shows, etc. This is where you will find your cultural definition of sexuality.[/size] [size=2][/size]

[QUOTE=Brasil]It's already disproving religion, though. The very nature of the story of Creation is getting plinked away at as the years go by. But we shouldn't even need Evolution to know that 90% of religious canon is fictional at best. For all intents and purposes, religion proves itself (the vicious cycle we all know and love) and it disproves itself.[/QUOTE]You are advocating the teaching of a theory in an anti-Christian manner in public schools. We have shifted from a heavily religious school system to what is becoming an anti-religious one. Is neutrality on the issue not enough for you, Brasil? Is there no middle ground, no compromise in the war between the secular and non-secular in schools? [QUOTE=Brasil] You do realize that suing school systems so they institute I.D. is removing a child's choice, too, right? What's it going to do to the child when they're hearing about divine intervention in a science course? What's that going to do to how they view science--and how they view the rest of the world? You talk about preventing removal of choice...but you're shoving a doctrine in their face that has absolutely no grounding in reality: "Hey kids! This is an alternative!"[/QUOTE]The Christians are going about this all wrong. They are abusing their social power here. The teaching of ID will resolve [i]their[/i] conflict, but even if they succeed it will cause more conflict and division. This is why I stated that it was [i]a [/i]solution, however incomplete and temporary. [QUOTE=Brasil] But it isn't an alternative. I sound really glib throughout much of this, but the entire Pro-I.D. debate is just so silly and bizarre that I'm having a hard time respecting anyone who would even consider exploring the idea in anything other than a Philosophy or Religion course.[/QUOTE]If it were so silly and bizarre, the Christians would be laughed out of every formal debate and every courtroom. As it stands, they hold so much social power over the country that no matter how silly and bizarre their ideas are, their power gives them validity in the eyes of the public. [QUOTE=Brasil] It's not a social problem. A social problem is something like drug abuse, homelessness, child abuse...you get the idea. A bunch of Fundamentalist Christians getting their panties in a twist because public schools (READ: non-private; READ: non-religious) aren't teaching a religiously-founded doctrin. Adahn, don't present this as an issue that's a threat to society. It isn't. It's a threat to Fundamentalist Christians who still haven't grown out of the Dark Ages, just like it's a threat to Catholics who hate Protestants.[/QUOTE]You take my use of the word 'problem' and apply too strong a meaning to it. For your benefit, I will call it a social conflict. Using the new word, I will attempt to describe the situation again without arousing your preconceptions of what a social "problem" constitutes. The Christians have their panties in a bunch because their interests are being threatened. From their perspective, the teaching of evolution in schools as infallible is damning the souls of millions of children. Their response's purpose is to remove this threat, but the greedy SOB's are biting off more than they can chew in suing for the teaching of their ID theory. If science gets its way and continues "damning the souls of millions of children" (from the Christian perspective), the conflict will not be resolved. If the Christians get their way and can "save the souls of millions of children" with their ID theory, the conflict will not be resolved. If the manner of teaching evolution presents it as a fallible theory, providing children with a [b]choice[/b] to believe it or not, the conflict is resolved for the Christians and the scientists, though unsatisfactorily for both parties. [QUOTE=Brasil] It's not that your illustration is offensive; it's that your illustration makes no sense whatsoever, even after you've explained it.[/QUOTE]Scientists screw Christians: Scientists continue their teaching of Evolution in a manner that makes it appear infallible. Christians screw scientists: ID is taught in schools alongside Evolution. Scientists and Christians both screwed: Evolution is required to be taught as fallible, though an understanding of its mechanisms and applications is required of the students. I thought it made sense. [QUOTE=Brasil] And you know what? To answer your question... The Christians need to get screwed on this one.[/QUOTE]Brasil, if the Christians get screwed, is that going to stop them and solve the conflict? We both know that the answer is that it will not. Do you not think it feasible to explore possible solutions that will [i]actually[/i] bring about a resolution to the conflict? P.S. Shinji is a hippie.

[QUOTE=Brasil] Three, [color=#000000]"[/color][color=#000000]it is a very convincing (and misleading) attack on all other ideas concerning the origin of life (most of them religious)" is crying wolf.[/color] Oh noes, here comes big bad science to nearly completely debunk outdated religious dogma. Come on, dude. Science is only scary and threatening to the same types of people who wanted to execute Galileo. [/QUOTE] The key words used here are "nearly completely". I'm all for scientific discovery, but there is a problem in the teaching of evolution. It is taught as infallible. It is taught in a manner that denies the possibility of any creation theory. If Evolution is able to provide evidence that denies the possibility of Creation, then I'm all for throwing religion down the crap chute. However, since disproving religions is impossible (I think), it should not be presented in schools as the final word on the origin of life and humanity. [QUOTE=Brasil] Four, "social problem" my butt. This isn't a matter of choice. Do you know why? Because a "choice" was the exact reason why Protestants and Catholics were killing each other on the streets of Philadelphia circa 1844. It was a matter of "choice" why Catholic churches were burned down. "Choice" in education, as it specifically relates to religious doctrine, was the exact reason why entire blocks of South Philadelphia had to be re-built.[/QUOTE] Children are very impressionable. If you teach them Evolution in a manner that disproves religion, they will probably believe you. You remove their choice to think and decide for themselves. Until Evolotion disproves religion (again, impossible, I think), it should not be taught in a manner that removes the children's choice. This is a social problem, Brasil. You must understand that while Christianity is a religion, it is also a very large and influential social group. The Christians as a social group saw their interests in danger. ID was their social response. If you can show me how Christians don't function as a social group, and also how ID isn't their social response to Evolution, then my argument will be invalid. [QUOTE=Brasil] You want to talk about choice, and freedom? You should study history, specifically the long-established history of the twisted (and deadly) dichotomy of religion and public education. Philadelphia 1844 is proof of why religious or spiritual doctrine or ideologues in the classroom is a bad idea. [/QUOTE] If you see the problem for what it truly is (a social one), then you will realize that "religious or spiritual doctrine or ideologues in the classroom" is unnecessary in order to solve the problem. If Evolution isn't taught in the manner I have described so many times, then the Christians' social interests will no longer be in danger. The problem will be resolved without requiring talk of religion. [QUOTE=Brasil] Like I've said time and time again, religious mentality has not changed since the conception of religion. It's still the same damn, repetitive argument, and I can point to any number of Catholic arguments from Philly circa 1844 and the similarities will be downright terrifying. [/QUOTE] So long as the Christian social force is a dominant one in the United States, we must cater to their social desires. I, for one, am not personally concerned with the outcome of this 'debate'. I do not share the Christian social perspective. I do, however, find the confrontation between the "Scientist social group" and the "Christian social group" interesting. The scientists [i]want[/i] evolution to be presented to children as a way to disprove religion. The Christians want their ID theology to be required to be presented to children. What I propose disappoints both groups, and that's the beauty of it. If Evolution is presented as fallible, neither group gets what it desires, yet the problem is resolved. Let's have the scientists and the Christians walk away from this with their heads down. Fix the problem without screwing only one group, because the way the argument between the groups is set up now, either one getting its way screws the other. In order to drive my argument home, I'll illustrate it for you. If my illustration is offensive, I apologize. I will (regretfully) make it as unoffending as possible. Option A: Christians------>Scientists Option B: Scientists------>Christians Option C: ------>Scientists ------>Christians Here I can ask a question of the rest of you viewing this thread. Which option (A,B, or C) would be most satisfying for you? If you say "option D", then you're a hippie. Nobody is coming out of this without getting screwed.

[QUOTE=René][size=1][color=indigo][font=arial] Okay then, will you allow them to start teaching the flying spaghetti monster concept as well?[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color] [color=#000000][/color] [color=#000000]No.[/color] [QUOTE=René] Buddhism? Hinduism?[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color] [color=#000000][/color] [color=#000000]Some element of Buddhism and Hinduism was taught to me while I was in school. Is it so uncommon that you think it's ridiculous?[/color] [QUOTE=René] ID, by definition, isn't an inherently Christian principle, and it's been established mutliple times in this thread.[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color] [color=#000000][/color] [color=#000000][Quote=Adahn][/color] [color=#000000]3. ID was developed as a response to Evolution in defense of Christian theology.[/Quote][/color] [color=#000000][/color] [color=#000000]Your 'definition' isn't important in the social context. What is important is what I have stated above. Read it again, carefully, and argue against it if you will. The [i]origin[/i] and [i]purpose[/i] are more important than the definition. This has [i]not[/i] been explicitly established and explored, hence my post.[/color] [color=#000000][/color] [quote name='René'] Yet, you're painting it as a Christian principle (this is despite claims by those who want it that it's not), and evolution as atheistic, which simply isn't true. [color=#000000][/quote][/color] [color=#000000] It is Christian in origin and purpose. You are correct in saying that its application and understanding do not require complete compatibility with Christian doctrine. I did not 'paint' it as such. Evolution is a scientific theory. Perhaps I should have said non-theistic. Will you debate me on its non-theism?[/color] [color=#000000][/color] [QUOTE=René] By believing in ID to begin with, you're [b]embracing the concept of evolution[/b], just putting it all down to God instead of playing with more scientific principles of the creation of life, the universe, and everything. Your post is contradictory.[color=#000000][/Quote][/color] [color=#000000][/color] [color=#000000]Ah, the Chewbacca defense. How I recoil at your words, and how little sense they make. My mind is all confused now. However, I will do my best to make sense of what you have just said. I didn't say I believed in ID. [b]Show[/b] me [b]how[/b] believing in ID embraces the concept of evolution, and then tell me why [b]it's bad[/b]. Also, show me how evolution explains the [b]creation of life, the universe, and everything.[/b] Lastly, quote my post and point out my contradictions, please. I do it so often that sometimes I cannot even see it.[/color] [QUOTE=René] It's people like yourself, who put a large Christian slant on the concept and want a theological idea taught in a science class room.[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color] [color=#000000][/color] [color=#000000]Where did I say I wanted a theological idea taught in a science classroom? Quote it for me, please.[/color] [QUOTE=René] - a place that requires more explanation by default than 'So, like, there was this big bearded dude in the sky and one day he made Earth and - get this - PUT IN PLACE EVOLUTION' - that is making so many people opposed to the idea.[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color] [color=#000000]All that I require to be in the science classroom is that the children be made to understand that the theory of evolution is [b]fallible, incomplete, and unrelated to the origin of [i]life.[/i][/b] It is applicable and useful, but so long as it is taught to be the truth on all things related to the origins of life, it is a very convincing (and misleading) attack on all other ideas concerning the origin of life (most of them religious).[/color] [QUOTE=René] Many people arguing against the concept of ID in this thread have said it would be fine if it would be taught in the proper context - a religion class, as it deals with the concept of [b]religion[/b], not science. They aren't wholly against the idea, they're against it in the wrong context. And that's fine, really. I mean think about it....[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color] [color=#000000][/color] [color=#000000]If it is taught in an [i]elective[/i] course, children will not be exposed to the possibility that evolution is not the answer to all questions concerning their origin. ID is unnecessary if my above statement is incorporated into the teaching of evolution.[/color] [color=#000000][/color] [color=#000000][/color] [QUOTE=René] Science requires empirical proof. We have proof for evolution, albeit limited, and it's that same proof that they're applying to ID. [b]However[/b], to believe in ID, you have to believe in the great unprovable - the existance of a higher power. There is no way, we will ever prove there is a God, or Allah, or whatever deity you choose to follow. It can't be proven, [i]ever[/i]. Evolution, over millions of years, has at least the [b]potential[/b] to be proven, to become fact. The existence of a God can never be proven through scientific means, or any other way beside. You have to have [b]faith[/b] that s/he's there. That's what makes it a religion. This is in contrast to scientists, who don't rely on faith to prove their findings, they rely on facts. That's all there is to it, and it's what makes it inappropriate as being taught as scientific principle - because it's not. Faith as the basis for science cannot work, because it can never be proven, and therefore shouldn't be taught in the context of a science classroom.[/font][/color][/size][/QUOTE] I hope you don't mind that I fixed numerous spelling errors, as it enhances the flow of your argument. Faith systems, by nature, cannot be proven scientifically. The teaching of evolution in classrooms as infallible fact disproves a number of religions. Evolution is atheistic (anti-religion) in certain cases where faith in a creation story is required. THIS is the problem we face. This is the question we must answer. Is it right to force the teaching of an anti-religious theory to children without any indication of its fallibility? ID is a [b]possible[/b] solution to this [b]social[/b] problem. You don't have to listen to me or believe me, but if you're going to argue with me, do it right, for heaven's sake. Argue against my ideas, but only if you [b]understand[/b] them. If you don't, then please, don't bother.

[size=2]Oh dear Lord, I just wrote a very long post, and when I clicked reply, it says I wasn't logged in. I am very, very sad.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]To your benefit, I will have to shorten everything I said.[/size] [size=2]1. School attendance is required of millions of impressionable children.[/size] [size=2]2. Evolution is an atheistic, but also anti-Christian theory.[/size] [size=2]3. ID was developed as a response to Evolution in defense of Christian theology.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Evolution is a state-sanctioned attack on Christianity administered to millions of children in the United States. The evidence for or against either theory is unimportant in the social context. All things are fallible, including evolution and ID, so arguments for or against either of them are important in a scientific/theological/philosophical context, but those arguments mean very little in a social context. The introduction of ID into schools as a counterexample to evolution gives the children a choice in what they can believe.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I am all about morality. You decide for yourselves whether or not it's right to exclude ID (or some other theory that allows for a theological explanation) from schools. Many of you who have posted are Christians, and many are not. I ask both groups, however, to make a moral choice.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Is it right to force children to learn a theory that contradicts Christianity without allowing any defence? We Americans pride ourselves on the choices our citizens have. One of them is the choice of religion. The freedom to choose a religion. Evolution taught as fact in schools denies children that freedom. The 'separation of church and state' is being subtly violated. Evolution is atheistic, and anti-Christian. The fallability of evolution must be presented to children in some way or another, else we are depriving them of their right to choose.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I don't have to argue for or against the technicalities of ID and evolution in order to make my point. The bottom line is that there is a question here, and in order to best answer it, we must understand the consequences of the decision. You may continue to argue the technicalities as you desire, but please keep in mind that your choices have effects, and if you truly want to show your intelligence and moral capacity, you will attempt to forsee as many of those effects as you are able.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2](copies the post just in case)[/size]