Economic and women.

[Guest]

Thanks for moving this.

Now, I'll respond. Some of the most famous PUAs have been liberal. Look at the Kennedy family, Warren Beatty, almost every actory in Hollywood really.

As for the actual points:
-Men and women ARE equal. Seriously. I don't understand how a PUA, liberal or conservative, could believe otherwise. After all, we all work to break down those traditional gender roles that conservative society burdens women with.
-Liberals are concerned with standing up for their own rights and the rights of others. That's an alpha characteristic. Using force is not necessarily an alpha characteristic. Regardless, liberals are willing to use force when it is necessary. I know it is popular to call liberals "peace loving tree huggers," but that doesn't mean a liberal won't whoop some ass if it's necessary.
-Liberals are not anti-individual. After all, liberals are pro-choice, aren't they? I mean, isn't that one of the main things a liberal fights for, an individual's rights regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or economic standing?
-Liberals ABSOLUTELY believe in natural selection and Darwinism. It is the Christian conservative right that believes a magical man in the sky created humans. Also, I believe sacrificing the strong for the sake of the weak is an alpha characteristic. If you are not willing to make sacrifices to benefit the less fortunate, then you are not a man of abundance, you are not a leader or protector.
-The sexual revolution was a LIBERAL movement. Conservatives preach abstenance and oppose gay marriage.

I think regardless of your political leanings, what makes a PUA is having strong convictions and not compromising them.

[Guest]

-Men and women absolutely are not equal. Should they have equal opportunity? Yes, but to think that they are equal is a joke. Again, just look at how many matriarchal society's exist in the world...zero. Tells you something about the sexes doesn't it?

Having said that, women have attempted to derail that by using their sexuality to shift the power structure. The problem with this is that it has only acted to objective women even MORE. They are not longer someone to share a life with, but an object to conquer.

-Liberals do not fight. What liberal society voluntarily fights? WW II was a great example of liberal pacifism in action. England had a chance to get Hitler taken care of well before the war broke out. But, Chamberlin talked it out with Hitler and Hitler promised not to wage war...Churchill laughed at Chamberlin when he got back. Who was right?

I learned at an early age that violence is a necessary evil. Liberals don't believe in it and believe in working out your differences amicably. But, think back to the playground. When a bully is on your ass, the only thing that will stop him is to fight back...even if you lose. Bully's back away from a fight, they just want to intimadate and it usually works because most people are pussies.

-Liberals are anti-individual. You cite pro-choice, well what about the choice of that life? Life begins at conception. I'm pro-choice only in the sense that I have no RIGHT to dictate how you decide to live your life, but NO way would I allow my child to be sucked out of the womb using a modified vacuum cleaner. The aborted individual has no choice in the matter...so, liberals are taking away the ultimate right...the right to life. And, they do so in the name of convenience. Virtually every woman that had an abortion and have any amount of conscience end up regretting that action for the rest of their lives. Look at Roe in Roe v. Wade, she's spent the rest of her life fighting against that decision because she realized how tyrannical she was over another's life...pro-individual my ass.

-Liberals stand up for the rights of others only in the sense that it makes them more poweful because in protecting the rights of others, it creates a class of individuals that are now dependent on them to protect their rights. It creates slavery and dependency, not freedom. It's a power grab, not compassion. Being compassionate is teaching a man to fish, not handing out the fish.

-Liberals are proponents of equal outcomes, not equal opportunity. That is inherently anti-individual. Hey, Joe, great job working hard, taking care of your own...but David over here didn't achieve quite as much, so Joe, we're going to take from you to give to David. How's that pro-individual?

-I, for one, believe in evolution. HOWEVER, from a scientific point of view, evolution has never definitively been proven. It's called the Theory of Evolution, not the LAW of Evolution. Until then, the debate still rages and, although it may appear to be foolish to you and I, the religious Right has every right to continue to believe in the THEORY of Creationism. In truth, sense neither is a LAW, I think both should be taught in school.

-Ask just about any woman that was young during the Sexual Revolution and knew how women were treated before and, now, after the Sexual Revolution. A very large number of them will say that it wasn't worth it. Man's mantra has always been women and children first, but with the Sexual Revolution, the mantra is changing to "children first and why the hell should you get a lifeboat before me...we're equal remember?"

Quite frankly, Liberalism is a mental disorder...

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Bull Run;35402]-Men and women absolutely are not equal. Should they have equal opportunity? Yes, but to think that they are equal is a joke. Again, just look at how many matriarchal society's exist in the world...zero. Tells you something about the sexes doesn't it?

Having said that, women have attempted to derail that by using their sexuality to shift the power structure. The problem with this is that it has only acted to objective women even MORE. They are not longer someone to share a life with, but an object to conquer.

-Liberals do not fight. What liberal society voluntarily fights? WW II was a great example of liberal pacifism in action. England had a chance to get Hitler taken care of well before the war broke out. But, Chamberlin talked it out with Hitler and Hitler promised not to wage war...Churchill laughed at Chamberlin when he got back. Who was right?

I learned at an early age that violence is a necessary evil. Liberals don't believe in it and believe in working out your differences amicably. But, think back to the playground. When a bully is on your ass, the only thing that will stop him is to fight back...even if you lose. Bully's back away from a fight, they just want to intimadate and it usually works because most people are pussies.

-Liberals are anti-individual. You cite pro-choice, well what about the choice of that life? Life begins at conception. I'm pro-choice only in the sense that I have no RIGHT to dictate how you decide to live your life, but NO way would I allow my child to be sucked out of the womb using a modified vacuum cleaner. The aborted individual has no choice in the matter...so, liberals are taking away the ultimate right...the right to life. And, they do so in the name of convenience. Virtually every woman that had an abortion and have any amount of conscience end up regretting that action for the rest of their lives. Look at Roe in Roe v. Wade, she's spent the rest of her life fighting against that decision because she realized how tyrannical she was over another's life...pro-individual my ass.

-Liberals stand up for the rights of others only in the sense that it makes them more poweful because in protecting the rights of others, it creates a class of individuals that are now dependent on them to protect their rights. It creates slavery and dependency, not freedom. It's a power grab, not compassion. Being compassionate is teaching a man to fish, not handing out the fish.

-Liberals are proponents of equal outcomes, not equal opportunity. That is inherently anti-individual. Hey, Joe, great job working hard, taking care of your own...but David over here didn't achieve quite as much, so Joe, we're going to take from you to give to David. How's that pro-individual?

-I, for one, believe in evolution. HOWEVER, from a scientific point of view, evolution has never definitively been proven. It's called the Theory of Evolution, not the LAW of Evolution. Until then, the debate still rages and, although it may appear to be foolish to you and I, the religious Right has every right to continue to believe in the THEORY of Creationism. In truth, sense neither is a LAW, I think both should be taught in school.

-Ask just about any woman that was young during the Sexual Revolution and knew how women were treated before and, now, after the Sexual Revolution. A very large number of them will say that it wasn't worth it. Man's mantra has always been women and children first, but with the Sexual Revolution, the mantra is changing to "children first and why the hell should you get a lifeboat before me...we're equal remember?"

Quite frankly, Liberalism is a mental disorder...[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to argue with this post point-by-point, because I never intended to get into a position where I'm defending liberalism. That's why my first instinct was to let the post go. My intention was to argue that the idea that liberals have characteristics that are contrary to PUA or alpha characteristics is preposterous, and that Budguy's examples were fatally flawed.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Bull Run;35402]
Life begins at conception.[/quote]

What causes you to believe that?

[QUOTE]-I, for one, believe in evolution. HOWEVER, from a scientific point of view, evolution has never definitively been proven. It's called the Theory of Evolution, not the LAW of Evolution. Until then, the debate still rages and, although it may appear to be foolish to you and I, the religious Right has every right to continue to believe in the THEORY of Creationism. In truth, sense neither is a LAW, I think both should be taught in school.[/QUOTE]

Theory doesn't mean the same thing in science that it means in everyday speech. Theory is a pretty high thing in science, in fact, in science, gravity is also just a theory.

Teaching creationism alongside evolution in school is just as nonsensical as teaching alchemy alongside chemistry.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=spoonybard;35405]Theory doesn't mean the same thing in science that it means in everyday speech. Theory is a pretty high thing in science, in fact, in science, gravity is also just a theory.

Teaching creationism alongside evolution in school is just as nonsensical as teaching alchemy alongside chemistry.[/QUOTE]

If they teach creationism alongside evolution, then they better teach about the [URL="http://www.venganza.org/"]Flying Spaghetti Monster[/URL].

[Guest]

[QUOTE=spoonybard;35405]What causes you to believe that?



Theory doesn't mean the same thing in science that it means in everyday speech. Theory is a pretty high thing in science, in fact, in science, gravity is also just a theory.

Teaching creationism alongside evolution in school is just as nonsensical as teaching alchemy alongside chemistry.[/QUOTE]


Ahh...I love when the intellectual elites come out to play...

Listen, they're both popular beliefs and are the two most common, what's the harm in letting both of them make their case and then let people decide for themselves.

The problem with people like you is that you don't allow people to make up their own mind, you do it for them because you know what's best right? Gee, thanks...I can't think for myself. How did I ever get this far in my life without you making my life decisions for me? The real question I pose you is whether I should have chicken or steak for dinner...I just don't have the intellectual capability to decide for myself.

I believe in evolution, but I'm not so arrogant as to say that everyone has to believe that as well.

And, who says life doesn't start at conception? Prove that it doesn't and I might change my view on abortion...until then, err on the side of caution.

Flying Spaghetti Machine? Dude, that's just stupid. Two commonly held beliefs, neither of which are definitively true or untrue, should at least be mentioned. Call it the Fox News Network to education, fair and balanced...

Oh wait, you Libs don't like that do you? Your job is to make decisions for other people and omit what it is that you don't agree with because you know best.

Like I said, Liberalism is a mental disorder...

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Bull Run;35409]Flying Spaghetti Machine? Dude, that's just stupid. Two commonly held beliefs, neither of which are definitively true or untrue, should at least be mentioned. Call it the Fox News Network to education, fair and balanced...

Oh wait, you Libs don't like that do you? Your job is to make decisions for other people and omit what it is that you don't agree with because you know best.

Like I said, Liberalism is a mental disorder...[/QUOTE]

Evolution is not just a "commonly held belief," it's a scientific theory based on observable evidence. There is nothing scientific about creationism, which truly is just a belief.

Christians didn't like having their religion left out of public schools, because all those Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Agnostics, and Atheists were being allowed to continue their beliefs. The Christians were missing out on an opportunity to convert the future leaders of America to their religion. It wasn't good enough that children learned about science in school and learned about religion from their parents, because those parents might teach the children the wrong religion. So the Christians created intelligent design as a scam to get Christianity into the public school curriculum. The only reason to introduce intelligent design into public schools is to get the Christian religion into public schools.

The science behind the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as "stupid" as the science behind intelligent design, so we might as well teach that to the future leaders of America too.

May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage... RAmen...

EDIT: I forgot one point. I don't want to keep anyone from believing in creationism. I even allow my son to make his own decisions, and he goes to a Baptist church with his friends, even though I don't consider myself a Christian. However, I do strongly believe that there is no place whatsoever for religion in public schools.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Rhody;35412]Evolution is not just a "commonly held belief," it's a scientific theory based on observable evidence. There is nothing scientific about creationism, which truly is just a belief.

Christians didn't like having their religion left out of public schools, because all those Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Agnostics, and Atheists were being allowed to continue their beliefs. The Christians were missing out on an opportunity to convert the future leaders of America to their religion. It wasn't good enough that children learned about science in school and learned about religion from their parents, because those parents might teach the children the wrong religion. So the Christians created intelligent design as a scam to get Christianity into the public school curriculum. The only reason to introduce intelligent design into public schools is to get the Christian religion into public schools.

The science behind the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as "stupid" as the science behind intelligent design, so we might as well teach that to the future leaders of America too.

May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage... RAmen...[/QUOTE]



Good God. Man, I know it's hard for you Libs to understand, but this is a Christain nation (even if it's not officially recognized...remember, the seperation of church and state clause is there to stop an official state religion, not prevent talk of religion in general). Get over it. No one is forcing you to believe in that entire concept.

I'm probably the least religious person you'll meet, frankly I don't believe in a lot of that gibberish. I see zero issue with having creationism taught, zero. I'm not saying FORCED on to students, but the facts taught to them. Or, more accurately, the shortcomings of evolution taught instead of saying that this is the answer...it should be this is the BEST answer we think we have (of course the earth used to be the center of the universe and was flat as well), here are the virtues, here are the shortcomings, and here are some alternative views on how life came to be.

Truth be told, evolution is 'faith based' in many respects. There are so many holes in evolution that it doesn't seem intellectually honest to espouse that as the one and only option that explains Man's existence. Again, I think evolution 'makes sense,' but I don't necessarily think that it's sermon. What about the flaws of evolution?

1. Evoluion is Missing a Mathematical Forumla -- Math is the verfication language of science, every scientific theory has a formula, except evolution. What is the working formula that shows how evolution exists in practice, or in theory?

2. There is No Genetic Mechanism for Darwinian Evolution -- Apparently we, as humans, evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life. The most basic bacteria has less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for this to occur, there must be a mechanism to be able to add genes. But no such genetic mechanism has been shown to exist (mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene).

3. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation, a concept ridiculed by biology -- People used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called "spontaneous generation." Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The origin of life is a precussor to evolution, but not required to explain evolution. Scientistis still have not proven how life even started from non-life, which as shown by Pasteur is impossible. But, conveinently, that little fact is not required to explain evolution.

Is it possible that, in the beginning that life was created, in some form, by a higher being and then over millions of years, life evolved through genetic variation and mutation, to create the various forms of life that have existed in the past and currently exist today? Sure, why not?

To say evolution is 100% correct is wrong until one can find all of the missing links in the fossil record and, even more importantly, until one can definitively show how non-life was able to create life.

There's nothing wrong with religion in public schools as long as they are taught from a factual perspective. I'd rather my kids hear the religious gibberish than have them listen to an ultra liberal, card carrying Union member mold their minds into mush. A school should be like the news, a statement of facts...sure bias will exist, but let's stick to the facts.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Bull Run;35409]

The problem with people like you is that you don't allow people to make up their own mind, you do it for them because you know what's best right? Gee, thanks...I can't think for myself. How did I ever get this far in my life without you making my life decisions for me? The real question I pose you is whether I should have chicken or steak for dinner...I just don't have the intellectual capability to decide for myself.[/QUOTE]

5 stars. That shit is just plain up funny bro.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Bull Run;35409]The problem with people like you is that you don't allow people to make up their own mind, you do it for them because you know what's best right? Gee, thanks...I can't think for myself. How did I ever get this far in my life without you making my life decisions for me? The real question I pose you is whether I should have chicken or steak for dinner...I just don't have the intellectual capability to decide for myself.[/QUOTE]

Funny as it is, this rant is extremely hypocritical. You are forcing your opinions on other people more than anybody else in this discussion. You feel so strongly about forcing the Christian creationist belief on non-Christians that you want to find a captive audience of non-Christians in a secular environment and force them to study it as if it's science. I'm not saying people can't learn about creationism in Christian churches or schools or their homes. Of course they can. I encourage it. My own son does it.

On the other hand, you want to force religious beliefs on people who don't want them. Your rant applies to YOU. You're anti-individual! You're a LIBERAL!

And somehow this has something to do with liberal characteristics being contrary to PUA characteristics. I don't get it. I guess the lesson to learn in this thread is don't get into a food fight if you don't want to get mashed potatoes in your hair.