It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
White House Press Secretary says photos of the Inauguration were unfairly cropped, thus giving the impression that the crowds were smaller than they actually were. Yep. "Alternative Facts" are now in play people.
onenerdykidWhite House Press Secretary says photos of the Inauguration were unfairly cropped, thus giving the impression that the crowds were smaller than they actually were. Yep. "Alternative Facts" are now in play people.
You are just barely touching on the idiocy of the prepared statement. It went on and on and on and was jaw droppingly untruthful, wrong, anti constitutional, and embarrassing.
The press secretary cannot be happy he had to read that shit.
californiagrownYou are just barely touching on the idiocy of the prepared statement. It went on and on and on and was jaw droppingly untruthful, wrong, anti constitutional, and embarrassing.
The press secretary cannot be happy he had to read that shit.
I only caught a small clip, I'm sure the rest of it was thoroughly ridiculous.
onenerdykidWhite House Press Secretary says photos of the Inauguration were unfairly cropped, thus giving the impression that the crowds were smaller than they actually were. Yep. "Alternative Facts" are now in play people.
Well it's a sad argument really, the difference in crowd size.
In 2009, The misplaced sense of optimism, and the "opportunity to witness history", with the first half-black president, drove many more people to the inauguration. Trump's numbers are pretty standard for past presidents before Obama. Dumb fake news from the fakestream media.
Also, it's worth keeping in mind that D.C. is what, 90% Democrat? That has an effect as well.
It's just a poor consolation prize for bitter people on the Left. I never remember them mentioning Trump's full stadiums in comparison to Hillary's nearly empty rallies (or Kaine's rally where only 15-30 people showed up).
onenerdykidYou really don't know your history of the last 15 years, do you? Trying to blow up the problem will only create more problems. You need to defeat bad ideas, which is the actual problem and a much bigger and harder problem to solve.
There's a reason the eagle holds a bushel of arrows and an olive branch.
How do you defeat Islam without force? Trying to convince them to become less fervent hasn't worked at all.
The only examples of Islam being defeated are through military force and by forcing Muslims to abandon Islam or return to Islamic lands.
CampeadorWell it's a sad argument really, the difference in crowd size.
In 2009, The misplaced sense of optimism, and the "opportunity to witness history", with the first half-black president, drove many more people to the inauguration. Trump's numbers are pretty standard for past presidents before Obama. Dumb fake news from the fakestream media.
Also, it's worth keeping in mind that D.C. is what, 90% Democrat? That has an effect as well.
It's just a poor consolation prize for bitter people on the Left. I never remember them mentioning Trump's full stadiums in comparison to Hillary's nearly empty rallies (or Kaine's rally where only 15-30 people showed up).
It's not the size of the crowd, but how the Press Secretary tried to twist the facts and claim that photographers were trying to unfairly crop the photos to "inaccurately" show a smaller crowd. The manipulations and story re-telling are in full effect. Trump's lies and misinformation are scores worse than anything Obama or Bush ever claim close to. It's laughable.
CampeadorThere's a reason the eagle holds a bushel of arrows and an olive branch.
How do you defeat Islam without force? Trying to convince them to become less fervent hasn't worked at all.
The only examples of Islam being defeated are through military force and by forcing Muslims to abandon Islam or return to Islamic lands.
I never said defeat Islam without force. Military engagement and victories will certainly be needed but only through education will we have long lasting change. As long as people believe in revealed truth and that their unique version is true and everyone else is wrong, we will continue to have these ridiculous problems.
californiagrownEven campeador is begging for you to stop digging your hole of contradictions deeper haha.
New Testament was made and Old Testament was meant to be forgotten...even though the commandments were in it. most importantly eye for an eye to be replaced by do unto others.
onenerdykidYeah there are plenty of great female inventors. Just do a Google search and educate yourself. Or you can just check here: http://www.women-inventors.com/
But my two personal favorites are Marie Curie and Margaret Hamilton. As you may recall, Curie is the only person in history to have won the Nobel Prize in two different branches of science- a man has yet to do that. Hamilton is responsible for writing much of the computer code by hand for the Apollo space program. NASA credits her with being one of the most indispensable persons of the whole program, meaning without her they wouldn't have gotten very far.
In general, if you want to know why there aren't more women in the sciences perhaps look at the culture they are in. When the New Testament says "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. - 1 Timothy 2:12 " are you really surprised that many women aren't encouraged to go down that road?
The New Testament is a moral failure written by men who couldn't comprehend even the most basic principles of ethics or moral philosophy.
Also, I didn't see you come to the defense of slavery...
So many people like to quote 1 Timothy 2:12 right there out of context. The thing is many verses that people use as an attack on Christianity are taken out of like this. So the reason that Paul would say something like that to Timothy is because of the times they were living in. He would say "I do not permit a women to teach or to exercise authority over a man..." for the same reason that an American would say for example "I do not permit a German to be the president of the United States..." if this was during the Second World War. There is history to the Bible and you have to remember that Paul is talking to and addressing people in a certain time zone sometimes. If you want you can get a study Bible, preferably a version such as the NASB or NKJV, a Bible dictionary, and a Bible concordance, to translate each word you see in a verse back into the Greek, Hebrew, or Latin and then retranslate it back into English to see what words that it literally means. Also learning about the time that the Apostle Paul was living through, or any time period of the Bible you are reading to understand the culture can help really improve ones understanding of what is going on here. Now this is not to say that the Bible currently isn't relevant, but it is to say that studying the Bible one can find out and realize why a writer from the Bible would say such things. It may not be because of "The Law" but rather because in 40 AD no one would have listened to a woman's opinion and her preaching, so it would be extremely ineffective
for the early church to put a woman in such a position. Plus another few easy little things to say " Love the Lord your God with all your heart with all your soul with all your mind and with all your strength, The second is you shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:30-31)
Also a bit of studying on the 1 Timothy verse to show you what can go into it...
It goes back to the King James Version. In that version, the verb authenteo is translated "usurp." Hence, the KJV reads here, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." That rendering for the verb was somewhat novel. The KJV translators mistranslated this very because they knew Latin better than they knew Greek. Now they mistranslated this in a non-critical way because in a way the word authenteo can mean multiple things just like the word "bat" just not with as dramatic of a difference. In the sixteenth century, Erasmus of Rotterdam--the man who was the first to publish a Greek New Testament--rendered authenteo this way. He produced five Greek New Testaments, and all of them were Greek-Latin diglots. That is, Greek was on one page and his Latin translation of the same was on the facing page. By the fourth century AD, authenteo had come to mean 'usurp.' But it didn't have this force earlier. Consequently, Erasmus translated the verb as usurpare (from which, obviously, English gets 'usurp'). His translation was based on Greek usage that was 300+ years after the time of the New Testament. Remarkably, Erasmus produced his Greek New Testament as a way to correct Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Jerome was the fourth century scholar who brought uniformity to the Latin versions of the Bible by gathering them up, along with several Greek copies, and trying to discern what was the original wording. In other words, Jerome was much closer to the time of the original than Erasmus was. And in Jerome's Vulgate, he translated authenteo as dominare. This Latin verb means, essentially, "to exercise authority." Only secondarily does it have a negative force. It was probably the best Latin verb to use for authenteo.
If you're still tracking with me, let's go back to Erasmus. He based his translation on his reading of Greek writers who lived during or after the time of Jerome. And because of this, he didn't grasp the actual meaning of authenteo in 1 Tim 2:12. And since authenteo is a RARE word in Greek literature, the KJV translators simply consulted the Latin in their Greek-Latin diglot to discern the meaning of the verb. And what did they find? Usurpare. Hence, an "illegitimate" translation made its way into the translation of the Bible. But today, the vast majority of English translations understand the term to be neutral, meaning we don't really have a word for authenteo in the English therefore we use usurp. But the meaning of the verse and the history of it is quite different than what it may look like to the average reader.
If you have any other questions about anything in the Bible or Christianity in general throw em at me with a Message or here on the thread I'm ready and here to answer them to the best of my ability hahah!
Gods_FatherNew Testament was made and Old Testament was meant to be forgotten...even though the commandments were in it. most importantly eye for an eye to be replaced by do unto others.
Actually just to clarify... the Old Testament was not meant to be forgotten whatsoever at all. Just the law, aspect of it from the Old Testament. Romans 7 says that we are no longer bound by the law, but that does not mean there are no valuable lessons to learn from the Old Testament. Such as the story of Job, when everything may look like it's just sent to absolute garbage, lost everything, wife left you, children die, everything is just gone, to know that the Lord is still with you and essentially be thankful for what you still do have, and God will see that and reward you. Or the story of David, Solomon, Abraham, Noah, I can go on and on. The Old Testament in no way is meant to be forgotten, but meant to be learned from. It's just like why make the same mistakes as others I can learn from. Same concept, lets say my friend cheated on his wife, oh shoot things didn't turn out so well, keep that in mind I won't do it because I learned from it. David from the Bible cheated on his wife, things weren't going well for him, well learn from that don't do that crap.
CampeadorThere's a reason the eagle holds a bushel of arrows and an olive branch.
How do you defeat Islam without force? Trying to convince them to become less fervent hasn't worked at all.
The only examples of Islam being defeated are through military force and by forcing Muslims to abandon Islam or return to Islamic lands.
Thank you. I was trying to not get political on this site, but fuck Islam as a whole. The religion is BS and all they do is kill innocent people and fuck everything up. We need a president that will put them in their place once and for all and now we have one.
I know this a delicate subject, but please don't hate me.
mike759Thank you. I was trying to not get political on this site, but fuck Islam as a whole. The religion is BS and all they do is kill innocent people and fuck everything up. We need a president that will put them in their place once and for all and now we have one.
I know this a delicate subject, but please don't hate me.
There is truth to what campedor said. But unfortunately the only military force that would put a stop to Islamist extremism is the nuclear annihilation of the middle east.
Instability creates hatred and hatred creates extremists. This is a very difficult and paradoxical problem. If you don't attack terrorists, they kill people. But the more bombing and attacking you do, the more terrorists you create. So the question is what can we possibly do? I don't have the answer to that question. More likely than not it is a balance of force and understanding that we just have not reached yet.
Damn guys idk how trumps gonna look when these protestors are done marching. seems like they're not causing to many issues in the streets and will certainly get trump impeached but who needs to go to work anyway?
Lol they need to stop, maybe wait and see what actually happens in the coming weeks
onenerdykidWhite House Press Secretary says photos of the Inauguration were unfairly cropped, thus giving the impression that the crowds were smaller than they actually were. Yep. "Alternative Facts" are now in play people.
Come on to be fair. It's kind of hard to see all of Trumps supporters against a white backdrop. It's like they were camouflage.
ZennanActually just to clarify... the Old Testament was not meant to be forgotten whatsoever at all. Just the law, aspect of it from the Old Testament. Romans 7 says that we are no longer bound by the law, but that does not mean there are no valuable lessons to learn from the Old Testament. Such as the story of Job, when everything may look like it's just sent to absolute garbage, lost everything, wife left you, children die, everything is just gone, to know that the Lord is still with you and essentially be thankful for what you still do have, and God will see that and reward you. Or the story of David, Solomon, Abraham, Noah, I can go on and on. The Old Testament in no way is meant to be forgotten, but meant to be learned from. It's just like why make the same mistakes as others I can learn from. Same concept, lets say my friend cheated on his wife, oh shoot things didn't turn out so well, keep that in mind I won't do it because I learned from it. David from the Bible cheated on his wife, things weren't going well for him, well learn from that don't do that crap.
Ok, thanks. What was meant to be forgotten though was eye for an eye to be replaced with do unto others.
onenerdykidIt's not the size of the crowd, but how the Press Secretary tried to twist the facts and claim that photographers were trying to unfairly crop the photos to "inaccurately" show a smaller crowd. The manipulations and story re-telling are in full effect. Trump's lies and misinformation are scores worse than anything Obama or Bush ever claim close to. It's laughable.
I never said defeat Islam without force. Military engagement and victories will certainly be needed but only through education will we have long lasting change. As long as people believe in revealed truth and that their unique version is true and everyone else is wrong, we will continue to have these ridiculous problems.
Well, truth be told, that's a bit dumb. However, I don't doubt that his team is simply playing the media, showing these "reporters" for the far-left partisans that they are. And they keep taking the bait, "We got them this time!" Most areas of the country hate these people, and don't care about their little cat and mouse games. If anything they're losing even more credibility, and continuing to appeal only to a left to far-left audience. They're paving their own road to irrelevancy.
A nonsense remark on crowd size is not even close to such lies as WMDs in Iraq or being able to "keep your doctor" at a more "affordable" price, or calling ISIS a "JV Team".
onenerdykidI never said defeat Islam without force. Military engagement and victories will certainly be needed but only through education will we have long lasting change. As long as people believe in revealed truth and that their unique version is true and everyone else is wrong, we will continue to have these ridiculous problems.
How do you educate those who actively resist such education?
I'm not talking about the Middle East, that needs to be quarantined and cauterized.
I'm talking about the continued subterfuge by muslims in Western countries. There are no half-measures that will work when dealing with Islam. It will never become "moderate", and the more muslims, the more that radical core will grow, until their numbers are large enough to exert influence over the rest.
This is a process repeated multiple times throughout history, and history provides us with the only proven ways of defeating them. The problem is the weak-willed, "humanitarian" Left doesn't want to defeat them, it wants to be slowly consumed and absorbed by the most backwards form of "multiculturalism".
“Just as an example, I’d allow one-fourth or one half of the people at the press conference to be citizens,” Gingrich said on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends” Monday morning. “Why is there this presumption that somebody who calls themselves the press even though they're total left-wing propagandists, they're somehow privileged creatures. The question is, should people be allowed to ask questions of the White House? Why does that have to be only the news media? Or why does it have to be only the Washington news media?”
I don't think you understood the context, or the actual question being asked.
The question being posed is whether or not American citizens should be able to ask questions at press conferences, or whether its a privilege reserved only for the media.
CampeadorI don't think you understood the context, or the actual question being asked.
The question being posed is whether or not American citizens should be able to ask questions at press conferences, or whether its a privilege reserved only for the media.
What do you think?
They can. Get a press credential. Kids do it all the time.
Or maybe they want more softball questions from folks not trained as journalists?
I mean, shit, we have a president with zero experience, why not have a press Corp full of folks who have no background in journalism!!
Campeador“Just as an example, I’d allow one-fourth or one half of the people at the press conference to be citizens,” Gingrich said on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends” Monday morning. “Why is there this presumption that somebody who calls themselves the press even though they're total left-wing propagandists, they're somehow privileged creatures. The question is, should people be allowed to ask questions of the White House? Why does that have to be only the news media? Or why does it have to be only the Washington news media?”
Great idea from the former Speaker. People are sick of fake journalists and the fakestream media's snarky little games.
He's directly attacking left wing propagandists, not left and right wing ones. It's obvious that he's not trying to level the playing field, but tilt it in a direction that favors him. Literally just replace what he said with "right wing propagandists" and you have exactly what the left could say too.
This has never been quite the issue it is now because no president has ever thrown the press under the bus like this before. If Donald Trump wants fair and honest reporting that doesn't jump to conclusions as quickly, maybe he should stop attacking them. How are they supposed to treat a man who openly defines himself as their enemy? How are they supposed to present a man who openly tells fact checkable lies so frequently?
I think it's fascinating that every criticism by anyone of the President is attributed to "the left" when presented by right news media. This oversimplification of the US citizenry and press is what leads to further misunderstanding. Simply put, the far left, the left, and many people who don't care to identify or perhaps once called themselves a republican see Donald Trump for what he is.
This of course happens in the left media as well, portraying the actions of trump and his supporters to be the views of all of those on the right which is equally incendiary.
The most interesting part of what you posted is this: are we all already not some form of media outlet? We all carry our phones that can tweet and take pictures giving us all our own little megaphone. In a world where the current press is being dismissed as untrustworthy, whow do you plan to fill that gap? Donald has filled his with his own twitter, why shouldn't the US citizens do the same? And they do, as if you look on the site, most of what is popular and viral is anti trump. That's the people speaking. You could argue that news articles are baiting people to act in a certain way, but then isn't that the same for trump?
californiagrownThey can. Get a press credential. Kids do it all the time.
Or maybe they want more softball questions from folks not trained as journalists?
I mean, shit, we have a president with zero experience, why not have a press Corp full of folks who have no background in journalism!!
Or maybe the left-wing members of the press are afraid of losing their privileged status to ask "gotcha" questions in their agenda to undermine Trump from the get go.
If the press corps are examples of backgrounds in "journalism", then maybe we'd be better off with people who don't have them. Look at just about any college "journalism" program and it's mainly left-wing indoctrination anyway.
I have a feeling citizens will ask more relevant questions that affect them directly, rather than the questions asked by the far-left bubble of D.C. media correspondents. The questions from regular people during the second debate, for the most part, were far superior to anything asked by any of the media moderators.
CampeadorOr maybe the left-wing members of the press are afraid of losing their privileged status to ask "gotcha" questions in their agenda to undermine Trump from the get go.
If the press corps are examples of backgrounds in "journalism", then maybe we'd be better off with people who don't have them. Look at just about any college "journalism" program and it's mainly left-wing indoctrination anyway.
I have a feeling citizens will ask more relevant questions that affect them directly, rather than the questions asked by the far-left bubble of D.C. media correspondents. The questions from regular people during the second debate, for the most part, were far superior to anything asked by any of the media moderators.
You don't want our politicians challenged and held accountable? I certainly do. Average citizens don't have the nationwide reach of major news outlets.
Do you just want average folks asking questions, but allow major news outlets in the room to report on it? Would they be allowed follow up questions?
californiagrownYou don't want our politicians challenged and held accountable? I certainly do. Average citizens don't have the nationwide reach of major news outlets.
Do you just want average folks asking questions, but allow major news outlets in the room to report on it? Would they be allowed follow up questions?
Press organizations shouldn't have any more privilege to ask questions than other people who wish to ask sincere questions.
If people watched these things on CSPAN it would be miles better than any of the garbage on the corporate "news" networks (and I count Fox among them).
CampeadorPress organizations shouldn't have any more privilege to ask questions than other people who wish to ask sincere questions.
If people watched these things on CSPAN it would be miles better than any of the garbage on the corporate "news" networks (and I count Fox among them).
Sure. But there is limited time to ask questions. So journalists represent us.
I'm sure you understand that, and why it can't just be free for all of singular citizens.
What are some unbiased news entities you would like to see in the pressroom?
californiagrownSure. But there is limited time to ask questions. So journalists represent us.
I'm sure you understand that, and why it can't just be free for all of singular citizens.
What are some unbiased news entities you would like to see in the pressroom?
That's bullshit, these "journalists" represent no one except the person signing the front of their paychecks.
It is tragic in a way that what was once fairly objective journalism was largely turned into a partisan tool to advance a left-wing agenda, and in the process it was destroyed.
Trump owes no special respect to any of these weasels that call themselves "journalists" in that press room. They're mainly propagandists. They went for broke on Hillary, and now they have to pay the price for their total loss of credibility.
As I said (based on Gingrich's idea), the best seats should no longer be reserved for a broken and irrelevant press corp. They have no idea what they're doing anyway.
More muslims doing exactly as the prophet commands.
"The alarm about a suspected sexual abuse against a woman came to the police on Sunday morning. Parts of the suspected rape was filmed and broadcast live out of a closed group on Facebook"
ZennanSo many people like to quote 1 Timothy 2:12 right there out of context. The thing is many verses that people use as an attack on Christianity are taken out of like this. So the reason that Paul would say something like that to Timothy is because of the times they were living in. He would say "I do not permit a women to teach or to exercise authority over a man..." for the same reason that an American would say for example "I do not permit a German to be the president of the United States..." if this was during the Second World War. There is history to the Bible and you have to remember that Paul is talking to and addressing people in a certain time zone sometimes. If you want you can get a study Bible, preferably a version such as the NASB or NKJV, a Bible dictionary, and a Bible concordance, to translate each word you see in a verse back into the Greek, Hebrew, or Latin and then retranslate it back into English to see what words that it literally means. Also learning about the time that the Apostle Paul was living through, or any time period of the Bible you are reading to understand the culture can help really improve ones understanding of what is going on here. Now this is not to say that the Bible currently isn't relevant, but it is to say that studying the Bible one can find out and realize why a writer from the Bible would say such things. It may not be because of "The Law" but rather because in 40 AD no one would have listened to a woman's opinion and her preaching, so it would be extremely ineffective
for the early church to put a woman in such a position. Plus another few easy little things to say " Love the Lord your God with all your heart with all your soul with all your mind and with all your strength, The second is you shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:30-31)
Thanks for the detailed response, I cut it short just for the sake of space. But I honestly do not buy it. The level of mental gymnastics you have to go through here just to soften this line from Timothy is nothing short of ridiculous. The amount of times we have to decipher implicit/suggested temporal truth from implicit/suggested universal truth in the Bible in order to make any sense of it just goes to show how incoherent this book really is. If anyone believes this book reflects the perfect word of the Creator, you really don't understand how truly good, clear, and cogent a perfect book should be. Such a book would certainly not have the obvious contradictions between the definition of the Golden Rule and how it ought to be implemented (treatment of women and owning slaves are obvious examples of this). It fails even the most introductory of logic courses.
CampeadorMore muslims doing exactly as the prophet commands.
"The alarm about a suspected sexual abuse against a woman came to the police on Sunday morning. Parts of the suspected rape was filmed and broadcast live out of a closed group on Facebook"
onenerdykidYeah there are plenty of great female inventors. Just do a Google search and educate yourself. Or you can just check here: http://www.women-inventors.com/
But my two personal favorites are Marie Curie and Margaret Hamilton. As you may recall, Curie is the only person in history to have won the Nobel Prize in two different branches of science- a man has yet to do that. Hamilton is responsible for writing much of the computer code by hand for the Apollo space program. NASA credits her with being one of the most indispensable persons of the whole program, meaning without her they wouldn't have gotten very far.
In general, if you want to know why there aren't more women in the sciences perhaps look at the culture they are in. When the New Testament says "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. - 1 Timothy 2:12 " are you really surprised that many women aren't encouraged to go down that road?
The New Testament is a moral failure written by men who couldn't comprehend even the most basic principles of ethics or moral philosophy.
Also, I didn't see you come to the defense of slavery...
Haha already well aware. Archimedes, Nikola tesla...just gona stop there...
onenerdykidYeah there are plenty of great female inventors. Just do a Google search and educate yourself. Or you can just check here: http://www.women-inventors.com/
But my two personal favorites are Marie Curie and Margaret Hamilton. As you may recall, Curie is the only person in history to have won the Nobel Prize in two different branches of science- a man has yet to do that. Hamilton is responsible for writing much of the computer code by hand for the Apollo space program. NASA credits her with being one of the most indispensable persons of the whole program, meaning without her they wouldn't have gotten very far.
In general, if you want to know why there aren't more women in the sciences perhaps look at the culture they are in. When the New Testament says "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. - 1 Timothy 2:12 " are you really surprised that many women aren't encouraged to go down that road?
The New Testament is a moral failure written by men who couldn't comprehend even the most basic principles of ethics or moral philosophy.
Also, I didn't see you come to the defense of slavery...
By the way, you shouldn't make assumptions...I never defended New Testament or the men who wrote it...just shared what a true born again Christian follows.
And really....you actually believe there aren't as many women in mathematics/sciences as there could be because of some passages from religious text? Lol
Why does our society have female professors teaching subjects to men if they are truly being suppressed/censored by these religious texts as you claim?
Gods_FatherWhy does our society have female professors teaching subjects to men if they are truly being suppressed/censored by these religious texts as you claim?
Wait what? So the last 100 years or so of women breaking glass ceilings means nothing to you? A male dominant thinking is heavily supported by religious texts, every way you look. It doesn't take a genius to see the correlation between religion and male dominance. This trickles down into every aspect of life
RosbifSo wait? You do care about women's rights? Or only when they are infringed by Muslims and not Trump?
One seems to be far more of a threat than the other, wouldn't you say?
Or do you not think Islam is a threat to even the most basic rights of women, and that the behavior of muslims by and large contributes to the forced subjugation of women?
There's only one answer you can give without lying, just go for it.
K-Dot.Wait what? So the last 100 years or so of women breaking glass ceilings means nothing to you? A male dominant thinking is heavily supported by religious texts, every way you look. It doesn't take a genius to see the correlation between religion and male dominance. This trickles down into every aspect of life
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet"
Why do we see very successful female university professors if these religious texts hold as much merit as you're claiming? Doesn't take a genius to see that these women are not actually following that male dominant mentality...
Gods_Father"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet"
Why do we see very successful female university professors if these religious texts hold as much merit as you're claiming? Doesn't take a genius to see that these women are not actually following that male dominant mentality...
Not as much anymore, but we still see the number of women involved in the STEMs as small but growing and indicative that there is a shift from those texts having as much merit as they've had for the last 2000 years. Just because things are the way they are now, doesn't mean they were always that way. Those exact lines don't hold as much merit as they once did but for much of human history they dominated ideology on the subject. Also, religion and particularly the bible has a still lasting effect on our perception of women to this day that trickles into women's perceived role in the work place. Women are often discouraged and intimidated in those fields of study, and yes, while there may be some who persist, it doesn't mean that as a whole, women haven't felt the effects of an ideology steering them from the STEMs.
It's comparable to you saying that white nationalist ideology doesn't have an effect on the US anymore because we had a black president.
CampeadorOne seems to be far more of a threat than the other, wouldn't you say?
Or do you not think Islam is a threat to even the most basic rights of women, and that the behavior of muslims by and large contributes to the forced subjugation of women?
There's only one answer you can give without lying, just go for it.
I feel like you think I can't criticise Islam, I can think that religion in general oppresses women and also think that Trump is a scumbag, there's no cognitive dissonance there.
What's funny is you lauding Trump, criticising the women's marches, yet still pretending that you care about women when posting about Islam. That must be tricky for you to twist your brain around.
