Flash news for you: If your no lady he dont have to give you special consideration.

ie… that phrase, like man up, is only used when a woman wants to short circuit a loss to make it a win by playing the “give into me card”.

its the ONLY time its used…

man doesnt hold a door… he isnt a gentlman
translatio, he didnt bow to my greatness and hold it open for me so i could move through the world unconcerned and uninterupted.

ever sit by a door, and watch? take out a pad and tick off (code) the watching… women basically ignore who is behind them most of the time… and so the doors close in others faces.

the only reason you want him to be a gentleman is that YOUR definition of gentleman says that “i have a hole, i have to win”.

that went out with men and women are complimentary pairs that exhibit comparative advantage…

when women act like gentlemen, then we might start taking up the foolish thing again. but now we are equal and they are mroe equal..

a lady would not ask a gentleman to cave in on some issue because she is female

a manipulative person playing people would, as she would ignore what was honorable, and seek to by pass it.

chivalry was never to be globally equally provided without any consideration

it was a special reward for being of the caliber and worthy of another sacrifice. thanks to feminisms desire to abuse it to their ends, we have forgotten that gentlemen and ladies, is a title earned, not given

This is a pull from Wikipedia, but it’s something I’m already aware of:

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson’s effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects…

I think Jefferson expressed what he could for his time. But look at what the whole of the founders agreed on … the U.S. Constitution. A compendium of writings not based on religious teaching, but on innate morality, common sense, and the affirmed rights of mankind, and more. Christianity was just tame enough to accept this, though as I’ve written there is a never-ending requirement to push-back. On the other hand, Islam has a BIG problem with said Constitution — they require more than a push back with word, the extreme of them require our bombs.

The comment prefaced my main point. Its intent was to make clear that I understand the thoughts and feelings of many atheists, and am not attacking atheism or atheists since I’ve been there.

I have no issue with argument/debate, but rather insults. If you are not an insulting poster, than feel free to ignore the comment – it wasn’t directed at people who use civility in their posts.

“…and the Jefferson’s wall of separation marks the divide between “establishment a state religion” and “the baby steps towards establishing a state religion” … fortify that wall.”

Says whom? Your quotes sound third personish.. Plus; Jefferson, taken in context, seemed to have less hostility towards religion in public life than those who quote him. I’d go so far as to say that most who quote his seperation of church and state letters take him out of context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m06sSoZ5bo

If you deem it worthy, pass it on. It sums up the last two years in (melo)dramatic fashion.

You know, I used to be a Canadian Mountie (for 25 years) … and you point is? If you can’t argue about religion then you can’t get to the heart of anything about the human condition, Dear.

I do not have time to police this blog for personal fighting. I find it takes away from the point of the blog, as well, when that sort of thing comes to dominate too much in the comments section.

I don’t mind a certain amount of it; I realize it’s inevitable, and I understand that a blog comments section is not a genteel place, nor should it be. But I do mind when it goes on for a while. I don’t have time to determine who’s right and who’s wrong in any given altercation, nor do I believe it should be my job.

I am saying to everyone on the blog that I am going to adopt a less hang-loose policy about repetitive personal attacks between commenters. It’s not that it can never happen. But if I see it going on too long, I will delete the entire comment of the person involved (that is, if I see the comment; I don’t always catch everything). Defending oneself is fine, but if the defense includes an attack, that’s not okay and will be deleted. And then, if it goes on again, I will ban the person or people involved. I am very reluctant to do this, but I will if I need to do it.

If it continues in this thread I will close comments for the thread.