Comment by Tom Sarbeck on June 8, 2014 at 4:19am

How, in my wanderings through TA, did I miss this discussion?

If all the other OT misogyny doesn't drive women away from xianity, can Lev. 12 succeed?

I used to complain that girls learn to think poorly of themselves; they grow up and men have to persuade them otherwise.

Don't blame me; I didn't choose parents who'd never received compliments and never gave them.

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on June 8, 2014 at 4:23am

And this, I have for years been telling people I know that xianity's god fucked up.

I'll say it again; xianity's god fucked up.

Comment by Dr. Bob on June 9, 2014 at 2:09pm

If all the other OT misogyny doesn't drive women away from xianity, can Lev. 12 succeed?

I doubt it, since the Levitical hygiene rules have never been followed by Christians, and to my knowledge are not even followed by most orthodox Jews.  The actual underlying text doubles the period of quarantine for women who have girls.  The quarantine ("unclean") period was associated with things like touching dead bodies or blood, and mostly made reasonable hygienic sense. It didn't mean people were filthy, it meant that they were thought to be a temporary risk to the health of the community.

Is it silly to double the period for girls?  Of course.  I'm pretty sure most nomadic and early agricultural communities exhibit some preference for male offspring, though. So maybe this should be "fuck ancient cultures?".  Or perhaps even "fuck pre-industrial economics?".

I'm curious, though.  China shows a remarkably skewed birthrate, which is undoubtedly the result of gender-based abortion.  Chinese immigrants have been known to practice gender-based abortion here in western countries. 

Where is the "fuck your abortion-on-demand!"  that allows misogynists in modern times to selectively destroy girl children?  It seems like that's a far worse crime than doubling the length of hygienic quarantine 4000 years ago.

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on June 9, 2014 at 8:06pm

Where is the "fuck your abortion-on-demand!"  that allows misogynists in modern times to selectively destroy girl children?

Bob, few people understand, or have even heard of, critical path analysis. It's a method used in the manufacturing industries to maximize production and to minimize production slow-downs.

You are more educated than many people here. Indeed, you use your knowledge to bully those who are less educated.

If you were to use your considerable intellectual ability for purposes other than bullying, and learn that the Chinese are a pragmatic people, you wouldn't have used the word "misogynists" above.

But bullying is easier, isn't it?

Comment by Simon Paynton on June 13, 2014 at 4:57pm

Tom - "the Chinese are a pragmatic people," , "gender-based abortion.".  ????? 

What's that got to do with critical path analysis? 

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on June 13, 2014 at 5:32pm

Take a seat, Simon; my minimalist explanation of CPA's use in population control may shock you into denying its effectiveness.

Killing half of the world's men will fail because women who want to get pregnant will do so.

Killing half of the world's women of childbearing age will succeed because there will be half as many births.

That's not misogyny; it's pragmatism.

 

Comment by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2014 at 7:01pm

Hi, @Tom.   Labeling those who selectively destroy female children misogynists is intellectual bullying?  

I am afraid I will simply have to disagree.

The theoretical effectiveness of a technique for population control is independent of our evaluation of its ethics or inherent biases.   Forcible sterilizing blacks and latinos would also make for effective population control in the U.S. (there are higher birth rates in those populations than whites or asians).  It would also be racist.

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on June 14, 2014 at 2:36am

Bob, Christopher Krzeminski, in his ironically titled book, What Are You Without God, warns readers that apologists for religion, in attempts to protect what they so desperately need to protect, will take words from their intended context.

You did that here.
 

Comment by Simon Paynton on June 14, 2014 at 5:52am

Tom - I don't see much difference between

"Killing half of the world's women of childbearing age" and "Forcible sterilizing blacks and latinos". 

Comment by Simon Paynton on June 14, 2014 at 5:54am

"take words from their intended context."  - you have to admit, this is what atheists tend to do all day long, when it suits us. 

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

  

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service