Religion and women.

[WillNever]

You would be better served recreating a thread in one of the sociology related forums.

 

[wegs]

Threads that go off topic are never really intentional, but this one sort of veered off course early on. It's one of those circular arguments, someone is demonstrating qualities of a misogynist, he asks why we (the group) think he is a misogynist, we offer explanations...it all starts off copacetic. But, every few pages, the misogynist asks (again) why we think he is a misogynist, and we oblige with more explanations. This usually leads to said misogynist getting temporarily banned (because he is either playing dumb or purposely trolling?) and then the thread dies until he returns.

Not intentional, but think the thread has run its course for sure.

 

[billvon]

Threads that go off topic are never really intentional, but this one sort of veered off course early on. It's one of those circular arguments, someone is demonstrating qualities of a misogynist, he asks why we (the group) think he is a misogynist, we offer explanations...it all starts off copacetic. But, every few pages, the misogynist asks (again) why we think he is a misogynist, and we oblige with more explanations.

. . . . followed a few posts later by the misogynist saying "but you never explained why I was a misogynist!" And the cycle repeats.

 

[James R]

The problem here, JamesR, is that you, and the others, are focussing on entirely the wrong part of the process: the dispute is in what is meant when people call him a misogynist, and in getting him to accept that they mean it without there necessarily being any hatred of women.

Note how Jan has, at every turn, focussed on you showing him how he "hates" women. This is because he believes "misogyny" requires there to be a hatred of women. And if someone calls him a misogynist they are saying that he hates women. He disputes that charge. He has asked you, repeatedly, to show how his words show that he hates women. And you, nor anyone else, has been able to do that, yet you constantly tell him that you have.

I will not presume to speak for anybody else here, but I have made my position on Jan's sexism/misogyny crystal clear, several times already.

I've said this before and I'll say it one more time: I do not care whether Jan hates women or not. That issue does not affect anything I have written to or about him. I have only ever pointed out that Jan has partriarchal, sexist attitudes to women. Whether that springs from a deep internal well of hatred or just from social conditioning due to mixing with an unenlightened crowd (e.g. his religious community) doesn't really matter. What matters is that he is, in effect, urging others to adopt his sexist, patriarchal views of women and their "appropriate" roles in society, because it apparently hasn't occurred to him that his views are archaic, outdated and harmful to both men and women.

Rather than addressing this actual issue, Jan is just pulling the usual Jan trick, trying to troll the discussion by turning it into an argument about the definition of a single word.

There is no reason that anybody should buy into Jan's troll games and I, for one, have zero interest in doing that here. I'm wise to Jan's tactics.

So stop focussing on how his words show he has sexist attitudes. I'm not sure he disputes that (time will tell, should he ever comes back to this thread and someone asks him outright).

I asked him many outright questions regarding his specific views, earlier in the thread. Rather than answering, Jan pulled the usual Jan trick of either ignoring my posts entirely or else selectively choosing not to respond to any of the specific questions I asked him. In his own mind, Jan is free to ignore all atheists, because atheists are evil and his religion says anything goes when you're dealing with them, don't you know. Lying and evading and acting like a troll is justifiable when you're dealing with evil atheists, in Jan's world.

Jan sees no problem with his archaic, patriarchal views. He's proud of them. He has an ironclad faith that these views are endorsed by his religion, which makes them unimpeachable in his eyes. The scriptures say that women are less than men and should be treated as such, and that's the final word on the matter as far as Jan is concerned. Conveniently, his cherry-picking of his scriptures inevitably supports he pre-existing opinions, as usual. If something in there appeared to say otherwise, Jan would re-interpret it or redefine the literal words as necessary to make it fit.

Focus either on showing how his words demonstrate a hatred of women, or get him to accept the accusation without the need for that hatred. To the latter, maybe if you just accused him of sexism, perhaps??

That's all I have done. Read my posts.

 

[James R]

One other point: Jan is a great one for setting up false dichotomies. But in reality, sexism and misogyny is a continuum. From above:

The extreme form of sexist ideology is misogyny, the hatred of women. A society in which misogyny is prevalent has high rates of brutality against women—for example, in the forms of domestic violence, rape, and the commodification of women and their bodies. Where they are seen as property or as second-class citizens, women are often mistreated at the individual as well as the institutional level.
​

Jan is trying to fool people into accepting the idea that sexism and misogyny are completely separate things, but they aren't. One is just a slightly more overt and extreme instantiation of the other.

Witness Jan's confusion when I suggest that "a little bit of sexism or misogyny" is not acceptable. Jan's response is, essentially, that in his eyes a "little bit of" either of those things is impossible. For Jan, everything has to be black or white. Jan is either totally sexist or totally not sexist. Jan either hates women with a vengence or he totally loves women. Jan can't see shades of grey. He can't imagine how everyday sexism is a slippery slope to (or a closeted form of) full-blown misogyny. So he claims that anybody who points out the spectrum must be crazy, or silly, or dishonest, or all of the above.

Creating a false dichotomy out of any continuum requires that you draw an arbitrary line somewhere to divide the spectrum into two pieces. If you imagine the sexism/misogyny spectrum as running from "a little bit sexist" (e.g. somebody who unconsciously holds some sexist views) to "hater of and a violent danger to all women" (e.g. somebody who is overtly aggressive towards women and regards them as objects rather than people), then Jan clearly insists on drawing his line close to the far "misogyny" end of the scale. Then, anybody to the "left" of that arbitrary line cannot be a misogynist; most importantly, Jan falls to the left of his personally-chosen line, so he denies that he is a misogynist.

Also, since Jan has the unshakable confidence of every religious fanatic, he is convinced not only that the false dichotomy he has created actually exists, but also that it is impossible for anybody else to draw the "misogyny" line at a different point on the spectrum than the one he arbitrarily chose.

 

[billvon]

For Jan, everything has to be black or white. Jan is either totally sexist or totally not sexist. Jan either hates women with a vengence or he totally loves women.

From what he says, he'd claim to love women, and loves it when they know their place in a marriage. (Raising the kids, being emotional, relying on the man for the tough decisions, staying home.)

I don't think Jan hates women at all. He merely sees them as subservient, emotional people whose sex makes them suited only for the roles he prefers them in. While he may indeed hate women who do not fit his mold, I suspect he would be just fine with them for the most part - at least until (as in the case with Wegs) they express an opinion that's counter to his.

 

[wegs]

When I think of “hate” in this context, it’s referring to how Jan talks down to me, because I’m a woman. He doesn’t discuss the topic with me as an equal rather as an adversary. That’s one of the traits of a misogynist. It’s sometimes subtle but it’s there. He feigns ignorance but it’s purposeful taunting, really. Taunting of women and the idea that a woman could have something of merit to say, because she should always (in his mind) acquiesce to all the men in the discussion.

So, when I think of hatred from a misogyny view, it means that women are thought of as inferior, less than, and not worth listening to, as an equal to themselves. Many of them have girlfriends/wives which isn’t an indicator that they “love” women, but rather that they use them as maids and for their sexual pleasure. Highly doubt any women who are in long term relationships with misogynists have deep conversations of any kind because they fear the repercussions of daring to think they’re equal.

This is why I’m done “discussing” it with him. He’s totally capable of understanding, it’s his bias that gets in the way of things. It’s kind of sad that we even have to have this discussion - that there are modern day men who refuse to have meaningful conversations with women, because that would somehow be an affront to their “manhood.” Just talk to women as equals, why is this difficult for some men to do?

We may never know.

 

[Sarkus]

I've said this before and I'll say it one more time: I do not care whether Jan hates women or not.

Then why, when he asks you to show evidence of his hatred of women, do you say you have already done so, repeatedly? That's what he's asked you to show. That's what his issue is.
He asks you for evidence of X, and you go "here's all this evidence of Y". Is it any wonder he doesn't think you've answered him, and gets frustrated when you repeatedly say you have, and then give him infractions for lying that you haven't shown any.

That issue does not affect anything I have written to or about him. I have only ever pointed out that Jan has partriarchal, sexist attitudes to women.

Which is a red herring to what he has asked.

Rather than addressing this actual issue, Jan is just pulling the usual Jan trick, trying to troll the discussion by turning it into an argument about the definition of a single word.

And you feed him, and then ban him for getting fat. Instead you should close down that avenue, and say that you don't think he hates women. Admit that you haven't provided such evidence, and call him out instead on the issue of him deliberately focussing on a narrow definition. I.e. speak to the tactics he uses, not to the detritus that such tactics throw up, in which you are unfortunately as guilty of continuing as he is.

There is no reason that anybody should buy into Jan's troll games and I, for one, have zero interest in doing that here. I'm wise to Jan's tactics.

Like the moth that is wise to the flame. But you're right, noone should buy into his antics... so why do you... repeatedly?

That's all I have done. Read my posts.

Unfortunately you've done none of those, as you keep including the accusation of misogyny, which to him means a hatred of women, which you then failed to provide evidence of....
And so the game goes on.

 

[Jan Ardena 2]

We’ve moved on ^ and the topic has become more about defining misogyny and how to spot a misogynist.

You haven’t moved on.
You’re happy that the attention is taken away from.

I don’t think you’re going to have any break-throughs with him, James. You do you, but his thoughts about women are too ingrained to change.

What a liar you are.

 

[Jan Ardena 2]

Sexism can be a belief that one sex is superior to or more valuable than another sex.

I have not expressed that sentiment. In fact if you look a p88 you will see that I specifically state that’s not where I’m coming from.

Making false accusations because you are intolerant of theists, does not make those accusations true

Sexism in a society is most commonly applied against women and girls. It functions to maintain patriarchy, or male domination, through ideological and material practices of individuals, collectives, and institutions that oppress women and girls on the basis of sex or gender. Such oppression usually takes the forms of economic exploitation and social domination. Sexist behaviours, conditions, and attitudes perpetuate stereotypes of social (gender) roles based on one’s biological sex. A common form of socialization that is based in sexist concepts teaches particular narratives about traditional gender roles for males and females. According to such a view, women and men are opposite, with widely different and complementary roles: women are the weaker sex and less capable than men, especially in the realm of logic and rational reasoning. Women are relegated to the domestic realm of nurturance and emotions and, therefore, according to that reasoning, cannot be good leaders in business, politics, and academia. Although women are seen as naturally fit for domestic work and are superb at being caretakers, their roles are devalued or not valued at all when compared with men’s work.The description fits you like a glove, Jan.

No it doesn’t. You only think it does.

You have to show how someone is actually misogynistic, or sexist. Show where I categorically state that women are lesser than men. Don’t just assume, or get trigger-happy.

The extreme form of sexist ideology is misogyny, the hatred of women. A society in which misogyny is prevalent has high rates of brutality against women—for example, in the forms of domestic violence, rape, and the commodification of women and their bodies. Where they are seen as property or as second-class citizens, women are often mistreated at the individual as well as the institutional level.

Now show where I have mistreated women to warrant the label misogynist. Don’t just make false accusations

Now, Jan. Do you want to double down and reveal yourself as a misogynist or a "men's rights" sympathiser, as well as a sexist man, or you do want to publically disavow your support of any of the three?"

I want you to show where I am a misogynist.

I’m not interested in wild accusations.

I could just as easily label you a misogynist, pile all this crap in your direction.

Why are you scared of conversation (seeing as you’re afraid to give evidence)?

Post #619 (James R) is full of direct quotes from Jan Ardena's posts showing Jan's sexist views.

As suspected there was nothing there to suggest I hate women, or think that women are somehow less than men. What was also interesting was that you said they were “sexist views”, not actual sexism or misogyny, the false claim I am being banned for. But I did pull what I thought was your kryptonite…


“Man naturally heads over his wife and family, and his wife naturally understands that as she now has a child to develop.”

Please point out the hatred, or debasing of women in this POV?

I get you may not like it, and it even may offend those who don’t see it. But it does not imply hatred of women. Neither does it imply women are less in any way, than men.

If you think it does, then br specific. Let’s see if you’re accusations have any merit.

It is better if the man provides for his family, so that his wife can be a full time mother, for the sake of the child, and the structure in which the child is to develop.

That’s what is meant by “submit”.

Not that the woman must obey every demand.

Again please show where hatred, or the debasing of women is implied. Just because you do don’t agree with something, does not mean you should be quick to ban. You’re a moderator, not a policeman.

Post #621 (James R): "The problem is your sexism:

It’s only problem (if you want to call it that) if it’s true. While the truth is not high up on wokety-wokes list, the point remains.

the idea that you value women primarily, if not almost exclusively, for their potential to produce "progeny".

Firstly, that is your own/others insertion. Why don’t you probe and ask questions before jumping to wild conclusions?

I assume that makes younger women of childbearing age valuable as property to you and your kind.

The assumptions of people who are averse to truth, and the truth, is of if no real value. You’re just saying that to give yourself justification.

But here your despicable-ness is not different that Bells. You seek to pile lie on top of lie, then act as though I have said something that corresponds. You are truly disgusting.

You haven't told us what your view is on the value of a woman following menopause, if there is any.

Not my problem

As a sexist man, you prefer your "property" to be as "pure" as possible. Thus, a woman's property value to you, as a male, increases if she is "pure". It is clear that you consider non-virgin women to be "adulterated" or "impure", which is most likely something your religion taught you.

You have yet to show that I am a “sexist man”. Just making wild accusations don’t cut it.

It is only moderately interesting that you regard other men, who "steal" your woman's "purity", as themselves "impure". I guess you want to be the Alpha Male, and you expect the Beta males to maintain their own "purity" in order to maximise the value of your women to you.

What are you blathering on about.

You idiot.

So, there you go, Jan. That's what's wrong with your outdated patriarchal religious view that women are your property, approximately.

All assumptions.

None of it even corroborates with anything I’ve written.

You just can’t stand that I think your whole idiotic belief system (or whatever), is not only harmful, expensive, messy, and created only problems, but is actually stupid

 

[Jan Ardena 2]

Post #627 (James R): "The idea that the man is 'naturally' the head of the household is a patriarchal view, as is the idea that the woman ought to be subservient to the man, as is the view that the woman's main value in the family structure is her biological role in 'providing progeny'."

No it doesn’t…


patriarchy..

“a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line…


I don’t do feminist, or Wokety- woke- wokeyist definitions. Patriarchy means what it has always meant.

Post #645 (James R): "I understand. You value [women] as housekeepers, as vessels for your 'progeny' and so on. I understand exactly what youvalue about women.

You have little understanding James. Your mad because you are intolerant of views you don’t agree with. You make stuff up, then act as though it is true. A disgusting quality in a person. You should stop it immediately.

Your dishonesty is a particularly cowardly type of dishonesty.

You are the dishonest coward. Banning someone, then banging on them while they can’t defend themselves.

Post #662 (James R): "Sexism typically has a source. Whether in your case it is due to misogyny, or indoctrination by a sexist religion, or an attitude learned by example, or some combination of those, doesn't really matter.

You have yet to show where I have implied hatred of women and girls, or deem them subordinate to men. Liar!!!

You appear to be proud of your sexist views and attitudes - at least proud enough to publish them and to try to defend them (weakly) on a public forum, albeit one in which you're safely anonymous.

You have yet to show where I say women are lesser than men. Just making stuff up, then acting as though what you said is true doesn’t cut it. I’ve schooled you enough on this. It’s time to come clean and critique what I actually said. Liar!!!

instead of listening to the women who are telling you how your posts are coming across, your assumption is that they must be wrong.

Already done that. P88

Bells is just downright unreasonable.

Moreover, you assume you can brush them off with accusations that they are being 'emotional', while claiming that you're supremely rational.

More idiotic lies James (smh)

every reader takes away when they read your descriptions of your ideal model of human society, in which women are subordinated to the role of servants of men and carriers of "progeny", with men "heading" them, lording it over them like entitled little kings."

You assume every reader does because that’s what you have in your head. How many people have accepted the wokety-woke lies that have been printed?

That is your problem James. It’s all in your head, and you are being totally irrational

Post #665 (James R): "You also said that an emotional man is 'like a woman', with the obvious contextual implication that a man being 'like a woman' is a bad thing.

You put the “bad thing” in, to make it seem like that is what I said. But I didn’t.

A man acting like a woman means he’s not being a man. If a man acts like a baby, it also means he’s not acting like a man. That says nothing about hating women, or babies. Neither does it put women down as lesser people. But you will spin it like that, because you have to justify you irrational behaviour somehow.

It is quiteclear from the context of your posts in this thread that you think all your 'arguments' are rational (and therefore good), while all arguments you disagree with can be dismissed because they are 'emotional' (and therefore bad).

As no one has come with anything other than lies, in a bid justify there hang-ups and personal problems, I am quite within my rights to believe so. But this does not show how it is I hate all women, or think them lesser than men.

Since women are emotional, they are, by nature, unable to make good arguments, and can be safely dismissed.

You have yet to show that is the case. Wild accusation doesn’t cut it

That's such an arrogant, sexist view you have there, Jan. Your smug satisfaction with yourself in how you respond to women is equally repulsive.

I have neither said, or implied anything of the sort. You are simply lying to justify your anger towards me. Which is why you keep banning me for no good reason. Liar!!!

Instead, you merely require posters to prove it, in effect, which is just a time waster because you're already on the record."

The only record is the crap you write, believe, then act upon. It’s all in your head.

 

[Jan Ardena 2]

As you are well aware, I have previously given extensive reasonable explanations. I have even tried to help you, Jan. See just a small selection of my posts, above.

I’ve just gone through your nonsense. Aside from where you have quoted me, nothing has anything to do with what I’ve written.

Jan, you do not get to repeat that lie without consequences. Knowingly telling lies is a breach of our site rules, and you are a repeat offender.

I’m not lying. You have literally proved me right with your long-winded posts. Full of your own material, trying to pass it off as mine.

I have not claimed that you hate women, though you might, for all I know.

That is exactly what misogyny means. Like I said, I don’t do wokety-woke definitions. I’ll stay with what the word actually means. Plus that is the accusation that has, and is being levelled.

You should make wegs apologise for dragging this out for so long. Her so-called explanations does not show I have hatred for/towards women. None of you can actually show that. You’re all just on a bandwagon without closure.

I have already given many reasonable explanations, as you are aware. See above.

Above is all your own projection. None of it, apart from my quotes, can be sourced to me. That alone should tell you something.

You will not continue to badger me, or continue to repeat your lie

You’re the one that’s lying. While people may stand behind you because they don’t chime with me, doesn’t mean they can’t see your gross irrationality, unreasonableness, and your downright nasty, lying character. You’re quite disgusting.

Try responding to what I wrote, instead of responding to what you wish I'd written.

I will do.

But what have I said that is not true?

Try being honest for once.

Seeing as you won’t provide any evidence of misogyny, and/ sexism.

I have no aversion to truth.

You have a big-time aversion

Maybe you need professional psychological help.

Because like the crime rate in the (woke) democratically run cities in America, it is totally brazen, and on display for the world to see.

I’m beginning to make psychological connections with all of this crap.

What you're dealing with now is this: you're trying to test my capacity for tolerating your dishonest trolling on sciforums. Actually, it turns out that my tolerance for that is extraordinarily high, at least in comparison to my fellow moderators' capacity for the same. If it was up to any of them, you would have been permanently banned from this forum long ago.

I don’t mind being banned.

But I will speak the truth, against lies.

This is a discussion board. Or do I thought.

I’m beginning to think this is a wokety-woke stronghold, and people like you and Bells it’s gate-keepers

I'm an optimist, Jan, but also a realist. I hope for the best in people, but I don't expect it. I believe in the human capacity for redemption, but I understand that some people are not interested in seeking it.

No. You’re an angry, intolerant man. Who lashes out at folk who he cannot tolerate. You are prepared to lie through your teeth, as has been demonstrated. You should not be a moderator in a religion section. You’ve turned into a desert, where people come merely to bash God, theism, theists, scripture, and God based religion. What a waste

In your time here, I have tried in a gentle, understanding way to lead you towards examining some of your faulty assumptions about the world.

Because you think you have the correct assumptions? Riiiight!!!

That’s not arrogant at all is it.

The fact is, Jan, you've lost the respect of many members here.

Why?

Because I don’t take crap?

Our system of warnings here is very lenient. It is supposed to nudge you in the direction of appropriate ethical behaviour on sciforums,

You have yet to show how and where I am being unethical. Is telling the truth unethical?

Is making stuff up about someone, then acting as though what you say is true (to warrant a ban), ethical?

Your patience with my expectations has worn thin, so now, after several temporary bans, you're angry and resentful at me.

I like how you made the emphasis.

We all know it your patience that is the problem James. That is why you are serial banning me, simply for not bowing to your foolishness. Your a coward, and thise who read your crap, know that it is bs, and say nothing, even going as far as agreeing with you, are also cowards. I see no reason why we should be deprived of good subject matters, and dialogue in the religion forum. Why are YOU still here? Why haven’t YOU been replaced with some who loves dialogue at the very least? Why all this gate-keeper bs?

 

[Jan Ardena 2]

I was thinking about somebody hating women but trying to keep that hatred covert, I guess.

How does that diminish the hate?

Do you know what you’re actually talking about?

The list of things that people believe without good reason is endless, Jan. I think you're just trying to make me jump through hoops pointlessly by pretending you can't think of any examples yourself. You're a grown man. If you really can't think of any examples, try asking around. Ask your wife, perhaps.

Nope. I’m trying to make you accountable for you wild, false allegations. But you keep demonstrating that you can’t account for them. Neither can wegs.

You just blurt stuff out based on how you feel at the time. The idea of being wrong, with people like you, is non existent, unless it comes from somebody who identifies with your mob mentality.

So it's a bit hypocritical of your God to command his worshippers not to kill while at the same time commanding them to kill, and breaking that commandment himself? Don't you think?

No I don’t.

Why is it hypocritical?

Bear in mind you are talking about God.

And yet, here you are, talking to an atheist about God and scripture. Why, Jan?

No I’m not

We’re talking about your lying ways, and inability to create a good environment for people to discuss topics pertaining to Religion, God, Scriptures, and Theism. This forum has become pathetic, with you, and people like you. It seems your only duty is to talk down, and/or bash God, religion, theism, and theists. That goes for wegs as well, albeit a different tactic. She’s most probably scared that I will reveal this about her, why she took the ad hominem route, knowing it would take the discussion off course.

So there are two types of people in your world, Jan: the wicked and the virtuous? And all atheists are necessarily in the "wicked" category? How binary of you.

Here is a great example of your nonsensical behaviour. Respond to what I write, not what you would like me to have written

Nah. The bible was written and compiled 2000 years ago.


Do you think the End Times are nigh, Jan? Is that what you're alluding to?

With regard to your stupid question, take a deep breath, read my point slowly, digest what it says, then respond to the point. Don’t make assumptions. You’re bad at them.

 

[Jan Ardena 2]

The United States has the highest rate of incarceration of any nation, relative to population. That suggests that your nation's problem is not related to how many murderers it releases, unless your argument is that the US is unusually lenient on the incarceration of murderers.


If you are trying to blame civil unrest in the United States on "liberals", I suggest that you are probably ignoring the actual statistics concerning which groups tend more towards violent civil disobedience. You should perhaps turn off Fox News and research it more thoroughly, using reliable sources of information instead.


Consider, also, that perhaps the United States has some entrenched inequalities that make certain groups angry at others. Rather than concentrating on the symptoms of that malaise, you might think about ways to address the issues at their source.


I think that the people calling for defunding the police at present are doing so largely because they perceive the police to be corrupt and racist. Do you think they have a legitimate concern, or is this just an excuse?


They don't. However, proportional to population, the homicide rate is much higher among black people.


According to the FBI, African-Americans accounted for 55.9% of all homicide offenders in 2019, with whites 41.1%, and "Other" 3.0% in cases where the race was known. Among homicide victims in 2019 where the race was known, 54.7% were black or African-American, 42.3% were white, and 3.1% were of other races. The per-capita offending rate for African-Americans was roughly six times higher than that of whites, and the victim rate is a similar figure. Most homicides were intraracial; where the perpetrator's race was known, 81% of white victims were killed by whites and 91% of black or African-American victims were killed by African-Americans.


Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia


The same article suggests some reasons:


Academic research indicates that the over-representation of some racial minorities in the criminal justice system can in part be explained by socioeconomic factors, such as poverty, exposure to poor neighborhoods, poor access to public education, poor access to early childhood education, and exposure to harmful chemicals (such as lead) and pollution. Racial housing segregation has also been linked to racial disparities in crime rates, as blacks have historically and to the present been prevented from moving into prosperous low-crime areas through actions of the government (such as redlining) and private actors. Various explanations within criminology have been proposed for racial disparities in crime rates, including conflict theory, strain theory, general strain theory, social disorganization theory, macrostructural opportunity theory, social control theory, and subcultural theory.


Research also indicates that there is extensive racial and ethnic discrimination by police and the judicial system.



What's unprecedented? What are you comparing?


I don't know.


What's all this about? What does any of this stuff about murder have to do with the thread topic (Religion and Women)?


I guess that whether you're racist or not will depend very much on why you are concerned about the high murder rate, etc., and what you think the root causes are. So, tell me.

Crime, especially murders, homicides, mass shootings, car jackings, shoplifting, knockout games, burglaries, general assaults, and disturbances, are out of control, every single day. Most do not get reported.

They are out of control in the Democratically run cities, where the main official heads are black, and female in traditionally male roles.

That is the reality. Babies, children, the elderly, the disabled, women, and innocent people in general are victims of these crimes.


Make of it what you will, but you can’t change facts, no matter how much you lie, and cancel.


I can get the gun memorials to show the reality of this wickedness if you like.


Now these criminals have no fear of the police, cameras, or witnesses, and are brazenly carrying out their acts in broad daylight.


So don’t come with your stats. Listen to the people who literally feel they are taking their own lives into their hands, every time they go out. When the shooting starts, people fear being in their homes, as stray bullets kill a lot of people while in their house, doing the gardening, or driving by.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I could go through and address some things, but I think this poster is going to get permanently banned so what's the point?

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

Jan Ardena 2 has been permanently banned for being a sockpuppet..

Site's Rules:

Sock puppets
A4. We have a ‘no sock puppets’ policy, which means one screen name per member. Members found to be using two or more names may be banned.

A5. Banned members who register under a different name will have all identities permanently banned upon discovery. This may result in a temporary ban becoming permanent.
​

As a result, Jan Ardena has been permanently banned from sciforums for attempting to circumvent his temporary ban and moderation by creating a sockpuppet.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm not sure what's more surprising: his sockpuppetry or the name he chose to use. I guess that's what you'd call member-suicide by moderation, being so ridiculous in action as to give moderators no choice.

 

[wegs]

Thing is, scroll back through the entire thread when time permits and you’ll see the examples of misogyny on display by him. No one was conjuring up misinformation - it’s all right here in the thread. Oh well, then again...maybe I’m just being emotional.

 

[exchemist]

Mod Note

Jan Ardena 2 has been permanently banned for being a sockpuppet..

Site's Rules:

Sock puppets
A4. We have a ‘no sock puppets’ policy, which means one screen name per member. Members found to be using two or more names may be banned.

A5. Banned members who register under a different name will have all identities permanently banned upon discovery. This may result in a temporary ban becoming permanent.
​

As a result, Jan Ardena has been permanently banned from sciforums for attempting to circumvent his temporary ban and moderation by creating a sockpuppet.

Hallelujah!

Or al Hamdu-lillah!

The boil is lanced at last.

 

[James R]

Sarkus,

Then why, when he asks you to show evidence of his hatred of women, do you say you have already done so, repeatedly? That's what he's asked you to show. That's what his issue is.

I have not claimed anywhere to have shown that Jan hates women. What I have done is to highlight examples of his sexist attitudes, drawn from his own posts on this forum.

He asks you for evidence of X, and you go "here's all this evidence of Y".

Don't you realise that him getting on his high horse demanding evidence of X - over and over again - is nothing but a ploy to avoid facing all the evidence of Y that is in front of everybody?

Even in his most recent "goodbye cruel forum" responses, notice how he is completely unwilling/unable to address the serious issues with his attitudes towards women. That's because he doesn't consider his sexism to be at all problematic. As I previously pointed out, he's proud of his opinions and attitudes - so proud that, in fact, he doesn't feel any need to justify them in any way. He makes no apology for his habitual attitude towards women being that they are less than men.

Is it any wonder he doesn't think you've answered him, and gets frustrated when you repeatedly say you have, and then give him infractions for lying that you haven't shown any.

Nonsense. He claims, in effect, that nobody has pointed out anything wrong in his attitudes towards women. But plenty of people have done just that in this thread. To keep making that assertion in the face of mountains of evidence is to tell a knowing lie.

Note: it is not necessary that he agree with the assessment of the majority that his attitudes towards women are both offensive and harmful. Clearly, he will never agree that there's any problem with his ingrained sexist prejudices. But to deny that any objection has been raised is just to tell a baldfaced lie, over and over again. That is the reason he has been beating his head against a brick wall. Now, of course, he's decided to exit with the customary string of "goodbye cruel forum" posts that we often see from posters who have proven themselves unable to learn from experience.

And you feed him, and then ban him for getting fat. Instead you should close down that avenue, and say that you don't think he hates women.

You and I have already covered this, Sarkus. I have told you that I don't know whether he hates women. I actually don't know. What's certain is that he is just one more male obstacle in the fight for equal rights and opportunities for women - one more man who feels entitled to treat women as lesser. The other thing I have said is that, in terms of my actions as a moderator of this forum, I don't care whether he hates women. That is, in fact, not directly relevant to his recent behaviour - the lies, the trolling, etc.

The particular topic here is just the background against which this series of bans happened to play out. If Jan hadn't got himself banned here, it seems highly likely that he would have done it in a different discussion, sooner or later. He's a man who seems to be lashing out after discovering that his religious views are not as morally squeaky-clean as he previously assumed they were. I'd guess his fear actually goes deeper than that, but I guess we'll never know for sure.

But you're right, noone should buy into his antics... so why do you... repeatedly?

Not everybody recognises his antics for what they are. It can be worth laying things out clearly for people who might otherwise be bamboozled. You and I have seen our fair share of internet trolls, perhaps, but that's not true for all readers.

Unfortunately you've done none of those, as you keep including the accusation of misogyny, which to him means a hatred of women, which you then failed to provide evidence of....

See my post #1605, above. Misogyny is not the word I have used in regards to accusing Jan, but that doesn't make it inapplicable.