1 Corinthians 14:34-35

NOTE: This is a partial repost of the thread of comments I made at the Deepstrength blog in 2019. I am reposting it here, with additional modifications and expansions.

Many view what I do as an attack on true Christianity. But what I actually do is attack religious fundamentalism that places dogma, theology, traditions, and interpretations over the authority of the Word of God, those views that use the former to determine the latter, rather than sola scriptura. Consequently they view me as a liar and a deceitful pawn of Satan because I have the temerity to disagree with their deeply held personal interpretations. This is no more clear than this recent absurd claim that I am persecuting Christians[1]:

It is all too common that people claim that their theology is clear and unambiguous and that any attempts to “throw shade” on their novelties are works of evil. The irrational ad hominem lives ever on!

Back when I wrote “Patriarchal Forgery?,” I noted that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is, like the Pericope Adulterae, probably an unauthentic forgery: likely inserted after the original text had been written. Here is the text in question:

Let the women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but they are to be in submission, as also says the law. And if they want to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.

Uncritically, this appears to be one of the most clear passages of scripture in the entire Bible: women are to remain silent in church. But, when examined critically, there are many problems with such a simplistic explanation.

To be clear, such a view is so simplistic to the point that one has to be intentionally naive, ignorant, and uncritical to make that claim. This is why I get attacked personally, because simultaneously honestly dealing with the points I raise, holding exclusively dogmatic views, and strictly condemning anyone who disagrees is simply too cognitively dissonant.

Textual Problems

The first problem is that these verses are subject to a number of textual issues.[2]

(1) While they are attested in every manuscript, in some they occur after v40. The best textual argument is that it was a marginal gloss. The disagreement focuses on who made it. It is no more than an assumption, not a proof, that it was Paul.

(2) The evidence suggests that it should be treated as a parenthetical, footnote, or even a quotation. Interpreting within the immediate context is theologically presumptive and thus questionable.

(3) The verses have legitimate textual concerns; even those scholars who speculatively accept it as fully authoritative scripture acknowledge this. Such speculation doesn’t make their view invalid, but it does make it a subject for legitimate debate.

(4) There isn’t a good explanation for the verses being placed in two different locations that doesn’t also support the idea that the verses are a forgery. The gloss could not have been added (and signed by Paul) on the margins the first time the documents were copied while also accepting the historical evidence that the gloss was later added in the Western Vorlage (or one of its ancestors). It can’t be added in both a later document and at the first copying. We only think it was a gloss because it was placed after v40.

(5) The decision by translators to place the verses after v33, after v40, or in the margin or in a footnote changes the exegetical meaning. It is not a neutral choice by translators.

(6) Assuming that the verses are not a marginal gloss implies more strongly that the verses are a forgery. This is why scholars believe it is an authentic gloss, not originally part of the text. Reasons include: that women must always be silent in church at all times, typically verses that show up in multiple places are forgeries, there is a non-Pauline use of vocabulary, it creates further internal and external contradictions (described below), it disrupts the natural flow of the passage, Paul calmly instructed the women of Corinth to cover as a sign of authority but harshly and sarcastically reprimands them in v34-35, and v36 seems to apply better to v30-33, not v34-35. Anyone who says it is not a gloss has to address these points, while assuming it is a gloss avoids these issues.

Try reading 1 Corinthians 14 without verses 34-35 and you’ll see how it flows quite naturally without them. Many commentators struggle to make those verses fit the surrounding and broader context, as is clearly seen by the disagreement in the Deep Strength comment section even among those who agree on the theology!

Furthermore, a strict, unnuanced reading creates a number of other apparent problems and contradictions.

Women or Wives?

The second problem is that it isn’t clear if Paul is talking about all females, all adult women, or only wives. The word in Greek is interchangeable, so context has to determine which it is. Since the verses say to ask their man at home, the strong implication is that this is addressed only to women who are married, and not, for example, widows or other wealthy unmarried or emancipated female Roman landowners who lived without a man.

A similar problem also applies to 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 on the topic of veiling. In “Paul Addressed Wives,” I explained how it makes more sense—and better agrees with Ephesians 5—when “women” refers only to married women. As with being silent, the early church did not apply universal veiling to prepubescent girls, virgins, or widows,[3] only to married women as was the common cultural practice of the time.

It is extremely common for many dogmatic interpretations to say that “women are to remain silent church” with no qualification: all women. This is anything but clear. Without a preconceived theology, the average person would assume that only married people were being addressed because husbands are mentioned explicitly!

Be Silent?

The third problem is found in 1 Timothy 2:11-15:

A woman must learn without causing a disturbance, by being in complete subjection. I do not permit a woman to teach or to impose authority over a man, rather she is not to cause a disturbance. For Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being thoroughly deceived, fell into transgression, but she will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in trust and love and holiness, with good judgment.

Here again we see the problem of “women vs wives” alongside the supposed doctrine of “women be silent.” But, as before, the “woman” referred appears to be a wife (as Eve was the wife of Adam and due to the reference to childbearing). A woman cannot have legitimate children or have her husband explain scripture to her if she is not married.

As I explained in “Saved Through Childbearing,” those that accept the common interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 have a problem: Timothy—Paul’s long-time traveling companion—was with Paul when he taught the contents of 1 Corinthians. He would have been well aware of Paul’s teaching that all women must remain silent in church, if Paul had taught that. So there would have been no reason for Paul to have given the instruction that specific women had to be silent rather than teach. There would be no need to instruct women to not teach in church if women were not even allowed to speak in the first place.

Paul’s words to Timothy imply that he didn’t write 1 Cor. 14:34-35

Were Women Speaking in Church?

The fourth problem is that women were speaking in the religious setting, including prophesying and praying. An “at church” vs “not at church” distinction is anachronistic, as ‘church’ is just a gathering of believers for religious purpose. For women to prophesy or pray implies that it was “at church.” if women were speaking “at church” (Paul says women were prophesying earlier in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16) , then how could Paul go on to condemn women speaking in church at all? This is absurd.

John Chrysostom—writing in the late 4th century—acknowledged in “Homily 26 on First Corinthians” that…

Their women used both to pray and prophesy unveiled and with their head bare, (for then women also used to prophesy;)

…and in “Homily 37 on First Corinthians” says…

And where does the law say this? Your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you. Genesis 3:16

Chrysostom confirmed that women were speaking in their prayers and prophesying, and he furthermore confirmed that the law Paul was referring to referred to married women.

What about Prophesying?

The fifth problem is that prophesy is greater than teaching. It is inspired or revealed teaching. It is second only to apostolic teaching (i.e. scripture). It doesn’t make much sense to say that women can prophesy—a higher form of teaching—and also that they must remain completely silent at all times.

What about the Law?

The sixth problem is that there is no law that states that women must be silent in church. Chrysostom thought it was Genesis 3:16, but nobody can agree on what law Paul was referring to. Some think it was natural law, including Chrysostom who, ironically, cited 1 Corinthians 11:14 which describes women speaking in church! Others identify other scriptures that are supposed to prove the point, such as Genesis 2:20-24 and Job 29:21, even though none of these explicitly state that women must be silent. But the bottom line is that there is no explicit reference in any of scripture that says that women must be silent in church. Paul’s own letter says that women were speaking (of prophesy and prayer) and there are many references in Paul to women who were active in ministry.

What Was Paul Concerned With?

The seventh problem is that, when examining the context, Paul was concerned with chaos, disorder, and distraction. Far from implying that women must always be silent, the context implies that women were not to cause chaos, disorder, and distraction by their speech. This would, notably, also apply to any men that happened to do the same thing.

Certain interpretations of 1 Cor. 11, 1 Cor 14, and 1 Tim 2 presume men and women cannot be co-equal. However, if women should be above men (by disrespectfully chattering or usurping teaching authority), then decorum and modesty bring women back into the fold, not suppress them below men. So too if women were causing chaos, disorder, and distraction, having them remain silent would bring them back into the fold. Similarly, a hair covering and modest dress keeps distracting sexuality out of religious observance.

Paul seems to be noting that women, for whatever reason, are practically predisposed to such behaviors. To wit:

“One practical note on the silence part, if the Women don’t have respect for the surroundings, they’ll sit at the front in a group chatting away. This is actually where a lot of the “Sunday Morning Nightclub” stuff came about. It’s those Women. However, it’s generally a practical result from female psychology. Just wanted to note it.” — commenter Looking Glass

And indeed, if Paul really wrote these words, then it is much more likely that he was addressing the case of gossiping and chatty wives causing distractions in church, treating it as a social occasion rather than a sacred gathering.

Is this a quotation?

The eighth problem is that due to the way these two verses disrupt the flow, a number of other commentators believe that Paul was quoting someone else and arguing against this. There are no quotation marks in Greek, so it is hard to tell when a quotation is used unless we have a copy of the document where the original quotation resides (e.g. the Old Testament). So when Paul says, in verse 36…

What? Was it from you that the word of God went out? Or did it come to you alone?

…they think Paul is questioning the validity of verses 34-35, a false teaching that came from the Corinthians themselves.

An examination of the vocabulary in these two verses is also non-Pauline, which forms addition, albeit weak, evidence that Paul didn’t author the quotation or scribal gloss.

The Word of God

The ninth problem pertains to the Word of God coming to women. Notice how in v36, Paul asks:

“Was it from you that the word of God went out? Or did it come to you alone?”

There is no evidence that women thought that the Word of God came exclusively from women and to women. In fact, we know from chapter 11 that some (most?) women were already covering as a sign of authority. But if v34-35 are skipped, the objection suddenly makes sense: the prophets in the earlier verses believed that the Word of God came exclusively from the prophets who gave the prophecies, and that they didn’t need to be subject to scripture, the prophesies of other prophets, or the teachings of the teachers.

This is also why some view this as a quotation. The hypothetical male prophets believed that the Word of God came only to them, and so claimed that the law silenced the women that Paul had authorized to vocally prophesy (in chapter 11).

Alternatively, if Paul was not accusing women of holding the belief that the Word of God came only to them (in prophesy, which Paul had authorized in Chapter 11), then he must have been being bitingly and disrespectfully sarcastic. This is not at all in keeping with Paul’s tone anywhere in all of his writing.

In any case, it makes no sense that Paul would tell women to vocally prophesy and them tell them not to prophesy at all because the Word of God does not come to them—as female prophets—exclusively.

Summary

In summary, the command in scripture that women are to remain silent in church is anything but clear. There are a number of problems with coming to this conclusion, including the questionable textual problems, Paul writing only to wives, Paul apparently contradicting himself regarding women being silent, Paul telling women to vocally prophesy and pray, prophesy being greater than teaching, there being no law of God regarding women being silent, the context of order vs. chaos, the verses being a possible quotation, the implied belief that the Word of God comes only to women, and Paul speaking harshly and disrespectfully.

This is not an exhaustive list of the problems. Other possible problems that I didn’t cover include the idea that Paul was concerned with women’s actions, not their identity and that other patriarchal passages are not authentic works of Paul.

Notably, a number of these problems are quite evident from a simple reading of the passage. For example, it doesn’t require a degree in theology or a high IQ to see that the passage makes more sense if the verses are removed or put in quotation marks, nor does it take a genius to see Paul’s apparent internal (with chapter 11) and external  (with 1 Timothy 2) contradictions. It is also unambiguous that the choice to place the verses after v33 instead of after v40, in a footnote, or in a quotation, is an exegetically significant choice made by translators who are predetermining which choice constitutes the true and actual Word of God.

Dear reader, you do not have to decide what the meaning of the passage is in order to conclude that it is not, in fact, clear that women should be silent in church. While this is certainly a possible conclusion that one might rationally believe, the idea that it is clear enough to be dogmatic is simply not true.

Rebuttals

“There is a place for women to prophesy, speak in tongues, and pray aloud. It’s just not in church.” — KPP

It is plain from 1 Corinthians 11 that women were in fact both praying and prophesying in church during worship. The distinction between church (“where two or three are gathered”) and not-church is not valid.

The NT clearly times of the gathering of the Body of Christ (“at church”) versus times when the members of the Body of Christ interact (“not at church”).  When Paul visits Philip and his four prophetess daughters, we are told he visits them at their home. There is no reason to think they prophesied while the Body of Christ was gathered for worship. — Cane Caldo

Since 1 Corinthians 11 describes women praying and prophesying during worship, this is hardly a social gathering and this objection is invalid.

“The context discusses that women should ask their men questions at home, so we can infer that Paul was discussing distracting questions from the women or perhaps chattering among themselves that proved to be distracting. I think that it’s clear from Scripture that women aren’t allowed to be in authority over men. Yet God gave the gift of prophecy to women, and perhaps teaching as well. It seems to me that such women are allowed to prophesy in church and to teach women and only women. Prophetic utterances must be tested, as Paul recommended. So, women aren’t allowed to be church leaders, but they can be church employees as long as they don’t supervise men. “— theasdgamer

This is speculation that requires one to make assumptions about the passage telling women to be silent in church and about the authority of women in general. The conclusion that women can only teach other women is an inference that is nowhere stated explicitly in scripture, just as there is no explicit law in scripture that women must remain silent. If a woman prophet were to have a question regarding that prophecy, then Paul would apparently be telling them to wait until they get home to ask their husband, rather than put the question to the prophets and teachers of the church. This makes an absurd mockery of Paul’s teaching on prophesy.

“Third, Paul seems most concerned about chaos, disorder, and distraction.” This is a great example of abusing the truth to make it of no use. Women who do not display submission at church create chaos, as does general disorder and distraction. — Cane Caldo

I encourage everyone to read 1 Corinthians 14 in their entirety, where it is plain that Paul is concerned with stopping speaking in tongues, prophesying, singing, instructing, revealing, and interpreting that does not edify and build up the church. He is concerned with intelligibility, acting like adults instead of children. He tells anyone who cannot do so effectively to stop and be silent: to cease doing that activity. Indeed, immediately preceeding v34-35, he says:

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

Paul is concerned about order and focus during worship, and this is the obvious context immediately preceeding v34-35. Don’t be gaslit!

Footnotes

[1] My earliest reference to the Sigma Frame blog on my blog here was in December 14, 2018, where I criticized Sigma Frame for being anonymous. I removed the Sigma Frame blog from my blogroll because he is anonymous.

According to the Internet Archive, I made the “in early 2023” change in the middle of 2023 sometime after May 25, 2023 and before July 14, 2023, almost a full year after my most significant “derailment” with Kentucky Gent on Roman Catholicism.

Jack is likely referring to this comment on June 7, 2023 where I noted that pointing out incorrect axioms is more important than the topic at hand, and that doing so derails discussions:

Sigma Frame has an implied mission to be ecumenical: to help men with their relationships first and foremost, regardless of their faith. Whenever I point out that scripture needs to be followed first and not the traditions of men, this derails the discussion.

It is absurd to think that emphasizing scripture that derails the fake message being pushed is religious persecution. Furthermore…

In other words, if the underlying assumptions in their arguments are invalid, then the arguments themselves are invalid and I don’t bother continuing to discuss those topics. Everything should be derailed and discussion should instead focus on correcting the false assumptions.

…allowing logically irrational discussions to continue is in error. Such discussions should be derailed because doing so attempts to correct an error. It is not a game, but is a deeply serious task.

The act of pointing out the error and failing to persist in it is what derails the discussion. This has nothing to do with the volume of discussion. It’s possible to derail a bad discussion through a single well-written sentence. The “game of derailing discussion” that I’ve done is “pointing out the fundamental error that refutes the argument.”

Most importantly, what I said was a description of the effect of my words, not a prescription (or intention). Speaking the truth has the desired effect of putting the light against the darkness, but this is a passive consequence. Consequently, I could not prevent derailing discussions except by not speaking the truth at all.

In any case, after I removed SF from the blogroll, I started transitioning away from posting comments there and focusing on posting here. Far from derailing discussions on a regular basis, I only occasionally post there anymore. I’m not even close to a top contributor, sometimes going months at a time between comments:

I can’t readily see what comments I made, but a quick google search associates my username with only 16 different posts in 2023. Out of 212 total posts, I apparently comment on ~7% of them. This is hardly the work of a uber troll trying to derail the website. I suspect Google has failed to find all my comments, but these statistics are not likely going to alter significantly.

2 comments: “The Tennant Authority Structure” (April 17)
4 comments: “An open letter to Christian Wives” (May 27)
16 comments: “Are Common-Law Marriages the most Biblical?” (June 3)

7 comments: “Divided We Fall” (June 6)
4 comments: “The Peaceful Unity Marriage Model” (June 7)

The article mentions me explicitly. While commenting on this article, I was placed into moderation. I almost certainly updated the blogroll shortly thereafter, an event triggered by the censorship:

0 comments: “Sacramental Soteriology” (June 19)

The article mentions me explicitly.

2 comments: “Summary of Sex=Marriage vs. Church/State Sanctioned Marriage” (June 21)
1 comment: “Meta Cognitions” (June 23)

The article mentions me explicitly many times.

6 comments: “Men’s Altruistic Idealism in an Age of Apostasy” (July 28)
1 comment: “The Larger Conspiracy that Justifies Comment” (Nov 6)
1 comment: “Abortion is a Betrayal!” (Nov 11)
11 comments: “In Science We Trust” (Nov 27)
1 comment: “Is the Σ Frame Blog Positivistic or Prophetic?” (Dec 3)

The article engages explicitly with my previous comments.

16 comments: “Invisible Magic Authority” (Dec 13)

The article engages explicitly with my previous comment.

It is plain that there was nothing noteworthy about my commenting frequency, nor was I—prescriptively—attempting to derail discussions. After I was asked to leave, I commented far less than I had in the past. I made ~72 comments for the whole of 2023, despite having made 57 mostly off-topic comments on that article from 2022. After decision to remove the blog from the blogroll, I apparently only commented on 8 articles for the second half of the year. I didn’t even comment on an article where I was explicitly referenced (which I’m sure makes me a bad person somehow)!

Let’s count the number of falsehoods:

(1) “Active Persecution”

Far from persecuting, I’ve been creating engagement without being disruptive by making 27 blog posts in 2023 that reference the Sigma Frame blog (which was precisely what I was asked to do!) and becoming his blog’s third largest referrer, which I wouldn’t have to do if I followed Gunner Q’s approach to (non-)linking and disallowed pingbacks. Perhaps by persecution he means “criticizing ideas without attacking the person” and honoring his express wish by moving the bulk of criticism to the my blog. How vicious!

Jack seems to be personally offended that I removed his blog along with all the other anonymous blogs on my blogroll, as if how I manage my own site is somehow “active persecution.” What business is it of his how I run my own site? How is it active persecution for me to not explicitly support his site with my name?

(2) “In early 2023”

It wasn’t early 2023, it was the middle of the year, probably a couple weeks before the first day of summer.

(3) “[since] has made a game”

I didn’t do it as a game nor to troll, and in fact I’ve reduced my commenting and engaged in fewer derailing arguments compared to previous years (going back to 2018), including completely ceasing to comment there for more than three months!

(4) “[since] derailing the discussions at Σ Frame”

I’ve arguably “derailed”, perhaps two, maybe three, discussions since then. Naturally, people who agree with Jack never derail his posts, even when they are off-topic. What Jack actually means is that I’m “breaking the good faith necessary of any argument” by being wrong (i.e. disagreeing with him and dismissing his points as errors after presenting (mostly unrefuted) arguments against them).

(5) “In spite of this shade”

Far from “throwing shade” (insulting or sneering contempt), I’ve stuck with criticizing the ideas presented and, unlike Jack here, not directing my criticisms in a personally disparaging manner. To the best of my knowledge, I have never shown contempt for Jack, only disagreement with his ideas (which is infuriating enough, I suppose).

Nearly everything Jack put in his statement was factually incorrect. Since I’ve pointed out his errors, these factual errors are also lies if he does not retract or edit his statement now that he has been made aware of them, as he cannot claim that he didn’t know about them.

[2] Daniel B. Wallace, “The Textual Problem of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.” Bible.org. June 26, 2004. (Archived PDF)

[3] Tertullian, “On the Veiling of Virgins.” c.200AD.

On prepubescent girls not veiling:

“I will show in Latin also that it behooves our virgins to be veiled from the time that they have passed the turning-point of their age…”

On virgins not veiling:

“Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of Churches keep their virgins covered. [..] Still, here (as generally happens in all cases of various practice, of doubt, and of uncertainty), examination ought to have been made to see which of two so diverse customs were the more compatible with the discipline of God.”

On virgins choosing to veil and to marry:

“Still, until very recently, among us, either custom was, with comparative indifference, admitted to communion. The matter had been left to choice, for each virgin to veil herself or expose herself, as she might have chosen, just as (she had equal liberty) as to marrying, which itself withal is neither enforced nor prohibited.”

On widows not veiling:

“I know plainly, that in a certain place a virgin of less than twenty years of age has been placed in the order of widows! [..] the more portentous indeed, that not even as a widow did she veil her head; denying herself either way; both as virgin, in that she is counted a widow, and as widow, in that she is styled a virgin. But the authority which licenses her sitting in that seat uncovered is the same which allows her to sit there as a virgin: a seat to which (besides the sixty years not merely single-husbanded (women)— that is, married women— are at length elected, but mothers to boot, yes, and educators of children;…”

147 Comments

  1. professorGBFMtm

    ” “One practical note on the silence part, if the Women don’t have respect for the surroundings, they’ll sit at the front in a group chatting away. This is actually where a lot of the “Sunday Morning Nightclub” stuff came about. It’s those Women. However, it’s generally a practical result from female psychology. Just wanted to note it.” — commenter Looking Glass”

    Anybody who was around during the golden age MANosphere knows that “Sunday Morning Nightclub” was about how Christian women were supposedly oh-so-horny and if you had ”tight game” you could get nearly any of them married or not to have sex with you.

    That’s what gave most married Christian MEN hope that the ”redpill”=married game would get them lots of sex.

    Also:
    i just noticed jack took down that ”active persecutions” by supposedly you and i-to get his fanboys excited non-sense from the post.
    i suspect my comments yesterday @SPAWNYS had something to do with it?

    His supposed ”row” with i that he mentioned never happened anywhere but my(as well as some of his fanboys like sharkly -who like jack now conveniently forgets it as well as sharkly’s ” I’m going to troll the sf guys – over them linking to a ”gay porn site”” statement too at the time ) mentioning of how wrong his swinger couple porn post- as well as how terrible he treated LIZ & ELSPETH-both of whom leaving of his site 6 months ago , has also made it even further more desolate than even perhaps after i left in very late June ’21 or Last MOD just 6 months ago ) in September ’21 elsewhere did.

    Conclusion?:There are huge &sometimes multi-layered reasons why sf has lost a dozen+ main commenters since summer ’21.

  2. Lastmod

    This post opens with a statement from some man by the name of “smash baals” (balls?)

    Anyway, “there is nothing more clear in scripture that says were are to be silent in church and they are not qualified to be pastors”

    This is wrong. The most clear, concise and straight answer in the “word” you are gonna get that IS clear is from Jesus himself. Not Paul. Not Peter, not “of the twelve”

    It is this (Matthew 22:37-40) King James Bible

    Jesus said unto him, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

    It doesnt say “women are to be silent in church”. It doesnt say “Make sure you have a praise team ministry” and a “youth pastor” and “purity rings” and “mens fellowship” (the early believers gathered in homes, hushed from the authorities that persecuted them. That included, women, children, babies). Nothing can be tweisted from that staement to mean “deacon” or “leader” or “proest” or “elder” or “board of directors” or “womens ministry”

    Nor does it seem to exclude anyone for that matter that truly wants to follow Christ.

    Sadly, the infamous “they” out there “wont stand for any of that!”

  3. professorGBFMtm

    ”(3) “[since] has made a game”
    I didn’t do it as a game nor to troll, and in fact I’ve reduced my commenting and engaged in fewer derailing arguments compared to previous years (going back to 2018), including completely ceasing to comment there for more than three months!”

    Like i said yesterday in 2 or 3 comments at SPAWNYS sf/jack wants i ,DEREK , LastMod ,LIZ & Elspeth back all together at the same time as we’re the only ones or the main ones i rather should say that are not yes-MEN or fanboys of his/sf or ”redpill=married game”-in general and thus we’re the most ”compelling” commenters sf has ever had as far as that is concerned.

    How am i sure of all that?

    Namely where jack took down part of his post of course.

  4. I probably shouldn’t feed the trolls, but …

    I notice, according to pattern, that you have made multiple posts against a passage of scripture that you claim might be spurious, despite it appearing (as you’ve noted) in all the earliest surviving New Testament manuscripts, because it just so happens to conflict with your Feminist religion.
    Yet when there is a lengthier passage like the “Pericope Adulterae” which does not appear in any of the earliest surviving manuscripts, you must refer folks to Wikipedia, because you’ve not made any posts to try to make people aware of that apocryphal passage which promotes satanic lawlessness and sets up a constant opposition to hinder all well-meaning “sinners” from ever enforcing God’s commands, even within the church.

    Your clearly not a truth seeker, nor a truth spreader, so much as a Feminist ideologue, battling against men’s headship.

    You’d rather repeatedly discredit a passage where Paul silences women (so that men aren’t tempted to hearken to them) than discredit a passage where Jesus is purported to assist a whore in cuckolding her husband by pardoning her from the earthly consequences of breaking His Father’s law, despite no reported indication of her showing either repentance or faith, and thereby robbing her cheated husband of the justice provided by His Father’s law.

    P.S. I apologize for not wading further through the remainder of your post before commenting.

    1. Lastmod

      Okay, so if women stay silent in church, but not the home…….is that still “upsuring mens’ headship”?

      Is that putting on a facade? Is it signalling “oh look at Jim’s wife, she stays silent in church, she is such a devout wife that loves God” or is it out of “fear” of God, or of Paul? The Holy Ghost doesnt move in women? Ever? If it does…she is to deny it…..to obey Paul, or God?

      Paul also mentions about leadership in church. It mentions nothing of “seminary” or “degrees” or “published works” or “studying with the Saints”

      Paul also mentions that if “one burns” he should get married. If he cant find a wife? Is he sinning? Or should he just marry someone to satisfy the burn and then be lectured by the RP world “well, you married a harpy or frigid women, thats YOUR problem. You should have prayed more, vetted more, tusted God more…but no, you wanted sex.”

      Many in the sphere tend to believe that the verse about women “keeping silent in church” would fix the church, destroy feminism and bring women to the table to be “good wives”

    2. Derek L. Ramsey

      Sharkly,

      NOTE: I’ve added this comment so I can link to it when you claim I am a liar on various other forums, so others know what you are doing and so I don’t have to repeat myself.

      You are so eager to make me your enemy that you invent my supposed errors, while refusing to retract your own. Your decision not to be charitable requires you to repeatedly make false accusations against me, the very thing you accuse me of doing! Such a double-standard will get you nowhere, which is why you should stop personally attacking me and stick to the facts, which you’ve proven categorically unable to do. If I misrepresented you, a cold examination of the facts would show it.

      I’ve discussed our conversations in meatspace, and have only been met with astonishment at the unreasonable viciousness of your personal attacks, your disrespect, and your disregard for civil decorum. Even if you were correct, your manner of doing so prevents anyone from seeing it. Every single time you call me a liar publicly, you severely hurt your own credibility.

      I say this as gently as I can: you inadvertently engage in fallacious reasoning in many comments you make here, but you are clearly unable to understand what you are doing. I don’t know if you lack the cognitive capacity or if you lack the will to use what you have, but you seem unable even to comprehend your own errors, and so lash out at me over it as if it was my fault, making it seem that the deficits are mine instead of yours.

      I asked a third-party—other than the commentators here—to verify that I wasn’t making a cognitive error. No one, including you, have identified an error in my reasoning (feel free to provide a link if you have anything). I’ve received nothing from you but bald assertions that I am wrong, even as I’ve demonstrated time and again why I am correct. But you are unable to see this.

      I don’t blame you for your inability. It is not an insult to you pointing out what is plain for all to see. But, I would be a liar were I to agree with you that I made an error just because you are offended by it. I can’t betray the truth simply because you don’t see it. You’ve made these errors and refused to accept them. That is entirely your responsibility.

      Normal people would agree to disagree. But not you! Were you to merely double-down on your idea-based arguments, I wouldn’t care. I’d probably double-down with you! Why should either of us yield to the other if we are correct? But you have ramped up your personal attacks beyond all sensible reason. Rather than follow the Matthew 18 Protocol, you went to multiple other forums to accuse me of sin multiple times!

      “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

      What part of this did you do? Nowhere in the Bible are your actions authorized, even if you are factually correct in your claims!

      “Then Peter came and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.”

      You had two options when you thought I lied: confront me according to the Matthew 18 protocol or else not hold it against me by forgiving me of my actual sin against you and moving on. That’s it. You did neither. Your behavior defies the commands of Christ himself, which shows the fruit that you sow.

      I suggest that you contact each blog owner to delete or retract each comment where you publicly call me a liar.

      Peace,
      DR

      1. What Nonsense!
        You first declared I was sharing fallacies, in your attempt to defend your own Feminist beliefs. You did this publicly and not privately, as you now request of me.

        “What part of this did you do?”
        Your false accusation was never a private matter, I have no private relationship with you, and so I rightly confronted you on and in the same format with the same audience as the false accusation was made. You repeatedly chose to double down on your lies against me, so I’ve told it to those believers who gather (ἐκκλησία – ekklesia) at the various sites where you contend against me. (and against the truth) And I plan to continue treating you as what you are; a man who publicly accuses those who speak the truth of speaking fallacies, in order to protect your own Feminist beliefs.

        You claimed I was committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning to try to negate my true statement that: Men being the image of God was pertinent to why husbands have a divine right to rule over their wives. When I pointed out that you were misapplying the term, circular reasoning (AKA mutually dependent proofs) and that I had not used mutually dependent proofs in my statement you revamped your deceit by claiming that my words “begged-the-question” which then means that you tack your own words onto mine and go around in a circle until you feel justified in remaking your same claim that I had used circular reasoning within my single statement that the image of God was pertinent to why husbands hold the divine right to rule over their wives. Now If you had only said that you disagree, or don’t believe that, or don’t like how I worded my statement, we’d have still been on good terms, but you chose to wrongly accuse me of resorting to fallacies when I shared with you the same conceptual truth that the apostolic and early patristic church fathers’ writings had also conveyed.

        That’s what you’ve repeatedly done to me. You throw out terms like “circular reasoning” against a simple unidirectional statement when I make it, and you threw out “survivorship bias” when it didn’t correctly apply. And when I try to correct your deceits against me you stubbornly and willfully double down on those, to where they could no longer be considered mistakes, but are willful lies. You are seemingly committed to lying against the truth that I share. And if you won’t admit that I didn’t actually use circular reasoning in the instance where you claimed that I did, and that you also wrongly cited “survivorship bias” against me in a situation where it didn’t rightly apply, then I feel no need to stop telling people how stubbornly committed to lying against me that you still are. And I reserve every right to keep doing so, every time I choose to, until you retract those lies you’ve concocted against me in an attempt to discredit the Biblically based message that I share. And at whatever point you retract, I’ll stop, but I won’t go back and ask people to delete what I’ve already rightly written about you and your needless lies which you’ve told against me.

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          “You first declared I was sharing fallacies, in your attempt to defend your own Feminist beliefs. You did this publicly and not privately, as you now request of me.”

          Of course I presented my ideas publicly! As Bardelys implied, you put your argument out there and I responded to it. We both implicitly put our ideas out there into the realm of public debate, because we both like to tell people our opinions and to argue about those things. Our behaviors make that plain!

          But I avoid attacking you personally. You went beyond attacking ideas to attacking me as a person (and publicly, at that). No Christian should attack another Christian, as this does not lead to correction. Jesus gave specific instructions for what to do instead.

          I do not accuse you of sin, and so there is nothing for me to correct privately. On the day of judgment, if God asks me whether I hold your actions against you, I will say that I do not. There is nothing to bring before the church for judgment. Only Deti’s explicitly advocating sin requires that.

          It’s not a request. It’s advice, a suggestion that would improve the quality of discourse. However, merely ceasing to make libelous comments would also be a good idea.

          “so I rightly confronted you on and in the same format with the same audience as the false accusation was made.”

          That isn’t what Jesus instructed.

          “I’ve told it to those believers who gather (ἐκκλησία – ekklesia)”

          This isn’t what Jesus instructed either.

          “where you contend against me”

          I contend against your ideas, not you. If you had some unforgiven sin against me to which I was going to confront you, you would have received an email from me. While I believe much of what you say is in error, I do not believe you do so with bad intent. You are not my enemy.

          “When I pointed out that you were misapplying the term, circular reasoning (AKA mutually dependent proofs) and that I had not used mutually dependent proofs in my statement you revamped your deceit by claiming that my words “begged-the-question””

          Begging-the-question is circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is:

          “A circular argument (or circular reasoning) is an argument that comes back to its beginning without having proven anything.”

          I’m sorry to have to keep telling you this, but you don’t seem to understand what you are saying. Circular reasoning does not require “mutually dependent proofs” or any proof at all. All it requires is assuming the thing that is sought to be shown, which can be done very simply, even implicitly.

          You’ve never really denied doing this (and in fact stated that some of God’s precepts are circular that way), only rather insisted that the specific form of circular reasoning you used doesn’t qualify for the definition. I reject this game of semantics.

          “you chose to wrongly accuse me of resorting to fallacies when I shared with you the same conceptual truth that the apostolic and early patristic church fathers’ writings had also conveyed.”

          Yes, that was survivorship bias, a fallacy where, for example, one incorrectly assumes that because particular people did or did not say such and such that this implies universality of opinion, when the reality is likely the exact opposite.

          “when it didn’t correctly apply”

          When you didn’t understand how it applied.

          “And when I try to correct your deceits against me”

          You have yet to correct anything, and you once again didn’t correct anything here. You keep asserting that I was wrong without showing it.

          “And if you won’t admit that I didn’t actually use circular reasoning in the instance where you claimed that I did, and that you also wrongly cited “survivorship bias” against me in a situation where it didn’t rightly apply”

          As far as I know, you are the only person alive who think I used those terms incorrectly. Moreover, I’ve repeatedly referenced your actual words to clarify exactly and precisely where the fallacies were committed. These specific citations are unrefuted, although you continue to merely claim that they are wrong.

          “until you retract”

          I will not do so until you show me, precisely, where I made an error, as I have on multiple occasions precisely shown you where I was correct.

          1. You’re keeping any possibility of productive discussion broken by your stubbornly clinging to your needless false accusations against me, saying that I’m teaching/writing fallacies. You set out to try to make me into a liar, and I think that is why you are so stubbornly clinging to your false accusations, because no matter how flimsy they are, that was the very purpose you first set out to accomplish.

            Here is a Wikipedia diagram of the fallacy of circular reasoning:
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Circular_reasoning.svg/330px-Circular_reasoning.svg.png

            Yet you claim: “Circular reasoning does not require “mutually dependent proofs” or any proof at all. All it requires is assuming the thing that is sought to be shown, which can be done very simply, even implicitly.”

            What nonsense! By that definition you could argue that anybody who ever assumes that what they’re saying is true, is guilty of your supposed all-encompassing fallacy, “implicitly”.

            I had originally written: “The image of God is the foundation of why men have a divine right to rule.”

            Your whole pompous contention is that you should be allowed to unilaterally declare that simple statement to be the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. (because you assume it to be untrue)

            You keep enlarging the scope of your supposed “fallacy” definitions rather than to allow me to even make a simple unidirectional statement, without trying to make a liar out of me for merely stating my (early church) belief. And then you have the nerve to bitch at me about Christian charity when I defend myself against the libels of a lying false accuser like yourself.
            —————————————————

            Furthermore, you later claimed that the agreement of the writings of the earliest church fathers in upholding my belief (that men, not women, are the image and glory of God)(1 Corinthians 11:7) was “survivorship bias”.

            You flatly claimed that: “Only the rare early writer who thought it worth disagreeing with said anything about it. This is an instance of survivorship bias:”

            And then after I (somewhere) pointed out that you were wrong in your claim of “survivorship bias” you backpedaled and said that survivorship bias was merely “an apt comparison, because the intuitive conclusion is the wrong one”.

            You wrote: “This is why survivorship bias was an apt comparison, because the intuitive conclusion is the wrong one because of the bias.”

            And again, you’re pushing your far-fetched angle because of your own modern-day assumption that their belief/conclusion is wrong, and therefore you are declaring that those authors all exist as uncontradicted examples of bias. When in fact none of the early church fathers survive till today, nor did all the early church fathers who wrote sharing my belief have any particular survival benefit, over these imagined others, which you have yet to even postulate. They were not biased because they were the select group who lived while the other imagined group of Feminist fathers all supposedly died before they could write any opposing words.

            Just because all the existing writings back me up, doesn’t prove “survivorship bias” you ignoramus. Only in your own mind, and in the minds of those, who like you, would wish to discredit that early church anti-Feminist view that I hold.
            ————————————————

            As I’ve explained from the beginning, your Feminist beliefs cause you to react in a knee-jerk fashion declaring that whatever I’m sharing, whether from the early church writings or from the Bible itself, must be some type of fallacy, because it opposes your goddess worship of women above God the Father. And in your bum rush to make a fallacy out of the things I say, which you reflexively oppose on behalf of your Feminist beliefs, you wind up making silly accusations of various logical fallacies erroneously. And because this contention of yours is done as a religious service to your goddesses, when confronted with your error you just double down, trusting that it could never really be an error to side with your goddesses against men like myself and Tertullian, Augustine, Ambrosiaster, and others.

            Anyhow, I tire of arguing over this same pack of your false accusations against me in defense of your goddesses. I’ve already explained myself multiple times now. And I know that in your zeal to serve your goddesses you can blindly go on like this for as long as you live. So, it is far easier for me, and respectful of my limited time resources, to just be brief and rightly call you out as a liar whenever the situation arises. You don’t have to keep doubling down on your false accusations, but I understand why you do, out of your desire to serve womankind, and your stubborn intellectual pride which keeps you from backing down from your errors and tacitly acknowledging them to be over-the-top accusations made in your blind zeal to defend your Feminist and sexually egalitarian beliefs.

            You’re probably smarter than I am, Derek, but my advantage is that you’ve foolishly chosen to argue against the truth. And that’s why you’re stuck defending your silly knee-jerk accusations of wrongly applied fallacies that you “name & claim” as if they give you power over your ideological enemies.

            You wrote: “I contend against your ideas, not you.”

            LOL No, you ignorantly declare my ideas to all be various logical fallacies, which you “name & claim” as articles of faith, and then you simply discount them on the basis of your own false assessment. And then you crow that you’ve disproven my beliefs, and exposed that my beliefs are fallacies, by merely ignorantly bandying about the names of logical fallacies which you chronically misapply in ways so broad that any true statement, which you don’t like, will qualify as one of your supposed fallacies.

          2. Derek L. Ramsey

            Sharkly,

            “Just because all the existing writings back me up, doesn’t prove “survivorship bias” you ignoramus.”

            I want to revisit this point by using this counterexample.

            It is well-known that officially trained Roman Catholic exorcists do a much better job at casting out demons than their Orthodox, Protestant, or Anabaptist counterparts. Roman Catholics have noted that even though non-Catholics are able to successfully cast out demons at times, but that it is much harder for them to do so. There are a number of clearly documented cases where a Protestant, having been unable to cast out a demon, sought the assistance of a Roman Catholic exorcist who successfully completed the deed.

            From this, the Roman Catholic concludes that the evidence clearly backs up his claim that Roman Catholicism is the true religion and that select members of the other sects are only passably Christian. From this we can conclude which Christian sect is the correct one—Roman Catholicism—because we know which exorcists are correct. Right? No.

            All the surviving evidence we have—the selection bias—will lead one to the opposite of the correct conclusion. Due to survivorship bias, it is counter-intuitive that the failure of exorcism shows where Christ is, as described here.

            When we look at the successful exorcists, we ask ourselves what they all have in common: they are Roman Catholic. Then, you might think that Protestants are improperly equipped to cast out demons, and so conclude that we need to to patch and reinforce our Protestant exorcists by converting them to Roman Catholicism. But like the WWII airplanes, you’d be reinforcing everything except that which is necessary for a true exorcism. You’d fail to realize that the Protestant exorcisms were the only real ones.

            Here is the problem explained. Scripture declares that the way to know a spirit is to test it using the procedure that John lays out. But Roman Catholics do not do this. They separate “good” spirits—known as Apparitions—from bad ones based on non-biblical testing standards, rather than the one that scripture commands them to follow, because they do not follow sola scriptura (and are thus deceived).

            When a demon is confronted by a Roman Catholic exorcist, he freely “obeys” the exorcist because they are on the same side. In appearing to obey, he successfully deceives a priest of the church and thus maintains and encourages the propagation of the fake distinction between the demons and the apparitions, as well as successfully advertising the apostate church: exorcisms are good for business, and so are Apparitions. The bureaucracy of the Roman Catholic church has procedures to affirm the validity of the good apparitions, procedures that notably don’t require passing the test of the spirit.

            Meanwhile, demons have no such advantage gained by obeying a Protestant, because the Protestant rejects both the “good” spirits of Mary as well as those found in demonic possession. And so they resist. Sometimes the exorcisms fail (for various reasons). But it is in these situations that the true reality of demons is to be known.

            In short, the demons are only shooting bullets at the Protestants, which is why the Roman Catholic exorcists appear to be successful.

            I use this analogy to demonstrate an important point: you believe that because the available evidence appears to be stacked entirely in your favor, and that you don’t possess alternative evidence, that scripture itself must bow down to your judgment. But, like the Roman Catholic exorcists, the only evidence you are considering, indeed the only evidence you have, is wrong. Like the Roman Catholics, you’ve failed to put scripture first, because an examination of scripture itself would lead you to reject the conclusions of those church fathers that you believe were orthodox.

            Virtually the entirety of Christianity has found the correct conclusion, but you have fallen prey to survivorship bias. Your bias is believing that the limited evidence that has survived during the first three-and-a-half centuries is to be trusted at face-value, simply because you don’t possess the potentially vast amount of evidence against your claim, because it didn’t survive the historical selection process. Except that it did survive in one place: in scripture itself, as I’ve clearly described elsewhere and even you yourself proved.

            Peace,
            DR

          3. Derek L. Ramsey

            “you just double down”

            No, I simply refuse to submit to you, as you want women to submit to you. In fact, you seem to be demanding that all men and all women to submit to you. But you have no patriarchal claim to make me submit to your judgment, and you spit on my own patriarchy by trying to make me submit to you.

            “you wind up making silly accusations of various logical fallacies erroneously. [..] ignorantly bandying about the names of logical fallacies”

            Once again, you keep asserting that I was wrong without showing it. You write a lengthy comment containing mostly empty assertions without addressing the substance of my actual argument here or the clarification here, where I cite and demonstrate objectively the nature of the fallacious reasoning. I’ve proven conclusively that I am doing more than merely bandying about names, I have shown precisely how those claims actually apply.

            You’ve never really denied holding circular beliefs (and in fact stated that these precepts of God are actually divinely circular), only once again insisting that the specific form of circular reasoning you used doesn’t qualify for the definition. I once again reject this game of semantics.

            Seriously, try actually addressing my claims instead of complaining about them. The point is, when you prove yourself wrong, you don’t acknowledge or retract it. You literally challenged me to interpret the critical passage, and it proved that your viewpoint was wrong. You have utterly failed to learn from your mistakes, spending virtually the whole time in complete denial.

            “saying that I’m teaching/writing fallacies. You set out to try to make me into a liar”

            Do you even know what a liar is? I have never once made you out to be a liar. You are wrong, not a liar. Being a liar is a sin, being wrong is not. You have objectively committed numerous fallacies, including in the comments here. This is no moral failing, it’s just being wrong. People are wrong all the time without having major meltdowns over it.

            You think I’m wrong. Very wrong. So you accuse me of being a hellbound liar because I fail to see my error. Should I now claim that you are a hellbound liar and that your whole comment is a lie of the devil because you fail to see your error (in using the fallacies)? Don’t see you see how your whole objection is self-refuting?

            “merely “an apt comparison, because the intuitive conclusion is the wrong one”.

            I went back and read that comment. I believe that “comparison” was probably not the best word to use. So let me be clear: I maintain that it was survivorship bias. I’m not backpedaling at all. I mistakenly gave this impression and have edited the original comment to clarify. What you were arguing was, in fact, an example of survivorship bias where “the intuitive conclusion is wrong because of this bias.”

            “What nonsense!”

            A circular argument is an argument where nothing is proven, so it cannot possibly involve “mutually dependent proofs”. Calling this nonsense is your prerogative, but your incredulity doesn’t prove that your contradiction is true.

            By that definition you could argue that anybody who ever assumes that what they’re saying is true, is guilty of your supposed all-encompassing fallacy, “implicitly”.

            You clearly do not understand the difference between an axiom and circular reasoning. Because you denied that your argument was axiomatic, it must therefore be circular reasoning. If you change your mind and admit that it is an axiom (i.e. not based on reason or evidence), I will admit you no longer commit circular reasoning in that case.

            As for implicit premises, your statement was clearly loaded by the previous statements that you had made. You claim that your statement…

            “The image of God is the foundation of why men have a divine right to rule.”

            …was a single, isolated, unilateral statement that wasn’t in any way relevant to our ongoing discussion to that point even though it was immediately preceded by this statement:

            “Anyhow, to remind folks who may not see the relevance of all this:”

            So please do not attempt to deny that your statement was explicitly—not even implicitly—tied to all that came before it. Your own words judge you.

            “…unilaterally declare that simple statement to be the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. (because you assume it to be untrue)”

            This is very frustrating. No fallacy that you commit can rely on any assumption that I make. Your reasoning is entirely your own, and the fact that you think my view has anything to do with it further illustrates that you don’t understand it.

            “Just because all the existing writings back me up, doesn’t prove “survivorship bias” you ignoramus.”

            That’s exactly what survivorship bias is: where the only surviving evidence “proves” the wrong—indeed opposite from correct—conclusion. It is a very real form of bias that actually exists in historical data.

            The classic example is of the WW2 bombers. Statistical analysis was performed and it was determined that most of the bullet holes were found on the wings and center (see here). This seemed to indicate that those areas were most likely to be hit, because there were more bullet holes there. But it turns out that those areas that were not hit were more likely to result in the planes not returning to base at all. Thus, the data for the vulnerable portions was missing from the data set. There was no direct evidence that the undamaged portions of the plains were in need of armor, yet those sections were the ones that were reinforced.

            You’ve engaged in similar simplistic statistical analysis, thinking that counting up the writings that agrees with you will determine what the most common opinion was, rather than only showing what writings survived. Survivorship bias suggests the likelihood that the reason only those particular writings survived is because they were the the least supported viewpoint.

            You can’t even comprehend that survivorship bias could even apply, because doing so would mean your absurdly exclusive claim had to be adjusted.

            “your Feminist beliefs”

            You mean, my ancient and biblical beliefs that preexisted feminism by hundreds of years.

          4. Derek, your nested comments regime becomes a bit awkward as you get more comments on a topic.

            I don’t think your analogy of supernatural (demonic) beings intentionally giving false data as a mechanism for deceit, is an analogy for death (or airplane crash wreckage unobtainable from your island) eliminating all feedback from sources of critical contrary data in “survivorship bias”. Again, you seem to be broadening a term to where you can seemingly apply it to any sort of manipulation of data, so that you can soon call any evidence that you feel gives a false impression, “survivorship bias”, whether it be the illusions spun by demons or the fact that the writings of the early church fathers stand against your opinion.

            Just like how you grew “circular reasoning” away from mutually dependent proofs into “Derek says”.

            I guess any one thing can now be called an example of any other thing, if your unending argumentation eventually wears your opponent out, Huh? At some point they’ll give up trying to convince you, and then you’ll declare victory, and that you “proved” it, and they couldn’t keep standing against your reasoning.

            Charts and graphs and links that I haven’t the time to examine or reexamine, don’t alter the fact that you demand changing to broader, more all-inclusive, definitions until your claims seem to fit. And then once you’ve seemingly pinned the name of some type of fallacy onto something, you claim it is “proven” to be a fallacy when it still stands every bit as true as before you started your misapplication of some overly broadened terminology against it.

            You’re a stubborn loser, who alters definitions and rules in order to keep declaring yourself a winner, until your opponent tires of playing with you.

          5. Derek L. Ramsey

            “your nested comments regime becomes a bit awkward as you get more comments on a topic.”

            Then go to the bottom of the page and add a new comment, providing a link to the comment you are responding to. Then I can edit the original comment you are responding to to add a link to the response. I’ve always found hyperlinking comments to be superior to scrolling.

          6. Derek L. Ramsey

            “You’re a stubborn loser, who alters definitions and rules in order to keep declaring yourself a winner, until your opponent tires of playing with you.”

            The reality is thus…

            …in which you demonstrate time and time again that you are more interested in passing judgment on me (e.g. assuming my motives; condemning me as a sinner doomed to Hell) than in truthseeking. You boast about how morally superior you are to the rest of culture and to specific individuals. You are a religious zealot, and debating with you through reason is thus impossible.

            I am tireless in my pursuit of truth. So long as you keep pushing falsehoods here, I will keep responding. I don’t care whether you think I’m a winner or not. It is not at all an important consideration. However, it is, clearly, some sort of contest for you, and you continually project that desire onto me. See, you keep complaining that I’m wrong and evil, I keep complaining that you are making false assumptions about me. Notice the difference? It is plain that we are not the same.

            You are unable to make the same complaint about me I make about you, because I don’t need to assume your motives, because you explicitly state them for all to see. How do I know you are boasting about being judgmental? Because you said so explicitly on this very site. I don’t have state my motives because you know everything and can tell me what my own motives are by reading my mind.

            See, you could have merely stuck to the facts and said…

            “You alter definitions and rules”

            …and I would have addressed this perfectly reasonable and rational objection. Out of all the claims you’ve made against me recently, this one actually has some merit. But you had to judge and assume:

            “You’re a stubborn loser…”

            (Falsely presuming my motivation and judging me.)

            “…declaring yourself a winner…”

            (Falsely presuming that I’m in a contest with you and not your ideas. I’ve declared myself correct because I am correct. There is nothing to win because truthseeking isn’t a contest.)

            “…until your opponent tires of playing with you.”

            (Falsely presuming my motive is to overwhelm you, when it is merely to stand my ground against each and every last one of the flasehoods you share, as well as spending extra time to correct your errors.)

            In your summary, you spent three times as many words spreading falsehoods about me personally than in actually summarizing your argument against my ideas (which only required a mere five words). This is why I don’t take you seriously. Why should I address your legitimate concern, when you don’t even prioritize it in your own summary of your argument? If its not important to you, why should it be important to me?

            Even if you were right about me in your personal attacks, the attacks are still ad hominem fallacies and only serve to hurt the credibility of your arguments. Do you not see the absurdity of you saying that I don’t understand logical fallacies as you are simultaneously using logical fallacies? Even if you were right, your response is a logically invalid way to prove me wrong, while simultaneously demonstrating that you do, in fact, freely commit logical fallacies.

            Your obsession with calling me a loser and defeating me in a contest implies necessarily that you are not, first and foremost, a truthseeker. No one for whom truth is the utmost priority, the Iron Law, is concerned with such trivialities, for truth is not determined by who makes the argument, nor is any given valid or sound proof—and I’ve given many—the final say on the matter. Truth is universal and transcendental, ultimately not subject to contest or debate, the latter of which is merely the means to an end.

            Making a proper logically valid proof is not some herculean task, it is the basic threshold for reasoned debate that allows us to then discuss whether those arguments are sound or not. Logically fallacies have prevented your arguments from being logically valid, and so there is no point to discussing the conclusions of your logically invalid arguments. What matters most is correcting the fallacies themselves.

            ————————————————————————————

            “I don’t think your analogy… [..] you seem to be broadening a term to where you can seemingly apply it to any sort of manipulation of data, so that you can soon call any evidence that you feel gives a false impression, “survivorship bias”, whether it be the illusions spun by demons or the fact that the writings of the early church fathers stand against your opinion.”

            Let’s make a few observations.

            First, even if I categorized the selection bias into the wrong bin, it’s still selection bias. The fact that it is bias is more important than the semantics. The reference to “survivorship” lends insight into the method of selection that led to the bias. In other words, arguing over whether it is “survivorship bias” or some other form of selection bias is pointless if you are trying to argue that it is or isn’t bias at all.

            Second, your objections to my analogy do not exist in the survivorship bias found in the historical analysis of the church fathers you cited. In that case, the example is spot on. I chose this analogy for its clarity in showing how selection bias leads to the opposite from the correct conclusion, and I was successful at doing so. The same thing applies to your historical analysis where it actually is survivorship bias. My bad analogy did its job anyway.

            Third, the analogy I gave fits the definition of “survivorship bias”:

            “a type of sample selection bias that occurs when an individual mistakes a visible successful subgroup as the entire group”

            The visibly successful group—those successfully casting out demons—are treated as the entire group of successful exorcists, when the reality is that they are the opposite: the group of unsuccessful exorcists. This is different from other examples of survivorship bias where the successful group is actually successful, but this is a non-essential point: in both cases, the “survivorship bias” refers to considering only the evidence that “survived” the selection process.

            It also fits this definition:

            “Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not. This can lead to incorrect conclusions because of incomplete data. Survivorship bias is a form of selection bias that can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because multiple failures are overlooked. [..] It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property, rather than just coincidence as in correlation “proves” causality.”

            In my analogy, only those exorcists who had a particular outcome are being considered, and that selection directly leads to the false conclusion. This is, of course, different than other forms of survivorship bias where the reason for the selection is because the data literally isn’t available. So, you can quibble about the details of this definition if you like, but it doesn’t change the charge of bias in any way.

            Fourth, if you don’t find the analogy helpful, then I’ve failed to communicate it. That failure is on me, but that doesn’t indict the original (different) claim. I’m sorry I couldn’t be more helpful.

        2. Derek L. Ramsey

          Sharkly,

          “remaking your same claim that I had used circular reasoning within my single statement [..] By your new methodology any single statement of belief whatsoever, that you don’t like, could be twisted into your version of “circular reasoning””

          Having exhaustively explained my case in my previous comment, I want to demonstrate what is happening by giving a practical example:

          Will Stancil is a blankslatist. Stancil is claiming that Steve Sailer doesn’t understand statistics. He typifies this type of person by using judgmental condemnation in addition to dismissing his argument based on his own intellectual prowess (an argument from authority) rather than addressing the argument directly. Yet, in that very thread, Stancil makes a bunch of errors regarding statistics. He demonstrates what is known as “Dunning-Kruger” where:

          “a person’s lack of knowledge and skill in a certain area causes them to overestimate their own competence.”

          This same thing happened to me when David Gudeman claimed to be an expert in logic and I pointed out his error. It is what is happening here with you. You are ignorant of logic, while overestimating your own ability to understand logic. You lack the competence to tell me that I am wrong about how I applied the law of logic, and your overestimation of your own abilities prevents you from seeing your error.

          You even want to go to church elders to get them to make a theological ruling that your mathematical ignorance must be accepted because you are more spiritual and righteous than I am. It’s absurd. I should only have to recant if you can prove that I’m wrong, which you have not done. I can’t have lied about you, because I’m right in what I said, so you seeking church discipline for an intellectual disagreement is patently absurd.

          Every attempt you’ve made to prove me wrong has backfired. Look at your claim again:

          “remaking your same claim that I had used circular reasoning within my single statement”

          Now go read this comment.

          When a demon had water splashed on it that had been “blessed” by a Roman Catholic and didn’t disappear, it then declared, in short that “Holy Water (and other Holy Objects) is a valid way to test the validity of a spirit.” This is an example of a single statement that begs-the-question. This is obviously the case. It doesn’t require an examination of any other statements made to see that this is true.

          The single statement is circular reasoning.

          I think even you can see that the demon in question was begging-the-question, and that it was, in fact, a demon. We can safely reject its claim because it was logically fallacious circular reasoning, rather than accepting its claim and being forced to convert to Roman Catholicism.

          Your statement was similar. Your ignorance of circular reasoning is akin to Dunning-Kruger. You simply do not know what you are talking about when you say you couldn’t have been engaging in circular reasoning because you used a single statement. I show this example on the off chance that you will finally be able to see that your view of the fallacy is incorrect.

          Peace,
          DR

    3. Derek L. Ramsey

      “You’d rather repeatedly discredit a passage where Paul silences women”

      You are begging-the-question that it was Paul who said it. That’s my point. So, can I assume from your inability to address any of the points in this article that you agree that these are valid issues?

      “I notice, according to pattern, … because it just so happens to conflict with your Feminist religion. [..] Your clearly not a truth seeker”

      Do you think you are going to convince me (or anyone else) of your righteousness by engaging in fallacious tu-quoque “whataboutism” (“responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense of the original accusation”)? But to show good faith and charity, I’m going to dismantle your claim anyway.

      The consensus of biblical translators is that the Pericope is not authentic, which is why the NIV makes a note and brackets it off. It simply isn’t controversial to say that it isn’t authentic. Hardly anyone (except KJV-only types) panics and says “you’re suppressing the Word of God you spawn of Satan!”

      To the best of my knowledge only one fringe modern translation does the same with 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Unlike the Pericope, I receive a steady stream of “you’re suppressing the Word of God you spawn of Satan!” Thus, given this controversy, it requires a much more detailed argument.

      It’s just that simple. There is no devious pattern of deceit and no personal attacks are warranted.

      1. You speak as though most people acknowledge the apocryphal nature of the Pericope Adulterae. That’s not the same world I live in. Even in the Christian-manosphere, which by all rights ought to detest that passage where Jesus purportedly helps to cheat a cuckolded husband out of the earthly justice of His Father’s law, I encounter vehement opposition when I claim it to be an apocryphal addition. And in churches and even society, I hear the phrase about “not casting stones” cited as a rebuttal, on a nearly constant basis, when I try to insist on people doing what is right.

        I think that the majority of people still view that passage to be a part of the Bible, as authentically as they believe any of the rest of it. Thus, the Bible translators who, as you claim, know better, didn’t dare to take the Pericope Adulterae back out. Nor am I aware of any large religious denominations taking a united stand against it being in the Bible. Spreading awareness of its apocryphal nature is a good first step towards eventually getting it removed, and reversing the great lawlessness which that apocryphal passage, effectively forbidding all human enforcement of God’s laws, has led to.

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          “You speak as though most people acknowledge the apocryphal nature of the Pericope Adulterae.”

          Almost all translations put it in brackets, add a footnote, and/or move it to the end the gospel. With the exception of the KJV-only crowd, the main reason for it not to be acknowledged is due to a lack of Bible study. That it is unattested in the earliest works has been known at large for more than a generation.

          “I encounter vehement opposition when I claim it to be an apocryphal addition”

          That sounds familiar. When everyone is so sure they are correct about everything that comes out of their mouth, then they can’t be reasoned with. That’s the real problem here. Moreover, once you allow that part of the Bible has been corrupted, you have to allow for the possibility that it isn’t the only part.

          Some people find out that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 has questionable attestation, but choose to double-down on it. Why should it surprise you that they do the same with the pericope? The issue is the insistence on black & white thinking, not allowing for any nuance or differences of opinion.

  5. professorGBFMtm

    i see jack still has his patented troll bot style ”active persecutions” deceitful and confusing (see supposedly TRUE ”TRUTH-seeking” ” original red pillers” i can use your patented unbiblical -like the periscope adulterate i will add non-sense poorly written , confusing and voluminous language too )non-sense up.
    i was being too generous in my comments yesterday to jack /sf in other words.

    When they attacked i and the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN(through another bgr-matt troll bot known as george in late December ’21/then that above one too a few day afterwards elsewhere , that was the TRUE end of my association with jack, the ”sigma” fanboy sf troll bot gang and it’s in- general peanut gallery and that above bgr-matt troll bot(who all believe in wife-beating” but only as the ”cleaner”-sounding ”wife-domestic discipline” and that somehow ”masturbation is biblical and even mainstream don’t you know?” known as sharkly.

    1. So, are you saying that women today don’t lack discipline? Or that things should continue as they are? Or that the government should be relied on to discipline women, or that the churches will discipline wives for their husbands?

      Are you claiming that masturbation and all sex that isn’t intended to make a baby, is Biblically forbidden, just because we are told that Onan once tried to cheat his brother by denying him an heir to collect his portion of their father’s property, by refusing to ejaculate into his brother’s wife to impregnate her in accordance with Levirate marriage practices? Don’t you think that’s kind of a stretch, to forbid that which God never clearly forbade?

      And if you think masturbation is wrong, why did you share your favorite gay porn link at Spawny’s Space? Can you fault me for thinking you’re trolling the manosphere when you post a gay porn link, constant gibberish, lengthy portions of off-topic copied and pasted text, and childish graphics? If I were the proprietors there, I’d have banned you for continuously trying to make their site seem retarded.

  6. professorGBFMtm

    ”So, are you saying that women today don’t lack discipline? Or that things should continue as they are? Or that the government should be relied on to discipline women, or that the churches will discipline wives for their husbands?”

    Where did i mention women not needing to discipline themselves first & foremost especially if their ”Christian” other than concerning your obsession with them being ”disciplined” & what even your ”redpiller” friends and FAVE politicians see as ”wife-beating” that you speak of?

    ”And if you think masturbation is wrong, why did you share your favorite gay porn link at Spawny’s Space? Can you fault me for thinking you’re trolling the manosphere when you post a gay porn link, constant gibberish, lengthy portions of off-topic copied and pasted text, and childish graphics? If I were the proprietors there, I’d have banned you for continuously trying to make their site seem retarded.”

    ”Can you fault me for thinking you’re trolling the manosphere when you post a gay porn link”

    Your BFFS jack and porn pill apostle posted the gay link to swinger mike’s site back in ’21 that you very well know as i showed you the very gay post swinger mike did in a e-mail &even LIZ mentioned similar seeing it on their site at SPAWNYS herself, that started off this long protracted war to begin with.

    ”If I were the proprietors there, I’d have banned you for continuously trying to make their site seem retarded.”

    Yeah the entire ‘sphere knows you have ban-envy(yet i left your site of my own volition on our 3rd&final falling out , after WE had had 2 previous falling out’s to begin with) too ever since dal rock banned you from his site over your constant & lengthy raging diatribes of off-topic hating of women & churchians (who you yourself was happily a part of until they sided with your ”unhappy” wife ) .

    ”constant gibberish”

    Yeah i know a lot more about the ‘sphere itself than at least 95-98% of people(mainly because i’ve been around for so many years is all ) that have ever been in the ‘sphere and that and i not discussing women constantly is what you call gibberish.
    Since all you mostly know is dal rock , jack and biblical gender(why hasn’t he changed it to sexes yet?) roles=bgr which is understandable since you have only been around a short time compared to i or LastMOD or maybe especially even our other long-time MANosphere resident & friend RAY-whose site goes back to the pre-CHATEAU golden age Man osphere of the MGTOWosphere was all there really was of the latter-day golden-age MANosphere.

    Tell the rest off your off-topic gibberish to your Bellevue psychiatrist & get well soon my brother- as i & others only want you to be back to your normal pre- typical ”unhappy wife filing for divorce” self-who i bet was just a regular & usualy kind , hard working MAN=husband who only wanted to be loved by his GOD, wife ,children, family and community.

  7. I’m still not sure I completely understand the logic of what you did. Jack, at Σ Frame, linked to the pornographic site of swinger Mike Davis and his strap-on-penis wearing wife, and so in an effort to try to combat that, somehow, you then posted a link over at Spawny’s Space to someone else’s gay porn site.

    And now you’re concerned about my mental health.
    Well, I’m touched that y’all are so concerned for my mental and moral state of being. But y’all might best want to look after yourselves first. Get well, then maybe you’ll find your way back on the right side of me.

  8. Lastmod

    Ah yes….that guy who was posting pics of him boning his wife, but “they’re christian” so its okay to post voyeristic pic like this.

    All that site is and was : a “humblebrag” of “looking what Im getting and you’re not” or “dont you wish you had a schlong like me?” stuff. And the classic “its not pornographic if its romantic / your’re married”

    I looked at it, I dont know what this couple expected as a reaction…….arousal? No. I wasnt. His wife wasn’t that *hot* for her age.

    In the end, that guy had to let the world know he has a penis. We (the manosphere) just-all- just-wanted-to-know. E Frame and company were just *dying* to see it. We had to see it firsthand. And again, per usual…..if the christian side of the ‘sphere says its “christian” then its okay. Anyone else has to “repent” or they would “blame the wife for making the hubby post the pictures on the Internet, he was misled! Not his fault!”

    Then they would be have as the Phairisees and have her out to be stoned to death.

    Posting that link says more about how repressed and sexless most of the chritian sphere actually is. It took me years to learn this…….but most of the RP “christian” stuff is ALL talk. They speak of “blue pilled chumps” and blame them for the problems in the world….but, call it a good hunch…………..many, if not all of them are just as frustrated as the “chumps” they put down.

    They get away with it because their church, their faith, their belief IS a club. These men never left high school. I did.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “Posting that link says more about how repressed and sexless most of the chritian sphere actually is. It took me years to learn this…….but most of the RP “christian” stuff is ALL talk.”

      You’ve more-or-less intuited what the research says.

      In Marion Meuly et al. “Sex Health.” September 2021, they examined a pool of 26-year-olds of both sexes. They found that only 5% of respondents were virgins, and most of these were characterized by one of two things: obesity and higher than normal risk aversion .

      RP adherents are mostly made up of the ~5% of men who are highly risk averse, which is why many think that vetting will get them a good wife, when the reality is that it makes them more likely to be (and remain) celibate.

      Who gets all the girls? Risk seekers who drink, smoke, do drugs, used porn, are physically and mentally fit, and live on their own. While the RP is often concerned with physical fitness, it rarely worries about how often RP men are defective mentally (i.e. bad at relationships), but such is the case for many incels.

  9. Lastmod

    “So, are you saying that women today don’t lack discipline? Or that things should continue as they are? Or that the government should be relied on to discipline women, or that the churches will discipline wives for their husbands?”

    As for this?

    So, lets suppose that *tomorrow* women….all of them repented. It still wouldnt be good enough for you guys. They could sit in the front pew, silent. “forever mourning” and 99% of men the Christian RP world would still say “they dont mean it!”

    So what do you think *should* be discipline? Spanking her? Locking her in a closet until she says “she’s sorry”? Divorce her because “the bible says I can”

    Even in the Roman world, there were “laws” and the like of what people could do and not do to each other. Even Paul “appealed to Caesar as a Roman citizen”. There were rules and lawas for slaves. Property. And even women in Israel had “rights” with property.

    He wasnt putting “Gods Law(s)” first in that case. Should he be condemned and not listened to now?

    The best exmaple you all need to actually follow is Jesus. In his actions, deed and word. Jesus doesnt care if you have a “sexless” marriage. He cares about your eternal life, and there is “no marriage in heaven” anyway, so whats the point? God has made SO many suffer in this life over the centuries for many worse things than your wife “not obeying you”

    I suppose we have it “easy” compared to those times of the late ancient world. Incel? Ugly? “But…but God made you that way! He loves you!!!!” Just the same for suffering. He doesnt “owe” you good looks, a wife, a marriage full of sex, a wife who *obeys* you. Nor does he owe you a STEM job and upper middle class lifestyle.

    Yes, its a faith of suffering and that suffering is okay for “those” people. The ugly, the blue pilled, the invalid. The addict. The woman who kissse her first boyfriend when she was 16 (she evidently needs to sit in shmae forever in church now because of that).

    You guys? Ha! Life is so “rough” you all had PLENTY of opportunities with women, dates, premaritial sex, kissing, social life….and you married the worng one….

    And that is now the problem of “blue pilled men / Incels / MGTOWs / weak pastors”

    Maybe…just maybe its you

    Also…God doesnt care about that. He only cares about YOUR mindset. I thought you were all suppose to “rejoice” in your suffering…oh wait, that verse is made for men like ME.

    Cant you men see yet how childish you all look? Drop this RP nonsense and start following Jesus and actually *lead* men like me. You have the looks, status, brains and intellect. All you do is blame men like me and put everyone down.

  10. I think a lot of the criticism of the Christian-manosphere I’ve read here is hyper-reactionary and based upon individual instances that are then generalized as if they represent the whole of the Christian-manosphere. I agree with you that much of what you’ve cited, should not have happened. And I’m on record as opposing most of what you have cited.

    When Jack posts stuff he shouldn’t (like a link to porn) I have made my opposition quite clear.
    Y’all claim Oscar is a contrarian who needlessly contradicts you. Well, if I recall correctly, I’m still in moderation over at Σ Frame for putting him in his place. My comments got deleted, while his were left published. I also had previously been put into moderation there for responding to Scott in like manner as he spoke of me. But Oscar or Jack or Scott, are just individual people with their own individual issues. No group of people is going to exist without everyone’s personal human flaws and foibles. And in a way, these people and their individualized issues, are the exceptions that prove the rule. That not everybody in the Christian-manosphere is an Oscar, or a Jack, or a Scott, but that each brings something different to the group.

    When you complain that, “this is high school all over again” or “this is junior high all over again” or “this is my whole social life all over again”, only you know if you’re right, but I don’t doubt it. Since all of those groups were made up of people, there are going to be a lot of similarities in how they react towards you and how you react back towards them. Some folks might suggest there are general patterns that play out in people’s social interactions. You’ve mainly only got two options. To change yourself and to change whom you associate with. Changing the behavior of others (especially online) is difficult, may take a lot of time, and is never guaranteed to happen. So, while as Christians, or even just humans, we should try to make our peers better people, you also can’t ever count on them changing for the better.

    If the Christian-manosphere is such a bad place full of such bad people, then just leave, shake the dust off your feet and go make new and better friends elsewhere. By staying fixated on them you show that they must have something you want, or some reason you feel the need to correct them, more than you want to leave. Nobody is making any of you stay and keep interacting with anybody in the Christian-manosphere. Unless of course you’re an agent paid to do it? 😉

      1. Lastmod

        Someday there will come a man who will read the Bible and actually believe it, and then that is when a revival, or actual curiosity and a willinginess to “trust. believe” will happen, and it will be a sight not seen since the time of the Great Awakening, or William Booth in Victorian London.

        Probably greater.

        I am corrected daily at work. I am corrected when I got a “speeding ticket” on Wilshire Blvd a few weeks back.

        Red Pill “lore” and “knowledge” is now equated witht eh Bible in the Christian ‘sphere, hence the arguing. Those who have indeed swallowed the RP who claim this faith have put this before their God……though they will never admit…..but their actions show and demsotrate it. Hence the arguing.

      2. Derek L. Ramsey

        “I’ve said it many times: the men in this space love to argue. It’s as simple as that.”

        This is why I don’t understand why men promote their viewpoints and then start hurling personal attacks when their views are challenged. In meatspace, I almost never discuss these issues because no one else is bringing them up. The key to not being challenged is to keep your mouth shut in the first place, not get indignant after the fact.

        If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

        1. Liar says what?

          You forge lies against me, conniving how to mislabel my statements as various sorts of fallacies, and yet you then hypocritically bitch about charity and Christian discipline protocol when I instead respond that you’re the liar. You get to publish seemingly unending posts accusing me publicly of sharing “fallacies”, which were Biblically derived and were first published by the early church. And when I respond in my own defense, you try to hold me to the privacy step of church discipline that you yourself chose not to follow, deeming it inapplicable to your own behavior.

          LOL If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the lake of fire, where those who love to make lies go. You accuse your enemies of not being able to take heat when they merely object to being gratuitously lied about and being made out to be a liar by your lengthy smear campaign. And I don’t so much object in an effort to rebuild my own savaged reputation, as to defend the truth which the Spirit of truth has revealed to me, which I freely share, even though I knew this world would fight against me for sharing it.

          1. Derek L. Ramsey

            You are not listening.

            The Christian that alleges that his brother has sinned against him is obligated to follow the instructions of Christ, which starts with approaching him privately. It is an objective fact that you accused me of sin without contacting me privately first. Yet, there is no exception and the instructions are not qualified based on the nature of the alleged sin itself. Indeed, the sin that Jesus said must first be addressed privately involved two or three witnesses.

            Only one of us is making allegations of sin against the other: you. Were I to start making similar allegations, you would be right to chastise me for doing so publicly.

            If you want to make public statements about my ideas, you are obligated to do so without personal accusations of sin. You could write a hundred posts explaining why I am wrong—without imputing a motive—and explain why everything you say is solid gold. That would be fine. But you can *never* first publicly accuse me of sin while remaining obedient to Christ.

            You can’t disobey Christ in order to do his good work.

            One of the reasons I like to respond to you on my blog is that if I ever go beyond addressing your ideas, I can quickly edit my posts/comments to remove the offense.

            “your lengthy smear campaign”

            I’m not smearing you. I’ve merely failed to submit to you, as you want women to submit to you. In fact, you seem to be demanding that all men and all women to submit to you. But you have no patriarchal claim to make me (or another man’s wife, as in Liz) submit to your judgment, and you spit on all of our patriarchal rights by trying to make me submit to you. In doing so, you prove your patriarchy to be a vacuous concept. As I’ve pointed out from the beginning of our conversation, you don’t respect a man’s patriarchal rights and responsibilities. You, ironically and hilariously, call real patriarchy “feminism.”

            Meanwhile, you’ve spent the whole time literally campaigning against me: going to other forums and making specific accusations of sin and literally judging me to hell. It’s so absurd that you say I’m campaigning when the only change of venue I’ve attempted is to keep it off other people’s blogs! Meanwhile, you bring it up at every opportunity. The only person campaigning is you, and everyone knows it.

            All I’ve done is maintain that you are wrong. That’s a major distinction. Being wrong isn’t a smear, though it appears that you seem to think it is.

            “even though I knew this world would fight against me for sharing it.”

            The world will fight against you because you are wrong, not because you imagine yourself to be a victim. You are not a martyr.

    1. Lastmod

      Well, in essence I have.

      I have no commented there since April, and will never do so again. Even here, many of the topics I have “no comment” on for the fact they are topics that are WAY over my scope of comprehension.

      I commented on your site only on something I know. The “Incel” or “Blackpill” other than that, yes, I have steered clear of you site.

      Its impossible to debate any of you, you know it all already.

      I dont comment on Spawneys, though I have read it here and there. Dalrock banned me, and Christianity and Masculinity has as well. “Just work out bro” and “Read my book, in x number of steps you will be amazing with christian women, and if you are not….you dont have a mission or purpose or go to the gym enough”

      I dont think about Osacr, and when I have I just smirk….I pity his future son(s) in law. They wont be able to breathe without his permission. As for Jack. He has had some good topics, and discussion but honestly looking back over the years, its for smart people and men who want to improve but have time to treat it like a college class and study, study, study all the axioms, laws, protocols, methods, subsets, charts, and throw the bible on top of that.

      I wasted his and my time.

      He, Oscar, Scott, and the other gallery of regulars there only had one thing I wanted….and they couldnt give that to me: to be born perfect, natural with women, and a super high intellect.

      God loves some, and hates others. Its his will.

      What bothers me the most is again, you cant tell them anything. Took me years to learn that. So assured of everything. They know nothing.

      I cant change that. My mistake was thinking i could.

      1. Derek L. Ramsey

        “What bothers me the most is again, you cant tell them anything. Took me years to learn that. So assured of everything. They know nothing. I cant change that. My mistake was thinking i could.”

        You say these things so simply, while I would say something like “their axioms are so different from mine, and so firm in their minds, that we can never make any progress.” It’s the same thing, and I agree with you.

  11. professorGBFMtm

    ”He has had some good topics, and discussion but honestly looking back over the years, its for smart people and men who want to improve but have time to treat it like a college class and study, study, study all the axioms, laws, protocols, methods, subsets, charts, and throw the bible on top of that.”

    i thought the same about dalrock but jack take’s it to another level.

    ROISSY &GBFM were the faces of the entire ‘sphere from ’08-’13(especially) because they kept it all on a street smart level usually.

    Which is why their popularity with Males= MEN in their teens and 20s/30’s has always been at a high level.

    Yet dal rock, Rollo(with his pseudo- jungism stuff) and later jack(especially) tried appealing to the (intellectual) establishment in government (then they wonder why
    has the government increased it’s interest in it?),academia and clergy-then what happened in the mid and late 2010s the black piller explosion that has more of a ”ideological” appeal as Roissy and GBFM once did , but for today’s younger males?

    So in the end?:the old street-smart ‘sphere beat the latter-day ”intellectual” ‘sphere and none of them, Rollo(especially with his raging diatribes against black pillers &MGTOWS) nor the Christian ones seem able to believe it or acknowledge that their ”intellectual” version of the ‘sphere failed.
    As the old-school ”street smart” version, even after it’s original demise in ’14/’15 has prevailed in the end(with it’s rebirth as the black and white factions of it).

    1. Lastmod

      What has been said about “female nature” has been said a gazillion times. Now, evidently all these g-men have infiltrated the ‘sphere and are “silencing” men and their respected blogs to keep “young men” from the truth.

      Even if that was true, and lets suppose for a second it is.

      They could just turn their channels off. Block their content immediately. They already have the means to do this, and have had these means for quite awhile.

      So much has been archived over the past few decades. So much is being passed around by .doc files on so many other chats and forums and mediums. These men think again they are more important than they actually are. Modern day “Tyndales” all of them.

      I watched Rollo’s bitchy, whiney video about this. Call it a hunch, he’s more annoyed the clicks are down….and so is the income. Also, you can sell only so many books about “women” to a thirsty crowd before they even realize its hopeless for most of them….no matter what they do. I live in Los Angeles, even my local public library has two copies “on hand” of “The Rational Male”

      If the “authorities” were so concerned, about men “finding out the truth about female nature” the libraries would be first. I personally think The Bible, even in its current form and its gazillion english translations is more of a “danger” to the powers that be than “Rollo’s” “revolutionary” book. Ayn Rands “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead” are WAY more of a threat to the applecart than Rollo pointing out how to get women to like you, and decoding their “secret” language that really isnt a secret.

      These guys are more worried about their livlihood and MONEY than “helping men find the truth”

      All of these “mens bloggers” have overstaurated the niche, info has been floating around now two decades plus. There is nothing more to say. Like MGTOW, people got what they needed, found community in the chats and various forums….but nothing groundbreaking has been done since 2008 or whatever.

      Rollo well may indeed have to go get a STEM degree. The gang at Jack’s can give him advice about becoming a lineman, or becoming a trucker and he can make five million in only x ammount of years. Easy to do. What’s your problem?

      WHen I was in a “prepper group” all these former military guys talking about when martial law will be implemented by big-bad Obama “the military would never fire on its own citizens”

      If it came down to that, the military has no way the resources to put an armed unit on every corner, every city and every important junction, and critical interest point or resouces to protect. And yes, the US military would fire on their own fellow Americans. If it came to “my family v your family” they would. Forget gthe police, they are the biggest cowards. They cant even arrest someone…………anyone in California. “I dont want to get sued…you understand…”

      China 1966-1968 during the Cultural Revolution was fact to this. This is a topic I have studied extensively, and have met tons of Chinese of that generation who lived through that horror.

      You couldnt even pose a different arguement or point with these preppers. Nope. I was military in Desert Storm (big whoop), talk to a veteran who lived through Stalingrad (German or Soviet). Guadaalcanal (American or Japanese). I was not inspited by these vets in my prepper circle, and besisdes……………..there is a TON of info on prepping. You dont need some Boy Scout Leader or former “military” to tell you how to do it.

      Same with the sphere. The clicks are down…..not because of Biden but because there is nothing left to say.

      1. Derek L. Ramsey

        “These men think again they are more important than they actually are.”

        Absolutely.

        My criticisms of Jack are extremely minor in scope, but he sees me (and the professor) as his primary persecutors. It is absurd.

  12. professorGBFMtm

    ” “Just work out bro” and “Read my book, in x number of steps you will be amazing with christian women, and if you are not….you dont have a mission or purpose or go to the gym enough””

    i remember when Oscar first arrived at dal rock around April 2014 saying ”just go to the the gym and build that body”.

    i don’t hold it against him because i know he really got it from the first ”happily married father” &”married gamer” known as Athol kay(who dalrock patterned a lot of his stuff on) who claimed to have had sex every night with his wife since he married her back in the mid-90’s.

    What everyone forgets is that Athol was a hospital orderly, hardly a high-status job.

    In other words?His wife either loved him or he was embellishing a lot of his life perhaps to make up for being a hospital orderly?

    Then around summer 2011 he stopped being ”Christian” because it was obviously cramping his cash flow from being able to properly mass-market his work beyond ” Average Frustrated Chumps”=AFCS who were Christian or pseudo-agnostic-when his first full book came out.

    You never hear the ”red pillers” say Athol was a obvious troll do you?

    Just like that Biblical gender roles=bgr guy yet their was a article at ”unsettled Christianity” in 2015 saying just that that he was a known ”researcher” looking to collect data.

    But shh…they know he is just a ”misunderstood” blogger bro and ”could be a great debater like ben Shapiro” as i was told by his main disciple that came here a few days back at SPAWNYS months ago.

    Roissy never saw eye to eye with GBFM on most things but at least he didn’t oppose GBFMS point of view by calling him a ”troll” or G-man like the” drink the kool-aid cultists”(how GBFM has always seen most at the dal rock blog and it’s descendants and off-shoots) known as the dalrockian by way of Athol kay ”redpillers”did and still do to this very day.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “His wife either loved him or he was embellishing a lot of his life perhaps to make up for being a hospital orderly? [..] You never hear the ”red pillers” say Athol was a obvious troll do you?”

      People can claim whatever they want, but it is impossible to verify most of it. Add to this the fact that there are very few confirmed success stories, and many more confirmed (and uncomfirmed) failures.

      1. Liz

        The pattern seems to be:
        If someone has success that came about not following precisely the script=
        “That is an extreme outlier! Such an outlier there is no point in considering it!”
        Meanwhile failure (ostensibly) following the precise script=
        excuses (and in some cases deletion of all incriminating posts)

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          Liz,

          Jack makes up details about my personal life, and then says that the reason I’m having success is because I either got lucky (outlier!!) or because I’m actually following his script by accident. This latter is more insidious than the former, and it implies that I’m an idiot who doesn’t know what he is doing.

          “deletion of all incriminating posts”

          This is what bothers me with Jack deleting Scott’s posts (by request) in June without explanation. Either they had to be deleted because they made him look bad and/or because his lawyer made him do it due to some ongoing legal dispute (I’ve personally experienced both of these things). I don’t have a problem with doing either, but if it is the former, then don’t we deserve an explanation? What’s the point of the RP if you can’t acknowledge failures?

          Peace,
          DR

          1. Derek L. Ramsey

            Scott recently took a multi-year public position in a elected government official’s cabinet. His self-censorship makes it seem like he is ashamed that his viewpoints might become more widely known by the constituents of his area, or perhaps even from the politician who appointed him.

            The recent spat I’ve been having over anonymity at Sigma Frame seems particularly relevant: men who are afraid to put their name behind their viewpoints—and stand by them—do not deserve respect as patriarchal leaders. Their viewpoint that men should be in charge and lead is directly contradicted by the fear that people might find out who they are, what their views are, or rely on them as leaders.

            I shake my head at this contradiction. At least Sharkly isn’t guilty of this. I applaud his courage for not hiding behind the skirts of anonymity.

  13. Lastmod

    I once posed on a forum about “low” or “lower” status jobs or a financial “crisis” in a marriage and a couple grows “closer”

    In 1974, the US economy got crippled by the oil embargo (which it never recovered from mind you) and combined with inflation, a changing economy for that time and a removal off the gold standard which Nixon gets blamed for, but had been planned by both parties for awhile…

    You had married women “en masse” to begin to enter the workforce in the USA and across the West as well. Japan too. It wasn’t because “muh feminism” it was because of necessity in most cases. Families were falling behind. Wives wanted to “help”

    It is framed in the manosphere as “these women wanted to upsur their hubby’s authority” I recall as a boy my parents having intense discussions after dinner about this. My mother “returning to work full time” in the late 1970’s. “Scout (my nickname) is in school, Greg in his day program until 4PM, I can take a nursing ER morning shift! We’re falling behind, I want to help!!”

    It was discussions had across the country and mostly for middle class, and working class families.

    My mother didnt tell my father “You should get a better job! / you should go to college and become an engineer !/ you need to tell that construction company they are paying you more, or you’re quitting! / I should have married a man who was going places, unlike you who is just a carpenter!”

    The manopshere believes now and for awhile that love doesn’t exist. They only go by charts, graphs, stimuli / action. Unchangeable personality. Orders. Game. Laws. Axioms. Rules. Studies prove. Headship. Must. Subset to Law. Addendum to subset of Law.

    They have made marriage into a robotic, cold, sterile “game” of a wife will try to ruin your life, and the “only” way to stop her to apply their easy, simple and “common sense” tactics.

    If a couple truly takes their vows seriously. Understands if they are Christian that it ISNT about them anymore. Work, career, status……all that stuff isnt important. More has been written about how women cant repent, have ZERO agency (they play the word-game saying they DO have agency but all their actions and attitude and LAWS of Game say “women DONT and cannot help themselves”).

    They are supposed to be robots and just “obey” and frankly, no man wants a marriage like that in the end.

      1. John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

        Most men, just like the Messiah, would prefer a marriage where their bride obeys them. Wives submitting to their husbands isn’t degrading like how the Feminists have portrayed it to y’all. If you assume it’s degrading for a woman to always serve you, it’s probably because you wrongly presume that she’s your equal.

        1. Liz

          Has it been your experience in life that bullying, degrading, and smacking around a subordinate made them better?
          Better at anything?
          A better steward? More supportive? More understanding?

          1. Liz

            In excluded middle fallacy land, everyone is wrong.
            The above was mostly rhetorical (I hope).
            Anyone with any time on this earth, interacting with people on the day to day know at least a modicum of social aptness. One learns from being in a position of subordination how to be a better leader/boss.
            The worst examples of leadership are as described above. Those teams do not perform well, and they become examples of what not to do.
            Likewise, obviously, the opposite is also true…terrible behavior from subordinates can’t run amuck as it poisons the whole team (in this case a family).

          2. Liz,

            I assume you don’t find fault with my Bible verse, quoting Jesus Christ. And I assume you don’t think that wifely disobedience is necessary to maintain a good and holy marriage. I assume you’ve just perceived that I asked women to live up to a Biblical standard of perfection, without mentioning what men ought to be doing. Sometimes I intentionally comment in a way that is counter to the patronizing of women that is typical in churches and our world.

            My goal is not to take maximum advantage of our culture, but to change our culture, or at least to condemn it through my words and deeds, while resisting becoming “of” the culture. Jesus Christ was a “rock of offense” a “stumbling stone” the one the builders rejected.

            He who would be a mover of the world must not be moved by the world ~ Anonymous

            Rest assured that I could kiss butts just as well as the next guy if I were instead to commit myself to using flattery and guile. I’ve read more management and sales books than you can shake a stick at, I’ve been to the seminars, I can spot Dale Carnegie and Neuro Linguistic Programming techniques in use faster than you can say “Jack Robinson”. In the past I’ve had various sorts of people work for my businesses and never had any workplace trouble, while getting far better performance from most of them than their previous employers had. Don’t presume that I’m not also performing my part in life, in fear of God, when I ask others to do right.

            Just because Derek doesn’t approve of how I’m dealing with him, doesn’t mean that God isn’t working through it. When the Judeans lied and said that Jesus was born of Immorality, he didn’t ask to speak to them privately. He publicly responded that they were liars like their father the devil and inspired the apostles to record His rebuttal in the scriptures which have not only outlasted those liars’ earthly lives, but which will also outlast this world. And yes, they claimed to be sons of Abraham and practicing Jews, but Jesus didn’t give those slanderous brethren a private rebuke, even though He had all the powers of God, and could have given a far more effective rebuke than I. He defended Himself and His ministry, publicly, and on the spot. And I’m not concerned whether the Judeans might have felt bullied, degraded, or smacked around, people have a right to publicly defend their character against false accusations and lies. For a person to claim that they get to publicly label your ministry as spreading fallacies, and you as a false teacher, but you must respond privately, goes against Jesus’ own behavior. Jesus is recorded as responding to plenty of public confrontations, on the spot. To claim that there is only one right way to respond, is to ignore the rest of the Bible.

            I believe it was in France once that when Billy Graham entered his hotel room a naked lady and a photographer jumped out of the closet. The naked lady ran over to the Reverend and the tabloid photographer started taking pictures of the two together. Then they tried to escape. Billy Graham grabbed the man and demanded the man’s camera, but he wouldn’t hand it over. So Billy Graham punched him in the face, took his camera, and ripped the film out and exposed it all. The story would have become global news, and the pictures would have dogged his ministry forever, but you probably never even heard of it, because Billy Graham was smart enough to punch the paparazzo troll in the face and get his film away from him in defense of his ministry. My parents knew Billy Graham, and almost named me “Graham”. But my siblings talked them out of it. Anyhow, Derek probably has more pacifist opinions, about how Billy Graham should have prayed about it, or sued the tabloid afterwards. However, my Mennonite father taught me that even though Billy Graham was a preacher, he was a big man, and he’d used his strength to do exactly what needed to be done to defend his life’s ministry in a critical instant. It isn’t bullying to defend your character and reputation against trolls who attack it with the intent to discredit your calling and mission.

          3. Derek L. Ramsey

            “Just because Derek doesn’t approve of how I’m dealing with him, doesn’t mean that God isn’t working through it. [..] My goal is [..] to change our culture, or at least to condemn it through my words and deeds [..] Jesus Christ was a “rock of offense” a “stumbling stone” the one the builders rejected. [..] He defended Himself and His ministry, publicly, and on the spot. [..] For a person to claim that they get to publicly label your ministry as spreading fallacies, and you as a false teacher, but you must respond privately, goes against Jesus’ own behavior. “

            You claim to associate yourself with Jesus, as if you are a victim being persecuted for defending Christ, even as you reject his words because you don’t find them fair or convenient. You think that because Jesus did it one way and told his followers to do it a different way that you can ignore what he told you to do:

            “And if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault—just between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.”

            You think that because Christ—the unique Son of God—did it one way, that you can simply disregard what he told you to do. No wonder men like Bnonn Tennant and Kentucky Headhunter, when they realized how utterly stubborn and militantly dogmatic you are, simply refused to engage with you further. For perhaps the first time you’ve met someone—me—who won’t simply cave to your judgmental nature for the sake of civility, thus forcing you to address this aspect of your personality.

            This is probably the first time anyone has pointed out that your actions derive from your own will, not from following Christ’s commands. It is good that you’ve made your motivations clear:

            “…to condemn it through my words and deeds…”

            You think your job is to be the judge, something reserved exclusively to God himself. You claim the very authority and power reserved for the Most High, and so disregard the Word of God as if your own word is superior.

            You will go on and on about how women are usurping the authority of their husbands while not caring one whit about usurping the very authority of Christ himself. You cannot obey Christ while disobeying what he tells you to do. You can’t disobey Christ in order to do his good work.

            Your fallacious reasoning ultimately doesn’t matter. Everyone is wrong about many different things. It’s not especially notable. Even your refusal to correct your error is not unusual. What is notable is your utter condemnation of a brother in Christ for trying to help you out, playing the judge, jury, and executioner because you don’t like the message. This is far more serious. I hope that some deep introspection will make this plain to you.

            You make clear that your motivation is to condemn, but Jesus told you to do differently:

            ““Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.””

            Are you prepared to be judged according to the standard that you judge me? Are you prepared to first introspectively see your own error before you publicly condemn what you see as my own error (even though that error in me is the same as the error in you)?

          4. Derek,

            You seem quite determined to add hypocrisy to your lies. LOL Previously you Wrote:
            “As Bardelys implied, you put your argument out there and I responded to it. We both implicitly put our ideas out there into the realm of public debate, because we both like to tell people our opinions and to argue about those things.”

            I wouldn’t quite go so far as to say that I like to argue, certainly not with some people, but I do try to keep myself somewhat ready to make a defense, on some topics. However, you seemed to be saying that you can start right in arguing at the public stage, accusing me of teaching fallacy based upon your own misunderstanding of what constitutes a thing being false, and what constitutes proof of a thing being false, and when you are publicly corrected, you return to your foolish errors and double down on them. And you seemingly imply that if I had confronted you privately you might then have acted more wisely, and that the needless delay in defending myself publicly would have made some difference. LOL Or were you insisting that I be delayed by requiring that I carry out a moot step just to hamstring my immediate public defense of my character and defending the truth I share?

            Does God’s word say that I am to always be ready to give a defense of the truth, only after I’ve dealt with everyone involved in the falsehood privately?

            Are you saying you would have behaved better if I’d confronted you privately, and then maybe you’d have exercised the “mutual submission” between men within Christ’s church, which you currently teach other men to exercise towards their wives. LOL

            Are we not to be imitators of Jesus Christ, wherein we can?(1 Corinthians 11:1) Have you bought a sword like Jesus commanded?(Luke 22:36) You spin the word of God to suit yourself, to defend your calling the truth a fallacy.

            “Judge not, that ye be not judged” is the favorite phrase of the guilty!

            1 Corinthians 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

            Do you judge your children’s actions and discipline them? If you do you’re judging another and even punishing them. And I would say that the problem in our world is that Satan has stolen Christ-followers’ good judgement and their willingness to punish lawbreakers (due partly to the apocryphal Pericope Adulterae) which has left them impotent whiners who tolerate most lawlessness and in passivity watch the forces of evil triumphing (even in the church) while griping amongst themselves about all those evil ones whom they repeatedly allow to defeat them through their own inaction.

            You can’t steal my good judgement any more than you can insist that I must handle public matters privately, when even you yourself don’t handle public matters privately.

            When a churchman was having sex with his mom, the apostle Paul didn’t confront him privately, or refuse to Judge him.

            1 Corinthians 5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,

            Oh heavens! The apostle Paul didn’t obey Derek’s twisted gospel! Yet in that very same epistle Paul said:
            1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.

            So, Paul claimed he was imitating Christ in an inspired epistle where he told us he judged a man without ever confronting him privately about the matter.

            I could go on …
            You twist phrases from the Bible to try to render men of God impotent to stand up against your wickedness. Even Satan quoted the words of God to try to trip up Jesus. Get thee behind me, Derek!

          5. Small correction to my comment above: The churchman, whom Paul judged while absent, was having sex with “his father’s wife”. That probably wasn’t his own mom, but another wife of his father’s.

          6. Liz,

            I’m not sure what your point is. And I haven’t watched “Band of Brothers”. I generally don’t watch TV.

            I presumed you might be questioning my leadership abilities based upon how I’ve responded to Derek, in the same way that Jesus responded to His critics, and like how the apostle Paul responded to wayward people when they were tainting the fruit of his own ministry.

            Ultimately Jesus and Paul were both executed as a result of the style of leadership they employed, and the message they were teaching. If you judge and select leadership by the immediate result, and by how the leader’s critics feel about him, you wind up getting a politician like Ronald Reagan who was admired by most all, even his critics admitted that he was persuasive and had a silver tongue, yet he only slowed his enemies down, he did not stop them or turn the tide. He called for unity and civility between the good and the evil, not for all of righteousness’ enemies to be defeated and destroyed at every opportunity.

            The leadership which Christendom has been missing, is leadership which is willing to fight the evil they claim is their real enemy, instead of mainly fighting their God-sent reformers who have tried to turn them back to following God’s ways.

            Good and godly leaders generally aren’t elected by people.(e.g. like Pope Francis was) The crowd in Jerusalem called out for Jesus to be crucified. The whole city of goddess worshippers in Ephesus in one accord shouted down Paul and rioted demanding Paul and his coworkers be punished. Spiritual correction is rarely ever welcomed. To call popular folks who don’t demand repentance from all evil, “leaders”, is a misnomer. They’re misleaders, lulling people into complacency and into the acceptance of evil.

            While I’m not saying that anybody can fix every evil just by opposing it and condemning it. I am saying that everybody should habitually oppose and condemn destructive evils.

            The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Or for good men to compromise and make peace with the evil, foolishly assuming that the forces of evil will abide by their compromise.

            When Jesus Christ returns as King, the blood of His enemies will flow as deep as a horse’s bridle. He will rule with a rod of iron. That’s what His divinely perfect leadership will look like. And ultimately people will again be led to revolt against His holy reign. Because preaching license is always more popular than preaching repentance and responsibility. Comforting lies are preferred to the truth.

            Sheep hear and obey their shepherd’s commands mostly because they fear incurring his discipline, more than because they’ll ever comprehend the full extent of the danger which he is steering them away from. The fear of God is the starting point of wisdom.

            Men like Derek blindly offer a seemingly more pleasing egalitarian compromise with this world’s Feminism, while I have seen the danger of following after his doctrinal folly and I recommend returning to strictly following God’s holy order of patriarchy.

            Think whatever you will about my leadership style. Choose this day who you will follow. The one who promises to poke you with a staff when you wander, potentially leading others astray, or the one who most likely won’t. Do you choose to be teachable or prefer to be stubbornly independent?

            Derek will lead people into his own egalitarianism (where everyone gets to act as their own leader) while I guide people towards God’s design of “father rule” AKA patriarchy.

            Because Derek’s egalitarian folly hasn’t blown up in his face, personally, he assures others that it’s a good path, as if he were wiser than God. And then he joins the Feminists in trying to twist God’s words to match his egalitarianism. And he’d like to disqualify the words of any man who has experienced and learned from how Feminism can separate a wife from her husband, just like how other false beliefs have divorced Israel and Judah from their God.

            You probably won’t fully understand my testimony. You probably won’t choose repentance. You’ll probably prefer to remain wise in your own eyes. But on your judgement day, God will likely remind you that you were shown the truth and that you had a chance to receive it.

          7. Liz

            “I’m not sure what your point is.”

            Sharkly, I’ll just ask the question.
            Other than hierarchy, what is the difference between being a leader and being a bully in your estimation?

          8. Liz

            We had a neighbor a while back, when our boys were little.
            Mike was fixing something outside, and he was playing football with his son who was probably around 10.
            The dad started swearing at the boy and berating him throwing the ball wrong. Then he started ridiculing his son.
            Mike said, “I’ve instructed a lot of people. That’s not how to do it”.
            Was that parent correct about how to throw a football? Probably.
            Was that the way to show his son how to do it? No.
            Maybe he didn’t care if his son learned (doesn’t sound like it), it just gave him a little dopamine hit to tell him he was wrong.

          9. Liz

            The above anecdote is intended to be an allegory (for background purposes, the situation was terrible for this child, and it showed in his behavior…but it didn’t start with his dad, his own mother was in prison for trying to poison him in infancy…I am most definitely not trying to say mothers make better parents).

            Taking the ( former example, the latter a terrible extreme outlier situation) what level of trust is this child going to have? If the father started beating him (he could reference the bible, “spare the rod, spoil the child!”) would that improve the situation?
            Marriage is a hierarchy, in my opinion but it is also “one flesh”. I do not think these are mutually exclusive things. I will say, if Mike ever hit me, I would think less of him. If he hit me repeatedly, I would not trust him. It would be impossible to maintain a family without trust…it is nearly impossible for a society, which is why competely different sets of values that are at odds can tear societies apart).

            Mike and I were just looking over old photos now that the kids are gone after the holidays. Those were some tough times. He deployed so often, I was in charge of everything while he was gone for months and months. There was simply no other option. He could not have an unthinking, obeying robot as a wife nor would he want one.

          10. Liz

            While I’m talking about the military, since Jason mentioned it somewhere (the “big woop” portion…
            The military is definitely not the only place to learn leadership. In some cases (just about every boss Mike had for the first 12 years or so) they’re great examples of what not to do. But a person is entrusted with far more responsibility at a very young age in the military than outside. Mike was planning and leading large packages of combat missions when he was in his mid 20s. Our son (who turned down pilot training when he was called up, because he does not want to be a combatant under Biden) is an engineer at an airbase where he is in charge of projects (in his early 20s) that in the civilian world would only be entrusted to someone at least 20 years older.
            He currently takes classes at a community college. He is surrounded by kids about the same ages as ours and the difference (between our sons raised by military and one in the military) is pretty striking on maturity level. To the students there, who don’t know him, and to the folks in charge of the school, he is probably just some old guy who has finally gotten around to going to college. Likely the first in his family, poor old guy.
            There was a recruitment station for the Marines at the school one day. He walked by (there is nothing whatsoever to identify him as military…not even a flag on the backpack, and he wears a black beanie and his tee shirt is plain). They stood up and saluted him. Like recognizes like.

            Band of brothers is not just a television show (worth watching, especially for young sons), it is a biography of one company during WWII.
            But combat definitely changes people and inspires great works of “fiction”.
            To name a few: the works of CS Lewis, Orwell, and Tolkien.
            Watershed down (a great piece of allegorical literature) was based on the leadership he experienced during the war. Each rabbit represented a soldier he knew (in the case of Hazel’s band of brothers, those were among the best…but General Woundwort was a real person also).
            Mike prays daily. Each morning and night he talks to God, and since our boys were born he prays for them to be good men of God. We’ve definitely not been perfect but I hope for the most part we’ve been successful as parents.

          11. professorGBFMtm

            LIZ,
            He won’t even listen to jack. Who told him this past summer”your bitterness and woe is me- Saviour complex is what mainly holds you down and back.”

            If he won’t hear him(whom he white knights for against i and Derek ) as well as dal rock back in the day- nor JESUS, why would hear you, DEREK or i?

            Most people who can understand others points of view start interacting with others like that at a early age and it doesn’t seem sharkly is one of them.

            i was often very angry with my extended family(who thought they owned my grandparents farm land that i and my parents were the caretakers of as well as the primary caretakers of my grandparents)
            yet even i wasn’t running around ”disciplining”=bullying them like a certain someone does anyone he disagrees with or thinks he doesn’t ”need” to ”advance”.

          12. Lastmod

            Our experiences are different Liz. In my position under California “laws” for hiring, I am supposed to push “military veterans” a chance for interviews for promotions within my organization. Also, women, and other “marginalized persons”

            Most my age and under are very entitled, want “free” everything. One veteran is on “disability” and yet can race motorcycles, extreme skiiing and gets a locked in low interest mortage…..as well as other benefits and I have to “push him to the front of the line for a promotion” because he is a veteran. Yet…he can still “work” and his kids get to go to any state of california 4 year school for pennies on the dollar……and he has the GALL to say “no respects veterans”

            Yet I am a terrible person because I dont fawn over him because he served, and he HATES me for that. Anyone who joined the military after 1973 had a choice.

            My gandpa came out of Jap POW camp at the end of WW II and went back home and to a regular job. He didn’t need a parade and people to “give” him respect. I dont owe respect to someone because they served and I dont owe them anything. Most if not all the wars since WWII have served very shallow if not nefearious political agendas. I dont have to “respect” that

          13. Liz

            Jason, that is interesting about the college benefits for veterans.
            You say his kids can go to any school for “pennies on the dollar”?
            I’m curious how they can do that. Have a lot of military friends with kids in college right now (us included). There is a GI bill and a certain portion of service after 911 could transfer benefits they would receive for their children to receive instead. It is not available now, but it was available for a time. That is four years but if that is what you are referring to your statement is mostly inaccurate.

            We don’t have to agree. It is a fact however in military service there is a much greater level of responsibility than the civilian world typically provides at the same age. That doesn’t mean everyone is a great person or great leader, and I didn’t state or imply they are entitled to respect regardless of their actions.
            I’ve spent a great deal of time in this community which does make our experiences different. My father also spent 30+ years in the USAF (he went to pilot training in WWII when it was the army air corps). My uncle was a paratrooper. My aunt a WASP.
            Primarily during my childhood I never thought I’d marry military. The contrary.

          14. Lastmod

            Liz,

            The State of California does this for “disabled” veteran children. So now most veterans in CA are “disabled” they need their teacup dogs to go with them anywhere (ugh and sit in their laps at a restaurant because they have uncurable PTSD)

            Grown men out of a choice THEY made now, get perks, and benefits, empathy, valor, told how “brave” they are and are funded by ME, a coward in their eyes because I “didnt put my ass on the line defending freedom”

            My mother worked the VA as nurse as an head OR nurse most of her career. She was also angered by benefits granted to “veterans” for little more than just standing a post for four years.

            Even Scot mentioned once “had all my student loans paid cuase you know, I’m a “hero” bc of serving in the US military” said with sarcasm I am sure, but “I” paid for that education….and I have “owed” taxes every year since 2018. Trump, Biden and all the other clowns consider me “rich” and because I dont have children.

            I still disagree. The veteran of today is not the same of the era of Vietnam, or WW II, or WW I or the Civil War. Those men are gone. Its a jobs training program now and uses DEI that actual merit now.

            Men on the “front lines” of Afgan, better men than me evidently using thei cell phone to “call mommy” and tell her “get me out of here, I didnt sign up for this” and it was taken seriously by many in Washington in 2004.

            My uncle was career USAF (B52 fuel systems repair CMS) for 30 years. Retires from the USAF and then works as a repairman for the domestic air carrier service for another fifteen and still tells me how much he “did for the USA” dude. You repaired bombers than bombed civilians in Vietnam.

          15. Liz

            A good portion of people enter military service for the purpose of paying for college. I’m not sure why this is somehow worthy of contempt or less honorable than paying for college via academic scholarships, waiting tables, or money from mommy and daddy.
            Whether honorable or not, it is a good deal for the country to pay obtain military service from the population in exchange for a future skilled and educated workforce.
            Pretty win/win to field a voluntary force considering the alternatives.
            Right now the pilot shortage is a direct result of changes in that military pipeline.
            The military is training fewer pilots and now there are fewer pilots everywhere. Airlines have been forced to start their own aviation academies but the skill level of these new pilots is nothing like it used to be.
            The military didn’t just pay for Scott’s education, his service was the means that offered him the government contract that was the brunt of his “very lucrative practice”. And it’s the reason he has his new job now. So his contempt (if what you say is true) reflects poorly on him, not military service itself.

          16. Derek L. Ramsey

            Liz,

            “Right now the pilot shortage is a direct result of changes in that military pipeline.”

            While true, this is an incomplete explanation.

            One problem is what some are calling the Competency Crisis, which is driven in part by falling intelligence. There simply are not enough potentially qualified pilots available, so the shortage is inevitable. The military will eventually (if it hasn’t already) lower piloting standards, which will of course reduce the ability of the military to do military activities and likely get people killed, due to ever increasing numbers of incompetent pilots. (This is the same problem seen in all skilled industries)

            But the real reason is that truthseeking has been replaced by bureaucracy, as Charlton notes: no one is even trying. Why have all the Boeing planes been having so many problems with missing bolts and shoddy construction? The same reason that there is a pilot shortage. The systems in place—including the military pipeline—are not even trying to achieve their necessary goals.

            Individual responsibility requires individual authority. Indeed, any authority at all requires individual authority. But we live in the era of bureaucracy, of the committee and the procedure. This ensures, as Charlton notes, that “nobody-in-particular is identifiably to-blame for the situation” This is so obviously true, that you’d have to be self-deluded to not see it.

            This is why you identified a “pipeline”, the bureaucratic procedures, as the cause of the problem. I hate to break it to you, but it’s only going to get worse.

            What’s wrong with the military is the same as what’s wrong with everything else: there is no individual responsibility, indeed no responsibility at all. Complex things cannot be accomplished without the kind of focus that is completely missing from modern organizations. Things get delayed and requirements changed. As Charlton notes, it’s the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Whatever gets done (e.g. an unmanned Artemis 3) must have been the primary goal all along!

            The system is behaving as it is designed, a series of bureaucracies and procedures designed to produce more bureaucracies and procedures. That they hire any pilots at all is merely a side-effect. Military recruitment in general has taken a massive hit, even as the military is the biggest bloat it has ever been.

            It cannot be corrected.

            The pilot shortage will never be fixed on current terms. Either standards will fall or the military will adapt to fewer pilots. It is completely unequipped to truly solve this problem, and it won’t. It will only work around the problem.

            If NASA ever manages to put another person on the moon, it will be because SpaceX—a private contractor—did it: one of those extremely rare companies run by a strong individual leader who has individual authority and thus individual responsibility. NASA itself could never run an Apollo or Artemis program on its own.

            Peace,
            DR

          17. Liz

            Heh, Derek,
            I agree about the competency crisis assessment.
            But there are other factors than intelligence and talent.
            To offer and example, when Mike first started out at pilot training (he had maybe 100 hours under his belt at this point) my dad told him you don’t know what you are doing until you have at least 2000 hours.
            Today it is extremely unlikely for a career military fighter pilot to have that many even by the time they retire. They just aren’t getting the hours.
            When Mike was in operational squadrons in the 90s, he would lose currency and have to retrain if he got less than 3 hours a week. Last I checked, the new standard was 3 hours a month (and that could be waved).
            There was an accident off the coast of Japan a few years ago. Pilot was attempting to refuel from a tanker. He wasn’t qualified to do it at night, and he crashed and died. He didn’t have enough training hours.
            It’s a mess.

          18. Derek L. Ramsey

            But there are other factors than intelligence and talent.

            I agree. To use an analogy, solely blaming the lack of intelligence and talent is like blaming a poor construction on the use of low-quality tools rather than blaming it on the builders themselves. The reason that we have so many incompetent people is because the people in charge are the people in charge.

            I strongly recommend reading Charlton’s short book, because it is directly applicable to this discussion.

            Humanity has lived in a ever increasing bureaucratic, managerial, committee-based, procedural group-think world since around the end of the 1950s. This is emphasized in the rather simple observation that procedure is almost always placed in priority over judgment, and individual decision-making, authority, and responsibility over group opinion, contract, and irresponsibility. This necessarily produces dishonesty (and thus incompetence) by its very design.

            The covid response illuminated this beyond question.

            The military has been in decline for two generations, and its decline is accelerating. Our weapons are getting old and the people who built and maintained them are retiring or dead. Notice how recently modern tech (e.g. drones) has been used in the middle east to stop American intervention.

            Standards have been in steep decline. Recent statistics have shown that if they had been held to 1950s standards, greater than 50% of new officers would not have been selected. As you note, pilots no longer log enough hours nor are they adequately trained in other ways. In a decade (or perhaps just next month), you will long for the level of competency we currently have.

            The military, like many other public government and private organizations, is already irretrievably altered from what once was. We put a man on the moon in the 60s and 70s, despite never having done so in the past, but just look at what happens today:

            The grand plan to send a woman-of-color to the moon has been pushed back at least two years to 2027 and they are already admitting that it may need to be without crew. We can’t do complex tasks on demand like we used to, no matter how much money and manpower we throw at it.

            The crazy thing about this is that SpaceX is doing the building, and they are one of the very few private companies out there that isn’t completely crippled by bureaucracy, because Elon Musk takes such heavy personal responsibility in his companies. Imagine how much worse NASA would be without SpaceX to do it for them. It’s the only reason the project might want day actually “succeed” (even though it has already failed to deliver on its promises).

            And of course it is well know that it costs up to an order-of-magnitude more to build anything. The anti-suicide net added to the Golden Gate bridge cost over a quarter of what the bridge itself did ($224 million vs $820 million in inflation adjusted dollars). It’s just like how the new Tappan Zee Bridge cost 5.5x more than the original. Very little can be accomplished. Everything is more expensive, worse, less efficient, and takes longer to do. And more stupid.

            Imagine how much it would cost to properly train military pilots in today’s dollars. You know those 2,000 hours today would be less valuable than those same hours in the past because the quality of training has declined as well.

            Anything with a bureaucracy isn’t trying to accomplish its stated goals. It occasionally produces something that loosely corresponds to its mission, but it is always less than everything.

            Men (and women) need to go their own way and abandon anything bureaucratic, which includes every single government organization, including the military.

        2. Derek L. Ramsey

          “If you assume it’s degrading for a woman to always serve you, it’s probably because you wrongly presume that she’s your equal.”

          A wife and husband are one. They are, by definition, equivalent, a unity, one flesh. If a woman serves her husband, she is merely serving herself. If a husband serves his wife, he is merely serving himself. In serving each other—and thus themselves—so too do the husband and wife serve Christ. Christ, not feminism, portrays serving:

          “so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.”

          This is why Paul says that a husband and wife should submit to each other.

          1. Liz

            “Rest assured that I could kiss butts just as well as the next guy if I were instead to commit myself to using flattery and guile.”

            Sharkly, I think we are talking past each other.
            Good leadership does not rely on flattery or guile (that would be a disingenuous subordinate who makes a terrible leader).
            If you’ve ever seen Band of Brothers there is a clear juxtaposition between two leadership styles. Winters and Sobel. Winters was a great leader and Sobel a terrible one. Winters was not a schmoozer. HIs leadership was the furthest thing from flattery and/or guile. Sobel was universally hated. Not sure what books on leadership you are reading.
            Per Graham, good for him. Journalists and whores hiding in the closet to slander him and bear false witness have nothing to do with what I am talking about, however.

  14. Lastmod

    When Jesus sais to them “If ye love me, keep my commandments” he didnt say “women, keep my commandments”

    The disjuncture in the sphere seems to be that women are to keep commandments. Men, just dont need to. I have observed that when I see a Christian husband and wife “striving” towards Jesus. Both of them. Their marriage in that sense seems to work better.

    I dont have a study, or peer review. I of course dont know what happens behind closed doors. I have seen though “something different” in marriges where both husband and wife are striving for Christ over the marriages of “she’s the boss” and “happy wife, happy life”. Even moreso when the husband is keeping score on every iota of what the wife didnt do that morning for him, and holding a grudge and “discipline” on her for any slight

    Which I see too frequently in the sphere. These marriages are not happy, of honoring God. They are basically a sham of “high school” of who is better, who “won” which fight or argument.

    The mother asked Jesus “Who will sit on your right and who will sit on your left in your kingdom”

    Now, being a good Jewish mother, she was pushing for and wanting the best for her son. When Jesus answered if one is prepared to “drink of the cup” which I would assume is to follow him, “no matter what” which is not an easy task. He also said “it is not for me to grant that request, these PLACES are for the ones who are prepared.”

    A walk with Jesus in a marriage or in singledom, in trials……can be at times lonely, hard, and perhaps seemingly impossible. Notice Jesus didnt say “this one or that one” by default of their staus (married, single, male, female, having a STEM degree). He just wanted those would be granted such a position to be prepared. That would be for all.

    The fatalsims of the sphere mark and make a very cold world for men. You must find that perfect Unicorn, a virgin, between the ages of 18-23, of course very *hot* and she must love God only and OBEY the husband.

    That’s a robot. That’s not free will. That’s not striving together towards Jesus. That’s not living. That life does not warrant a place on his “left or right” because the person in question has no will to make choices.

    AGain, the sphere makes women have zero agency. They must be a blank slate for the man, she must have a viscereal look only and must be corrected, and taught like an AI girlfriend.

  15. Lastmod

    There is an urban legend in The Salvation Army…sometime in the 1960’s at a small Corps in England. I dont know how true the story is now, it probably has been embellished since then….but it goes like this

    During a Sunday Holiness meeting, the song “when we all get to heaven” was the opening congregational song. The Officer then asked the gathered “Who is excited about going to heaven?!” when the song was finished.

    Lots of praises, applause, cheers…..except one. He had been coming for over a year to the meetings. He rarely spoke. He didnt seem to fit in, he was welcomed but the Corps didnt really involve him. . He sat with arms folded. Then stated as the cheers died down “I’m not if I am going to be in eternity surrounded by most of you here!”

    Gasps! Cries of shock filled the Corps. Then silence.

    The Officer couldve blown him off. Ignored him. He could have been rebuked there and shamed for dare saying such a thing in front of all these “saintly” and self righteous christians.

    The Officer actually then called all to bow their heads and pray. The prayer wasnt a “self indulging” of “lets pray for this man”

    It was “Lord, teach us here and now of how we perhaps have fallen short in this room”

    He then preached a sermon of love, redemption, and with thought provoking insight…and by the end, the Corps had filled the Mercy Seat along with this man of praise, forgiveness, and new understanding…not just of Jesus or what it meant to be a Christian…..but of community and fellowship. People were moved and I am sure “reflective” of where they too have fallen short in the routines of a Sunday meeting.

    This man ended up becoming a Soldier and decades later, and eventually one of the best evangelists for this movement decades later.

    This is something I took to heart, and looking back now…..I dont think it was true because I have never seen this in any church…………Salavtion Army or not, nor with most believers or men who claim “they love Jesus more than anything”

  16. professorGBFMtm

    ”You had married women “en masse” to begin to enter the workforce in the USA and across the West as well. Japan too. It wasn’t because “muh feminism” it was because of necessity in most cases. Families were falling behind. Wives wanted to “help”

    It is framed in the manosphere as “these women wanted to upsur their hubby’s authority” I recall as a boy my parents having intense discussions after dinner about this. My mother “returning to work full time” in the late 1970’s. “Scout (my nickname) is in school, Greg in his day program until 4PM, I can take a nursing ER morning shift! We’re falling behind, I want to help!!”

    It was discussions had across the country and mostly for middle class, and working class families.”

    This is what happened with Athol kay too in summer 2013 after his second full book.

    He quit being a orderly and became a fulltime blogger/writer(as he even more monetized his site and forums after the release of his second full book ) as his wife who i think(it’s been almost 11 years now since i read the post he wrote all this on ) was a hospital coordinator i.e. in the ”front office” was the only one” bringing in the bacon weekly” that he thanked in the post for doing it.

  17. Lastmod

    Over lunch today (sushi) with coworkers (all men, from my age down to 29….nine of us) one younger man mentioned that on the topic of women

    “Well, Feminism is done, they’re all coming back” as he loosened his tie and leaned in “and, they’re easier to get horizontal with than ever now, they’re so desperate for men like us. Career. More stable than most. That’s what they all want now.”

    I smirked lit a cigarette (we were on the upper patio deck / dining area outside) and said “You were having no problem before all these women ‘came back’ ”

    “Jay, you over analyze everything…”

    Hardly I interjected, “Just a realist.”

    “Anyway, let me finish. Its different. They all want to stop working, be wives. It’s over for Feminists. They’re done. It’s gonna be a lot easier for men my age, no offense Jay…to FIND wife material now.

    There were some nods of agreement from the other men at the table. Sushi arrived, first round.

    I exhaled smoke, put out the cigarette because food arrived. laughed and said “I remember in the 1992 election. Conservative “expert” who was never-wrong-on-anything Rush Limbaugh said that my generation, coming up was “conservative” all of us. He knews lots of people my age at the time. All were going to vote for Bush. We are pragmatic, we are against abortion, we grew up during Reagan….we are conservative. In 1992, and 1996……..Clinton took 60% of my age groups vote that bothered to vote. So, in 2000……the dullard Limbaugh again makes the claim that the generation coming up were against abortion, traditional, the ‘ben franklins of saving money’ and hated liberalism. Rush claimed he had the studies. Again he was wrong, your age group votes way overwhelmingly for Democrats / Progressives. Even now. Especially women. In 2001 some busty “newscaster” on Fox News claimed after September 11 “women were done with Feminism, all those brave men who ran into the Twin Towers to save lives. Young women are inspired by this. We want this. These types of men we want and will only now accept.” She was WAY wrong. I keep hearing that “feminism is dead” and “we’re winning”. Its getting as bad as climate doomsday folks proclaiming the end of the world climate wise.”

    He downed a sake “You’re just negative, bitter. I know for a fact, they are throwing themselves at me, they tell me this all the time that they hate Femimism.”

    I smirked, raised an eyebrow “And I am sure you’re the biggest she’s ever been with too….she tell you that?”

    Lots of talk, little action…sure a Tik Tok video of a sexy woman cooking pasta might get a billion clicks or views, doesnt mean the tide has turned. Watch what they do, not say.”

    Fortuntely the topic changed, but he had to throw again few a digs “Im just bitter that women dont like me / not a dad / only drive a Volkswagen at age 53”

    He’s a good worker, and team member but just another typical “manospherian” ducks-peaks what he heard Rollo, or RIch Cooper, or Coach Corey Wayne spew out. Thinks himself a man by how many women he beds, or how many IOI’s he gets. Has to brag to other men over lunch……a gentleman wouldnt have to brag mind you.

  18. “Sharkly, I’ll just ask the question.
    Other than hierarchy, what is the difference between being a leader and being a bully in your estimation?”

    Liz,
    To flip that question around, and risk sounding like a psychiatrist, I’d ask you, what do you think? Chances are we probably have similar beliefs, but you just disagree with my past application of those beliefs.

    I think your questioning of my leadership might be headed in a direction where you’d prefer, and get more benefit from, me responding to you privately rather than publicly, and hopefully I might be able to better clear certain things up by addressing them privately. If you’d really like to discuss these matters with me, use the contact section of my website to contact me privately and then I can respond back to you privately. Otherwise, I’ll have no avenue to discuss it with you except publicly, if you really want to discuss it that way.

    1. Liz

      That’s fair, Sharkly.
      Candidly, I do like reading your thoughts (I like reading this blog in general, the commentary from everyone challenges me and keeps me thinking)
      and might take you up on that at a future date.
      I’ll drop the subject here. Take care.

  19. Lastmod

    Today “leadership” means “Im a leader because the Meyers Briggs / The Bible / my rank in the military / people have told me I am one / I got A’s in college / I just decided I am one because I am amazing”

    I’ve had so many bosses, supervisors, managers, team leads, project managers in my life and all were pretty terrible. Just because an organization, or a test or your mommy says you are a “leader” doesnt make you a one, or even a good one.

    We have so many “chiefs” today and fewer and fewer “indians” doing the work. So many amazing “chefs” and “creative” types telling us how brilliant they are…..and no waiters to run the food to the table to the customer. All just standing around “thats not my job, I’m a leader”

    I am supposedly a “leader” on paper. Im not, people consider me one because work gets done on time. So many instances, I have to throw down paperwork on my desk, hop in the car and GO to the property to demonstrate “how” its done. And in many cases “do the job” because everyone is a “leader” and “thats not in my job description” or “this test says Im creative / this professor I had said I was brilliant” and “this company is so cheap, you should be hiring people to do this task and that task”

    Being a leader means making some tough and unpopular decisions, and doing task “you dont like” and facing YOUR boss when something goes wrong and OWNING it. When it goes right, as a leader….sometimes you have to let YOUR team take the credit.

    I liken it to an orchestra, or large stage production…so many elements to come together in unison and work together and you’re hoping for a thunderous applause when the curtain comes down. Sometimes it happens. Many times it doesnt. I just cant say “well my team is no good, and they are lazy” The “leader” is supposed to be inspiring, demonstrating and actually leading. It takes work and most just want the title and, pay and “respect” of being the leader by default. I’ve been inspired maybe a few times in my life by leaders I have dealt with.

    Most blame me for when THEY dont get the credit they think they should deserve. Now its my fault because your amazing skills and “leadership” failed.

    1. Liz

      Very true about “Chiefs” and “Indians”. Lot of that stems from worshipping of the “advanced degree” above experience. Lost the best nurse I’ve ever seen because she didn’t have the right pedigree and was too old to go back to school (decades of experience gone overnight, new nurses on the floor with no experience welcomed and this helped no one). I could go on forever about this topic. Horseman at Spawny’s mentioned a “Master’s” used to mean mastery level, and required years of experience to attend the program. Now you need a master’s before you can get any experience at all in some fields. It’s a mess.
      -Liz out (for now)

      1. Liz

        Back! ….for a moment, after noodling.
        I’ll admit I was part of the problem way back when I was young and foolish.
        There was a petition one of the bosses passed around the lab for us to sign .
        She encouraged us, “This will bring expertise to the clinical profession, and salary increase!”
        The petition was also promoted in medical laboratory magazines. What they wanted to do was require a BS to work in the field. They got their way. What I did not know (being barely over 20, I hadn’t seen this before) was there were a lot of lab techs who had been in the field for decades who had graduated from hospital diploma programs before the 4 year degree was necessary.
        Some were grandfathered in, some weren’t.
        Shame on me, and shame on those who promoted that.
        Sometimes Occam’s razor applies…and the more specialized people become, the more ignorant of the large picture they tend to be. We need more farmers in Congress and fewer career politicians.
        okay, done.

  20. Lastmod

    In teaching until the 1940’s then….surprise, surprise……The Meyers Briggs came along and deemed as law “no, we just need the right personality in jobs, it will all work itself out”…….many states had a mentoring “apprenticeship” programs for potential teachers, like most fields. My mother in her nurse training in the early 1960’s even had so many hours of “floor work” and mentoring in a hospital environment (with no pay). My father was mentored by a master carpenter in his Union for two years before he was allowed to take the exams and Journeyman tests.

    Today some nurses and a good many teachers never are in an actual classroom or busy hospital until they graduate and are handed their diploma and pass their board exams. Hence the burnout. Hence the “we need a Union / we’re going on strike” the beside manner is gone from nursing, which is sometimes a great, or the best tool a nurse can have in some situations. Its piles of paperwork, same with teaching. A teacher has about four hours of paperwork a day now in the average school. When does teaching actually happen? It doesnt.

    Meanwhile…even now….County Offies of Education, School Districts are still hiring more and more and more administrators. All “amazing leaders” mind you who “put children first” and have never taught a classroom but are pulling in over six figures. Same with hospitals and health companies.

    I have been looking into working in the the United Kingdom. If I was an RN Nurse. I could come over on a plane, get off and show my diploma, and Board Cerificate to customs and “get emergency papers IMMEDIATELY to work and live in the UK” the shortage there is frightening. For the skills I have? I’ll have to pay, and pay, and refile paperwork and wait, and wait, and wait….basically I will never be permitted to work there. Its not worth it. Despite the culture fitting me and probably would be a benefit to them and me in the long run.

    1. Liz

      I don’t know much about the medical system in the UK, aside from the fact positions are filled largely with immigrants. Which wouldn’t seem to reflect well on the system (or they could get their own people to fill more positions). Not saying ours is much better, but if you were an RN most everywhere in this country is open to you, very easily. They need RNs everywhere (here they were paying as much as commercial pilots…more in some cases, on an hourly basis. Not sure what the pay scale is now but I’m certain it is much much better than anything I ever got at my highest pay).
      Maybe instead of moving out of the country you can look at places here that are different from California? Our son and his wife didn’t like S Dakota at first, but now he says he’d be happy to live there the rest of his life. Places like that grow on you, when you’re surrounded by the right people.
      A Jag friend is retiring very soon from the military. He used to work for Mike. He is very devout, with the great moral courage and strength of character of anyone we know (except for Mike of course). He has 3 boys, 2 girls, they’ve homeschooled. He is planning on representing servicemen encountering difficulties in the civilian world obtaining employment after being less than honorably discharged and/or arrested/imprisoned under questionable circumstances that would not have happened in the civilian world. His son is going to go to a Christian aviation academy in Texas (I had no idea those existed). He will receive both instruction as a pilot, and a mechanic to be a missionary as he will need to know how to maintain his own plane.
      There are good people in this world. Might be harder to find them in the big cities though.

      1. Lastmod

        At my age becoming an RN is pointless, four years of schooling and the Boards, and I going to be 54 this year. Even my mother said in her fifties “Im running a job and floor as an RN nurse that is geared for a younger man or woman to handle. Its a tough, mentally and actually physically demanding job for people my age”

        Move where? Texas? Okay, taxes are lower finding a position for my kind of work in Texas will pay much lower…even with the lower taxes, I would still be falling behind. Also in Texas, they see applications for many positions from California “sorry, your skills do match our skillset or what we are looking for at this time”

        My position Im in now / profession is going to be like so many before it. Higher workloads, declining pay and “offshoring” to third party contractors.

        For example. In 1987, a technical writer at IBM (which I was one for over 12 years from 1994 thru 2006) paid roughly 45K a year. The usual vacations and benefits…..that same job in 1999 was paying actually less (35K for entry writer). By 2003, most tech writer jobs had been subcontracted to companies that only do this for other companies, and offshored to Israel, India, and South Africa. Sure, you had that coordinator or lead or project manager still at IBM but the wage was stuck still at 45k.

        Changing technology changed this. You no longer needed “research” it was all on the Internet. You now had many solutions of better software that anyone with a decent high education could now do it. The field is pretty much dead and empty now. No company like IBM or others like it hire people like this. The field of “user centered design” is dead as well. AI will kill the offshored stuff that is still left in a few years.

        If you said in 1987 to a tech writer “in 25 years, your field would be gone” None. None would ever believe you., and these were not “dumb / ignorant people living in a trailer park”

        The same thing is now running in my current career field. Portfolios will be shrunk, you will still need office buildings….but not the ammount you have now. Consolidation, mangers will have to take more properties for less pay and less demand of said space. You already have subcontracted management companies that just do the “backend” of paperwork and compliance. Its paperwork and filing and compliance, the pay of 120K will not justify this on a shrinking market.

        Now, Dave Ramsey others like him will say “you should have saved 32.3% of every check, invested it at 21 and by now you would be a gazillioniaire / learn to code / make sure you tithe too / you’re stupid”

        My job is safe for now but watching the trends in my business, seeing what happened…..almost the same as my previous career. Gutted. Same when manufacturing closed up one late 1970’s day in the northeast where I grew up people who lost their jobs were labeled as “stupid / should have gone to college / should have all become surgeons”

        We’re moving fast to a government / corporate feudalism now. The only people who are “allowed” to make it are the people like Mike and his ilk, or inherited wealth. Everyone else has to “ah shucks, make do….should have been born smarter”

        1. Liz

          It’s true it is difficult/ almost impossible to predict the future job market.
          I’m not suggesting you become an RN (I took the example you gave, or I would not have brought it up). Back at Dalrock’s (I seldom posted there, but did from time to time), someone mentioned assertive mating. They asserted a young woman with less education could not hope to marry someone with a good paying job and education. So I brought up the pilot example (I know many pilots who married flight attendants). One of the forum ents laughed at me and said pilots were basically bus drivers, and not paid much more than that.
          He was about a decade behind on his information, but not so wrong at the time. Airlines are a very feast/famine market. Now things are very very different from what that person claimed.

          1. Liz

            I should add, the pilot shortage was not a surprise to anyone in the military aviation business, however. It was pretty easy to see coming (they aren’t training anywhere near as many pilots, they have far fewer hours, and many go to drones…in short, the previous pipeline was cut, in a big way).
            I’m not suggesting you go to pilot training either (although it has never been easier to be a pilot, the hours needed are low and one can make captain 12 years earlier than the old days, and it doesn’t even require a degree).
            I understand now about the UK (why you want to go there), since your family is there. I have been feeling like I want to be closer to family lately too.
            Take care.

          2. Lastmod

            I remember at IBM, they were digging up all the old guys out of retirement and almost “begging” them to come back and do upgrades and maintenace to the FAA systems that were built (foundation wise) by IBM in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Who wants to program? Upgrade, test? That takes work! I’m “cool” and “Im creative” that’s “boring work” and “those programmers back then were stupid, they should have made it like this or that” (mind you, that system got their jet across the country and world they were riding on)

            The problem was also “IBM” itself. I asked that division “I would be willing to test, and see if I had the skills to be mentored and trained here”

            The reply was quick and curt: “You personality type (meyers briggs) and your IQ do not qualify you for any position over here / quit wasting our time”

            They wanted a personality type and an IQ level only. Now, I can see that is important, but in a crisis and fewer and fewer knowing FORTRAN or even other supporting software and hardware….you would think “look, we have someone in a mid level position, we got the old guys back, we cant get newer younger people…..we have to have the older guys mentor, train, and teach some people internally who could learn this with some time and drill”

            I had two patents, and my record at that time was a “superior” rating.

            I have noticed over my life the phrase “Who do you think you are? You dont run things here. How dare you approach me / us and offer to learn or see potentials”

            In the past ten years, these voices are loudest in the Manopshere to me and most other men. Not born *hot*? Dont have your life mission figured out at age 3? Get out! Beta / pedalizer / cucck

          3. professorGBFMtm

            ”I have noticed over my life the phrase “Who do you think you are? You dont run things here. How dare you approach me / us and offer to learn or see potentials””

            ”In the past ten years, these voices are loudest in the Manopshere to me and most other men.”

            YEP!,

            Certain guys like that bgr troll(who has never forgiven me for permanently leaving his site(s) in ’21 -where i got him 33k+ pagehits in eight months at his main site) come here to fight i and DEREK thinks they do in the ‘sphere also.

            He couldn’t handle the heat in the kitchen(as DEREK told him here before) at SPAWNYS last night and this morning so he came up with some BS about SPAWNYS being labeled a porn site in November 2020.

            And somehow it had something maybe to do with i and i didn’t even show up there until February 22/23(in the U.K.) ’21.

            Then SPAWNY himself ”banned ” me and deleted all my comments on that post and i think the one before it too.

            i know he did it to please the ever-growing tradcon ”i’m a REAL MAN & you’re not” faction in the ‘sphere(who destroyed it, to begin with).

            In other words?
            i don’t blame SPAWNY but that bgr troll will be surprised when he is eventually banned by pressure from the same ”i’m a REAL MAN & you’re not” faction as they like to eat their own.

            As their churches should have taught them before.

            This is why i’m even more thankful for more fairminded(without pressure from the tradcon faction being able to assert dominance as they hate competition as all socialists do as they can’t win over the young MEN then) sites like DEREKS than ever before.

      2. Lastmod

        I now have more family in the United Kingdom than I do in the USA now. Its pointless to stay here really. I’m not depressed, or even sad about it….its just “typical” of my life. That’s all. Always eem to be a day let, or the door shut (slammed?) on my hands as I was trying to get in.

        I really dont know what I am going to do when Im 72? 77? 80? (if I make it that far) and there seems to be fewer and fewer options to get into with my intellect and skills at my age.

        yes, I should have become an engineer or doctor. Easy, just put your nose to the grindstone. Work reallly hard! Anyone can do it (rolls eyes)

  21. professorGBFMtm

    ”Now, Dave Ramsey others like him will say “you should have saved 32.3% of every check, invested it at 21 and by now you would be a gazillioniaire / learn to code / make sure you tithe too / you’re stupid””

    Dave Ramsey(since i first heard him around April ’04) i remember (every-time) all he seemed to ever be worried about was ” when is the guy you having ”uncommited”(obviously 100% the guy’s fault of course ) sex with going to put a ring on it?” every time a woman called him complaining about her bf not giving her anything money-wise she wanted.

    He was more like the Maury Povich ”whose the father?”(but instead the title should have been ”when is this creepy guy-who tricked a ”good” gal going to commit?”) episodes of his talk show but as a ”financial expert” radio show than anything else to me.

    ”yes, I should have become an engineer or doctor. Easy, just put your nose to the grindstone. Work reallly hard! Anyone can do it (rolls eyes)”

    ”Redpillers” also believe they can be the next Roissy-who was the most popular online PUA blogger(which most think can easily happen to them also.) from ’07 to ’13 definitely.

    They also seem to think they can pull that off while also being seen as the ”cool” ’16-’19 Trump meet’s the 1950’s Ward Cleaver too.

  22. professorGBFMtm

    ”I have noticed over my life the phrase “Who do you think you are? You dont run things here. How dare you approach me / us and offer to learn or see potentials”

    In the past ten years, these voices are loudest in the Manopshere to me and most other men. Not born *hot*? Dont have your life mission figured out at age 3? Get out! Beta / pedalizer / cucck”

    You are right there MOD.

    i got my comments deleted and banned @SPAWNYS by SPAWNY himself because that troll guy (who has never forgiven me for leaving his site after giving him 33k page hits in (8) eight months and he’s only had 13k since i left on November 30th ’21)that comes here couldn’t stand ”the heat( that he initiated with me there 2+years ago) in the kitchen ”like DEREK said to him here last night and this morning.

    i don’t blame Spawny as he has been getting a lot of pressure from ” i’m REAL MAN &your NOT!” tradcon faction(that has been the biggest faction in the ‘sphere since ’13/’14 at least) there for a bout 6 months.

    What will amaze that troll guy is when the ” i’m REAL MAN &your NOT!” tradcon faction turns on him eventually. As they eat their own always.

    As they did to him at his church before.

    Lesson here?
    They never learn to stop doing what messed them up, to begin with.

    In these cases?

    Creating supposedly non-leftist safe spaces(like CNN & FOX News were and are) for non-offending to their mainstream ideas and viewpoints.

  23. Lastmod

    DJ-ed last night at Los Globos nightclub on Sunset Blvd, in the hipster ‘hood of LA. Im on the paltform, about 60 people on the dancefloor. Comotion on the dancefloor (panic at the disco???? lol!). Gal is talking to some AVERAGE looking guy on the dancefloor. Its a mid tempo sixties dance track…..nothing suggestive, not a “gettin’ down” type of song (Shoeleather Expressway / Martha and the Vandellas / 1969).

    The gals’ “boyfriend” or guy who *thought* he was her boyfriend for that night is of course Chad. He comes on to the dancefloor. He comes on like Joshua, the walls come a tumblin’ down shoves the AVERAGE guy to the ground and starts kicking him. Yells, more comotion…..I pull my rave whistle from inside my suit pocket and starting blowing and fade the music down. Security on the floor. I bring up house-lights on the floor….shaking my head in disgust (my set was interrupted). Other folks are telling security who started it, and all pointing at Chad. The girl says, she felth “threatned” and “scared” and thats why he came over.

    I have to stay out of it. Im the DJ. Also, a DJ rule is: dont speak to Security unless asked, or they talk to you. You are the entertianment, not security or judge. I will say, AVERAGE guy was not in her face. Was not touching her. Not groping her.

    Security takes kicked and bruised up looking AVERAGE guy and kicks him out of the club. Promoter is looking at me from the bar with the look of “Music. Up. NOW!” People on the floor are telling off security and and arguing saying “no, it wasnt him, it was this a-hole” and the gal says “I was threatened by him, thats why he came out, he came to protect me!”

    I kick right back on to the next record on the deck, and fade doen the lights as it starts up.

    Chad can do no wrong in this world. In the church or out of it. Religious or not. Believer or not. That is our world today. Most men are doomed, and most men would still talk to this woman and use their amazing “game” on her, despite her throwing this guy under a bus.

    I was more upset because Motown and sixties soul / R&B is not violent music and this kind of behavior stabs me in my heart because this music is about love, heartache, bringing yourself to the dancefloor to work it out. Its beautiful. Chad and Stacy RUIN everything

  24. professorGBFMtm

    Oh yeah before a certain guy comes over here and says ”you didn’t help me reach 89k+(up from 66k and a half from March 6th 2021-when i first commented there)-from page hits in 8 months on( 8)eight-posts than how is it he’s only up to 104k page hits after now (12) twelve posts(before he was saying before when i brought it up ”well i haven’t done many posts since you left in ’21”-is 12 not many?- after i left 2+years ago now?

    i know he’ll go into his ”you linked to a gay porn site” routine and that ”gay porn link” in question was to a mainstream Twitter -now X account that was showing=telling how popular gay porn is with too many straight women-who red pillers like him say can be ”tamed” by ”disciplining” them, game or frame.

    If she fears not GOD already none of that will matter much to begin with.

    Even though God’s ”frame and authority” weren’t enough to keep Eve in line in the garden of Eden (but mere MEN can keep any woman in line better than the almighty himself?).

    Or i guess by saying ”God’s holy patriarchy” which to him is some type of magic saying that if only GOD =YEHOVAH himself would have known would have kept Eve his rebellious daughter in line i suppose?

    i forgot to add in my last comment i’m thankful that DEREK has a neutral and fair-minded site that doesn’t bow to pressure from trolls like Spawny did to keep the false peace in the ‘sphere going today, who had to appease bgr trolls and tradcons(dal rock use to do posts on them being essentially feminists in November 2011) in general-who want MEN to be assertive and dominant yet back down when they say things to you like your ”gay, a deceiver or a liar or even ”a clown in your own home to your wife and daughter” as he said to DEREK here before as the one that comes here does all the time to those he targets -which sounds very logical and realistic too!

    Because they still count on the government, fallible MEN, and game instead of GOD & his son JESUS through whom WE ALL must be saved NOT only some, BUT all!

  25. professorGBFMtm

    i should clarify for DEREKS audience what the troll did to i at SPAWNYS yesterday, he made an insinuation that i somehow ”could have” gotten the site a ”k9 web protection alert”rating for pornography in late November 2020, when i didn’t even comment there until February 24th(U.K. time-date)2021.

    {i wasn’t at any site on the net in the 2020s commenting until February 6th, 2021 and that was @ J.J. Griffings sub-created worlds short story sci-fi blog.}

    To continue from the first paragraph: The site in question the troll accused me of getting them a ”k9 web protection alert” for pornography, has been known to occasionally post topless pics(that the troll complained about by saying ”i’ll have to quit coming here if you don’t stop it) to them about before because of his workplace computer being watched and his ex-wife’s divorce court allegations against him of watching porn at work) here and there including as recently as this past May.

    In short?: i think i’m just being accused and scapegoated of being the only ”bad apple” that was there so the troll and his troll supporters there and elsewhere can look like heroes and finally did something other than complain about women like they accuse black pillers and incels(whom i have been told are just ”baby” or ”immature” red pillers like themselves) of doing.

    He doesn’t like i commenting on his 2+ year now smear campaign against me(as i should be silent like a battered husband against his abusive wife in his mind i suppose).

    While jack at Sigma Frame acts like i’ve been ” actively persecuting” him, he encouraged the troll to do it to i all because he knows from i being at his site for 6+ months(the most successful time he ever had too) in 2021 how powerful my commenting can be when i choose to do it.

    If they think i’ll come back to their site(s) after accusing me of getting a site a ”k9 web protection alert” rating it clearly shows they don’t know or perceive reality as it is.

    They think ”well the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN went back to Dalrock for a 2-and-a-half month run in 2018 so if we exert a lot of pressure on him he’ll see the error of his way and return!”
    NO!

    The GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN returning to dal rock for a short period of time was in a different time and place.

    i said that last part mainly because of what the troll said here a while back:

    ”Well, I’m touched that y’all are so concerned for my mental and moral state of being. But y’all might best want to look after yourselves first. Get well, then maybe you’ll find your way back on the right side of me.”

    i as well as jack at sf , DEREK & i know SPAWNY does want him to get well and stop insulting others he disagrees with as namely in ”gay, deceiver, and liar” which everyone knows comes from him at the drop of a hat.

    Him and jack could make a better Christian Manosphere if they would set aside their fear of those who disagree with their pope-like insistance of ”authority” like i, LastMOD &DEREK do as we’re just pointing out that they can do a much better job of welcoming MEN of all ages into fellowship in the ‘sphere.

    WE three plus LIZ are (to the ‘sphere at large)as Mark Twain says here:
    ””Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”

    Which is what WE have been doing here for some 8+ or so months now.

    i know i would like the ‘sphere to do the same is all.

  26. Glowmo,

    You posted a link to a hardcore gay porn site at Spawny’s Space. Jack was apparently the only person who initially looked at your link, as you mostly posted chaff to jam the manoshere’s signal, and he commented pointing it out so that they could deal with it. I then checked out the link to see if Jack was telling the truth, or exaggerating in your ongoing feud, and it was truly a link to a disgusting hardcore gay porn site. Spawny gave you quite a stern reprimand for posting a link to a gay porn site on his site, which he rightly deleted, and you never claimed then or since that it wasn’t. Now, all this time later, you suddenly claim it wasn’t a link to a gay porn site after never before having claimed that your link was something other than a gay porn site link, when that was repeatedly stated. I’ve just listed three witnesses who followed the link and say the link went to a gay porn site. None of us would have made that up at the expense of our own credibility. Nor did you dispute it back then.

    “… about before because of his workplace computer being watched and his ex-wife’s divorce court allegations against him of watching porn at work …”

    That was never alleged in my divorce. All of the computer activity at my employer is firewall controlled and logged. If I looked at pornography at work, I would get fired for that. If anything, my continuing employment there should have constituted proof that I wasn’t a “sex/porn addict”, which was the false allegation, satanically used to “precautionarily” keep and alienate my sons from me.

    In fact, I let the hosts at Spawny’s Space know that if they allowed any pornography to be posted there, that the risk to my job was a risk that I would be unwilling to take. And they were kind enough to advise others not to post any pornography there, so that myself and others in monitored work or home situations could still enjoy their site. I installed the K9 web and file monitor on my home computer at the recommendation of my divorce lawyer, to log additional evidence that the accusations were untrue. And I had a complete psychological evaluation finding no evidence of any personality disorders, and an additional evaluation by a sex addiction specialist who also found zero evidence of any sex/porn addiction, or even any of the developmental patterns that might incline a person towards developing such an addiction.

    The sex addiction specialist even expressed his great displeasure that the “family” court system effectively honored such baseless accusations in cases when there was zero evidence. Apparently real sex addicts generally build up a lifetime of evidence of their abnormal behavior. You know, strange stuff like posting porn links at places where they’re unwelcomed as if thinking that should somehow be met with acceptance. I’m not like you. I acted as an influence towards cleaning the place of porn, while you, on the other hand, chose to post a link to grotesque hardcore gay porn there.

    Anyhow, relax, Langley Troll, you’re right where you belong now, over here at Derek’s site. Feel free to go full-retard here, where you won’t be gumming up the manosphere dispensing your countermeasure chaff.

    And your characterization of my and other people’s comments in your internet battles always seems off, as if you have poor reading comprehension, in addition to the gibberish writing skills you routinely demonstrated when you were loose amongst the good men of the manosphere.

    People repeatedly advised you on how to contribute instead of detracting from the manosphere, but you were seemingly dead set on being a net negative, and making the sites that allowed you to comment look like they were filled with childish nonsense. And it is quite telling that you don’t feel the need to do that here, only there.

    As far as I’m concerned, you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing, an intentional deceiver, and it is a joyful moment for me to watch others, whom I am proud of, taking steps to drive you out from disrupting the manosphere through your evil methods.

    Stay here and use your special powers to build up your friend, Derek’s, egalitarian site. 😉

    1. professorGBFMtm

      This comment like most of mine is an in-general or perhaps best said a rhetorical statement for everyone to read and not for a certain guy who trolls i and DEREK(who thinks he’s my and others like even DEREKS boss and personal editor or co-writer)to respond to,

      ”And your characterization of my and other people’s comments in your internet battles always seems off, as if you have poor reading comprehension, in addition to the gibberish writing skills you routinely demonstrated when you were loose amongst the good men of the manosphere.”

      Which side of the fence are you and ”the good men of the manosphere” on when it comes to jack still having a ”hardcore porn link” to swinger mike’s hardcore porn site up on that post?

      Why hasn’t he listened to y’alls non-calls for it’s removal?

      You went on a feud with jack and Scott for some 3 years until jack removed the post(only at Scott’s recent requests to ”unpublish” most of his posts, where you called Scott a” evil fornicator” and he called you ”gay” for it? (which further ignited bitterness in your already embittered heart from divorce).

      ”As far as I’m concerned, you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing, an intentional deceiver, and it is a joyful moment for me to watch others, whom I am proud of, taking steps to drive you out from disrupting the manosphere through your evil methods.”

      The e3ver insulting others troll has said similar to many others too everyone from Scott to DEREK in the ‘sphere.

      So i’m in good company as far as i’m concerned everybody.

      It’s like george said about you before ”people will find out just how disturbed that cowardly bgr troll bot #1 is one day”

      George was wrong as that day came years ago when you first condemned Christian MEN like Scott and ED Kennedy(who you saw as a bad bad MAN for having good relationships with women)then i and DEREK later for having our women like us.

      We are the patriarchs you can’t be in your embittered state and you know it.

      You came after Ace the main female commenter at your site years ago for not obeying you over her husband then you start
      Talking about how you have authority over Deti’s wife and children and even have the right to do ”citizen arrests” before here?

      You made yourself needlessly sound as foolish and dimwitted as the gomer pyle character did in the episode ”citizen arrest”(from Dec 16, 1963 ) of the andy griffith tv show.

      That’s what tradcons usually do they emulate hollywood(or its stereotypes of MEN, life & conservatives) and the world instead of CHRIST as simple as that.

  27. professorGBFMtm

    This comment- is for the readers, not that troll that comes here,

    ” I then checked out the link to see if Jack was telling the truth, or exaggerating in your ongoing feud, and it was truly a link to a disgusting hardcore gay porn site. Spawny gave you quite a stern reprimand for posting a link to a gay porn site on his site, which he rightly deleted, and you never claimed then or since that it wasn’t. Now, all this time later, you suddenly claim it wasn’t a link to a gay porn site after never before having claimed that your link was something other than a gay porn site link, when that was repeatedly stated. I’ve just listed three witnesses who followed the link and say the link went to a gay porn site. None of us would have made that up at the expense of our own credibility. ”Nor did you dispute it back then.”

    i told Spawny in a comment for him on a few posts later that it was a Twitter-based account about women watching gay porn(investigate for yourself all the articles about Twitter being” mainstream” -porn central now on the net and women loving gay porn ) for a few years now and how twitter looks even more like a porn site now with it being called X and you would know that if you would have better investigated the matter instead of still being angry that i never came back to your site(s).

    ” Spawny gave you quite a stern reprimand for posting a link to a gay porn site on his site, which he rightly deleted, and you never claimed then or since that it wasn’t. ”

    i know it makes you happy others being supposedly being ”disciplined” and i just explained the rest of your drivel above in the other paragraph.

    ”I then checked out the link to see if Jack was telling the truth, or exaggerating in your ongoing feud,”

    i never had a ”feud” with jack, i just thought he could do a better job with the spotlight mainly i and NovaSeeker (with much help from a dozen or so other commenters) gave him in 2021 than stuff like swinger mike.

    ”People repeatedly advised you on how to contribute instead of detracting from the manosphere, but you were seemingly dead set on being a net negative, and making the sites that allowed you to comment look like they were filled with childish nonsense. And it is quite telling that you don’t feel the need to do that here, only there.

    As far as I’m concerned, you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing, an intentional deceiver, and it is a joyful moment for me to watch others, whom I am proud of, taking steps to drive you out from disrupting the manosphere through your evil methods.”

    i do comment at fun sites(that the hosts admited as such before to Deti) like Spawnys my way not yours or others.

    i already have know how few comments the latest post at Spawnys has received since the new post went up around 3 pm yesterday.

    Spawny, Cill, and Farm Boy will be prouder of you sooner than you will believe i know as you drove others like Ton, Liz, and Elspeth.

    i also won’t be responding to you anymore either anywhere.

    As i’m mainly making a statement here against your well-known in the ‘sphere in-general bitterness and embittered rage at others you see as more successful than you in life.

    Always slinging insults at others will in no way keep the ‘sphere in any kind of right way.

    So i didn’t help your site or jacks according to you be anything but successful?
    As you mentioned nothing about your site’s sudden increase in traffic above after i arrived at it on March 6th ’21 then until the end after i left it on November 30th, 2021.

    As you never even admit it like jack to his semi-credit does in a roundabout way with that ”active persecutions” nonsense.

    i don’t tell others to do anything they are free moral agents to do as they will as they will do so anyway with or without my doing or saying anything.

    1. “I don’t tell others to do anything they are free moral agents to do as they will as they will do so anyway with or without my doing or saying anything.”

      If that were true, then there too, that’s a difference between us. Whereas you seemingly say, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”, I try to turn many to righteousness like the wise from Daniel 12:2-3. You leave them to their lawlessness; I call for them to repent and change their ways. Obviously being a strong man who makes demands of others, (the same type of strong men needed to bring “good times”) will get you labeled as being a “bully”, but, no matter, that sort of bleating from the sheep is music to my ears. They’re acknowledging that they’ve learned that I’ll not hesitate to poke them with my proverbial shepherd’s staff should they misbehave too much. Those who permit lawlessness will have much to answer for on their judgement day.
      ————————————————————–

      “Their whole Game and view of manhood is still….an underlying veiled theme of: Your measure of a being a man is how much sex, how often, how many like you or want to have sex with you and how many you could get “if I wasn’t married” nonsense.”

      Yes! And the worst blasphemy is when people claiming the name of Christ let slip that they view getting pussy as the measure of a man, or the making of a man. One fool went so far as to say that getting inside a woman’s gash was a necessary step to psychological maturity for a man. As if Jesus Christ was less psychologically mature than that deluded whoremonger, when Christ died for us as an undefiled virgin. Nor should it be overlooked how when worldly minded “Christians” reinforce that satanic societal false standard of manhood, that it can drive incels to frustration, grief, despair, and sometimes even to addictions and suicide, in a world where they’re unrelentingly denied respect solely based on the whims of women and the simping fools who overvalue women’s goo holes. Those idol worshippers willfully torment the already rejected men, with their godless cunt-worship, showing those men how society’s foolish goddess worshippers will always openly scorn them for their lack of vaginal validation, even among those who profess to be children of thrice-holy God and saved by His undefiled virgin Son.

      It is a sickening sin that the pussy-idolaters gaslight those whom they openly scorn and torment that those incels’ just frustration is somehow a sign of their immaturity, while their own satanic aversion to those “undefiled with women”,(Revelation 14:4) is somehow a product of some greater level of maturity on the part of those devil’s dupes who wrongly glorify sexual validation above the unspoiled male purity retained by their presumed Savior.

      He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from Him; He was despised, and we esteemed him not.

      And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

      1. Derek L. Ramsey

        “I try to turn many to righteousness like the wise”

        The way to correct a brother is to follow Christ’s instructions in Matthew 18. Failure to follow the words of Christ results in self-deception.

        1. Matthew 18:15a If your brother sins against you, …

          Very few of the folks I am trying to turn to righteousness, on the internet, have sinned against me personally. So, the section on church discipline that you keep mentioning (for addressing (initially) private wrongs) as if it were a one-size-fits-all prescription for every single conflict of ideas, (again) isn’t the only way to handle things. God intends for us to use our good judgement to know that there is more than one way to skin a cat. And God intends for us to use our best judgement and all the tools in our bag when attempting to address problems on His kingdom’s behalf. Our behavior is not always to be formulaic and scripted. In many instances, I try multiple ways of addressing the same problem with people, hoping that each might have some desired effect. I’m not limited by your misapplication of scripture, or by your desire to make a formula to fit all situations, out of Matthew 18.
          Furthermore, we’re not all the same organ in the body of Christ, so we won’t necessarily all go about doing our duties, like correcting others, in the exact same way. We’re not all cut out to be the pimp hand 😉 or the booty kicking feet.

          Trust me I myself have called for church discipline before, and the now corrupted body of Christ (which has taken on all the sins of the world) melts away before any request that they discipline a wayward woman. The whoring churches won’t be there for you to use to even complete those steps, unless is somehow serves to build their audience, or to fill their coffers. Why start a process that you’re not able to complete, of using church discipline on every stranger on the internet who disagrees with what you think is right for them to think and do? In many situations God intends us to use our best judgement on how to address them, and to leave our local church leadership out of our online battles.

          For instance: I have no idea what church you go to, who leads it, Etc. Nor would you probably want me contacting them every time we disagree, and you don’t immediately come around to my way of thinking.

          1. Derek L. Ramsey

            “Very few of the folks I am trying to turn to righteousness, on the internet, have sinned against me personally.”

            If they have not sinned against you, then you cannot be their judge, for you do not hold their sin debt. Their judge is God, to whom vengeance is reserved. You are free to criticize ungodly ideas, but you cannot judge persons to which, in legal terms, you do not have standing.

            Every time in scripture Christ says to judge another, it is within the context of the church. All sins by a fellow Christian are sins against the body of Christ, and thus against you as a member of that body. That is why Christ said that the unrepentant are to be removed from the body and treated as a Gentile or tax collector. Excommunication is the maximum extent of judgment of another person that a Christian is permitted.

            Christians, in general, have no duty to judge non-Christians, a point that Anabaptists (like the Amish) have long understood. A sinner’s actions condemn themselves before God. Our duty to non-Christians is contained in the Great Commission. Only on very rare occasions over hundreds of years is a prophet—like Moses and Jonah—specifically, individually, directly, and explicitly called by God to deliver a message of judgment to Gentiles. The list of such men is very short.

            The Jews killed Jesus because they wanted their Messiah to engage in military action against the Romans. Jesus wouldn’t even condemn paying taxes to the godless empire! Indeed, he almost never judged the Gentiles, but left his most scathing commentary for those of the Covenant: the Jews themselves.

            “For instance: I have no idea what church you go to, who leads it, Etc. Nor would you probably want me contacting them every time we disagree, and you don’t immediately come around to my way of thinking.”

            Because while Christ limited the context in which a Christian could judge another person, he made forgiveness unlimited. When a fellow Christian sins against me, I can choose to forgive him each and every time whether or not he deserves it, leaving ultimate judgment in the hands of God. Indeed, this is precisely what should happen most of the time.

            I would hope my church would respond to such things by saying:

            “Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. [..] You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. [..] Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.”

            If a fellow Christian cuts me off in the church parking lot, I don’t confront them before the church. I forgive their lapse and move on. Were I to constantly bring such things to the church, they could rightly remove me from the church for placing judgment over forgiveness.

            Engaging in online discussion is implicit consent to confrontation. If someone were to dress like a prostitute and stand on the street corner, would they have cause to be personally offended when they were approached for their services? Of course not. Anyone complaining about being subject to criticism online should be questioned for why they put themselves out there in the first place. Disputable matters need not lead to quarreling nor judgment.

            Our dispute over logical fallacies is obviously unambiguously a “disputable matter.” One of us—either you or I—lacks the intellect to understand and apply the various fallices correctly. If that person is me, as you claim, then you gain absolutely nothing from treating me with contempt and passing judgment on me because I’m too stupid of intellect and weak of faith.

            Paul made it clear that such minor, unimportant disputes have no business being a concern of the church.

          2. If I thought you were truly unable to understand and apply “logical fallacies” correctly, I wouldn’t waste much time talking to you about it but would mainly be defending myself before the others who might have read your libels. Which is sort of what I’ve done.

            You claimed that a single unidirectional statement I made, constitutes the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. When I pointed out that “circular reasoning” is mutually dependent proofs, you effectively redefined “circular reasoning” as “whatever definition Derek needs it to be”. You claimed that you get to add your own words to my statement, because even though it wasn’t a question, you claimed it “begged a question” which, according to your rules, then allows you to add whatever is needed to make it into something circular sounding, to make you right, even when you are wrong and my original statement was neither circular nor did it contain mutually dependent proofs.
            By your new methodology any single statement of belief whatsoever, that you don’t like, could be twisted into your version of “circular reasoning”, and in that way declared a fallacy, and the person who said it thus becomes a false teacher.

            I don’t think you’re too stupid to see your error. But I do think you’re too stubborn and argumentative to admit that sometimes you overemotionally throw out the names of logical fallacies halfcocked, in an effort to make your ideological opponents seem stupid.

            Maybe I should humor you, since you think church discipline is the only way that I can truly follow Christ’s words. (I’ve said that I often try various approaches) If you send me contact information for the elders of your church, I’ll send a letter to them to see if they think you are correct to judge my simple statement as containing the logical fallacy of “circular reasoning”, and if they think you applied the term “survivorship bias” correctly according to how the term was originally defined. Maybe their third-party opinion will help you?
            Or perhaps it might show everyone that, even if they agree with me …
            A man convinced against his will
            Is of the same opinion still.

            Would you repent of your libelous statements against me if your church leaders say that you are in the wrong about me having used “circular reasoning” where you say that I did, and that you also twisted the original meaning of “survivorship bias” in an erroneous attempt to make it discredit my citations from the writings of the early church fathers?

            LOL Do you even believe in the church discipline process, bro!? I think we can all agree that our disagreement has gone public, has been witnessed by witnesses, and is still unresolved. Maybe I need to try this your way, with your church’s leadership, like you are insisting. Since your doctrine of “mutual submission” has also seemingly hit the skids during this matter, and left you unable to back down from your false accusations against me. I’ll even give you home field advantage, by using your church.

          3. Derek L. Ramsey

            Sharkly,

            “Maybe I should humor you, since you think church discipline is the only way that I can truly follow Christ’s words.”

            How did you derive from…

            “Christ limited the context in which a Christian could judge another person, he made forgiveness unlimited.”

            …and…

            ““Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. [..] You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. [..] Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.”

            …and…

            “Paul made it clear that such minor, unimportant disputes have no business being a concern of the church.”

            …that I think church discipline is the only way to truly follow Christ’s words?

            “Do you even believe in the church discipline process, bro!?”

            The answer to that question is found here, where you can find five witnesses who unanimously agreed that the behavior confronted was a sin.

            “our disagreement has gone public”

            Our disagreement on our ideas is public, yes, but the only reason the accusation of sin is public is because you made it public when you had the option to keep it private. You don’t get an exemption allowing you to continue to ignore the requirements of Christ simply because you violated them in the first place.

            You’ve already judged me with contempt to be an enemy, ally of Satan, a non-Christian (by definition) who is going to Hell. You didn’t confront me privately. You didn’t follow that up privately with two or three witnesses who can confirm the truth of your accusation. You didn’t follow that up with a private discussion among the whole church (which, to be deemed fair, righteous, and just, would have to include my own witnesses from that same body). No, in your eyes, you jumped straight to me being like a Gentile and a tax collector. By your own public attestation, I’m not a fellow brother Christian who has sinned against you. Disagreement among fellow Christians—the purpose of Matthew 18—is no longer our problem. The problem is prior judgment and schism. Are you planning to take that all back?

            Are you also planning on admitting that you were wrong about your preferred interpretation of Genesis 1:27 that only men are made in the image of God? Or do you want a double-standard where only I have to admit that I’m wrong? You don’t have to wait for me.

            The fact that you think a disagreement over the proper application of the laws of logic is grounds for theological intervention using church discipline by a meatspace church is more-or-less the problem. It’s not a matter of sin, and it never has been. I didn’t sin against you. Your entire accusation against me is bogus and calumnious, as shown by the fact that you didn’t handle an accusation of sin according to the precepts of Christ himself. You didn’t have two or three witnesses who agreed with you, or else you would have already brought them forward long ago to bolster your case against me.

            You even boasted about how righteous you are, doing the work of the Lord by judging (“exposing”) me! Instead of confronting me directly, you go to other forums to spread falsehoods about me. You are clearly not sorry for handling it the way you did, showing that you are not interested following Christ’s commands in Matthew 18, because you wouldn’t have done any of that if you were. You recent told others that you are not interested in correcting me, but in warning others against me. You have an explicit vendetta against me! How could you possibly follow Matthew 18 after you spit on its very purpose of gentle restoration? Now you only seem concerned about my potential response for if you got lucky and I happened to lose to a kangaroo court.

            What you need is a professor of logic (or a copy of my college-level discrete math book), but you want a church to justify you playing the judge who takes pleasure in condemning people to Hell.

            “…by using your church”

            I am not an officially baptized (or transferred) member of any church. I sometimes attend two different churches, and so have two different pastors. I have no idea who the elders of either church are. The covid lockdowns showed that my church was apostate, when it yielded to the government demands to shut down and refused to repent. I sincerely doubt that you want to try to plead your case to a church that cucked to the secular government.

            Peace,
            DR

          4. Your reaction, which I was expecting, is proving my point, as planned, that your insistence that I follow Matthew 18 protocols was more of a dodge, than something you actually wanted conducted. You wanted to publicly accuse me of teaching fallacies, on your website, at Σ Frame, and at Spawny’s Space, while wanting me to defend myself and my doctrine in secret, where nobody else would see my defense. Basically, you want to be able to publicly announce that I teach fallacy, and for me to then self-censor, by responding privately only to you, even though you are clearly too stubborn to repent of it, even when publicly challenged by me, or even if confronted by your now “apostate” “cucked” “kangaroo court” church elders.

            When I take you up on the church discipline, suddenly the dudes at your “cucked” church become a “kangaroo court”, because they likely would side with my reasonable contention that I didn’t use “circular reasoning” where you said I did and that my citing multiple congruent historical writings is not the fallacy of “survivorship bias”.

            If, as you say, they “cucked to the secular government”, just like the Church of Rome first did, committing sexual immorality with the rulers of this earth, then why do you stay in an “apostate” whoring fellowship? That’s a rhetorical question. I don’t actually care to know why you stay, regardless, I want you to come out from among them and be separate. Find fellowship with those truly willing to risk going against the powers of this world.

            “I didn’t sin against you.”
            You falsely and publicly condemned me of teaching falsehood by way of your misappropriated logical fallacies when I taught the same truth that is taught in the Bible and the writings of the early church.
            (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:7)
            If Christians are to treat others how we ourselves would want to be treated, am I not giving you the behavior that you’ve asked for, by posting “Derek Ramsey is a liar” when that is basically the behavior you’ve shown towards me? How was I to know you were a hypocrite who wanted to say that others teach fallacies, but never hear your own lies called out? In Christian charity, or whatever you call it, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were treating me how you wanted to be treated. 😉

            I do want to be corrected if I’m wrong somewhere. But if your modus operandi is to twist the definitions of logical fallacies so you can try to pin them on me, keep that sort of dysfunctional turd flinging to yourself. Your most persuasive arguments are going to be the simple ones that people will easily recognize the truth of the moment you mention them. If you have to construct a Rube Goldberg machine to make your point, you’ll probably only lose credibility by employing such a contrived argument as your ideological defense. Like Occam’s razor teaches: The simplest explanation is usually the best one.

            Since you seem to have a blind spot here; Personal Note to Derek: If you have to go into a lengthy explanation of how a person is using some logical fallacy, that most people will never recognize on their own, then in all likelihood their logic is actually solid enough that you should hesitate and ponder your own reasonings before condemning theirs as fallacy. Why libel somebody as a false teacher over such a farfetched reach? If I’m teaching falsehood, why not just expose the falsehoods and share the plain truth, instead of twisting my words and the definitions of logical fallacies until they seem to meet, to you, in your own peculiar mind?

            I suspect that you can’t because the church’s doctrine and modern Feminist compromises are already convoluted and hard enough to follow that there is no lightbulb moment where people will suddenly recognize the divine simplicity of how it all is so perfectly ordered, like masculine God’s holy order of patriarchy.
            Father –> Son –> man –> woman (1 Corinthians 11:3)

          5. Derek L. Ramsey

            Note: see my other related comment here.

            “Your reaction, which I was expecting, is proving my point, as planned, that your insistence that I follow Matthew 18 protocols was more of a dodge

            So, you admit that you are engaging with me in bad faith, scheming and planning and trying to trap me—just like a Pharisee—rather than seeking mutual restoration? I was correct to do as I did, for I had detected your extremely obvious attempt to trap me and refused to fall into it.

            To be clear, you should have followed the Matthew 18 protocol, or better yet simply dropped the accusation (as Paul commanded). That remains true. Absolutely nothing I did can change your own obligations, and it is, yes, logically fallacious to conclude that my behavior alters your own responsibility in any way.

            Christ said “And if your brother sins against you…” and set up a series of obligations. You did not sin against me, and I make no claim that you did. I have no obligation to do any part of Matthew 18 (including foolishly arranging my own tribunal), because (1) I have no cause against you; and (2) you don’t view me as a brother. But you have made false accusation against me. Christ placed obligations on you which you have not obeyed. You have projected onto me the very obligations that are placed upon you. I have no obligation to do anything that supports your disobedience.

            Your attempt to trap me just shows the witnesses precisely what you are trying to do.

            You have already “let him be to you as the Gentile and the tax collector” without doing any of the three prior steps. You are completely unwilling to repent of this, so why are you concerned with the speck in my own eye when you still have a giant plank in your own? Why do you insist on judging me?

            “You falsely and publicly condemned me of teaching falsehood”

            While you have absolutely taught falsehood—this is simply a matter of observable fact—you clearly do not know the difference between disagreement and condemnation.

            At most, I have expressed a mild disapproval of your stated theological position. I have expressed the firm opinion that you are almost completely wrong, having based your views on provably logically fallacious positions. But I do not condemn you for being wrong. I don’t even disapprove of you being wrong: it inevitably happens to all of us. You are—by definition—a heretic, but I don’t care.

            You think that because you condemn me, that I must also condemn you. In doing so, you only add to your errors.

            If I were to actually condemn you, I’d be condemning myself. This is why I keep telling you not to condemn me, because in the end it is merely self-condemnation. That’s why Paul told us not to judge others because we ourselves will stand before God’s judgment seat.

            The real problem here is that you love to judge others. You see yourself as a righteous servant of the Lord whose judgments are your right duty, even though both Christ and Paul explicitly instruct you not to do it. You judge me. You condemn me. Literally. To Hell. You are explicitly boastful of this fact. It is not possible for you to express a more complete disapproval of me publicly than to condemn me to Hell. You do the very thing you falsely accuse me of, which is worse than mere hypocrisy, because only you are the one doing it.

            When Christ tells you how members of the church must wield judgment and resolve conflict between fellow believers, you argue that those rules don’t apply to you:

            You insist that judgment is the moral duty of all Christians, even as scripture constantly tells you not to do it.

            You’ve projected your own desires and motivations onto me, as if I want those things as well. I clearly do not want any of that. I want no part on being judgmental. I don’t desire to condemn you.

            You are factually wrong and hold provably incorrect beliefs. I would like for you to find the truth, but that is the sole extent of my interest. If I can correct your error, all the better. But if not, then there is nothing more for me to do or care about. But, I will not lie to you and tell you that you committed no error just because that’s what you want to hear. Were I to cave to your demands and lie about what you said, I would break the Commandment not to bear false witness against you. I will not do so.

            Not everyone is as boastfully judgmental as you are. You are not the victim here. You are not a victim because you think that I behave the same way that you do. Your error is entirely your own responsibility, and your attempt to pass it off as my error will be unsuccessful.

            “If Christians are to treat others how we ourselves would want to be treated, am I not giving you the behavior that you’ve asked for, by posting “Derek Ramsey is a liar” when that is basically the behavior you’ve shown towards me?”

            I don’t think you are a liar. I think you are incorrect. This is a massive difference, which you seem unable to comprehend. But it is not my fault that you can’t separate these two things. That is entirely your own responsibility, and your attempt to assign your error to my account is not going to be successful.

            If you want to cite the Golden Rule, do so. You can go through every comment that I’ve ever made and you’ll find that I never once said that you are going to Hell for holding a viewpoint that differs from mine.

            “If I’m teaching falsehood, why not just expose the falsehoods and share the plain truth, instead of twisting my words and the definitions of logical fallacies until they seem to meet, to you, in your own peculiar mind?”

            Pointing out your fallacious reasoning is exposing your falsehoods. In fact, exposing logical fallacies are among the plainest, most simple explanations that exist. I’ve done exactly what you’ve asked me to do, so why aren’t you thanking me? But it is also trivial to expose your other falsehoods, and I will do so in the next section.

            “when I taught the same truth that is taught in the Bible and the writings of the early church. [..] I do want to be corrected if I’m wrong somewhere.”

            Your own argument disproves your claim. Why do you refuse to be corrected? You clearly, unambiguously, and provably do not want to be corrected when you are wrong, so what good does it to you to claim otherwise?

            “If you have to construct a Rube Goldberg machine to make your point”

            You literally challenged me with a supposed proof of your claim and it took me 7 simple sentences, and three citations, to show that your view was a logical contradiction, deductively proving that my view was the correct one. Since then, you’ve had no response to having your viewpoint disproved, because nothing you say can ever refute a logically sound deductive argument.

            You presented the claim as a conclusive argument showing your position, so when I showed that your claim was false, I proved that your position was false (by logical contradiction). Because your position is false, the other position must be true. That’s how a deductive proof works. You presented the argument as authoritatively binding, but as soon as it turned against you, you fell completely and utterly silent because you are not willing to change your core viewpoint even when it is disproven. Does this sound familiar?

            When I found something wrong in one of your peripheral viewpoints, you made changes (e.g. during our discussion on some of the church fathers). But when it comes to your core belief that only men are made in the image of God, not even being defeated by your own argument is enough for you to accept the truth. Instead, you misinterpret my criticisms as personal attacks. How could I know this would be the case? Because you’ve clearly predetermined what you believe and will allow no truth to alter that.

            I’ll ask one more time: Who is “trying to obscure what was actually written?”

            ” Personal Note to Derek: If you have to go into a lengthy explanation of how a person is using some logical fallacy, that most people will never recognize on their own, then in all likelihood their logic is actually solid enough that you should hesitate and ponder your own reasonings before condemning theirs as fallacy.”

            No, most people are too stubborn to find their own failings because they are not interested in finding the truth. Being able to accept error requires an unwavering dedication to truthseeking. Most people are not truthseekers, and so most people cannot be convinced of their error.

            This includes people who think they understand logic. I suggest you read my post “Are Arguments from Authority Fallacious?” in which I contend with David Gudeman. You can see how he is 100% convinced of his own logical conclusion, despite the fact that he has made basic errors in reasoning due to his own ignorance. He is so sure he is right, even as he commits the very errors he sees in others.

            I make lengthy responses because I want my explanations to be exhaustive. Other people (like Bnnon Tennant did with you) cut the discussion as short as possible, while you continued to post.

            The fact you think the length of my posts is in any way indicative of the merits of my arguments shows precisely how willing you are to embrace fallacious reasoning whenever it suits you.

            You really don’t care if my responses are short and concise vs long and exhaustive. Whether it is a short refutation to your challenge, or a long response to your falsehoods, this fallacious objection rather plainly shows how you are avoiding dealing with my ideas.

            “Like Occam’s razor teaches: The simplest explanation is usually the best one. [..] I suspect that you can’t because the church’s doctrine and modern Feminist compromises are already convoluted and hard enough to follow that there is no lightbulb moment where people will suddenly recognize the divine simplicity of how it all is so perfectly ordered, like masculine God’s holy order of patriarchy. Father –> Son –> man –> woman (1 Corinthians 11:3)”

            If we use Occam’s Razor on the discussion, we’d conclude that the simplest explanation is that Sharkly’s extreme minority theology is overly simplistic and and that the centuries old majority viewpoint is far more likely. The Razor cuts both ways. But I’m sure you have some really clever reason for why the Razor doesn’t apply when it goes against you.

            Your arbitrary personal metaphysical claim here proves my point. Remember how I proved you wrong then and you refused to accept correction? This is actually quite relevant, because I showed how a deductive proof by contradiction works, precisely what I was just discussing earlier in this comment. I responded there. Recall what I said:

            “Proponents of Christian Patriarchy really do think that their interpretations of scripture are in a completely different category from the interpretations of scripture made by Complementarians, Egalitarians, and feminists. You can freely criticize the latter, but if you question the former, you rebel against God himself.”

            This entire disagreement you have with me boils down to the simple observation that you believe that you are 100% right about everything that enters your mind and that if another person disagrees with you, they must change their mind and agree with you, or else. Indeed, you may be the only person alive who believes that only men are made in the image of God, and you think every single Christian alive is rebelling against God himself. Imagine thinking that you are the only person out of billions who actually understands what God said in the Bible. You believe your interpretations of scripture are the only valid ones and that mine are completely invalid because you predetermined that they are wrong.

            When Jesus said that the way was narrow and that few would find it, what he meant was that in 2024, there would be one Christian named Sharkly who got it right. Everyone else would get it wrong. Just one Christian certainly qualifies as “few.”

            You might as well say “Derek is a sinner because he doesn’t agree with everything I say”, because that is the fundamental nature of our dispute.

          6. I’m never going to be able to keep up with responding to all your contentions and lies, and I really need to be posting elsewhere, but I’ll try to respond to some of what you’ve said and make a few points, even though I see we’re pretty much at an impasse.

            I was being honest, if you really want me to, I’ll send an email to the elders at both of your churches. But since you’ve already made it clear that you would not repent if they sided against you, and I don’t view them as authoritative either, then it would inevitably be much ado to no avail. However, I do see your insistence that I follow “Matthew 18 protocol” to be a cunning attempt to silence my defense by forcing me into a church discipline process that you had zero intention of following to the end, if it ultimately went against you.

            Anyhow it doesn’t matter how much you blabber on about that process, and that it came from Jesus, I’ve already stated that I don’t think it is meant for every situation and that we are to use good judgement in how we respond to situations. I don’t want to set you off, but some “live by the Spirit” and check their behavior against scripture, versus trying to find a scripture to dictate their every move. And it is apparent at least to me, that you weren’t asking for that protocol to be used in good faith, since you have no intention of ever backing down from your lies, even if your church elders asked you to. Me asking you privately would have carried even less influence, and it wasn’t a private matter. You kept repeatedly posting it.

            Your hypocrisy is a sea you swim in. You demand certain words can only mean some distinct definition of your choosing, while you abuse other words and phrases repeatedly. For instance, you keep saying that you “Proved” things merely by naming and claiming some “logical fallacy” that you grossly misapply, or by the mere fact that you presented some bit of evidence leaning towards the contrary. It is no wonder so many folks get sick of your lies and ban you from further discussion.

            It would be like if I said “pedophile” means “child lover”. And since Derek says he loves his children, I’ll go post online that “Derk Ramsey is a pedophile.” Since I get to use my own personal definition of words and phrases, don’t cha know. And yet you act shocked when people respond calling you a liar, after you claim you “proved” various things wrong or that they are using circular reasoning, according to your own all-inclusive circular reasoning definition and formula that allowed you to add to their words.

            Jesus called the Pharisees liars even though by your style of reasoning they hadn’t lied and were merely on the wrong side of things.
            They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” Jesus said to them, “… You are of your father the devil, … for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

            I’ll admit I’ve made two erroneous statements that you’ve pointed out. But that is the full extent of my error that you’ve actually proven to me. I took a quote from the “Works of Jerome” a quote from where Jerome had translated a Greek letter of Epiphanius into Latin, and assumed it was Jerome’s opinion, and thus I wrongly attributed the opinion of Epiphanius to Jerome. And I fixed that mistake at my website. The other was over the uninspired punctuation some Hebrew texts have added to the Bible. In the wee hours of the morning, long after I should have been in bed, while switching back and forth between Greek and Hebrew at Biblehub, based upon where they wrapped the text for my particular screen resolution, and a momentary lapse, I saw a portion of the Hebrew text backwards and believed a punctuation mark existed where my screen had divided and wrapped the text. I shouldn’t even have bothered to mention it since the punctuation was a later addition that is not standardized among all the Hebrew texts, as you pointed out, but in my haste, I threw that into that one comment here on your site. I have no need to correct it elsewhere, because I’ve never ever mentioned that elsewhere. The stuff I post on my site is usually pretty well researched, while that point was just a mistake that I made and hastily posted here.

            Your contention that if somebody makes an error, that they should give up their belief, is just silly. If you take that to its literal conclusion, anybody who has ever made a typo needs to abandon their faith in God.

            As for all the rest of your contentions they are mainly just lies, you naming and claiming logical fallacies left and right that you stubbornly misapply, and then you claim that you’ve proved or disproved things according to your own twisted thinking. (Which is probably why many people eventually ban you from their sites (for such lies))

            Furthermore, you don’t actually argue in good faith like the “truth seeker” that you claim to be. You’ll take a writing where Tertullian was advocating that virgins be veiled, and cherry pick quotes from it to make it seem as if Tertullian was teaching that virgins needn’t be veiled.

            Anyhoo! I tire of being lied about, and I think I only encourage more of it by interacting with you in my own defense. By responding, I’m encouraging my own troll.

            [Ed: The primary response to this comment is found here]

          7. Derek L. Ramsey

            “I don’t view them as authoritative either”

            Of course you don’t! That’s one reason why your plan was an unethical, immoral, ungodly, bad-faith trap against me, like the Pharisees tried with Jesus. Your conclusion that…

            “you’ve already made it clear that you would not repent if they sided against you”

            …is not logically justified, and you should stop claiming this. I simply failed to spring your trap on myself, failing to tie my own noose. I acted as any rational person would act. But you see this as some kind of moral failing on my part. Please stop projecting your own error onto me.

            “I do see your insistence that I follow “Matthew 18 protocol” to be a cunning attempt to silence my defense by forcing me into a church discipline process that you had zero intention of following to the end, if it ultimately went against you.”

            I bet you do see it that way. Now stop judging me falsely and bearing false witness against me. You have no idea what my true intentions are, because you are not interested in listening to me. You know nothing about my heart.

            I didn’t silence your dissent. What an obviously false claim! You can post a hundred comments here if you’d like, each one vaguely trying to explain that you didn’t do what you very clearly did do. You won’t be successful, because the truth is on my side. I have not censored any of your comments, nor have I needed to find a stacked jury to side with me. My arguments stand or fall on their own merits, and so do yours.

            You didn’t even obey a single step of the church discipline process that you accuse me of having no intention of following, even though that process is meant for the accuser [you], not the accused [me].

            “I’ve already stated that I don’t think it is meant for every situation”

            Yes, you’ve made it clear that it doesn’t apply to you, which is why your dishonest plan to use the process as a weapon/trap against me is so offensive. I suspect if you were to bring our dispute before the actual body of Christ, you’d have to answer for this.

            “you weren’t asking for that protocol to be used in good faith”

            I wasn’t asking for you to use it. I was correcting your error by pointing out that you didn’t do what Christ—not me—told you to do. As for what I would prefer, it is for you to follow Romans 14 instead and retract your unfounded condemnation and agree-to-disagree.

            “I’ll go post online that “Derk Ramsey is a pedophile.””

            Believe it or not, I’ve been called worse.

            “And yet you act shocked when people respond calling you a liar

            I’m not shocked. Most people are highly judgmental and do not care about the truth. If anything, I am disappointed that you, of all people, would sink to such behavior. It is completely unnecessary.

            “after you claim you “proved” various things wrong or that they are using circular reasoning”

            It is a fully justified claim. I proved many things.

            “Jesus called the Pharisees liars even though by your style of reasoning they hadn’t lied and were merely on the wrong side of things.”

            It’s not my reasoning. My view—if you can even call it mine—of what constitutes a lie, found in this essay, corresponds to the nearly universal orthodox Christian belief. I firmly believe that I have accurately presented your views, and so cannot be lying. I have no intention of misrepresenting you and am willing to alter my proofs if my proofs are invalidated. That’s why I keep asking you to stop judging me personally and instead to address my actual ideas.

            “You’ll take a writing where Tertullian was advocating that virgins be veiled, and cherry pick quotes from it to make it seem as if Tertullian was teaching that virgins needn’t be veiled.”

            I never did that. Rather, I accepted for sake of argument your claim that Tertullian was speaking on behalf of the church (rather than his own isolated opinion) and showing by contradiction that he could not have been speaking on behalf of the church because he acknowledged that the whole church did not agree with him. His own views were completely irrelevant to the argument I made. Tertullian wasn’t teaching that virgins needn’t be veiled, but he acknowledged that other people in the church were teaching that. That’s what I proved, and in doing so I disproved your claim that the church held the view universally based on Paul.

            Moreover, I also showed that Tertullian’s interpretation of Paul went well beyond the words of Paul.

          8. Derek L. Ramsey

            For instance, you keep saying that you “Proved” things merely by naming and claiming some “logical fallacy” that you grossly misapply, or by the mere fact that you presented some bit of evidence leaning towards the contrary.

            Leaning?! Grossly misapply!? Some bit!? No, you can’t get away with making such claims. I have the receipts.

            It is clear that I did prove my case, unambiguously, using logical deduction, which you have now acknowledged. And I proved that a single statement can constitute begging-the-question (indeed, this is one of the most common forms of circular reasoning). But even without this proof, I showed by quoting your own words that your claim wasn’t solitary as you claimed. I proved that circular reasoning isn’t mutually dependent proofs. And I demonstrated that my use of the “survivorship bias” was justified. In point #1, I deductively proved, by formal argument, that the early church did not unanimously believe your teaching on 1 Corinthians 11:7. In points #4 and #5, I documented, not one, but two specific instances of circular reasoning, clarifying it specifically here and here. I made a deductive proof regarding Tertullian and the veiling of virgins, then in #7 I showed that your response was fallacious. I proved that your view of Roman history was a contradiction. I even pointed out how fallacious it was to claim that my behavior alters your responsibility to Christ. Or how about that time that you fallaciously claimed that the length of my posts indicates whether or not my views should be taken seriously.

            Is that sufficient enough to prove to you that rather than “naming and claiming”, I am in fact making numerous logically valid arguments and accurately describing reality? Can you find even a single error that I have made in any of these claims?

            [Regarding “proof” as a logically valid or sound argument, see this followup comment]

          9. Derek L. Ramsey

            “Your contention that if somebody makes an error, that they should give up their belief, is just silly.”

            I will explain this in more detail when I’ve given it the thought it deserves.

          10. “… unethical, immoral, ungodly, bad-faith trap against me …”

            LOL Is that what you call it when I’m willing to try and see if either of your churches can get you to stop publishing lies against me and against the words I’ve written? You already knew I would have no subservience to your churches, when you tried to insist that I confront you privately over what you published against me publicly, to supposedly use the church discipline process between two people who both view your churches to be apostate.

            I can see that you’re mad at me for bringing to light your hypocrisy. However, I find no fault in my probing whether or not I might be able to employ some apostate churches to reign in your delusional claims of “circular reasoning” when nothing close to mutually dependent proofs was in my single straightforward statement.

            I suspect by your reaction which showed neither respect nor mutual submission towards the elders at your churches, that they might already have grown sick of your methods of argumentation and be likely to side against you and your dogmatism, that you alone can rightly name & claim “logical fallacies” such as “circular reasoning”, and that you do so infallibly, and never as a self-serving overreach.

            But I’ve got to give you some credit, your waffle on church discipline was truly grandiose.

            You went from saying “I’m not following Jesus” for not participating exactly how you demanded, to suddenly saying that my willingness to now employ the process “was an unethical, immoral, ungodly, bad-faith trap”. Please forgive me for finding you funny.

          11. Derek L. Ramsey

            “when you tried to insist that I confront you privately”

            Where did I insist that? Please find me the quote, and if I erred I will apologize and make a correction as needed. I was correcting your error, what you should have done differently than you actually did, not telling you what do to. I was making a counterfactual.

            Formally, “If X, then Y“, even though ¬X was what actually happened. You couldn’t actually do X, because you already chose ¬X, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have done X in the first place. Obeying Christ was what you should have done, but didn’t.

            But just in case, let me say this again: if your brother sins against you, and you refuse to forgive him his sin, then you are obligated—should; must—follow the Matthew 18 protocol. You are not obligated to follow that protocol, because you always have the option to forgive. You can always withdraw your complaint. But if you insist on pressing the issue to the point where you judge your brother as if they were a Gentile or tax collector—an unbeliever—then you must first have done as Christ told you to do.

            I do not think you should judge me. I don’t believe that I have sinned, but I actively seek your forgiveness in the event that I have sinned without realizing it. I cannot repent, for I don’t know that I’ve done anything wrong. But I can seek and ask that you forgive me of even that much error, for I am not immune to error. I will do what I can do that doesn’t involve betraying my own conscience and discernment. That’s what I really think.

            In my opinion, I also think you should stop telling people they are sinners going to Hell.

            I find no fault in my probing whether or not I might be able to employ some apostate churches to reign in your delusional claims of “circular reasoning” when nothing close to mutually dependent proofs was in my single straightforward statement.

            Why do you keep talking about “mutually dependent proofs”? Did you not read my comment?

            In any case, you are not wrong to probe, but your demand that I acquiesce to your every demand is not even remotely reasonable. You’d be better off finding one or two people who you view as reasonably neutral and asking them to witness this situation, then approaching me with their independent findings. I really meant it when I said my church was not a good candidate for this and would likely satisfy neither of us. If you did this in a manner that was truly unbiased, I’d be much more receptive to it. I’m not saying you’d convince me, but who knows? Maybe you would. But I do question how genuine you could be when you’ve already condemned me to Hell. So long as you maintain such things, that kind-of wrecks any possibility of correction, wouldn’t you say?

            “But I’ve got to give you some credit, your waffle on church discipline was truly grandiose.”

            That’s only because you think I was dodging and lying. I wasn’t. You could, you know, accept my explanation for what it is. You don’t actually have to judge everything I say. You could actually believe me for a change.

            “You went from saying “I’m not following Jesus” for not participating exactly how you demanded, to suddenly saying that my willingness to now employ the process “was an unethical, immoral, ungodly, bad-faith trap”. Please forgive me for finding you funny.”

            You want to bring me before the whole church, but where are the two or three witnesses who agree that a sin has taken place? Don’t you see the problem?

          12. “I suspect if you were to bring our dispute before the actual body of Christ, you’d have to answer for this.”

            I guess I’m curious then whom you consider to be “the actual body of Christ”, and if you can see any difference between the body and the bride of Christ. And for contrast, who is the “Mother of Harlots” and who are her whoring daughters?

            Maybe that’s something for its own post.

          13. You say that the Bible tells us not to judge. But you neglect to say that the Bible also tells us to judge.

            John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

            1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

            1 Corinthians 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

            1 Corinthians 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

            1 Corinthians 10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.

            1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you …

            1 Corinthians 14:29 Let the Prophets speak, two or three, and let the others judge.

            Etc.

          14. Derek L. Ramsey

            Sharkly,

            Your viewpoint on judgment goes against the very Word of God that you cited!

            You say that the Bible tells us not to judge. But you neglect to say that the Bible also tells us to judge.

            As you say, the Bible tells us to judge and who to judge.

            But as it is, I am writing to you not to associate with anyone named as a brother or sister who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler; with such you are not to eat. For what have I to do with judging those who are outside? Aren’t you supposed to judge those who are inside the Church? But those who are outside God judges. Remove the wicked person from among yourselves! — 1 Corinthians 5

            …and…

            ““And if your brother sins against you [..] if he also refuses to hear [..] let him be to you as the Gentile and the tax collector.” — Matthew 18

            There are two types of people: the brothers and sisters who are in the church and everyone else. Judgment is reserved for those within the church, and it is limited to the procedures that Christ himself dictated. The sole temporal remedy for sin is excommunication. As for those outside the church—including the excommunicated—you are forbidden from judging them.

            You have unambiguously declared me to be outside the faith. Your excommunication of me from the faith—by your own personal fiat—is the sole extent of any possibly permissible judgment upon me. For you to have done so, no further judgment is possible without abandoning Christ’s commands. But of course, your excommunicated of me was invalid because you did not follow any of the steps, including the first step! Then you had the sheer audacity to try to get me to agree to the third step of the process without you repenting of the invalid excommunication or you repenting of skipping the first two steps.

            Why do you think judgment is supposed to be private? Because once you’ve excommunicated your brother, sentence has been given and carried out, and you no longer retain any right to judge him. To make a judgment a matter of the permanent public record is to usurp the very authority of God himself.

            We may only judge fellow Christians. Scripture is plain—in 1 Corinthians 5—that prior to excommunication, you should have no further association with that person except to correct them, not even to eat with them! From the moment you believed I sinned against you, you should have approached me privately and ceased all other public interaction with me, either direct or indirect, unless I repented or you exhausted all possibility of church discipline. Instead, you went on other forums to spread falsehoods against me.

            It would be one thing if I was anonymous and provided no means of contacting me privately. Then, you would have had no other option but to make it public. Then you could have no obligation to enact that which was plainly impossible. No one could possibly complain about you doing it publicly simply because you were forced to do the best you could given the limitations you were under. After all, as your citations above show, you have a duty to at least attempt to restore your brother to the faith, and so if that must be public, then so be it. But that was not the case here.

            This is also why forgiveness is mandatory of every Christian, a point that Anabaptists specifically have long known. If an unbeliever sins against you, God is their judge, not you. If a brother sins against you, you can forgive at any time. You may do so without invoking church discipline, but ultimately you must yield up your right to any further judgment once your brother has been excommunicated and the sin-debt has been discharged. You must forgive, for to hold onto a sin debt after punishment has been rendered is to retain the right to future judgement in your name, the very thing expressly forbidden.

            Lastly, the reason Jesus could judge anyone at any time in any way is because God is judge over all. God retains the right to judge all things. You do not.

            And so, it is better to judge the ideas, not the person.

            Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?” — 1 Corinthians 6:7b

            Peace,
            DR

          15. Obviously, I disagree that all of humanity can only judge people within the church, and that the only punishment allowed is excommunication. If that were the extent of justice, the result would be lawlessness.

            Can a father use a rod on his son? Where does he get that authority? Is it not evidence of a natural order, a natural justice that is built into our universe. Did parents never discipline their children before Moses or Solomon published their books? Would I be wrong to beat a thief? I don’t think so. Every society has laws against thievery, and those that have no written language still beat the crap out of thieves and take back what was stolen.

            1 Corinthians 6:7b is not a command to you to allow all thievery. You might see it that way, but I don’t. I may have a few certain authorities/rights as a believer, but I also have many rights/authorities as a human being, and rights as a man, rights by licenses, rights by way of positions I hold, and rights as a father, and rights as a citizen, and “certain unalienable rights”.

            Your negation of all of that is just the sort of foolishness that leads to lawlessness. Do Mennonites not beat their sons? Why didn’t his Mennonite church tell my dad to “rather be wronged” when he spanked my behind even after I confessed and repented? LOL Because, he wouldn’t have listened to such foolishness, is why.

            You never answered why Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword. I’m sure the pacifists probably have an excuse, but that’s all it is, an excuse to abdicate their authority to wield the sword and establish justice as Godfearing men should.

      2. Lastmod

        Right.

        A few days back, I reviewed many of my comments over the years at Jack’s page. I notice a slow turn of me away from a “Red Pill Religion” that is full of “No!” “Don’t!” “Never!” “Cuck!” “Beta!” “Rule XXXXXXXX” “Maxim XXXX”

        Its like a whole Bible, that uses the actual Word of God as a “footnote(s)”

        Even the pictures used in the posts. Lots of very well made-up, posed, filtered, sexy, young women, and heavily posed shots (from Shutterstock or a similar company?). While at the same time telling you that any woman who wears makeup is “hiding something” or “red flag”

        Its a very confusing message to many….even I am still a bit confused by it. They claim “modesty in women!” and then use pictures of women who are far from modest or selling a “if you follow Red Pill, you too can have women like this”

        The men pictured as well. Its crushing to an Ego to see what I never will look like, and even when I was young, seeing what I never looked like. There isn’t much one can do here I suppose, the photos are meant to add a wash to the reading, not define it….but the female pictures. I am sure all their wives look like this. (rolls eyes), and if not? She is obviously “disobeying” her godly duties by not being sexy and hot and looking like she is in heat all times!

        There was a Buddhist sect in Japan in the 1500’s or something…….as the nation fell into a chaotic period of civil war, warlords…..a lack of resources….and people “fleeing” the moral codes of the day, which was blamed for “the problems of the day” and people talking “bad luck and ill fates”

        This Buddhist sect gained lots of traction, and appeal to make the faith “more accessible” and “relevant”

        It glorified (and debased) the sex act. Made it “cool” to have sex, and it was a way to “Nirvana” and “enlightenment”. It mocked the “celibacy” of the monks of prior generations. Called the old morays “outdated”. It gave men a “guilt free” mindset and broke older codes of marriage that existed in Japan before Buddhism arrived.

        It was a perfect and natural outflowing of a culture in decline. The “faith” decides to roll along with the new game that was happening and tried to adapt to it. The terror conquering armies placed on women and young girls in this era was astonishing in the records. Marriage rates plummeted further (due to the wars, and now “its okay to have sex out a wedlock, or the stigma was removed”) and the sect actually disappeared quickly when???????

        The new Shogante and “order” restored sometime in the early 1600’s. It took Buddhism in Japan to return to respectability another 100 years or so.

        In the sense of the RP world (christian or not) the sex act gets worshiped and made the ONLY thing that mattters in a marriage (christian) or dating (secular). Its not the only reason, but as society crumbler….even the “church” or “christians” are not immune to the serpent of “did jesus really say this? did god really mean it this way? god will understand, all have sin right? he gave you a sex drive??? That is not YOUR fault is it???”

        I personally believe this era we are in with the RP / PUA / Game ? Frame / MGTOW thing will be looked at in the future with a bit of a smirk and “well, look at the times” or an outright curiosity, a chapter in history most will forget.

        Sorry St. Dalrock. Saint Rollo, and Saint Roosh…..your worship of sex over anything has been done already. Always fails, and is lost to time.

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          Even the pictures used in the posts [..] Its a very confusing message to many….even I am still a bit confused by it. They claim “modesty in women!” and then use pictures of women who are far from modest or selling a “if you follow Red Pill, you too can have women like this”

          When I did guest posts on Boxer’s blog, I knew for sure that I wouldn’t be found guilty-by-association with Boxer (an atheist). He could post whatever pictures and use whatever language he wanted. It’s like Jesus dining with sinners. Indeed, one time when I posted there, a commenter was momentarily confused, thinking that Boxer had converted to Christianity! So I wasn’t worried about being a stumbling block.

          I agree that the message of Sigma Frame is a bit confused. I would never guest post on Sigma Frame, because the site claims to be part of the body of Christ doing the work of Christ, even as it posts pictures that I would not post. I don’t want to be confused as approving of that immodesty.

          “Its like a whole Bible, that uses the actual Word of God as a “footnote(s)””

          If you ever think that I’ve turned the Bible into a footnote, I’d appreciate if you called me out for it specifically.

  28. Surfdumb

    Let’s see if I have this right: Sharkly, you are confident GBFM’s motives are to discredit useful websites?
    GBFM, you are confident Sharkly’s motives are anger at not having you make posts at his website?

    So a central contention concerns who made one or two posts? One post GBFM did make, but it’s only a link to a tweet and not to a porn site? The other post with a porn link GBFM didn’t write because he wasn’t posting then. If so, that second item sounds based on facts and should be able to be made clear.

    I am curious, is it a seriously held belief GBFM is a causative reason for traffic? Maybe web folks are able to tease out causative versus correlative. I am able to understand what an “Instalanche” is, that is, a driver of traffic from a large website to a smaller one based on a recommendation from the larger site. What evidence is there that just the presence of a poster drives significant traffic numbers? I do come here to see how Jason is doing, but the claim is that significant changes are due to GBFM making posts.

    1. professorGBFMtm

      ”GBFM, you are confident Sharkly’s motives are anger at not having you make posts at his website?”

      Mine and his biggest feud(even though we had had disagreements before it three times at least ) didn’t start until after i left his site(s) in December 2021.

      ”I am curious, is it a seriously held belief GBFM is a causative reason for traffic? ”

      Read DEREKS ”is the sigma frame blog in decline” [Ed: Link added] post from May 18th ’23 on this site.

      If any evidence for GBFM or if you better prefer i increasing traffic exists it is definitely on that post.
      Read for details on the best 6 months sf ever had traffic and comments-wise.

      What i mostly know myself as far as sf is concerned even at the time it was happening, is once i showed up at sigma frame the average amount of comments per post increased there and i was making only 3 comments myself per post until May ’21 when i increased them a little to an average of five or so per post then i cut back to virtually zero comments by mid-late July ’21 as i did my final sf comment and then jack does the porn couple post a while later and his site is never the same again especially traffic-wise.

      GBFM is the more metaphysical representation of myself and therefore he is interesting and different mainly for just that reason alone- besides anything else i bring to the table for any site.

      He/i is different from most other commenters because he doesn’t fit into any one category that most know , people at first thought GBFM was a gamer in 2010- then in June-July that year he said he was an ex-gamer to their way of thinking.

      GBFM has always been an old-school MGTOW( he doesn’t agree with society on most things as back in the old days MGTOW was less about women and more about male freedom from an uncaring society that loves to push MEN around) who knew PUA game and in-general game extensively but believed in what others will term biblical-based patriarchy that is based mainly on JESUS words in the gospels though.

      1. Derek L. Ramsey

        From October, 2021 to February, 2022, Sigma Frame had a massive drop in comment-based engagement (i.e. the comments per article metric). By contrast, the 8 months prior had the most engagement in the blog’s history (albeit with some notable variability), so the drop off was quite notable.

        What date was the infamous couple post?

        Also, my sampling methodology was not rigorous, so the stats should all be taken with a grain of salt.

        1. professorGBFMtm

          ”From October, 2021 to February, 2022, Sigma Frame had a massive drop in comment-based engagement (i.e. the comments per article metric). By contrast, the 8 months prior had the most engagement in the blog’s history (albeit with some notable variability), so the drop off was quite notable.”

          Like i said before the real build-up of success there at sf began with NovaSeeker writing posts at sf with the first on December 18th 2020(Nova’s first post there) then continued with i joining the site on 2021-02-18 at 6:24 am when i did my first comment on another NovaSeeker written post which is still the biggest sf post as far as the number of comments are concerned at now 395 comments.

          i and Nova was essentially the quarterback and team captain of the sf Superbowl-winning football Team if you prefer that nfl analogy with at least a dozen other commenters doing the rest of the successful teamwork on those posts too.

          It was similar to the 2012-’15 years at Dalrock in that regard as the main commenters with Dalrock and GBFM leading the way made the blog super successful beyond even what it had already had by October-November 2011-which was good as far as the rest of the MANosphere was experiencing at the time too then it moved to be the most popular Christian-MANosphere blog there was-once GBFM came to it in summer 2012.

          After GBFM was ”blacklisted” by Dalrock, the blog had a tough time getting even 100 comment posts after previously experiencing a few 400,500, and 700(but usually averaging 150-350 comments per post ) comment posts during the GBFM years.

          All these things are not a secret.

          ”What date was the infamous couple post?”

          2021-09-20.

          This is the main cause for the biggest drop-off in success there between October, 2021 to February, 2022 as you noted.

          1. Liz

            The thread was entitled “Lessons on Life and Marriage from Matthew 10”
            and the commentary was illuminating.
            The commentary alone is worth the read, for sure.
            Some folks said an awful lot about their own judgement, and belief system, in very few words.

          2. Derek L. Ramsey

            “All these things are not a secret.”

            There are many not-secret things that nonetheless remain hidden from people, the origin of covid-19 not being a zoonotic leak from a Chinese meat market being high up on the list.

            The interval from the start of NovaSeeker writing posts (December 18, 2020) until the infamous post (September 20, 2021) definitely corresponds to the ~8 month peak in the data I sampled, followed by a severe 5-month drop off in commenting.

            It’s very interesting to me how one post can cause so much lasting damage.

            It is also extremely interesting how Jack @ Sigma Frame assigned you as one of the top 3 active persecutors of his site. I can understand why he thinks my “polemics” are hostile to him, considering that I apparently drive a lot of traffic to his site, but if it is true that you never drove commenting engagement to his site, why would he think that your criticism was meaningful? It’s a logical contradiction: you can’t be both highly influential in terms of engagement and at the same time completely irrelevant.

    2. Lastmod

      Surf,

      I’m okay. I’m not. But I am kind-of-thing.

      I applied to work in the UK and their “Home Office” that handles these matters , its going to be at least six months before it even gets a review. If I was a nurse, I could come over now. If I was a mechanical engineer…….I could name which “kingdom” I wanted live and work in. If I was a medical doctor or surgeon, I would have all moving expenses paid for as well. Airline pilot too.

      LA is okay. Slowly DJ-ing again. Still clean and sober. Car is paid for. Saving money month long vacation to Egypt. But you know how it is….day to day living. Doctor tells me to “quit smoking” but I have lower blood pressure than he does, and as a doctor, he looks like he could drop a good 30 pounds.

      Other than that, overall well. I think mentally more healthy from not being on the other pages. I was reviewing some of my comments over the years…..some of mine were not in the best intention as well 😉

    3. I’ll try to clear some things up. When I posted saying:
      I’m still not hearing any answer as to why you posted a gay porn link here?
      Stuff like that, may have been why this site was classified as pornography in late November 2020, as the following picture showed:

      I didn’t say that GBFM’s link to hardcore gay porn caused that particular temporary “pornography” classification that was shown in the picture. I said “Stuff like that, may have been why”. Meaning that images posted, or sites linked to, enabled the site to get mis-rated as “Pornography”. And I feel that professorGBFMtm’s disguised link to hardcore gay porn was likely intended to get the site rated as a site that redirects people to objectionable hardcore porn. There certainly was no explanation in his/her comment as to why they had sneakily posted a link to a hardcore gay porn site.

      While you have such a rating, you’re next to impossible to find via many search engines. And that is one of the manosphere’s problems, that search engines often make their sites hard to find through searches. So, manosphere sites needn’t give them any reason to slap them with a “pornography” rating which will make them nearly impossible to find.

      Spawny’s Space has been notoriously hard to find by search engine. I often use duckduckgo. A while back I could type in “Spawny’s Space” and their site would not come up in the first few pages, while other less popular sites that mentioned them would appear. Since professorGBFMtm was banned, his prior comments no longer appear at the site, (which is quite refreshing) and just now when I enter that same search in that same search engine the site appears within the first few links returned. Maybe it is just a coincidence, but their searchability seems to have gotten better. I wouldn’t be surprised if gibberish or cut and pasted comments from elsewhere on the web, get penalized by some search algorithms.

      The main reason I think professorGBFMtm was trolling the manosphere was his/her refusal to stop: posting your childish graphics, gibberish, creepy yearnings for your 7-year-old girlfriend, and unexplained copy & pate barrages, at various manosphere sites, all while you are obviously able to comment far more sensibly and more respectful of the audience when you are over at Derek’s contra-manosphere site.

      He had been asked to quit all that crap numerous times. And in fact, in my assessment that is why he left my site. I was putting more and more pressure on him to quit the retarded crap, and he wouldn’t agree to post in a sensible contributing way (like he has done here at Derk’s site opposed to the manosphere) that wouldn’t make my comments section appear childish and insane, so he left, as I would likely have soon thrown him out if he hadn’t left or quit most of that retarded nonsense.

      ”GBFM is the more metaphysical representation of myself …”

      You post retarded stuff at manosphere sites and refuse to quit it when asked to by all their proprietors. Apparently, a manosphere troll is what you are … metaphysically.

      ProfessorGBFMtm keeps citing site traffic figures, like he really cares a lot about that, as if regulating it is part of his job or mission. And he tries to project that interest onto me. I want to share the truth, and my ideas, in an effort to help defeat satanic Feminism ideologically. It doesn’t really matter where I do it, so much as that the ideas get implanted into likeminded men, and “iron sharpens iron” and they can build on those ideas and then share their input back with myself and others.

      I didn’t make my site until I was banned at Dalrock’s site. Conflict spurs discussion, but I have done things at my site that reduces conflict, knowing that it would cost me audience participation. I have asked women not to comment there, which not only cuts the size of the audience and the number of comments, but also greatly reduces the conflict in the comments section. I wouldn’t have done stuff like that if my goal was to have lots of traffic. Nor do I now post many current events items or sexy topics just to keep a regular audience. I mainly try to post when I feel like I’ve got some unique bit of perspective that ought to be shared. And often I share those things first on other websites.

      I’m not that motivated to make more work for myself managing my blog. I don’t have as much time for it as I’d like. The Christian manosphere is ideally a brotherhood, not a competition. For instance, I’ve often mention what I’m going to post about before I put the post together. On a couple of occasions Jack has then posted about that exact topic and got his post up before mine. But I don’t see him as competition. If he beats me to the punch, that’s fine. Now two people are blogging about the topic I wanted to highlight. And so I have continued to occasionally mention what I’m going to post about, well before I do, because I really don’t mind if Jack posts his thoughts on those same topics at the same time, or before. In fact, it seems to invite more synergy of relevant ideas which suits my goal.

      I’ve got to run for now.

      1. professorGBFMtm

        For those who want to know my commentary.

        ” There certainly was no explanation in his/her comment as to why they had sneakily posted a link to a hardcore gay porn site.”

        i did say” i can’t believe this is allowed on the net or twitter” in that very comment this referred to.

        Acting like their Perry Mason,judge, and jury and then say they care not for success?

        Why did the diligent investigators jack or the above still refuse to bring that up?

        That’s what spurred jack to see what ” i didn’t believe would be allowed on the net or twitter”

        Too many women loving porn is being kept quiet by most but why is the’sphere one of them doing too?

        i can understand why they can’t say feminists forced them to watch it mainly as it leads back to women being seen as sinners ( instead of some supposed prize to be lusted after in ”sexy” pics at their sites like MOD said and to try to win them with money or studying game, frame and lamps-those times were over a decade or more ago) like any MAN.

        ” posting your childish graphics, gibberish, creepy yearnings for your 7-year-old girlfriend, and unexplained copy & pate barrages, at various manosphere sites, all while you are obviously able to comment far more sensibly and more respectful of the audience when you are over at Derek’s contra-manosphere site.”

        Talk about projecting!

        You can’t stop talking of your hero-worshiping girlfriend you once had but i mention my childhood sweetheart a few time’s here and there in ’21(mainly at jack’s site, not your ”too holy for you ”other MEN”” site.)
        And you can never get over i can have pleasant relationships with females=women with or without ”hero-worship”
        Just like ED Kennedy who you didn’t like for his non-hate barrages towards women mainly and him having similarpleasant relationships with females=women with or without ”hero-worship”.

        Fools Playing games of gotcha crap have never accomplished much anywhere let alone this ‘sphere.

        ”He had been asked to quit all that crap numerous times. And in fact, in my assessment that is why he left my site. I was putting more and more pressure on him to quit the retarded crap, and he wouldn’t agree to post in a sensible contributing way (like he has done here at Derk’s site opposed to the manosphere) that wouldn’t make my comments section appear childish and insane, so he left, as I would likely have soon thrown him out if he hadn’t left or quit most of that retarded nonsense.”

        i left your site because of the first 3 disagreements we had where you thought i should write and think exactly like you want me too.

        That,Novaseeker leaving and i being bored in general with the too ”mainstream”i.e. ”safe” g-rated-type (life, in general, is neither extreme of G -rated as Disney use to make people believe like porn makes them believe they can live out their very own x-rated life easily it even crept in as game in the ‘sphere as even married MEN thought i turn my wife into
        my own porn star -how did that work out for most?)redpill that jack preaches, that’s where i give you more credit than jack in that you don’t try to just be a continuation of the latter years of dalrock like he does.

        ”ProfessorGBFMtm keeps citing site traffic figures, like he really cares a lot about that, as if regulating it is part of his job or mission. And he tries to project that interest onto me. I want to share the truth, and my ideas, in an effort to help defeat satanic Feminism ideologically. It doesn’t really matter where I do it, so much as that the ideas get implanted into likeminded men, and “iron sharpens iron” and they can build on those ideas and then share their input back with myself and others.”

        i don’t care about traffic or the number of comments others make a big deal of it as they want ”evidence” for success, but i think the best evidence for the success of the ‘sphere is that blackpillers are very visible now in society.

        Also, i see my job or mission as essentially to be myself i.e. not like everyone else who preaches antifeminism by being naturally different with my way of telling it the way i think it should be done.

        i’ve been like that since i was a small boy.i.e. a teacher didn’t like the way i drew(mostly monsters l in the style of godzilla and the Incredible hulk (she wanted me to draw ”pretty pictures” like what the blue pill or purple pill is for many- one day ) drawings and i still did it my way from then on no matter the supposed pressure from others who knew better but later complain ”I was tricked’.

        All the main early pre- (and during)the golden age MANosphere bloggers/commenters were like that then they wanted to be more ”acceptable” and the success started to evaporate and went underground and came back as the blackpillers who have succeeded in getting the public ‘s attention to issues of MEN & all the vast excesses of feminism beyond what the successful ‘sphere could do by just blogging and commenting.

        The closest society will ever get to cutting back on its excesses concerning women and society’s fear of MEN being in charge of families is now.

        Cutting back on the excesses( and more MEN trusting in JESUS over sex, women, and government) is most likely the best that can be done the way the world is and all.

        i’m out now for i think this post too.

      2. Derek L. Ramsey

        Sharkly,

        “he wouldn’t agree to post in a sensible contributing way like he has done here at Derek’s site opposed to the manosphere”

        Is my site truly opposed to the manosphere? Perhaps so, perhaps not. But the manosphere, as a dead, inhumane entity, deserves no respect, and so should receive none.

        In failing to correct sin within it, at least a portion of the manosphere—Sigma Frame—has shown that it is disobedient to Christ.

        If someone wants to oppose an organization that is not an obedient part of the church, how is that any concern of yours? Do you, instead, think that we must all pray to St. Jack and St. Dalrock, asking them to intercede for us, lest we show disrespect for our Holy Fathers and Holy Mothers of the ‘sphere?

        Lately in the manosphere I’ve found little except for judgment and persecution, not the least of which is coming from you. There is little charity to be found there where—instead of allowing common disagreement—the plain desire of manosphere members is to judge, misrepresent, persecute, condemn, and propagandize (especially when those people are complementarians, egalitarians, or feminists).

        Christ himself said:

        “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

        Frankly, if the professor wants to withhold his most cogent pearls, he has sufficient theological grounds to do so. Christ himself did so, and he told us explicitly to emulate him.

        I oppose viewpoint censorship, so he’s free to say whatever and however he wants here (within the bounds of decency I demand on this forum because I allow my teenage children to read this blog). I suspect the reason he is more cogent here is because he isn’t judged and censored or told what to do, and because this blog is concerned primarily with truthseeking (even though I get a lot wrong).

        Take note:

        “[The Professor] left [Sharkly’s] site because of the first 3 disagreements we had where you thought i should write and think exactly like you want me too.”

        If a person wants pearls, they shouldn’t act like swine (e.g. be judgmental).

        Peace,
        DR

        1. I suspect the reason he is more cogent here is because he isn’t judged and censored or told what to do, and because this blog is concerned primarily with truthseeking (even though I get a lot wrong).

          LOL Well, since your site is so much better for professorGBFMtm’s mental health, and he isn’t the same intractable gibberish-spewing gay-porn-linking conflict-instigating bandwidth-wasting spam-pasting distraction when he is here. Do your best to keep him posting over here. And encourage him to stay away from the “Christian” manosphere where he was pathologically acting out.

  29. Lastmod

    When Jack with a post awhile back had a hubby and wife posting their “naughty” pictures on a link on his sight. He called people “pearl clutching” for criticizing it. Oh, but this hubby was “RP” and a “real man” and “not ashamed of what God gave him”

    That’s the difference. Its not porn when these “men” deem it as such or are trying to prove a point. I could care less what people post on their pages, or what they do in their bedroom, but posting pics of it…..and a link on a “christian” forum just shows me that these men have Egos the size of God and again have to “humblebrag” about how women are attracted to them. Their whole Game and view of manhood is still….an underlying veiled theme of: Your measureof a being a man is how much sex, how often, how many like you or want to have sex with you and how many you could get “if I wasnt married” nonsense.

    They all have just such hard lives. Their whole red pil thing is just getting women to like you. And they say I (and countless men out there) are stuck in “blue pilled” thinking. Who panders to what women want? Who is talking non-stop about “getting her to like and listen to you”

    Its certainly not me, nor millions of other men.

  30. professorGBFMtm

    ”They all have just such hard lives. Their whole red pil thing is just getting women to like you. And they say I (and countless men out there) are stuck in “blue pilled” thinking. Who panders to what women want? Who is talking non-stop about “getting her to like and listen to you”

    Its certainly not me, nor millions of other men.”

    Yes.
    That is a good beginning for my next somewhat metaphysical comment too.

    Also continued from my other comments before the troll showed up yesterday.

    What essentially is a tradcon that i spoke of or supposedly a ”traditional conservative”-which in actuality is emulating(instead of CHRIST) the stereotype of conservatives in a bygone age(1950s mostly) and not reality anyway?

    The following was from one tradcon named Dan(from November 2011):
    ”Men can take control of this. Just don’t be afraid to be single for a while. Work your butt off to get degrees and a good job and otherwise become desirable and then make traditional-mindedness a core criterion. Don’t dabble with dating anybody who is not a good candidate your traditional wife. And tell her your plans for her to be your stay-at-home-while-the-kids-are-small motherly wife clear early. If it scares her away or freaks her out, good. She won’t waste your time or your money…

    This business about men being taken to the cleaners in marriage is BS. If she is willing to have your kids, and you can continue your lineage through her, that is massive! I’d much rather get married and have kids and get divorced than never have kids at all. Although I also hope not to see divorce. Still, people who shy away from the whole thing are weenies.”

    Heres Dalrock’s commentary on him(from November 2011 also:

    ”Yup. I called it! Make sure she knows upfront she will be staying at home. Also Suck it up men, even if your wife does the worst to you, you should call yourself lucky. That has Trad Con all over it.”

    But tradcons who claim the ”red pill” tell you to use game and frame to keep your wife ”happy”.

    Why don’t the Christian ”red pillers” instead tell you what JESUS himself says here about what usually happens to the ”good” (they deny only God’s righteousness can cover the filthy rag(actually only as ”good” as the menstrual blood-stained female sanitary napkins the righteousness of mere humans so they can, in essence, preach the gnostic ”humans are already good except for the body which can only be sinful not the person themselves”) MEN & woMEN{ as that means the first woMAN was by , of and created through the first MAN in case the troll above knows it not(Genesis 2:22-24)}?

    In conclusion?

    Tradcons in general and ”red pill” ones, in particular, preach a worldly success (with and on account of women mainly)while JESUS in these verses preached a spiritual through the earthly body transformed through JESUS atonement on the cross success.

    Matthew Chapter 5:1-12
    The Beatitudes

    1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

    2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

    3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

    5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

    6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

    7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

    8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

    9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

    10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

    12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. ”

    All of those things have happened to me, DEREK, LastMOD & Liz over the past two and a half years with the ”good men of the manosphere” doing it as the troll said here yesterday.

    It makes one wonder who the real ”wolfs in sheep clothing” and ”intentional decievers” are yes?

  31. professorGBFMtm

    Further above concerning the gay porn(all porn is essentially mimicking homosexual behaviors and their lifestyle no matter what you gay porn apologists say mostly white knighting for jacks gay porn link in particular as the troll here does) links at sf ,bgrs(that he had to quit linking to his site over that) and porn elsewhere loving troll , commentary from i one more time.

    LOL Well, since your site is so much better for professorGBFMtm’s mental health, and he isn’t the same intractable gibberish-spewing gay-porn-linking conflict-instigating bandwidth-wasting spam-pasting distraction when he is here.

    This sounds very heroic and ”How to Win Friends and Influence People” with a touch
    of the modern ”Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) to boot with just a hint of tony robinson that you learned to boss people around with , for a troll who loves calling” other” MEN c@nt-worshippers(mostly aimed at catholics) ,made a sherman’s U.S. civil war march to the sea(from 1864) with glorifying union soldiers raping southern women comment at Spawnys aimed against TON in particular and southerners in-general(that he quickly deleted and reprimanded you for),
    ”red pilled” former fornicators(for speaking longingly and lovingly to jacks and other peoples ears who fantasize themselves about living the sinful PUA lifestyle they supposedly denounce ,as you accused LIZ of doing when she spoke of her son about to get married at Spawnys almost 2 years ago now(when you chased her off there) or how you rail against Novaseeker for using ”lawyerly Weasley words”, but now you will clearly target Deti for being ”too popular”also.

    ” Do your best to keep him posting over here. And encourage him to stay away from the “Christian” manosphere where he was pathologically acting out.”

    Most like jack know how bitter you are against i,Novaseeker and about a dozen other commenters(including LastMOD, LIZ &TON(in ’21)& in 2022/’23 DEREK himself got sf more successful than anyone of late) for making his site successful when you didn’t mainly do to your bitterness, mental illness that you accuse others of having and general hatred for anyone you see as not as much like you as possible.

    But all of that is true of most redpill tradcons not just you.

    So i know your just trying ”to win friends and influence tradcons” or your own kind of people in other words.

  32. Derek L. Ramsey

    [NOTE: This is a response to this comment up-thread]

    Sharkly,

    “Your contention that if somebody makes an error, that they should give up their belief, is just silly. If you take that to its literal conclusion, anybody who has ever made a typo needs to abandon their faith in God.”

    No, rather anyone who has disproved their belief should give up their false belief. This does not require the abandonment of one’s faith in God. Indeed, by acknowledging the truth that women were made in the image of God, you will strengthen your own faith in God.

    Let me remind you (and other readers) precisely what was being discussed at the time:

    Then you cited your previous work here

    …concluding that…

    ““Them” (Male and female) do not refer to the image of God but just to “He created”.”

    Here are the verses in question…

    “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them…” — Genesis 1:27a

    …and…

    “…male and female he created them.” — Genesis 1:27b

    …and…

    “When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created.” — Genesis 5:1b-2

    It is absolutely essential to your argument that the first and second clauses of Genesis 1:27 are separate from the third clause. Your error was that you claimed that there was a sentence break between them.

    What do you think it shows when someone is simultaneously (1) willing to make expansive, exclusive, and theologically binding claims about Hebrew grammar that go against the entire field of biblical scholarship, including those who have dedicated their lives to the Ancient Hebrew language; and (2) capable of forgetting that Hebrew is read from right-to-left? Has anyone who is qualified to make such judgments ever made so truly fundamental an error, whether or not they were tired? Tell me truly, how would you treat the authority of such a person? What would you think of the credibility of that person if they took two months to admit their mistake?

    You absolutely still believe that the first and second clauses are separate from the third clause. The article on your blog from 2020 makes it clear that your belief is not some one-off, late-night mistake. You’ve long since realized that if the clauses all go together, than your viewpoint is disproved.

    So the fact is, when you challenged me, the fact that were wrong about there being a division between the third clause and the first and second clauses was—and remains—highly relevant.

    Because there is no break between clauses, they are not part of a separate sentence. Because they are not part of a separate sentence, they indicate—by your own claims from 2020— that women are made in the image of God.

    The point of your “mistake” is that there is no such division between clauses. It doesn’t exist anywhere but your own mind. The only mistake you made is accidentally exposing your own error to yourself.

    Your argument was fundamentally valid when you made it, its just that the conclusion no longer works in your favor, so you want me to throw it out. But it still remains a logically valid argument! Just because you mistakenly made a logically valid argument doesn’t invalidate the argument you made. You don’t actually get to withdraw a logically valid argument just because it inconveniences you. That’s what “attacking the idea and not the person” means.

    I’m, naturally, quite willing to accept that your argument wasn’t one you would defend in your sober moments. You were tired and distracted. But you also let the mask slip when you made a good point that happened to destroy your own argument. Your reaction was, unfortunately, to put the mask back on. It’s not that I’m not allowing you to make an error and take it back, it’s that your challenge was fundamentally a valid one for you to make, regardless of whether or not it turned out in your favor.

    The fact of the matter is that if the lack of a sentence break in Genesis 1:27 doesn’t destroy your argument, then the presence of a sentence break in Genesis 5:1-2—which doesn’t exist in the original either—doesn’t support your argument. And, besides, Genesis 5:1-2 quite explicitly says “them” is both Adam and “male and female”. No sentence break changes that.

    Your spin is revisionist history—making more than mistake about the placement of a sentence break—…

    “The other was over the uninspired punctuation some Hebrew texts have added to the Bible. In the wee hours of the morning, long after I should have been in bed, while switching back and forth between Greek and Hebrew at Biblehub, based upon where they wrapped the text for my particular screen resolution, and a momentary lapse, I saw a portion of the Hebrew text backwards and believed a punctuation mark existed where my screen had divided and wrapped the text. I shouldn’t even have bothered to mention it since the punctuation was a later addition that is not standardized among all the Hebrew texts, as you pointed out, but in my haste, I threw that into that one comment here on your site.”

    …because you neglected to mention you also said this calumnious statement:

    The only one who has demonstrably failed to look at the grammar, tried to obscure what was actually written, and made gender excuses is you.

    In, perhaps, half of my comments to you (like this one and this one), I implore you set aside moral superiority and to not to pass judgment, but rather to focus only on the facts and analysis of ideas. This is why I ultimately quoted Matthew 18 and Romans 14.

    Had you stuck to the facts, then there wouldn’t be any reason to hold you to a higher standard. But you equate your viewpoints with the moral high ground. Disagreement with those viewpoints is equated to apostasy, sin, and condemnation by the One True God.

    I don’t aggressively go after people merely for disagreeing with me. It is those who presume to take the sole role of judging others that receive special attention. For example, Gunner Q here and Dalrock here. My contention is that people should make up their own minds and stop being judgy judges judging. Notice how in both those cases, plus this one, I consistently point out that the alternative to being judgy judges judging is to follow Matthew 18.

    Peace,
    DR

    1. So, are you now admitting that the Hebrew verse breaks and punctuation are uninspired later additions? Because, if you do, then there is little point in still arguing over them, other than to sway those who might not know any better. To whom my argument about the verse breaks was intended to show that those who held them to be “proof” of anything, should notice how Genesis 5 broke a similar poem exactly where you say no break is permitted in Genesis 1.

      As to the grammar which you’ve shown above (note I didn’t say punctuation) it says that being made “in the image” was masculine singular and done to “him”.(also masculine singular) While God refers to Himself in the plural. And says that a singular masculine entity was created in the image of god(s). And then mentions that plural them were created, while conspicuously not mentioning that creation being done in the image of God.

      That is how I first came about the early church’s belief. When I examined Genesis 1:26-27 and noted how meticulously God went out of His way to never say that the woman/female was in His image after saying four times that His image or likeness was applied to the singular masculine being, named Adam.

      Even my uncle who has dedicated his life to being a professor of Biblical Languages wrote, “there is no specific verse that states that ‘women are made in God’s image’”. He would not make the claim that Genesis 1:27 states that women are made in God’s image, even though he holds the popular belief that they are.

      After that got me thinking about the image of God, I found 1 Corinthians 11:7 which specifies males as being the image and glory of God (masculine singular) and contrasting women as being the glory of men.

      1 Corinthians 11:7 A man shouldn’t have his head covered, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is man’s glory. (and thus her head is commanded to be covered during prayer, because she is not as the man is)

      Then I discovered that early church fathers, such as “Doctor of the Church” Augustine wrote saying that the apostle Paul had written that women are not the image of God, and that it doesn’t contradict what is written in Genesis.

      It really isn’t complicated to accept; God always identifying Himself as masculine, once you give up your desire to keep women as likenesses of a hermaphrodite god/goddess.

      1. Derek L. Ramsey

        “are you now admitting that the Hebrew verse breaks and punctuation are uninspired later additions?”

        Of course they are not original, nor did Christ himself have access to any scriptures that contained them. There is nothing to admit, for it is simply historical fact.

        “if you do, then there is little point in still arguing over them”

        Why not? I argue over verse breaks often. They are extremely relevant to biblical interpretation.

        “To whom my argument about the verse breaks was intended to show that those who held them to be “proof” of anything, should notice how Genesis 5 broke a similar poem exactly where you say no break is permitted in Genesis 1.”

        To whom the argument was about? That’s you! It is extremely important to you that there are breaks there, because if you don’t imply a break, your theology breaks.

        “When I examined Genesis 1:26-27 and noted how meticulously God went out of His way to never say that the woman/female was in His image after saying four times that His image or likeness was applied to the singular masculine being, named Adam.”

        But God didn’t do that. You very carefully and meticulously erred. The meaning of the collective noun `adam does not imply biological sex.

        There is no place in the Old Testament where the word `adam by itself explicitly and unambiguously refers to a man or group of men to the necessary exclusion of women, and so you cannot infer that the meaning of the term implies maleness. It just as—if not more so—credibly refers to ‘mankind.’ Moreover, there is no necessary distinction whatsoever for `adam to imply the sex of persons referred: the context of each use is sufficient.

        By contrast, in Genesis 5:1-2, the Bible explicitly calls male and female `adam and says that `adam was made in the image of God, therefore male and female are made in the image of God.

        “Even my uncle who has dedicated his life to being a professor of Biblical Languages wrote, “there is no specific verse that states that ‘women are made in God’s image’”. He would not make the claim that Genesis 1:27 states that women are made in God’s image, even though he holds the popular belief that they are.”

        So what? The Old Testament also has no specific verse that says “Men are made in the image of God.” But what it does say—”Mankind are made in the image of God”—necessarily logically implies that both that men and women are made in the image of God.

        This is similar to the argument that the Bible never says that abortion is wrong, as if it God is obligated to spell it out explicitly in precisely the words that you demand of God in order for God to have declared it so.

        God could have used the Hebrew word for man when talking about Adam, but he didn’t.

        Let’s further note that of `adam that:

        “[James] Barr does not himself adduce any evidence that a male person or a group of males are called [`adam]. Rather, he limits himself to saying that while a man can be called a [`adam], a woman cannot be called [`adam]”

        The issue under debate is whether `adam refers to the collective of human persons or the collective of males.

        Consider Genesis 6:2:

        “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men”

        Here one must beg-the-question regarding the meaning of `adam to deny that women are members of `adam. It works quite well to say that they are human daughters as opposed to sons of God, that is, of human vs divine stock.

        Consider also Ecclesiastes 7:28:

        “I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.”

        …which is a Hebrew poetic parallelism with Ecclesiastes 7:29:

        “God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes.””

        It is equally reasonable and intelligible to compare one woman against the collective of humanity vs the collective of males. However, in this specific case, if `adam could only mean males, then the verse would be a tautology: for out of a thousand males, of course you can’t find any females. Moreover, the parallelism wouldn’t make sense. It is sensible to conclude that `adam must mean human or person, and not male.

        You can go through every single example of `adam and none of them require the word to mean male. Every single use of the word `adam is viable as person without any contradiction. The only reason to conclude that `adam refers to male instead of human or person is if you have a prior commitment to that claim.

        We don’t look at Genesis 9:5 and say that the death penalty is only justified when a male is murdered, because `adam refers to both male and female. Killing a human is the problem, not killing a male.

        1. What rubbish!

          In a previous comment you quoted a Bible translation (was it that UC Berkely guy’s Bible?) that doesn’t even try to translate the text, but says what Feminists wish the text said:

          “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them…”

          In the first spot the word (hā·’ā·ḏām) includes the definite article, so it should read “the man” as opposed to mankind, and in the second place the direct object is a third person masculine singular pronoun (’ō·ṯōw) which would be “him” not them. The text makes clear that it was a single masculine Adam that it says was made in God’s image. Which is why all the translators who didn’t really believe that, but wanted to stay true to the text, still translated it as “him”, even though that works against their Feminist belief.
          —————————————————

          1 Kings 11:3 tells us that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Which makes exactly 1000 women.

          The word translated as “woman” in Ecclesiastes 7:28 also equally means “wife”. The Amplified Classic Bible even explains it for you:

          Ecclesiastes 7:28(AMPC) Which I am still seeking but have not found—one upright man among a thousand have I found, but an upright woman among all those [one thousand in my harem] have I not found.

          So in that very verse, that you chose, if you look at all the surrounding (singular) words, it is clear that (’ā·ḏām) is being used as one single “man” and not mankind.
          https://biblehub.com/interlinear/ecclesiastes/7.htm

          So, now that you’ve made further Feminist errors, are you ready to give up your beliefs? Do your silly rules get applied to yourself? LOL

          And did you consult a Hebrew dictionary or lexicon before you said that Adam doesn’t mean “a man”?
          Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, lists: “a man” as definition #1 for Adam and definition #3 is: proper name, masculine Adam, first man
          That was another of your errors, when you said ’ā·ḏām couldn’t be a proper name. Did you abandon your erroneous beliefs when I showed you that error, or others? LOL No, you stubbornly cling to your blasphemous Feminist idolatry.

          1. Derek L. Ramsey

            Sharkly,

            “In a previous comment you quoted a Bible translation (was it that UC Berkely guy’s Bible?) that doesn’t even try to translate the text, but says what Feminists wish the text said: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them…””

            You mean the NIV, the most mainstream Bible interpretation there is?

            Translating `adam as “mankind” in this verse is the most accurate and faithful translation possible. Nevermind that “God created man in His own image” and “God created mankind in his own image” means the same thing.

            “And did you consult a Hebrew dictionary or lexicon before you said that Adam doesn’t mean “a man”?”

            Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, “A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament.” (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907), page 9.

            “Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, lists: “a man” as definition #1 for Adam and definition #3 is: proper name, masculine Adam, first man That was another of your errors

            You think so, do you?

            According to Brown-Driver-Briggs in the citation above, there is only one place outside of the unique—and easily explained—usage in Genesis 2-3 where `adam means a man or group of men as explicitly opposed to a woman or group of women. That place is Ecclesiastes 7:28.

            In fact, I chose to highlight this exact verse because of BDB. It represents the best and strongest evidence you possibly have to support your argument about the image of God. It is your best chance, but even so it isn’t very strong.

            Outside of these isolated instances—Genesis 2-3 and Ecclesiastes 7:28—every other one of the references to `adam in the Old Testament is plainly not exclusionary of women, that is, even when the subject is a male or group of males—that is, the context—the word itself does not imply maleness. To wit:

            “There is no place in the Old Testament where the word `adam by itself explicitly and unambiguously refers to a man or group of men to the necessary exclusion of women, and so you cannot infer that the meaning of the term implies maleness. It just as—if not more so—credibly refers to ‘mankind.’ Moreover, there is no necessary distinction whatsoever for `adam to imply the sex of persons referred: the context of each use is sufficient.”

            Accordingly, I need only focus my time and effort on the contested use of ‘adam in Genesis 2-3 and Ecclesiastes 7:28.

            And so I have four simple observations.

            First, BDB necessarily invalidates your favorite arguments on Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:1-2, because `adam doesn’t exclude women there (in fact, the text includes both male and female as `adam).

            Second, the case for Ecclesiastes 7:28 is apparently contradictory and extremely weak. Consider the bespoke parenthetical:

            “[one thousand in my harem]”

            Frankly, I could probably rest my case right there.

            Third, regarding Adam being a proper name, you continue to neglect what a lexicon is and how it functions, and so you draw unfounded conclusions by misusing it.

            Fourth, at best your argument is speculative: on the face of it, our views of Ecclesiastes 7:28 are both equally plausible. But at worst your explanation is an absurd tautology. This is hardly the refutation you think it is.

            Peace,
            DR

          2. “You mean the NIV, the most mainstream Bible interpretation there is?”

            Argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because many people think so.

            Now that I have “proved” how your reasoning is based upon an obvious logical fallacy, (which I don’t even have to stretch or redefine) are you ready to abandon your woman-worship and your perversion of Scripture just to suit your conformity to populist groupthink?

            LOL See! Anybody can enjoy naming & claiming logical fallacies as if doing so magically makes you right, and the person the “fallacy” label is pinned to wrong.

  33. [Ed: this is a response to this comment]

    “So long as you keep pushing falsehoods here, I will keep responding.”

    I only come here to defend my name against the attacks you keep posting about me and the early church doctrine I’ve shared.

    “Even if you were right about me in your personal attacks, the attacks are still ad hominem fallacies …”

    That right there, where you call something which you define as being “right” a “fallacy” is part of why we clash. Your definitions of What is “false” or what is “proven” are not the same definitions that most people use. You effectively say that something is false (or a fallacy) just because it is an example of ad hominem when not all ad hominem statements are false. You have used ad hominem statements yourself. Yet you don’t make any effort to call your own usages fallacies, just your ideological opponent’s.

    You wrongly label something a fallacy, and then go on to say that you have proven it false, just by calling it by a fallacy name. You name & claim these “logical fallacies” like mantras of faith that magically make you right, even in situations where you acknowledge that the other side might be right. When you say “proven” you just mean that you’ve reaffirmed that you are right in your own eyes, by naming & claiming the name of some logical fallacy that most other people would not even consider applicable.

    If you really don’t want me responding here, stop spewing lies about me.

    And your definition of a lie is not the only possible definition for that word.

    Lie: To speak falsely, to convey a false image or impression, a falsehood, anything designed or adapted to produce false conclusions or expectations. To make a false impression, either consciously or unconsciously; hold forth a misleading or deceitful appearance; act or manifest an untruth. An untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer. To express what is false.
    Etymology: From Middle English lien (“to lie, tell a falsehood”)
    Synonyms: Untruth, deception.
    These are words often used in combination with lie: absolute lie, blatant lie, deliberate lie.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “And your definition of a lie…”

      …is the definition of the orthodox church, and of the Bible itself, and of Jesus specifically. You can twist and contort the etymology of words however you want and it doesn’t change the fact that (1) I did not lie; (2) you are spreading falsehoods (not lies, because you legitimately think they are not false).

      ““Even if you were right about me in your personal attacks, the attacks are still ad hominem fallacies …” That right there, where you call something which you define as being “right” a “fallacy” is part of why we clash.”

      Here is your ad hominem:

      ““You’re a stubborn loser [..] declaring yourself a winner, until your opponent tires of playing with you.”

      Now, recall that ad hominem is:

      “You attacked your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.”

      Which is precisely what you did in that quote above, calling me a loser in an attempt to undermine my argument. And the fact that you did so undermines the argument you were in the process of making that you didn’t commit logical fallacies. In other words, by demonstrating fallacious reasoning, you prove that you engage in fallacious arguments, thus fortifying my argument.

      So, no…

      You wrongly label something a fallacy”

      …not only didn’t I falsely label it a fallacy, but you just pie yourself in the face by saying such obviously false things.

      “You name & claim these “logical fallacies” like mantras of faith that magically make you right,”

      Your use of fallacies—like the ad hominem above—don’t magically make me right, they make you wrong. I know I’ve said this before, and I don’t know why you can’t accept it: logical fallacies apply to the argument being made, not the person noticing the fallacy.

      And as I’ve said before, if I thought you engaging in fallacious reasoning automatically proved me right, I would be engaging in a logical fallacy. This is why assuming my motive like this is so completely absurd. Which just goes to show that you should stop judging me and stick to my actual ideas.

      “Your definitions of What is “false” or what is “proven” are not the same definitions that most people use.”

      I’m not concerned with progressive leftists who insist that there is only one proper way to define words: their way. Attempts to control language are a type of censorship. I’m not swayed by your attempt to censor my speech by telling me how I must use language.

      You know what I mean by “false” and “proven”, and so there is no reason for you to complain about how I use words. You understand what I mean, so you have no reason to complain about it.

      If you really don’t want me responding here, stop spewing lies about me.”

      I have yet to spew a single lie about you. You can write hundreds of comments containing thousands of falsehoods, and you’ll still be able to write one more.

      “You have used ad hominem statements yourself. “

      Go ahead and prove it then! Here is the thing. I can search the comment history, and verify this claim. I have the receipts that show that you should have done your research before you made this spurious claim, just like here:

      Do you know what I found in your comment history? This quote from you:

      “Just because the Bible uses and advocates ad hominem evaluation as a way to filter your church leaders”

      It turns out you have no call at all to get all righteously indignant about me using an ad hominem against you. Your own personal position is that ad hominem is acceptable, so it would be mighty inconsistent of you to complain about me doing what you plainly think is acceptable. Sure, I’d be violating my own standard, but you’d also be violating your own by suddenly caring.

      In any case, you’ve twice claimed I committed an ad hominem. Let’s look at them. Here is the first time:

      First, the association fallacy isn’t an ad hominem, but since it is closely related, let’s let this one pass, shall we? It’s okay to widen the scope of things in broader, more all-inclusive ways that don’t fundamentally alter the point, wouldn’t you agree?

      Second, I wasn’t attacking you, so it wasn’t an ad hominem:

      Since I didn’t associate you with the sin and I wasn’t using it in the context of your argument anyway, I can’t possibly be guilty of attacking you instead of your argument.

      Now, here is the second time:

      This is also not an ad hominem, because I’m wasn’t even talking about you, let alone attacking you personally because you are divorced. Moreover, I only referred to marital advice given out by the teachers in the manosphere who are themselves divorced, which is the biblical teaching. To wit:

      But even here I didn’t discount Deti’s opinions because he is divorced, I was agreeing with him that the manosphere is dead! I said that in the opinion of outsiders it would be stupid to take marital advice from a divorced man, to which I agreed that this is a mostly true generalized statement.

      Remember what an ad hominem is?

      “You attacked your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.”

      I’m wasn’t even addressing anyone’s argument, so how could I possibly be guilty of an ad hominen? I was agreeing with Deti that the manosphere is dead, not attacking his character to discredit his argument. You clearly didn’t understand what I was arguing.

      So in summary, the two times you accused me of using an ad hominem were spurious. And that’s it. I scanned my comment history and there is no other instance. I’ll be happy to accept your apology for making this statement without a proper citation:

      “You have used ad hominem statements yourself. “

      And maybe then you can finally admit that in terms of the ad hominem (1) I have labeled the fallacy correctly; and (2) you have labeled it spuriously.

      1. Dude, you went off down a rabbit trail.
        “Ad hominem” means “to (the) man”. Meaning that you are saying something against the source person, not arguing solely against his idea. It isn’t automatically a “fallacy” to address the person, as Jesus Christ Himself did, correctly calling His ideological opponents all sorts of names. That didn’t ever make Him wrong or a spreader of fallacies. The early church fathers were constantly saying that their ideological opponents were apostates on their way to damnation, as also taught the apostles in their New Testament epistles, whose example the early church fathers followed.

        “Your own personal position is that ad hominem is acceptable …”
        Yes, when it is correct and relevant, exactly like how Jesus Christ used it. Like when the Pharisees asked him a question and he went on for a chapter condemning their wickedness with many “woes”.

        Matthew 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

        “Attempts to control language are a type of censorship.”

        So is regulating pornography. Attempting to prevent the perversion of our languages which God first originated, isn’t an act of evil. And it can be done to try to assure better communication and to prevent the distortion of past writings, like the Bible. The reason why we have dictionaries (to regulate language) is to try to facilitate communication, not to encourage verbal anarchy resulting in confusion.

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          “Dude, you went off down a rabbit trail. “Ad hominem” means “to (the) man” Meaning that you are saying something against the source person, not arguing solely against his idea..

          Uh, I know what ad hominem means. I just wrote a whole comment about it. Let’s remind you about this

          “Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of attacking his or her argument.”

          …and this

          “Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”

          …and this

          “Ad hominem fallacy (or ad hominem) is an attempt to discredit someone’s argument by personally attacking them. Instead of discussing the argument itself, criticism is directed toward the opponent’s character, which is irrelevant to the discussion.”

          …and this

          “Ad hominem, (Latin: “against the man”) type of argument or attack that appeals to prejudice or feelings or irrelevantly impugns another person’s character instead of addressing the facts or claims made by the latter.”

          …all of which sum up to say exactly what I already said: you said this false statement…

          “You have used ad hominem statements yourself.”

          …which I demonstrated by completely ripping apart your two false claims. You have yet to admit your error yet, by the way. Meanwhile, you committed your own ad hominem fallacy by calling me a loser, very clearly inpugning me rather than addressing the facts. You have yet to admit that error yet either. But you know, it’s definitely a “rabbit trail” to expose your false claims and your errors. Uh huh.

          “It isn’t automatically a “fallacy” to address the person, as Jesus Christ Himself did, correctly calling His ideological opponents all sorts of names.”

          Yes, applause, you’ve finally come to recognize that failing to address someone’s argument is not an argument against them! Now turn the mirror inward and notice that you are now trying to justify your own judgmental attitude after failing to address my argument. You’ve finally admitted that you never had any intention to engage with me in a fair and rational way, but instead have claimed the right to ignore my arguments and judge others just as Jesus ignored arguments and judged others. Congratulations!

          The next time you are tempted to spread falsehoods against me in the name of Christ, just keep in mind that you were arguing in bad faith in the name of Christ the whole time. You never had any intention of engaging with my arguments, when you can just discount them in the name of Christ as if the words you speak are also the Word of God.

          You think it’s okay to engage in the ad hominem fallacy—literally being uncharitable—because Christ himself spoke the Word of God, every word out of his mouth was true, and so he had no need to argue with anyone. You think you are equal to Christ! I’ve never seen such epic special pleading in anyone since even my first days on the internet, which is an impressive feat. I stand astonished by this achievement.

          Why didn’t you tell me, from the beginning, that you had no intention of dealing with me honestly? Had you merely said…

          “I’m going to judge you to hell and call you names if you disagree with me, and I’m going to do it in the name of Christ Jesus. Christ Jesus doesn’t care about your arguments, evidence, and reason, and neither do I. I’ve decided you are an enemy of Christ, so I don’t have to even consider the validity of your arguments.”

          …I would have walked away and we never would have even started talking at Spawny’s. Instead, you acted as if you care about discovering the truth through the free exchange of ideas through debate. But you just want to proselytize and condemn in the name of Christ. Well good for you. Do you feel satisfied and happy about the outcome?

          1. Just because I don’t want to take the time to catalogue your name calling and personal insults, doesn’t mean that you don’t make them. Are you really oblivious to why people ban you? Recently you wrote: “Your ignorance of circular reasoning is akin to Dunning-Kruger. You simply do not know what you are talking about …”

            While you imagine your comments couldn’t contain even a whiff of ad hominem because you are enlightened so far above ever using such methods. To most people that sort of comment is viewed as insulting the other person’s intelligence.

            You might as well have said, “you’re so stupid that you lack the metacognition to even realize how stupid you are. You don’t know what you’re talking about.” Ah but it is just good rational debate when it drops from your lips. ‘Cuz only other folks are insulting.

            How is that too much different from me saying that you’re wrong and foolishly idolatrous, and that you need to wise up so that you can repent for the sake of your own eternal soul?

            I warn you that you’re blasphemously neutering God the Father, and idolizing women as the image and glory of God, and my chastisement bounces off your stubbornly silly head like an eraser.

            Of course I want to proselytize. I’m not here to return to apostate church-based Feminism. I’m here to spread awareness of God the Father and Son’s holy patriarchal order, and to see the name of our Father in heaven be hallowed and His images here on earth be reverenced. (Ephesians 5:33) While I ask women professing godliness to rightly adorn themselves with shamefacedness. (1 Timothy 2:9-10) I wouldn’t come here if I were just seeking the truth. I’d be searching the scriptures and the writings of keen observers of the natural world who aren’t duped by the Great Whore into thinking womankind image our masculine Godhead.

            Remember when Rome claimed Mary was a Co-redemptrix and equal with Christ? Why only come half way back, still leaving her sex as the image of divinity? Why do you need your Godhead to still be imaged by women? Return to believing what the church believed before Rome seized power.

            1 Corinthians 11:7 A man shouldn’t have his head covered, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is man’s glory.

            Ambrosiaster wrote: “Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. … A woman therefore ought to cover her head, because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.”

  34. Lastmod

    “The Manosphere Is Dead”

    No, I wouldnt say that……what has happened since the waning of the last century is that because of the Internet, men have found “niches” and “communities” of a sort that help them, or the common “online friendships”

    Again, the Rich Coopers, Bathrobe Man (Hamza) and the countless other like them Christian or not still think and believe with most men:

    *Just go to church / join a gym / man-up / get a STEM degree and all your dreams will come true (who is talking and behaving like little girls here from a Grimm fairy tale here??). Now notice the COMMENTS on said blogs and v-blogs. 99% are men saying how “awesome” they are with women, with life, with career, with getting IOI’s from women, how they “dont put up with any BS from women, or a potential date, or at work, or in their marriage” It’s a preaching to the choir.

    *Any man who doesnt tow the line *exactly* will be piled upon. Smeared, or corrected with confusing language, charts and graphs…piles of axioms, rules, peppered with Scripture quotes. Telling you how easy it is, but if its indeed hard….you STILL are not doing their methods (or Gods) correctly.

    *Classism. Most of these men hate their fellow man. If Mr. Scawny walks into their church v Mr. Hot Shot guess who is going to be treated as “god working through him” v “god needs him to repent and suffer forever”

    *Men are more petty than women at times when it comes a “pecking” order. I notice with my team, I try very hard when we have a full meeting…..and sometimes…..the head custodian of a property has a crazy idea that actually might work. Seen it many times. He speaks up to me…why? Because he knows I still respect him as a man, even though my positions is above his. The Manosphere respects men only on how much sex they get or can get
    *The Manosphere may not be like NOW or other “feminists” organizations but they no longer are HELPING men. Its a big circle jerk. The modern Pharisees all “so devout” to the cause….they forgot 80% of the men they claim to love and want to help….they actually hate

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      Lastmod,

      Perhaps I was unclear that by the death of the manosphere, I mean its death as a force for widespread social change. It’s scope—its influence—is growing smaller over time. Long-form writing—especially blogging—is largely going the way of MySpace. The central conceit of the manosphere (e.g. as a men’s rights activist movement) is dead.

      Niches designed for men will continue to exist. They will always exist. The manosphere won’t really be a unified manosphere, but will grow into even more fragmented niches on many disparate forums.

      I’ve seen comments on other blogs recently (e.g. Sigma Frame, Spawny’s Space) that seem to imply that division within the sphere is a bad thing and should be discouraged, but it is truly inevitable and should be embraced. Fragmentation is here to stay, so fighting it is counterproductive.

      So Sigma Frame might help a certain kind of man, while another blog that opposes it will help another kind of man. For those religious Christians among us, it is like Roman Catholics are good for one type of person, Orthodox for another, and Protestants/Anabaptists for everyone else, with little cohesion between them required.

      But ultimately, even if, as you say, members of the manosphere agree that you just need to man-up, tow the line, be in the right class of people, or have the right in-born attributes, the ‘sphere will still be fragmented.

      Or to put it simply: there will always be grifters grifting the same grift, but they will be ever more independent and fragmented.

      It’s also worth noting that the metaphorical “clicks are down” also applies to organized religion. Mainstream churches and denominations are also being phased out: Christianity is utterly dead as a force for society/government, structural authority, group cohesion, and an improved future state. All that’s left is Christianity for the individual going his own way… with Christ.

      Peace,
      DR

      1. Lastmod

        Very well said.

        The “atomization” will continue and I believe the manosphere fell into this unintentionally. The forces that run the “real game” want a continued “atomized” population. Less and less people to depend on family (destroyed through ‘great society” of the 1960’s and other economic means ),

        Friends (despite what church-going male members say, most men have no one to call when a call has to be made now…cancer, strange lumps, depression….the air family and friends will just tell you the “should have done” statements “you should have built up a solid network of righteous men who who want to help you” atypical Davie Ramsey advice, feel-good christian advice, all done to signal they they did it right, and you did it wrong.)

        Clubs. One of the last “supper clubs” closed in the USA recently, in Fresno California. This, the Elks, the Rotary, the Lions Club…..other like it now have no standards, values or foundational base. The ast thing the powers that be in church, government, and basic civics is to have a group of people together…..unless….it is sanctioned and approved by what is deemed the “cause” or “virtue” or “calling” of the moment.

        My manosphere christian friends will disagree, but just listen for a second.

        The whole cultural revolution in China (1966-1968) was orchestrated from the top down. All of it. All of what we are seeing has and IS being orchestrated. Not in the sense of a secret committee of a few people….but through a long march through the institutions of the USA (and the West). A Chinese American told me once (who lived through the Cultural Revolution, denounced his own mother and grandfather) this

        “In your country, when the truth slowly came out about Stalin in the 1950’s after his passing, the ultra-left in the West knew they would NEVER be able to win elections by fair and just means. They knew the USA would never allow this. What has happened was a slow, march through the institutions. The libraries. The schools. The beau acratic levels of government, the agencies. They and those like them never, never gave up their grasp on power, control, causing strife and individual liberty. The march through laws passed, policies slowly enacted. Your legal system. Everything. Even into your non-profits….and your news media. All of it. It didnt happen in one day, or in one generation. It slowly snowballed, and the USA today is one kick to the doorframe, and the whole rotting mess will cave in. Trump will not stop it. Kennedy will not stop it. It will eventually spill into our streets. I saw it in China. Anything to save yourself. Many will say “I would never renounce God” or “my family” but most will….and even you may indeed do this to save your family, or yourself over your neighbor”

        This atomized society will make it much easier. They have a way to go still, but even “trusted” organizations are now inadvertently doing this. The Scouts (which was never going to allow this, I remember those “speeches” until it happened). Wanting men and women angry…..women with their lists, and entitlement, and men with their “obey” or you’re “for the streets”

        chruches have willingly fallen into this, and even the ones that are supposedly “bold” most caved during Covid and more would have if it continued.

        The society itself can be culled when most are stuck in home with a high cost of living, superfluous entertainment, and a gently “getting the used to isolation” (which I am guilty of). Crass materialism (much if it is in modern big box suburban churches, that “love jesus more than anything”

        It has not gone exactly to plan, but Mao and Stalin, and Pol Pot, and Ho Chi Minhn would be so proud of what has been achieved in the past 60 plus year in the West. Along with the usual “post modern” thinkers.

        1. Lastmod

          The Cultural Revolution is something most in the USA still do not understand. It was a civil war of sorts…but it wasnt. It was a “class warfare” taken to an extreme. It was originally meant to rout out “capitalistic thinking” in the Communist Party. A with hunt of sorts. A Spanish Inquisition. Sham drum head court of the NAZI German era.

          It became very quickly a “revenge” against fellow citizens. Exactly what the upper levels of the CCP wanted at that time. A purge. A collapse of old thinking, old customs, old ways and only “the revolution” and “party purity” to be the ultimate goal. It didnt matter if the goal changed mid stream (the *new* thing to be upset about). It didnt matter who was accused. N oone was going to defend you. It was a mob action…….but then

          Production halted in China. Harvest not harvested. Food lines…..and that is the quickest way to get a REAL revolution, a billion people hungry! The message then became “the youth and red guard had to show restraint” and CCP then on a DIME launched the Red Army upon the people they encouraged…and killed them, denouced them. The ones that were too “fervent” had to be dealt with as well. The CCP didnt need the devout either. It needed only ITSELF. Power. Control.

          China was set back a decade by this or more. It lost so many technical people who were needed. It lost local leaders in small rural villages. A generation was lost to only “dogmatic party responses to every question” and so many suffered…but in the end, it kept EVERYONE in line. Behaved. Quiet. Compliant.

        2. Derek L. Ramsey

          All of what we are seeing has and IS being orchestrated. Not in the sense of a secret committee of a few people….but through a long march through the institutions of the USA (and the West). [..] churches have willingly fallen into this, and even the ones that are supposedly “bold” most caved during Covid and more would have if it continued.

          Every institution has been captured. But, I think, not everyone understands by what it has been captured. I’ll write about this in my next post.

  35. professorGBFMtm

    ”It’s scope—its influence—is growing smaller over time. Long-form writing—especially blogging—is largely going the way of MySpace. The central conceit of the manosphere (e.g. as a men’s rights activist movement) is dead.”

    NovaSeeker was actually saying that( plus its mainly MEN over age 35 that still like the long form blog writing) at sf around March/April ’21 in response to a Cameron323 comment i can’t remember which post right now though.

    ”The manosphere won’t really be a unified manosphere, but will grow into even more fragmented niches on many disparate forums.”

    It’s main unification between ’08-’13 was all the MEN being laid off/fired during the MANcession of largely ’07-’09(that NovaSeeker also spoke of at dalrocks blog in 2013) and that were looking for a low-cost way of getting women.

    Without that happening , the huge success that the golden age ‘sphere enjoyed most likely wouldn’t have happened.

    ”I’ve seen comments on other blogs recently (e.g. Sigma Frame, Spawny’s Space) that seem to imply that division within the sphere is a bad thing and should be discouraged, but it is truly inevitable and should be embraced. Fragmentation is here to stay, so fighting it is counterproductive.”

    They like most can’t believe times have changed and that there was very little unity ever spread across a whole group of blogs anyway.

    The ”alliance” between GBFM & dalrock was very loose to begin with at the dalrock blog.

    As was the” alliances” between PUAS & MGTOWS ”with” full blown- MENS Rights Activists-MRAS who thought they could get laws changed.

    ”Christianity is utterly dead as a force for society/government, structural authority, group cohesion, and an improved future state. All that’s left is Christianity for the individual going his own way… with Christ.”

    Certain in the ‘sphere(like y’all don’t know) will certainly not hear that under any conditions!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *