Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker bashes Pride Month, tells women to stay in the kitchen (3 Viewers)

[BlueBayou56]

Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker bashes Pride Month, tells women to stay in the kitchen​

Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker bashes Pride Month, tells women to stay in the kitchen - Yahoo Sports
Do you agree with Harrison?

After delivering some incendiary comments about Covid and President Biden, Butker got around to what he perceives as a woman’s ultimate and rightful place: the kitchen.
“I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolic lies told to you. Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.

 

[Farb]

If you have 18th century values in the 21st century, sure

Did you know that, in the 18th century, the age of consent was 12?

morality does not always change from century to century as evidence by basic values.

Did you know the average life span in the 18th century was 30 to 40 years old?

 

[Farb]

Saul mostly.

Without him, Gentiles would have never been Christian and they would have just been another Jewish sect. So you can probably give him most of the credit.

Second place goes to the First Council of Nicaea that codified most of the early dogma.

Yeah. No and you know who founded the church.

 

[SystemShock]

His commentary regarding neither wanting nor envisioning having that sort of problem is disingenuous. Were that the case he would have turned down the engagement.

As for your comment regarding Christian values? It is flawed. I see much theology/dogma of thre Roman Church. This is not arbitrarily the same as “Christian values” as other denominations might have disagreement. But, no, I asked for Christian values but perhaps I should have narrowed my focus to accommodate more deflection and tap-dancing. Where are the Christian values that are related to women working or not working?

@Booker is much better at this type of historical perspectives, but in a nutshell, it was the Catholic church that put together the Bible, and it was the Catholic church that spread Christianity across Europe, and then the Spaniards/French/Brits throughout the rest of the world through conquest (although the Brits split from the Catholic church in the 16th century). You can't really separate the Catholic church with from "Christian values", values that whether it be the Church of England or the Catholic Church didn't really vary that much. The current "Christian values" you have greatly been shaped by the Age of Enlightenment and the spread of secular humanism.

 

[coldseat]

Yeah. No and you know who founded the church.

Who are you trying to give the credit to? Peter and the early apostles? I guess you can say them, but like I said, the Catholic Church wouldn't be what it is without the Gentiles, and you can give credit for that to Saul.

 

[SystemShock]

morality does not always change from century to century as evidence by basic values.

Did you know the average life span in the 18th century was 30 to 40 years old?

So such life span makes "old enough to bleed, old enough to butcher" morally acceptable, then...

After the end of the dark ages, morality indeed changed from century to century. Nowadays it seems it changes from decade to decade.

I am not sure what you consider a "basic value", but I'll give it a shot, and you can correct me if I am wrong, so let's take killing as an example. The current Christian commandment say "thou shall not kill", although the original commandment in the Torah is shall not commit murder, which is different from just killing.

And that, a mandate not to murder, is not an invention of the Hebrews or the Christians, even if Christians like to think it is.

It is very obvious that, since the very beginning, Christians had no issue with killing. What has changed, it was justifies it, i.e., what makes killing another human being not murder. And that's where morality truly resides, where values reside, in the justification for killing someone.

And that justification has changed considerably through time.

 

[Booker]

@Booker is much better at this type of historical perspectives, but in a nutshell, it was the Catholic church that put together the Bible, and it was the Catholic church that spread Christianity across Europe, and then the Spaniards/French/Brits throughout the rest of the world through conquest (although the Brits split from the Catholic church in the 16th century). You can't really separate the Catholic church with from "Christian values", values that whether it be the Church of England or the Catholic Church didn't really vary that much. The current "Christian values" you have greatly been shaped by the Age of Enlightenment and the spread of secular humanism.

There were other sects of Christians that developed along with and even prior to what became the Catholic Church. But the sect that eventually became the Catholic Church was more successful in their evangelism, labeled other sects as heretics, and once it became an official religion of the Empire, and then the only religion of the Empire (Catholic = 'Universal'), it pushed the other remaining sects out of existence until Martin Luther came along a millenia later.

 

[Booker]

Who are you trying to give the credit to? Peter and the early apostles? I guess you can say them, but like I said, the Catholic Church wouldn't be what it is without the Gentiles, and you can give credit for that to Saul.

It's kind of funny. Paul is the first Christian writer, and is credited with about half the NT (though half of the books credited to him are forgeries). But Paul explicitly credits Cephas/Peter with being the first one Jesus appeared to, so he would seem to be the logical person to credit with founding the cult.

But Paul also says that after Jesus appeared to him that he went straight to evangelizing, swore that what he preached he learned from "no man," and didn't go meet Cephas for three years (and then allegedly only to get to know him), and otherwise is pretty dismissive of him. And indeed, Christianity didn't catch on within the Jewish community, it caught on on among the Gentiles that Paul preached to.

So in a lot of ways Paul is effectively the 'founder' of Christianity in the same way that Ray Crock was the 'founder' of McDonalds.

 

[bird]

@Booker is much better at this type of historical perspectives, but in a nutshell, it was the Catholic church that put together the Bible, and it was the Catholic church that spread Christianity across Europe, and then the Spaniards/French/Brits throughout the rest of the world through conquest (although the Brits split from the Catholic church in the 16th century). You can't really separate the Catholic church with from "Christian values", values that whether it be the Church of England or the Catholic Church didn't really vary that much. The current "Christian values" you have greatly been shaped by the Age of Enlightenment and the spread of secular humanism.

Christian values did change with the Reformation.

Christianity did spread across Europe via the Roman Church. Christianity itself was/has never been completely formed. Even the Nicaean Creed did not fully settle various questions. What it did do was arm the winner with the power of the state. When that state collapsed the Church then assumed temporal power. In essence this is the same method that the priest/shaman class has always utilized. They worked both hand in hand with state/governing power and sought to influence that power to their own benefit.

 

[LovesMusic7360]

So unless a woman decides to work a corporate job, the education, money spent and parental approval is all negated? Don't think much of a stay at home parent do you?

I suppose you also feel that the government paying off student loans is a good move as well, correct?

I never advocated what you posted.

The women in that auditorium spent years learning what they wanted to do for a career for the rest of their lives.

Whether that's at a corporation or starting their own business or working for the government or what ever they choose. They wouldn't have gotten that degree if they didn't plan to go work in the field they spent years to work in.

A woman can work and have a child. Millions of women do that all over this nation.

I made another choice. I worked in the accounting field, which is my education and degree, from high school in the 70s until the mid 90s.

I MADE THE CHOICE, NO ONE ELSE, to become a mom and stay home to raise our child. I was stupid to believe that I could do that then go back to my career when our child was older and in school.

I learned the very hard way, once a woman leaves the work force to raise a child, they can't go back. Or at least not to work for someone.

That is the reason why there are so many older women who start their own business.

I was one of them. Like so many other women, I turned my life long hobby into my new career and started my own business.

I advised my child to not do that. To keep working after having a child. My child took my advice and put their child in day care.

 

[LovesMusic7360]

Like giving a Christian valued based speech at a Christian college?

He can say whatever he wants. He should not lose his job because of it.

However everyone else has the same right to say whatever we want.

We have the right to voice our opinions. Those who agree with them aren't the only people in our nation who have the right to free speech.

 

[LovesMusic7360]

Can you show me the part in the speech where he told the women they should stay home and 'in the kitchen'? Did you watch/listen to it/read it? I seem to recall he spoke to 2 sets of women. The ones that were excited about promotions and then to the one that were excited to begin the their journey of raising a family. Do you think women who chose to raise a family should be excluded and shunned in public discourse? It kind of sounds that way.

Stop changing what I posted.

I never posted "in the kitchen."

If there were women who planned to only stay at home raising kids what were they doing going to college? If they planned to not work and to raise kids, by the age of 22, they would already have started having those kids they wanted. They wouldn't have gone to college.

If you look at this logically, those women wouldn't put in decades of their lives, K through 12 and then 4 or more years of college, to not use their degree. They spent all that time to actually use the education they worked so hard to obtain.

Do you honestly believe that anyone is going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on an education and then not use it?

Would that be expected of a man? No.

Yes those women most definitely plan to have children but like most women in the USA, they will put their kids in day care and go back to work after their maternity leave is over.

They will not throw their education and all those tens of thousands of dollars out the window.

That is what will happen.

 

[MT15]

Stop changing what I posted.

You are learning one of the favorite tactics of two posters here. Farb is one of them who will use this tactic.

 

[MT15]

In which the infamous kicker gets owned two different ways…..

 

[LovesMusic7360]

You are learning one of the favorite tactics of two posters here. Farb is one of them who will use this tactic.

Yes I've encountered that on many boards with the maga people.

It's dishonest and getting extremely old.

 

[Farb]

So such life span makes "old enough to bleed, old enough to butcher" morally acceptable, then...

After the end of the dark ages, morality indeed changed from century to century. Nowadays it seems it changes from decade to decade.

I am not sure what you consider a "basic value", but I'll give it a shot, and you can correct me if I am wrong, so let's take killing as an example. The current Christian commandment say "thou shall not kill", although the original commandment in the Torah is shall not commit murder, which is different from just killing.

And that, a mandate not to murder, is not an invention of the Hebrews or the Christians, even if Christians like to think it is.

It is very obvious that, since the very beginning, Christians had no issue with killing. What has changed, it was justifies it, i.e., what makes killing another human being not murder. And that's where morality truly resides, where values reside, in the justification for killing someone.

And that justification has changed considerably through time.

Yes. Survival of the species kind of demands that humans have offspring before they die.

True, Christians, much like every other people on earth believe killing of another human is bad. What makes it just? intent and wanted outcome I would think are the basic components.

 

[Farb]

In which the infamous kicker gets owned two different ways…..

Where did he say females can't be professionals?

 

[Farb]

Stop changing what I posted.

I never posted "in the kitchen."

If there were women who planned to only stay at home raising kids what were they doing going to college? If they planned to not work and to raise kids, by the age of 22, they would already have started having those kids they wanted. They wouldn't have gone to college.

If you look at this logically, those women wouldn't put in decades of their lives, K through 12 and then 4 or more years of college, to not use their degree. They spent all that time to actually use the education they worked so hard to obtain.

Do you honestly believe that anyone is going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on an education and then not use it?

Would that be expected of a man? No.

Yes those women most definitely plan to have children but like most women in the USA, they will put their kids in day care and go back to work after their maternity leave is over.

They will not throw their education and all those tens of thousands of dollars out the window.

That is what will happen.

Calm down Francis. I am responding to a lot of people and 'in the kitchen' was used. If you didn't say, then I apologize from the bottom of my heart. I had no idea it would ruffle you feathers that bad.
Who gets to decide whether a female wants to get married and have children and go to college? I would say them, so that maybe an answer to your question. Why do you get to tell women what they can spend their money on?

One question, do you believe in student loan forgiveness?

 

[Farb]

I never advocated what you posted.

The women in that auditorium spent years learning what they wanted to do for a career for the rest of their lives.

Whether that's at a corporation or starting their own business or working for the government or what ever they choose. They wouldn't have gotten that degree if they didn't plan to go work in the field they spent years to work in.

A woman can work and have a child. Millions of women do that all over this nation.

I made another choice. I worked in the accounting field, which is my education and degree, from high school in the 70s until the mid 90s.

I MADE THE CHOICE, NO ONE ELSE, to become a mom and stay home to raise our child. I was stupid to believe that I could do that then go back to my career when our child was older and in school.

I learned the very hard way, once a woman leaves the work force to raise a child, they can't go back. Or at least not to work for someone.

That is the reason why there are so many older women who start their own business.

I was one of them. Like so many other women, I turned my life long hobby into my new career and started my own business.

I advised my child to not do that. To keep working after having a child. My child took my advice and put their child in day care.

That a good story. Good for you for doing what you love. Why can't everyone else even if they want a different life of what you chose and what your daughter chose?