My daddy always told me......

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, January 30, 2009 20:37
VIEWED: 5895
PAGE 5 of 11

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:49 PM

Lol

Stoke hate...so amusing.

Anytime someone argues back with the same venom YOU use, its "hate".

How typically PC, how typically Liberal.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:53 PM

Kathy,

No, it's because they are human. Do you know any actual chinese?

On the reduction of births encouraged by a govt., it's called genocide, it's in the UN charter on... oh, yeah, that's right... "Genocide."

Arguing with the brainwashed army of self-annihilation is pointless. They have just selected themselves out for extinction. You know why christians have such influence over american elections and muslims have such influence over europe lately? Because they have children, and don't kill them.

If apes could have learned this subtle discreet reasoning, there would be more apes. Oh yeah, they eat their kids. That doesn't ever help. Welcome to evolution.

Quote:
Were I unwed, I would take you in a manly fashion

Wulf,

Sorry, I don't swing that way. Actually I took this avatar because it was what's left, and I wanted an avatar. I like Saffron though, she's perty. And she embodies everything the ideal female should be. A dangerous deceitful sex object :)

Sig,

no offense, but obviously, I would select extinction, if I had been properly brainwashed by the academic establishment.

the real reason women hated so much on Sarah Palin: 44, beautiful, fertile, and oh yeah, running for vice president. I'm knew I sensed a certain greenish tinge.

Sorry, just serving the can of venom you just ordered

Yeah, I think Faith is a role model ;)

So, girls,

So, we play it this way, you guys get your society that discourages children in favor of pride and a feeling of superiority, and I'll take my society with the people who want to have kids, and then we can set our students against each other in 20 years and see who wins, oh, that would be mine, because they would exist.

Ever looked at the growth of the right to life movement over time and wondered why it's growing? Because they're having children, that's why.

Now, as a society, we can either decided to reverse our self genocide rockefeller policy, or all convert to islam, because if you look at the world, that's what's happening, and that's why it's happening.

So, if girl power has any kind of future vision beyond the next five years, it might want to think about which it wants more: empowerment, or to cling to its restriction on reproductiton. If you want empowerment, when we're all muslims, and nothing against Islam, because I have to respect anything that's *that* evolutionarily successful, (hat's off to the krill) but from a female empowerment point of view, well, good luck with that.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:56 PM

Do the women who go to work, did they want children in the first place, and were convinced otherwise? I suppose it's possible, if they're appealed to with rational about establishing themselves financially before attempting children (who are expensive).

I always thought that young adults aren't really thinking about having children. It tends to just happen as a consequence of their environment and relationships. Teens get pregnant because their parents aren't paying attention. With married young adults it happens as a natural consequence of their union. With single dating young adults, pregnancy occurs as the result of a mistake, because their relationship is not advanced enough for them to make a choice whether or not to have children.

Do married couples who decide not to have children usually stick to it? I'd be interested in knowing.

Now, I do think DT has some point about how the rampant inflation and credit problems in our economy have forced a lot of people to work. Would that be the case if there were no such thing as feminism? I think yes, a family makes whatever sacrifices it has to to pay the bills. So I'm trying to determine if that's seperate from the higher wage earning women, college educated, who choose to wait to get married and have families. One is socially caused necessity, the other is feminism. According to you, DT, it's not seperate, the two are the result of the same issue, but here under different names.

Government control. I do believe there are fascist elements of the government who would like to control everything we do. It's a belief that comes from my desire to err on the side of safety; government could be a threat, so I would like to be a watchdog.

Is feminism a result of government control, has the movement been manipulated throughout it's existence? Considering the Margaret Sanger character he mentioned who started writting about population control and then later about feminism, it's a question I'd like to answer. I'm not yet sure, some of the arguments are convincing, but it's... disturbing for me to believe the full extent of this just yet.

However, I also think that the modern, more moderate "female empowerment" movement is not so sinister. It considers motherhood a difficult but rewarding job, among many potential choices of difficult but rewarding jobs.

The men still get flambe'd by political correctness, though, poor guys. Everyone is very sensitive about issues, the whole country is on eggshells. Sometimes there is a genuine lack of respect, but sometimes the backlash is really a stretch. If people in a movement want to be taken seriously, they must be able to discern between innocent, accidental comments and actual offensive ones. Otherwise, women will not be seen as rational, and this is one of the issues that has chaffed at womenkind since the medieval ages.

But I have to say, I do really think the women in Afghanistan are oppressed. They're basically kept in the dark, separate from the world, as breeding machines. That's no life for a thinking creature. But I also can't justify invading Middle East countries to bring enlightment (more likely death, either by us or by their religious leaders) to those women. It's judging their culture from the outside, and who are we to interfere?

It's true in the 50s, women weren't sure that they wanted what the feminism movement offered, because they and their children were supported well enough by the status quo. That's changed now. Single women had it rough in those times though, they weren't taken seriously as professionals, despite the performance in the manufacturing sector during WW2.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:57 PM

Ok, Dream, my mistake. It sort of threw me, with the whole chick pic and name of "dream"..

A manly handshake then?

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:59 PM

Quote:
Sig, no offense, but obviously, I would select extinction, if I had been properly brainwashed by the academic establishment.

Eh, how about the examples of your mother, aunt, and sister dying in childbirth? Real life isn't terribly pretty.

BTW, I think you're making the same mistake Wulf is... you assume that ideas are transmitted only by blood relatives and that intelligence is genetic. I have a boatload of arguments pointing in the other direction but will have to leave that for later. Duty calls.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:03 PM

"BTW, I think you're making the same mistake Wulf is... you assume that ideas are transmitted only by blood relatives and that intelligence is genetic."

WTF? Where/when did I EVER say that?

Ideas are passed to you from a combination of experience and "teachers" (or those who raise you. Not necessarily you blood family ).

Genetics only play a role in intelligence in terms or retardation.

Jesus, Eugenics went out with the Nazis.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:04 PM

M'kay. Thought I got that from one of your past posts. Sorry!

Okay, now duty REALLY calls!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:33 PM

"Do you know any actual chinese ?"

Many. About half the people I work with are from Mainland China, a few are from Taiwan.

"On the reduction of births encouraged by a govt., it's called genocide, it's in the UN charter on... oh, yeah, that's right... "Genocide.""

And here is the UN definition:

Quote:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Considering that China is doing this to its entire population and not to a select subgroup, and that it had (as of three years ago) 1.3 BILLION people, I don't see China genociding itself any time soon. http://www.chinability.com/Population.htm
In sum, it doesn't meet the definition of genocide.

"Arguing with the brainwashed army of self-annihilation is pointless."

As I tried to point out, the demographic transition is a natural process that's happened through history, and is happening now all over the globe - no matter what the government's policies, no matter what the economic systems, no matter what the culture, no matter what the religion. This may not be logical in your view (and people are not logic machines, so there's no surprize there), but it happens nevertheless.
Also, please note that evolution doesn't result in an ultimate optima, it only results in that which is good enough at the moment. The natural survival mechanisms to avoid pain, avoid expending energy, amass resources and maximize pleasure factor into the demographic transition.

"You know why christians have such influence over american elections and muslims have such influence over europe lately? Because they have children, and don't kill them."

As much as you say you hate Margaret Sanger, you sure have bought in to her ideals.

"So, if girl power has any kind of future vision beyond the next five years, it might want to think about which it wants more: empowerment, or to cling to its restriction on reproductiton."

I'll pit my well educated, productive, healthy and well educated young against your starving AIDS-ridden hordes any day.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:47 PM

"... I do think DT has some point about how the rampant inflation and credit problems in our economy have forced a lot of people to work."

Yes, but that is a problem of capitalism, not of equality between the sexes or between groups.

BTW - to reframe this in another context - how would you respond if DT had posted this: The reason people have to work ilke dogs is b/c we no longer have slaves.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:48 PM

Quote:
Do the women who go to work, did they want children in the first place, and were convinced otherwise? I suppose it's possible, if they're appealed to with rational about establishing themselves financially before attempting children (who are expensive).

Thought I'd bring this from the other thread:

Quote:
generally... I find that peeps do what society rewards them to do. You can't set up a society to reward one set of behaviors and then expect a whole group of people not to respond or participate.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE