Jump to content


Photo

On Women


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21 Sip

Sip

    Buffet Connoisseur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,365 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Online

Posted 20 January 2005 - 11:18 PM

QUOTE (gamavor @ Jan 20 2005, 11:13 PM)
..for everything else there is...... Durex:)))


The Japanese make the best stuff ... it's all about the Sheerlon difference wink.gif

#22 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 20 January 2005 - 11:27 PM

no wonder

#23 MosJan

MosJan

    Էլի ԼաՎա

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:My Little Armenia

Posted 20 January 2005 - 11:51 PM

Public notice [SIZE=1]

member # 369
A.K.A. thoth has been banned from HyeForum
He is no longer welcomed in our forum

Appeal or Apology forum will not be available to him - 3 warning + 2 Temp Bann's

Personal Insults directed to member of HyeForum
Not obeying the C.C. of HyeForum



MOvses

#24 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 January 2005 - 09:16 AM

QUOTE
It appears all the essential characters are here in what looks like a feminist tea party. The "weaknesses" you keep spouting about are nothing more than the delusions of your mind. As usual, the simple minded can do nothing more but compensate for their shortcomings with denial. What is really amusing about the mental mediocrity which you display is that you like to only read and hear those views which are in agreement with yours, because otherwise would be dangerous to your fragile mind. To a degree all the feminist heroines, including you and thoth, and stormig don't like the opposing view and are quick to resort to the childish innanities when someone does come up with non-feminist positions. This forum is better titled "Feminist Corner" as opposed to "Gender Issues", since you like only those views which you agree with to be aired, and since by all accounts you are all feminists, and if you claim you are not, you are at least feminized to the point of appearing like a feminist. The reason I lump you as such is because of your nonsense belief in "equality" which is not limited to race or sex, without showing any justification or logical premise of why anything or anyone is equal and which as we both know you have never shown to exist nor have you answered my most basic of questions of how and why are things equal?


An example above, of a paragraph that is irrelevent and lack of any substance. Show me where is your arguments to support your theses, but you know you can't do that, so you rely on cheap tricks like intellectual intimidations.

QUOTE
Just what is this nonsense you are trying to state? The mathematic "example" was what you were trying to splatter on the screen for what purpose I do not know. I have not "invented my own" equality, strange as to why you like to make things up. In fact, I have said that such a thing aside from being an idealistic concept does not exist in the real world. In the realm of ideas, and abstractions, it is so, but not in our physical existence.


Again, you just talk without saying anything. FACT: You can not place equalities to compare oranges with apples, equality is a mathematical notion, or a legal notion... any other defintions are errnious and innaplicable. Let me tell you why, if there can not be a possible ">" and "<" there can not be an equality. A number can be higher or lower from another, and that is why a numnber can be equal with itself, this is basic mathematic. If something is not equal, it must be or higher or lower. An apple is neither higher, neither lower compared to an orange as itself, if we are to measure few parametters, like the amount of sugar, than we can say that one contains in general more sugar. But taking an orange as an all, we can not talk of any equality or unequality when comparing it with an apple, if we do not fix arbitrary parameters.

QUOTE
Two aged men with the same characteristics are not equal for when we say "same characteristics" we mean, more or less, somewhat alike but not entirely for no two people or things are alike, and such is the nature of beings. Just like me and you are not equal for I use reason while you use wishful thinking. What is equal in nature? Can you point to one thing that is equal in all its "essences"? Simple minds cannot accept complex situations and realities, therefore fail to see that the world is one of chaos, complexity and inequality, not simplistic denominators of "we are equal" simply to satisfy some childish excuse because "it is a sensitive subject". Sensitivity is not and never has been a concern for truth. In effect, one is in favor of muddling truth for the sake of emotional nonsense such as "sensitive subject". It is not because I want women to be unequal, or races, or individuals, or things. It is because they are unequal whether we like it or not. If the creator had intended for there to be equality there would not be chiseled into nature different races of man and different sexes and different intellects, strenghts and capacities. If women and men were equal there would be no need for opposite sexes. Why do we not have one unisex reproducing asexually and pleasuring itself asexually? You are confusing and putting words in my mouth of "what I consider equality". Again, I have not considered equality, you have. I have always argued against it because it is untrue, illogical and only the whine of the weak. Your types are so entrenched in the egalitarian propaganda that you cannot even see that there is actually beauty, and harmony in inequality.


As expected, you will rely on intellectual intimidations.

You are trowing words, you talk to say nothing... that you hypothesis about my character, doesn't support your point, while I answer directly the weakness in your argument, you merly draw a portrait of myself. This is not what, using reason, is. I will repeat again, or you use the mathematical term, or the legal term, everything in between are your erronous definitions of what equality is. To measure the equality between a man or a woman, or we use the legal term, or the mathematical term, but again, it is exactly the same thing as in the cases of apples and oranges... if we do not fix arbitrary parammeters, there is no way to measure any equalities... and even if we decide to be the most unbiased possible, by measuring as much parametters as possibles, which of those is more important. The color of eyes can alone be a parametter... what is higher, a green, a blue, a brown etc. and accoridng to what standard?

Stop fooling yourself that you are actualy making a point, obviously you are not, and I will ask you to refrain judging me and stick in answering the points I bring, something you never did. This is not about whom is more intelligent, not about whom uses reason, this is about bringing arguments to support a theses... and I am awaiting you to bring me arguments to show me that a man and a woman are not equal... and if you are to use parametters, tell me why those are more important than others, and in some cases, like colors, body shape, etc. you can even place numbers.

On the other hand, there is the legal term for equality, everyone are equal in the eyes of the law, at least, the are supposed to be. Since the mathematical equality can not be applied, we are forced to use the legal term... so yes! man and woman are equal, because as I said, to be able to place equality in the mathematical senses, there should be chances as well to find > and <, if not, there can be no equality, this is how it works. Being different doesn't necessarly mean that two things are not equal, it simply means that they are different. An apple is different from an orange, they're different, but as an all, you can not say that they are equal or not without placing any arbitrary parametters.

QUOTE
You have never shown how anything in is equal you have always pretended to have done so. Pretension is the sixth element, denial. I have asked several times for what is equal you have always failed, like here like then, like always. If not "essences" then what, pray tell, do we mean by unequal? Posting long articles and touting that as "proof" is only a childs game of showing how you can more persuasively argue on an interweb forum, since we can post articles back and forth, but to try to logically integrate such arguments and proofs into your own words is quite another thing. "Equality" has always been the battle cry of the weakling, of the inferior, for only simple minds want to be handed something they did not earn in the name of "equality" and "fairness". Now the simple minded man tries to construct words in such a manner that he appears to have somehow 'proven' that 'we are equal' merely stating so. This above paragraph contains alot of things you have made up in order to content yourself on your abilities of more persuasively arguing on the interweb.


Again, this is irrelevent to the discussion, I am awaiting you to tell me which parametters to measure to claim they are not equal, and tell me why those parametters and not others. Stick to that point, because it is arguments that will support your theses, and not intellectual intimidations.

QUOTE
This paragraph makes about as much sense as a chocolate tea pot. How has it been "decided" that we are "equal" in the "sense of the law in the human specy". Just what is this jibberish that I am supposed to decipher?


Simple, again, this depend on whatever or not you will be able to show me they are not equal by using arguments... If there is no way to say that one is "inferior" to another as a person, there is no reason for them to not be equal in the sense of the law... therefore, we are forced to conclude that everyone is and should be equal in the eyes of the law. Bring me arguments and not intimidations to support your position, and I will then, maybe consider it as a valid possibility.

QUOTE
This is a restating of the obvious which I have never even raised since I have never denied or argued against this. Why you now raise this fundamental point is curious indeed. You just stay "I am more like eve" then you go on to state "I am equal". Just what is this baseless abstraction you state? How did you "become equal" when you were "more alike"? How did the jump occur? We speak in generalities of we are more similar and more alike than this or that, not the same, or identical. "Equal" means having all aspects being identical, similar, balanced.


Circular logic at its best. You are now bringing an argument against your own theses just to contradict me, don't backtrack it. Equality is always similar, but similar is not always equal... so similarity does not necessarly means equal. My example with Eve, was just to show you that there are many parametters, and from some parametters are I closer to one than the other... I was simple, and yet you complexify this only to try answering my point and contradict it. You never denied this, but your theses actualy IS a denial of it, your theses if taken as an argument would regect this argument if taken as a theses. And it's you that say using reason?

QUOTE
There is no paradox aside from you wanting to make yourself believe there is, since it is a more powerful tool of persuasion when arguing on the interweb so that others may read the key word "Oh he used paradox he must know what he is talking about". This is the way it works fellow plebian. The different human population groups are unequal. Within those population groups there are further inequalities. The different sexes are unequal. Within the different sexes there are further inequalities. It is like the layers of an onion. Different onions are unequal to each other, with many different layers in themselves. You do not have to like it because it is an uncomfortable thing to have to admit to when all your life you have been fed egalitarian fiction.


You further show why it is a paradox, reread what I said, you are in no way showing me that my arguments are wrong, you are just talking about another issue. When talking about inequalities between underdevelopped countries and the West, we are not saying that someone from the West is supperior as a human, we are talking about JUSTICE, the legal term, we are talking about the non-respect of their foundamental rights under the UN charter. Every person has the right to live, if I kill someone, the act of killing doesn't make that person inferior to me, just because his right to live has not been respected. And in the same way, just because an African doesn't eat as he should, doesn't mean that he is inferior, it just mean that we are not respecting the equality principle. As for man and woman, I am again awaiting you tell me which parametters you measure and why those.

QUOTE
I haven't stated this the way you make it out to be, I have only stated this from the perspective of civilization, namely that sub-Saharan blacks in Africa have never created a high civilization while the others have.


First of all, I already have shown that what you say isen't true, they did creat, but you don't call it civilisation according to your own standards. Second, I can decide to separate two group of white people, and wait the one of those two creats civilisation, after that the first do, I decide to paint the people that did not in black... both were whites, but one did not creat it, the other did. The fact that those that I painted black are black has no relevency on the "why" when trying to answer why they did not creat a civilisation. Not every White people have created high civilisation, in fact, if we go through those last milleniums, only a minority of them created what from your standards are high civilisations.

QUOTE
If you have found no argument to answer then why did you post a long diatribe of nonsense? You have just created a intellectual boomerang for yourself. There is no arbitrary category here. You are only choosing to make them arbitrary. The distinction between a male and a female is not arbitrary but quite tangible and purposeful. You do not have to like it, but then again, anti-intellectual egalitarians have never really liked opposing views, only those whom they agree with, and when they dont, the end result is desperation and childish name calling. It is akin to the cry for "tolerance" we often hear from egalitarians, when they are the least tolerant of those who disagree. I had intended this to be a cordial discussion on Nietzsche's perspective on women, but it appears that is not a tradition among egalitarian fanatics who do not like to have cracks in their edifice of thought.


Again, I am awaiting those parametters.

Edited by Fadix, 21 January 2005 - 09:20 AM.


#25 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 24 January 2005 - 11:35 PM

QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 21 2005, 09:16 AM)
An example above, of a paragraph that is irrelevent and lack of any substance. Show me where is your arguments to support your theses, but you know you can't do that, so you rely on cheap tricks like intellectual intimidations.
Again, you just talk without saying anything. FACT: You can not place equalities to compare oranges with apples, equality is a mathematical notion, or a legal notion... any other defintions are errnious and innaplicable. Let me tell you why, if there can not be a possible ">" and "<" there can not be an equality. A number can be higher or lower from another, and that is why a numnber can be equal with itself, this is basic mathematic. If something is not equal, it must be or higher or lower. An apple is neither higher, neither lower compared to an orange as itself, if we are to measure few parametters, like the amount of sugar, than we can say that one contains in general more sugar. But taking an orange as an all, we can not talk of any equality or unequality when comparing it with an apple, if we do not fix arbitrary parameters.
As expected, you will rely on intellectual intimidations.


You write a long senseless paragraph when all you want to say is that some things are more equal than others, which translates to, there is no such thing as equality. Equality in numbers does not pertain to us, as it is an abstraction, not a concrete, tangible thing. Equality only exists in abstractions, which has always been my point. It is as ideal as the numbers we deal with, and as intangible as the numbers we imagine.

QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 21 2005, 09:16 AM)
You are trowing words, you talk to say nothing... that you hypothesis about my character, doesn't support your point, while I answer directly the weakness in your argument, you merly draw a portrait of myself. This is not what, using reason, is. I will repeat again, or you use the mathematical term, or the legal term, everything in between are your erronous definitions of what equality is. To measure the equality between a man or a woman, or we use the legal term, or the mathematical term, but again, it is exactly the same thing as in the cases of apples and oranges... if we do not fix arbitrary parammeters, there is no way to measure any equalities... and even if we decide to be the most unbiased possible, by measuring as much parametters as possibles, which of those is more important. The color of eyes can alone be a parametter... what is higher, a green, a blue, a brown etc. and accoridng to what standard?


You speak of these "parameters" and then fail to define what you mean by them. Then you go on to obfuscate the issue by clouding further with nice words to give it an aura of somehow knowing what you're talking about. When I say "equality" is non-existent, I mean it both on a biological level, as well as a legal level, or anything that encompasses the known temporal world. You will find that some people are more equal than others, and in the case of governments, above the the law, and there goes your notion of "legal equality" As far as equality between men and women, again there is no such thing, as they are of different essences, physiologically, psychologically. It is not up to me to show what "parameters" I am talking about, it is up to you to show how a man and a woman are equal without somehow bringing in a mention of "mathematics". The inequality and differences between man and women are not arbitrary, but purposeful and defined, as we can see even in the most obvious visible traces, such as body mass, or voice, or physical strength, let alone getting down to the chromosomes and the inner workings of the human body.



QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 21 2005, 09:16 AM)
Stop fooling yourself that you are actualy making a point, obviously you are not, and I will ask you to refrain judging me and stick in answering the points I bring, something you never did. This is not about whom is more intelligent, not about whom uses reason, this is about bringing arguments to support a theses... and I am awaiting you to bring me arguments to show me that a man and a woman are not equal... and if you are to use parametters, tell me why those are more important than others, and in some cases, like colors, body shape, etc. you can even place numbers.


If I am fooling myself, then why are you taking me seriously, much less bothering to spend time addressing the points I raise? If you do not want me to judge you, it would only be fair for you to stop judging me. But it appears that you do not like to apply the rules to yourself, as it was you who started the "intellectual intimidation" because how dare anyone pop the bubble we call your ego. As far as the above paragraph, you again cloud the issue with many conflicting topics, bringing in race, gender, "parameters" and trying to lay the burden on me to prove how we are supposedly equal, when I have always asked for those like you who assert the supposed fact, to do so. It appears you are the one using silly tactics to evade the point, and hurl it back at me somehow. It is far more convenient to rely on the "I am waiting for you to offer proof/arguments" than to actually make a point.

QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 21 2005, 09:16 AM)
On the other hand, there is the legal term for equality, everyone are equal in the eyes of the law, at least, the are supposed to be. Since the mathematical equality can not be applied, we are forced to use the legal term... so yes! man and woman are equal, because as I said, to be able to place equality in the mathematical senses, there should be chances as well to find > and <, if not, there can be no equality, this is how it works. Being different doesn't necessarly mean that two things are not equal, it simply means that they are different. An apple is different from an orange, they're different, but as an all, you can not say that they are equal or not without placing any arbitrary parametters.
Again, this is irrelevent to the discussion, I am awaiting you to tell me which parametters to measure to claim they are not equal, and tell me why those parametters and not others. Stick to that point, because it is arguments that will support your theses, and not intellectual intimidations.


There is no "legal equality" unless you care to offer evidence. In theory, everyone ought to be equal in the eyes of the law, but what about those who institute and apply the law? Who is there to apply the law to them? They are above the law. Or as the O.J. Simpson trial showed how the law does not treat everyone equally, or Martha Stewart. The only one placing arbitrary parameters of dodging arguments is yourself. For you to be able to make your case, you must first define the vague word "equality". As Webster's dictionary defines "equal" it means:

1 a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation

What between man and woman can you point to that meets this criteriea? We aren't talking about the number of legs, fingers, or eyes, or any other thing of such nature. Monkey's have 10 fingers, yet no one would seriously consider calling them "equal" to man, unless of course they are really desperate to defend your position.



QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 21 2005, 09:16 AM)
Simple, again, this depend on whatever or not you will be able to show me they are not equal by using arguments... If there is no way to say that one is "inferior" to another as a person, there is no reason for them to not be equal in the sense of the law... therefore, we are forced to conclude that everyone is and should be equal in the eyes of the law. Bring me arguments and not intimidations to support your position, and I will then, maybe consider it as a valid possibility.


You are asking what is akin to a court case, in which the prosecution calls on the defense to somehow prove that their client did not murder someone. In effect, if you are the prosecution, and I am the defense, you are asking me to offer evidence of my client's innocence. However, your lack of legal knowledge is also telling, for the burden of proof is always on the one who asserts the fact, and in this case you are asserting the mantra of "equality", not I. I cannot prove the non-existence of what inherently does not exist in nature, such is a logical fallacy.

QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 21 2005, 09:16 AM)
Circular logic at its best. You are now bringing an argument against your own theses just to contradict me, don't backtrack it. Equality is always similar, but similar is not always equal... so similarity does not necessarly means equal. My example with Eve, was just to show you that there are many parametters, and from some parametters are I closer to one than the other... I was simple, and yet you complexify this only to try answering my point and contradict it. You never denied this, but your theses actualy IS a denial of it, your theses if taken as an argument would regect this argument if taken as a theses. And it's you that say using reason?


I have already addressed this point, to be equal, according to the definition is to have same qualities, essences, nature, amount, etc. Similar is not equal, which is why we use the term to denote similarities and not equalities and as I pointed out, we speak of it in generalities, e.g. "He is very similar to his father", or "Her nose is similar to yours". We do not say "He is very equal to his father", or "Her nose is equal to yours".


QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 21 2005, 09:16 AM)
You further show why it is a paradox, reread what I said, you are in no way showing me that my arguments are wrong, you are just talking about another issue. When talking about inequalities between underdevelopped countries and the West, we are not saying that someone from the West is supperior as a human, we are talking about JUSTICE, the legal term, we are talking about the non-respect of their foundamental rights under the UN charter. Every person has the right to live, if I kill someone, the act of killing doesn't make that person inferior to me, just because his right to live has not been respected. And in the same way, just because an African doesn't eat as he should, doesn't mean that he is inferior, it just mean that we are not respecting the equality principle. As for man and woman, I am again awaiting you tell me which parametters you measure and why those.


When we are saying that the Spanish were superior to the Aztects, we are saying they were superior in every sense of the word, not just "legal". It was superiority in their civilization which allowed for them to conquer people who had inferior technology that could not match theirs. It was the superiority of the Mongol hordes that allowed them to conquer over the more inferior peoples who could not meet their match. It was European superiority, that enabled them to conquer much of Africa and enslave its population. I do not care if such is a "sensitive" issue, for how else do we describe the nature of conflicts if not for the use of such adjectives. To mend history for the sake of political correctness and "sensitivity" is an insult. Such sensitivity regarding the use of words such as "inferior" and "superior" in our everyday vernacular as value judgements in history is now seen as a crime, because it is "sensitive". Why else bother having such a word in the English language? If you really want to be upholding "sensitivity" as your defense, you are better off arguing for the elimination of those two words from the language.

QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 21 2005, 09:16 AM)
First of all, I already have shown that what you say isen't true, they did creat, but you don't call it civilisation according to your own standards. Second, I can decide to separate two group of white people, and wait the one of those two creats civilisation, after that the first do, I decide to paint the people that did not in black... both were whites, but one did not creat it, the other did. The fact that those that I painted black are black has no relevency on the "why" when trying to answer why they did not creat a civilisation. Not every White people have created high civilisation, in fact, if we go through those last milleniums, only a minority of them created what from your standards are high civilisations.
Again, I am awaiting those parametters.


Domino, I honestly did not expect this sort of simplicity from you. If I mimic your pattern of argument I would state, "Oh wow Domino I have already shown that what you say isn't true, therefore what I say is right", end of debate. If that is the case, then why are you still coming back? If I am "fooling myself" and you have "already shown what I say" to be untrue, then I suggest to stop responding and redeem your integrity.

#26 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 January 2005 - 11:51 PM

QUOTE
If I am fooling myself, then why are you taking me seriously, much less bothering to spend time addressing the points I raise?


Good point, I must be the one to blame, having gone through your post, I have seen not the arguments I have asked, and probably won't obtain them. If it is a ball game you are after, find another mate, now I remember why I kept ignoring you. What a mistake was it to even waste my time reading your last answer.

It is for me to put an end to this potential endless diatrabe.

I will concluce by this statment:

"Never debate with a _____, because the longer you argue, the harder it is to tell who the _____ is."

I'm sure you are quite capable of filling the blanks yourself.


PS: If you finaly decide to present arguments to support your point that "equality" can be applied in this cases, bring them, I may reconsider my decision to ignore you.

#27 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 26 January 2005 - 11:18 AM

I rest my case.

#28 Boss

Boss

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 October 2007 - 11:17 PM

A real man wants two things: danger and play. Therefore he wants woman as the most dangerous plaything.
I don't agree the play.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users