QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 20 2005, 09:21 AM)
This statment may sound poetic for my ears, but as usual, you have trown once more a statment that has no relevency.
The weakness of your posts regarding "equality" have been covered you know where, Sip and Eve were both withnesses, but then, you just had personal intimidations as arguments.
Moderators? What the hell are you talking about? They are tolerent enough for the trashes you've been spewing.
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?
QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 20 2005, 09:21 AM)
Equality in a society has nothing to do with 2 = 2, and again, never were you able to show me how you could apply the term equality in anything, because neither you accept the mathematical equalkity, neither the legal term, you have invented your own.
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.
QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 20 2005, 09:21 AM)
Let me repeat, if you were to use your argument of "they're different, therefore they can not be equal." The same argument could be used to say, that two same aged man, with the same characteristics are not equal as well, because all of their parametters, including behavours are different. But then, you decide to cut things, and you decide to cut it where you want, women, men, Whites, Blacks etc. This is not how it works, and I repeated countless numbers of times, that you can not just decide yourself what to consider equality, because by doing such, you are not using any definition of the word.
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.
QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 20 2005, 09:21 AM)
As for your claim that I have not shown the weakness of your arguments, while you were googling, I was actualy posting abstracts and documents, the only thing you could yap was: "Equalitarist propaganda." That's not an argument, you can not reject arguments that you don't like simply by claiming them being propaganda.
No! No! I bring the race issue, because you use the same EXACT arguments, that I have entirly destroyed... that's the reason why I bring it. Sex is not an argument to support your claim, why not measuring penis size as parametter as well? Organically, no one is identical, different "essence" has no scientific bearing, neither the word "spirituality." The rest of this paragraph is a load of nonsensitical irrelevent words.
So since our "separation"
you've learned the term "hominems," I hope you won't overuse it like other terms, which the sense you hijack.
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.
QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 20 2005, 09:21 AM)
Intergrating methamatic to equality? It is obvious, the term equality has once appeared as a mathematical notion, equality about people is a legal term that has little or nothing to do with the mathematical term. Since we could always find differences(even between two clones), it is decided that everyone is equal in the sense of the law in the human specy, any other definition of equality can not be used to differenciate a man and a woman, because then, it would be giving importance to some parametters and not others.
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?
QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 20 2005, 09:21 AM)
Eve and Me are different, I am a man, she is a woman... Azat is a man. Now, using the "man" parametter, from your definition we should be equal, and from your own definitions we are not at the same time, while I am a man, if I were to use the "dream" or "distraction" parametter, I am more like Eve than Azat. So from those parametters, using your definition, I am equal, but from your same definition I am not, like from your same definition I am not equal to Azat.
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.
QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 20 2005, 09:21 AM)
Actualy, using your definition, everyone is unequal one from the other... but then, you creat a paradox, you decide that you will differenciate people from their sex and skin colors etc... and compare those groups with eachothers and give orders to them.
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.
QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 20 2005, 09:21 AM)
In your order of equality, White/Yellow man come first, then White/Yellow Woman, then, Black man and finally black woman.
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.
QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 20 2005, 09:21 AM)
You have placed arbitrary separations, and you still were not able to justify it by any scientific explanation. Because if nobody is equal to the other, what is your justification to creat groups based on few parametters and NOT others?
After reading this more than once, I have found no argument to answer.
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.