THOTH

OK Henry - this is your conclusion - and I'm not disagreeing with it per se...but what is it that you are really saying (can be interpreted a number of ways IMO) and what is the proof that you have for this contention (beyond the ARTURian - this is what I beleive thus it is true for all)? quote:Originally posted by henry:Let me write this in a way that everyone can understand. It doesn't matter where u from, how you present yourself, what job you have and what background you have; but what really matters is where you stand as an individual in this world, who lives a clean life and respects those who don't praise evil.

I think that the approach most people take to the (problem of) drugs is all wrong. People (& kids in particular) are looking for ways to enhance the drudgery of their everyday lives (to stimulate mind & body..or in some cases to numb against the pressure etc) - drugs & alchohol seem to provide this - and certainly - without alternative stimulation or enjoyable relaxation - they are an understandable path. If adults would do more to provide children with stimulating (somewhat out of the ordinary) and other pleasurable experiences - mental/physical or otherwise - there would be much less pressure for kids to turn to drugs & such (IMO) - particualrly to excess. I alos think adults need to learn to respect children and their views instead of just imposing the adults views on the kids. In this way children/teens etc would be more comfortable socially with adults (and would be more honest about theor feelings and circumstances etc). I think all of these thigs would leed to less abuse of drugs & drink by our younger folks...(adults too - get off your but & do something [outdoors &] fun!) All that being said I am (also) a proponent of social drinking & such and see nothing wrong with it (for responsible people....but of course if you rely on rules & such to tell you how to live instread of being responsible for yourself....ah - but thats another discussion). I enjoy ale/beer (the good stuff!), wine (in particualr - and red wine is very good for your health in a great many ways), and an occasional appertiff or mixed drink (more rarely). Social drinking is part of socializing - and the slightly imbibed feeling (and all of those toasts!)is a good thing - it is relaxing and promotes good cheer/relations among people. I think Christianity has taken its portrayal of drinking (and partying in general) as some kind of vice way to far (originally reflecting the paternal/shepard based/hard core one-god religious type world view versus the agricultural matronly/more female centered (termed) "pagan" or "heathen" religions of the earth who understood and diefied the patterns of growth, life & harvest & celebrated such... Dionysis! Bachus! Osiris! Cybell! Demeter! etc etc and all of the rest - drink and life! ...rebirth - etc

quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: hasmiek, what disrespectful i said against anybody? it is groundless for you to say that. "I think that you are extremely stupid, know very little, perhaps are evil, your lifestyle (and nearly everything about you)certainly disgusts me - and BTW I will explain why in detail, perhaps you should even be jailed or stoned to death for your behaviors" - etc etc. I imagine that even the clothes you wear are dirty and disgusting (and I certainly would not want my kids to see you...or ever talk with you - you ideas are eveil and are liekley infectious). No, we are not ofended - why should we be? LOL quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: Thoth, and I don't see a difference between a prostitute and a girl who had relations before marriage. The only minor difference is that prostitute gets paid, but that's not significant "difference...not significant" - Really now? What punishment do you suggest? (Death them all - is this not called for in the Bible?)Well - Mr. not yet in the 20th century....most see it quite a bit differently. Again, however, I am interested in the difference between the judgement of/upon males and females on this matter... quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: Thoth, mankind moved? Are you sure? There can't be a move. These are morals, and they were established from the first day of existence of man. They don't change. Well if you say "no" to this - then what are you complaining about? Then we would be as we always have been. I think that we are clearly evolving (as we always have been) - only at a faster rate (socially and otherwise). While certain moral precipts still have meaning and perhaps shall always - some no longer apply (very well) - and certainly must be modified as we change. I refer mostly to the specific injunctions and the like. I mean - you may spout them off all day long - but if nobody is listening can you really still claim that they hold sway? quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: Man, i am nobody to judge your wife or you. It is your problem. But in my case i will be sleeping without thoughts that a mother of my children was used by some blacks. No offence... You are judging - by every post you are passing a judgement (uninformed & rather silly). And you are correct - you are "nobody" to be judging...(thus I am not offended - just a little amused, but also concerned for you). BTW - what difference is it if someone has sex with an African/black (etc) person? And you use the word "used" - is this strictly how you view sexual relations? And even if so - how are you to know it wasn't the other way around? LOL quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: Man, you are so different. Previously you said you are very much moral guy. Bro, under what religion you are very much moral. From christian point of view, sorry you are total opposite of almost every law. Perhaps I am less different (in practice) then you might think (though I am not a virgin as you are [nor was I before marraige - luckily - as I didn't get married till I was nearly in my 30's) and neither am I held rigid [in my beliefs/behaviors] by strict adherence to ancient doctrine). Have you studied up on Daoism yet? Not that I expect you to - nor would I expect you to understand it even if you did read it. (I can't even claim [complete/signoficant] understanding. Among its central precipts is the concept of keeping ones mind open....and another thing - morals are not imposed - they are correct because the are the right thing (naturally) - for us as a group, for us individually, and for reality (the world/existance etc) as a whole. For instance - it is wrong/immoral to litter. (is it not?) - but where in the Bible would you know this? The same with using up our natural resources on the planet? In the Bible it basically says to exploit the world to the fullest - perhaps there is something missing - eh? (etc) So you say I am the opposite of every law? (LOL). Well I certainly disagree - however, in any event, I am very happy with my adherence to "natural" laws of behavior & such (versus artificially contrived) as well as being comfortable with my moral behaviors etc in general (from practical [as well as spiritual] standpoint). And I have a fundemental problem with rules that cannot be questioned. Again, your beleifs - IMO - actually take away what it is to be human - IMO...which is why I will always side with the snake in the garden...(That snake is THOTH BTW) quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: Hasmiek, there is one case, that a man can get married to a woman (according to religion and armenian traditions). And it is when a husband of a woman died and she had left with child or without. My far uncle married to this type of woman, her husband died in earthquake in 88. Do you need a rule to ascribe every behavior? Just what makes this situation so different then any other? And, even if you come up with some rational (as I know you will 7 what it will be), ask yourself is there really any difference? As long as they are in love and there is love and caring between them...etc. This is why our greatest love stories involve young couples defying such edicts...(basically they stink - and everyone know it - and its nice to say such - but when it comes to your particualr situation - well you always will want special treatment - eh? Is that how it is?) quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: hasmiek, naivity you refer to is only from your point of view. in the society i live people lived like that for thousands of years. All my brothers and elders had the same views, it is not what i came up with. So please define why am i naive. For one you fail to see how your "perfect world view" has been continually defied through the ages. It is only perfect in your naive mind - one who fails to see reality. Also - there have been gays, prostitutes, adulterers...etc etc etc for many thousands of years...I suggest (by your rekoning) this proves that these lifestyle choices have been equally verified (as perfectly acceptable, successful and doable etc) quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: Hagarag, Tigranness is not judging, he is explaining and defending his point of view. Which happens to be an extreme judgemental view. Somehow he declines to pass judgement on his own father who defied his reasoning...lucky for his sake eh? Just think - were it not for his father marying (& having sex) outside of his "race" he would not be here in the world with us (to pass on his extreme judgemental views) - some irony - eh? What we need to figure is if that is a good or a bad thing... quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: Note, neither me nor Tigranness said something like "it is wrong what you are doing, you will go to hell for that". No! We say, it is your choice to do what you want to do, but look at different angle and evaluate for yourself. OK - Question for you & Tigrannes - (In your opinions) Am I going to Hell? quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: Bless you all! Thanks - I consider myself blessed....by (favorable) circumstance if nothing else...apparently I must reflect the sunny side of the Dao...

So Artur - is a man a prostitute if he has sex before marraige (in your opinion)? I personnally don't see the difference/distinction. And I don't see either as being a prostitute (I suggest you look up the definition in Oxford's finest) You said it was/is a matter of choice - sex before or after marraige (or in your case seemingly not at all) - yet you show absolutly no respect for the choice that very many people have made. What you don't understand is that relationships and family have changed/evolved from your strict model. This is just the way it is (and pretty much will be - unless of course it changes even more). Your applying outdated lables from the past does nothing but highlight your own ignorance. Mankind has moved away from a strict one to one lifetime relationship towards different varients - including serial. This has been occuring for some time - certainly led by the West (and by the welthier classes). I for one wish I had even more sex then I even did before marraige (or just in general)...not that I am complaining per se (but I might have had a more conservative approach to sex & relationships at that time thenI would now in hindsight - relationship first etc...wheras now I just wished I might have banged more and a larger variety of gals! LOL - sory gals if that seems sexist or whatever [though I personnaly hold you to no different standard...even if society still does to some degre]). And I am glad that my wife had good experiences before me (makes all those compliments all the more meaningful...LOL) - seriously - I neither begrudge her experiences or past lovers, nor am I jealous of them in any way - and in fact believe they are/were a good thing for her (and for us). In no way would anyone who knows her ever suggest that she behaves or has behaved in any way like a prostitute (except for uniformed know-nothings like yourself). So please practice what you claim to preach - that its individual choice - and quit being so judgemental of others. (and just wait until you have children of your own....ha! Though of course having children is ussually precluded by having sex...don't wait too long...you may find no women wants you [perhaps the case already] or that your "equipment" may no longer work properly... And please - don't also put down prostitution as (necessarily) such bad thing (will you claim it has not existed through history - that it is some recent phenomenon?) Though I do share your revulsion for underage and forced (economic)prostitution and the nasty lifestyle/environment that comes from prostitution being illegal. Obviously, for a variety of different reasons (certain) men (and even women) rely on prostitution for their sexual satisfaction...nothing wrong with it in and of itself (IMO) - though it bespeaks of some irregularities/missed oppurtunities in relationships with the opposite sex - some may be socialy caused, others due to personality etc and others circumstance. Now I don't suppose you are suggesting that these folks initiate same sex relations - so just what do you suggest for their sexual outlet? Though I have never partook myself - my friends who have had experiences with prostitutes seem to all have had fairly satisfying experiences. I actually once had the oppurtunity (? - was offered) to become a male prostitue (for wealthy older women) BTW (in school days long ago) - it didn't interest me in the least - though (the entire phenomenon) intrigued me...An aquaintence of mine was one - I found him to be a very amusing person from my perspective (a somewhat cheaper American Gigilo if any are at all familiar with the movie...I'm just not that into grooming, fancy dress, the hustling lifestyle etc...nor into sex for money - particularly with [sometimes much] older ladies). LOL. He certainly made good money (particularly from my perspective at the time...where I was working several jobs washing dishes and such to put myself through school...). So you see - it is perhaps a legititmate career choice for some...though not one I would recommend (for a variety of reasons)...except perhaps in some circumstances....

TB - I disagree with your assertion that Thorny is meerly being contentious on this and or other forums. Sure - she has tusseled with some folks here - folks that IMHO have deserved being put into their place (don't you think?). But you ignore her very many purely positive and informative posts - ranging from descriptions (& sometimes pictures) of trips she has taken (to Ani and such) to commentary concerning her family and its roots, social/political commentary from inside Turkey, comments on movies, TV programs, lectures, newspaper articles and the like relevent to Armenian & Genocide issues. Please consider all of these before you jump to conclusions regarding her motivations and contributions. You are correct however in your ascribing to her as being courageous. In fact, I beleive that her stand on (and actions concerning)the Armenian Genocide (and elements of Turkish history & current politics) goes beyond even this. I take some amount of pride to being a catalyst (along with Domino)for her enlightenment on this issue. She does more - in intelligently confronting other Turks - then most any Armenian has done. Her pointed commentary was the reason for ATAA shutting down their guestbook - she embarrased them into such - a real achievement (no Armenian was able to pull off) IMO. And regarding her confrontation with (some of) the moderators of this forum. I am glad that you mentioned it. I still think she is owed an apology and (an offer of) re-instatement on this forum. I am embarrased and angered at the behaviors of our moderators in regards to this issue. She was treated unfairly initially - and may have responded a bit emotionally (but understandably), then was again treated unfairly by being banned when far worse was being allowed for other posters. That the moderators have continued to remain silent on this injustice galls me to no end - particulalry since it was done unjustly, and as a consequence we have lost a valuable poster. [ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: THOTH ]

Arpa - agreed...though i fail to see how Turkey has suffred whatsover regarding its stance on the Genocide.Their strategy has largely succeeded (in the macro sense) and any negative effects are perhaps to subtle to distinguish from overall/general Turkish mouth foaming nationalism...

quote:Originally posted by Twilight Bark: Thorny is an idealistic, hot-headed individual who enjoys being a contrarian. Her contrarian-ness in this case is well-thought and appropriate. Ali Suat is basically an enlightened patriot with a more sophisticated understanding of what is good for his nation than the garden-variety patriot. He is driven more by improving the condition of his country than by his conscience. Make no mistake, he is still in the "opponent" (note that I am not using the word "enemy") camp; but one that you can fully respect. TB - I have really liked your posts of late...but I don't think you have hit the mark at all on Thorny...additionally I do not view Ali Suat in any way as an adversary...in fact he is a better ally (in the cause of genocide recognition & related...Turkish/Armenian friendship etc) then most Armenians - particualrly those whose posts (and views) reflect ignorance & intolerance - etc. IMO - both Ali & Thorny represent the great hope for Turks & Armenians. Sure we will always see things differently...but isn't accepting this part of an understandable (and necessary) Armenian consession? Turks such as Ali & Thorny shoudl be applauded and encouraged by Armenians. If we cannot do so then their is no hope for us or our cause of Genocide recognition. (IMO)

Just for everyone's edification concerning this topic I think it is interesting to turn to the Analysis of Justin Mcarthy who in his effort to prove the Ottoman figures regearding Armenians as accurate doeas exactly the opposite IMO. Below is an anlysis of his book Muslims and Minorities that I presented on another web site a few years ago: In his book “Muslims and Minorities” Justin McCarthy attempts to prove (among other things) that the population of Armenians was less than that which could have supported the European and Armenian figures of approximately 1.5 million killed by the (Young) Turks in 1915, and that Armenians were clear minorities in the Eastern provinces. In my opinion he certainly fails on the first count as he himself shows the mirad of problems with the Ottoman accounts in his book. On the subject of Armenian relative population in the east perhaps he is correct – but to a much lesser extent than he proposes. Certainly, the deliberate policy (denied by McCarthy – but well known and accepted elsewhere) of settlement of Muslims into Armenian areas for the preceding (at least) two centuries and the outflow of Armenians during the 19th and early part of the 20th century (to escape harassment, excessive taxation and massacre etc.) did result in a shift from majority Armenian population to majority Muslim – further massaged by gerrymandering of political boundaries. In fact however, there were still significant populations of Armenians in many of these areas – particularly in certain districts where there still were Armenian majorities. McCarthy seeks to discredit Armenian Patriarchal population counts (as I in fact did – before I read McCarthy). In fact, IMO he shows them to be much more accurate than the proven inaccurate and obviously biased Ottoman “counts”. It is particularly interesting that where the Ottoman and Armenian figures match is in areas of western Anatolia where Ottoman control was the greatest (and there was no issue of a potentially independent Armenian State). Here the Ottoman figures were deemed most accurate (even by McCarthy) and lo and behold – they nearly match the Armenian figures. Yet in the east – where the Ottomans were concerned about Armenian nationalism – their figures for numbers of Armenians are much much lower than the Armenian counts. First -–there should be no reason why the Armenian figures would be accurate in the west – but inaccurate in the east. Secondly, there are plenty of reasons (deliberately and inadvertently) why the Ottomans would severely undercount Armenians in the East. The first is of course political motivation – to attempt to discredit the idea of an Armenian nation-state. Secondly, the Ottomans had very tentative administrative control over a large percentage of Armenians in the East – who for all practical purposes ruled themselves under the millet system. These Armenians did not want to be counted (taxation and other reasons) and certainly did not cooperate in such. Additionally, the Turks obviously did not wish to count many of these Armenians as well (most of these they had some difficulty collecting taxes from anyway). It is always difficult to count people in developing areas anyway – where communications and infrastructure are not good – and I am sure that the Kurds and other nomads in the east were also significantly undercounted – but combined with the political motivation (which McCarthy amusingly discounts) it is apparent what occurred. Particularly since the Armenian derived figures were shown to be reasonably accurate in western Anatolia. And – the European intelligence agencies developed figures which much more closely matched the Armenian figures – not the Ottoman ones – obviously they wanted the most accurate counts and they either independently derived figures which agreed with the Armenian counts – or they used the Armenian figures – trusting them more than the Ottoman ones – either way the conclusion is the same – and McCarthy’s attempts to prove otherwise ring hollow and biased. The following consists of excerpts from “Muslims and Minorities” which illustrate some of the points I have made above: “Population registers were the basis of all Ottoman government population statistics.” “Like all population records, the ottoman population registers contained errors.” “The Ottoman population records on the Anatolian Muslims became reliable (my note: even this is very much disputed – in fact it is self-contradicted by McCarthy IMO – though perhaps they were improved over prior – though certainly not reliable) long before those on minority populations.” “The overwhelming inaccuracy of the Van data leaves no choice but to draw the correction factors used on the Van population from other sources.” “Since no major Armenian population survived in Anatolia at the time of the modern Turkish Republican censuses it is impossible to compare the (Armenian) Patriarch’s data to more modern material.” “There were indeed Armenians killed in the troubles of 1895-6, but not even the most exaggerated count of mortality records such a loss for the entire Ottoman Empire.” (McCarthy discounts Armenians losses in earlier massacres and claims Armenian exaggeration of both their own numbers & losses – without any proof or real knowledge of such) “It is doubtful that the Ottomans, suspicious as they were of Armenian community action and publicity, would have allowed the type of massive collection and checking of data necessary for such records.” (Is McCarthy denying the existence of the millet system and minority communities being allowed to take care of their own? Additionally, they often were in no position to deny such – and as the collection was done as part of the church functions this was left alone by the Ottomans – again McCarthy’s “conclusions” are self serving, biased, and IMO wrong) “Detailed census and registration figures in a statistically underdeveloped area like the Ottoman Empire are usually somewhat incorrect due to undercounting, but the undercounts can be corrected.” (This later point is the basis for McCarthy’s figures – but by his own admission you can see that counts of Armenians were more likely to be purposefully or otherwise undercounted as compared to Muslims – and were much less accurate because the degree of cooperation with and control by the Ottoman authorities was much less in Armenian areas. Additionally, as McCarthy points out there were many factors for less accurately counting Armenians versus Muslims – such as the need to more accurately count Muslims for conscription purposes etc. – in any event it is obviously very difficult to accurately count people in areas not under full administrative control – particularly when those people may not have been interested in being counted. On top of this is also clear that the Ottomans were very interested in portraying the Armenians as a more minor population than they actually were to discourage Western advocacy of an independent Armenia etc. – thus they had much incentive to report less Armenians then there actually were – this motivation cannot be discounted – though McCarthy does just this thing – taking two pages to justify why, in his mind, the Ottomans were not deliberately undercounting Armenians – these justifications ring hollow IMO). “…in the two eastern vilayets the level of undercounting of Armenians was considerably larger than that of Muslims.” Certain European accounts….”give…accurate indications of the large number of Armenian churches and schools in an area such as Siirt Sancagi of Bitlis Vilayeti that officially (in the Ottoman counts) listed few Armenians, thus providing an indication that the Armenian population of Siirt was undercounted.” “A central assumption made below is that the misreporting of age and sex for Armenians was approximately the same as for Muslims. Until extensive archival research has been done, there is no way to prove this assumption.” Sivas Vilyet/eastern Anatolia: “This was the area of poorest Ottoman administrative control, poorest statistics, and the greatest divergence between Ottoman and Patriarchate statistics. Sivas, while still fairly far removed from the seat of central Ottoman government, was clearly much advanced statistically over Bitlis, Van, or Mamuretulaziz.” “Ottoman figures for the Armenian population of Sivas were very close to those of the Armenian Patriarchate.” (Is he contradicting himself here?) “..the Ottoman records, as their collection methods improved, counted Armenians as a greater proportion of the Manuretullaziz population than they had previously done.” (an indication of much room for error as we can see) “The Ottoman figures for Marmuretulaziz were considerably better than those of Cuinet, who made large-scale errors in enumerating the Armenian population of Harput Kazasi.” “The decision to use Ottoman statistics is based solely on their proven relative reliability, and on the proven unreliability of the Armenian statistics.” (note: his basis for this is his own conjecture regarding how each set was compiled – no direct evidence) “Intellectually and statistically, this is not a completely satisfactory approach…” (At least he admits this – though it is buried in the book which is presented with a falsely authoritative air) “The undercounting of the Armenian population in Diyarbakir Vilayeti was approximately the same as that of the Diyarbakir Muslim population.” (how can he claim this with any certainty at all? In fact there are many many reasons for a greater undercount of Armenians, which he discounts on principle without knowledge). Ezurum Vilayeti: McCarthy discusses that the Ottomans paid closer attention to this area then others and that Armenians had been a much larger percentage but had “migrated” to Russian territory. He indicates that his “correction factor” that he uses may not be valid here – though he uses it just the same. Van and Bitlis: “..neither one of which has completely reliable Ottoman published statistics.” (though he claims Armenian figures are overcounts – how could this be known if the Ottoman figures are unreliable?) He does add however that “there will always be a great deal of uncertainty about these populations.” (which he adds to by publishing unverifiable, concocted figures and discounting the Armenian counts). “The Ottomans knew that they had undercounted (minority) populations in Van and Bitlis, and commented on this fact in published and secret documents. …the registers of Muslims were improved. The registers of non-Muslim population were not significantly improved.” “..Armenian men were also significantly undercounted.” (in addition to women and children – which McCarthy admits was a normal practice). “There were more Armenian schoolchildren listed in Siirt than in Bitlis or Mus even though the (Ottoman census) listed much larger (Armenian) population numbers in the latter two sanaks.” (Indications of unpredictable unreliability of the figures) (McCarthy then justifies the use of [his own low] estimates in these cases as he admits the reported figures are unreliable). (note McCarthy admits that official counts indicated a substantially less Armenian presence in these areas than what was thought to exist – so why would the counts elsewhere be any different? I am sure that McCarthy only admits this in this case because the Ottoman figures can be proven wrong – where they cannot be proven wrong he uses them – just because they cannot be proven wrong does not mean that they are correct – and every indication is of greater undercount of Armenians then of Muslims – in every instance where this can be proven it is the case – thus is it not likely elsewhere as well?). “..other indicators also point to an undercount of Armenians and other Christians in Van.” (his rational for this – emigration of Armenian males ??? [what about the rest of the family?] is almost comical – the hoops he jumps through to justify why these undercounts and discrepancies are an aberration). “The military exemption tax paid by Van non-Muslims in 1313 indicates a greater non-Muslim population than does the population records. Ottoman statistics indicate that the Ottoman government was gradually improving its counts of Muslims in Van Vilayeti, but that the enumeration of non-Muslims was improving little. The Muslim population, as recorded, would have had to have been increasing three times faster than the non-Muslim population. This was impossible (note: perhaps less were being massacred). “..the assumption made when beginning to analyze the Ottoman data on Van Armenians was that the undercounting of Van Armenians would be of the same magnitude as the undercounting of Muslims. By every experiment and test, this did not prove to be the case.” (ah ha!) Cilicia: “While by no means completely accurate, the Ottoman figures can be corrected.” (can they really? Who really is to know? By whose methodology? Once you “correct” them are they still “census” figures? Or your own estimates – just as the figures you critique – in fact the Armenians Patriarchal figures may not be “estimates” but actual counts following birth, baptismal and death records kept by the church) “It was in the provinces closest to central authority that Ottoman and Armenian estimates of Armenian population most closely coincided.” (In fact he shows that the Ottoman figures were greater than the Armenian ones in some cases. Does this not seem to indicate that the accuracy of the Armenian figures in the Eastern provinces may have been more accurate than the government figures? If they were shown to be accurate in the areas where government control and administration was strong – and counts were good – could it not be possible that the Armenian figures were good in the areas of less government control – and that there were far more Armenians than the Ottomans were admitting to? This seems to make much sense does it not?) “There can be no doubt that Ottoman figures on Armenian population in eastern Anatolia were somewhat mistaken, as were Ottoman statistics on eastern Anatolian Muslim population. It must be asserted, however, that…Ottoman statistics did not selectively discriminate against Armenians.” (It seems to me that if we look at these discrepancies closely they did just that – thus McCarthy’s methodology, by his own - down in the fine print – admission, is flawed and biased against the Armenians in his totals. It seems that European intelligence sources agree more with the Armenian figures – why would this be so if the Ottoman figures are the more accurate as McCarthy contends?)

quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: My God indeed is not devil. Why? Because my God is caring and loving and 1.5 million armenians did not die for the devil. Just why did they die Artur? What purpose did such death and suffering serve? How could He let such a thing happen to his devoted believers? I fail to understand at all... And Artur, I understand what you say about fear of punishment (potentially) being a motivatior for good behavior. Perhaps this is necessary when people are immature in their understanding of the consequences of their actions - much as we punish children (or threaten to or such)...however it is my belief that humans posses the capability to see these things (the value of good, etc) on their own. Sure - some will never be able to do so - and perhaps require some fear of the consequences of their behaviors. But by your logic I think that this idea of Hell is only a tool - not a real place...and perhaps it (and much of the religion) has outlived its usefulness. This is just my feeling - perhaps I am wrong. I think that very much of Judeo-Christianity is a good thing - as I beleive that Buddism, Hinduism, Daoism and other religions are good things. I think we must take the good and shed the bad - and I think that those which are exclusivistic have harmful elements - and they can't all be right can they?

Rich - how petty and simple this post makes you look... quote:Originally posted by TigrannesIII: you live in the netherlands. i think that says it all. you're dutch, not armenian.

quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: Thoth, read my posts carefully as i said nothing about your so-called religion. Your choice, not mine. I ask moderators to delete the part about sex. Geez you have a family, wife ... think! Artur I just read your post very carefully. Are you implying that my religion is somehow non-existant or unworthy of consideration - labeling it as you do "so-called". (And are you taking clues from Turkish academics?) Well - it is "so-called" Christians like you - who denegrate other religions while promoting their own (as the only possible legitimate one) that really piss me off. But as you are just an uneducated kid I'll let it pass. I only hope (though knowing the chance is slim) that (somehow) you will be able to shake your very narrow mindset and learn to enjoy the pleasures and wonders of your life a little bit (as I believe it is the only life you will ever have...though I'm not sure I can actually disprove reincarnation...)

quote:Originally posted by Harut: i disapprove you Westerners to insult Artur for thinking the way he does. after all (like Sip said) that is what you Westerners promot the most (freedom of speach), don't you? Freedom of speech is all well and good - and I certainly would not (nor have I) advocate(d) silencing Artur...it is he who has labled my views disgusting and unacceptable - etc. and has suggested that I have no place here - that I am not Armenian etc quote:Originally posted by Harut: while i may disagree with many of things that Artur said in this topic, i don't blame him. Don't blame him for what? The terrible conditions in Armenian today? I don't understand... quote:Originally posted by Harut: one thing you Westerners don't understand (or don't want to understand) is that what Artur says is what he was tought. that's the way of thinking he has, and i don't see anything wrong in his thinking. he states something, then he brings reasons for that. those reasons might not please you Westerners, but those are things that in his society people value the most. I/we understand that he is representing traditinal views and to some extent Eastern views and that (many) people live like he describes and think such. Maybe it is "right" for them (though I would appreciate more women's views on this (if they are allowed to speak). In general though I think that Artur and those like him portray life in the West as much more different from the traditional than it in fact is (in many respects). It is also he who is rejecting the differences - rejecting change. Most of us understand how things are & were & still even are here in many places. quote:Originally posted by Harut: start looking to the issue from the other side! what Artur thinks is thought by majority in his society, and that's why those things are still important there. so, if that's what majority wants and accapts then that's what ought to be there (again, aren't you ones promoting this?). and you can't tell that that's wrong, because that's right for them. See above. Is it the majority? Again I suggest asking women. Artur is rejecting the idea of women driving. Well, perhaps in some places it isn't a necessity etc - well here in the West it is - so how is it his role to say that it is wrong - he is the one out of touch - not the other way around. quote:Originally posted by Harut: i agree tough that Artur doesn't look to the issue from your side either. when i lived in Armenia i thought of US as the "hell" on the earth because what people were doing here were not accepted there. but when i moved here i started understanding that this is what people here like and value. now i don't consider it "heaven" but i can see what's going on. And? (spit it out son) quote:Originally posted by Harut: another thing, you Westeners stop stereotyping all other kinds of thinking into "Taliban" thinking (good for you that they are around, otherwise what were you going to call people who think differently). this is for now. Well - it is taliban thinking. Sure the Taliban version is the extreme - but these attitudes are part of the same phenomonon. The time for these attitudes is or at least should be past/passing. It is just wrong to deny 1/2 of the population basic rights - etc. The "traditonalists" are perpetuating a system that is - in its extreme - savage - and at the very least is unenlightened. It is largely based on false assumptions and fear. I'm not saying that division of labor (along gender lines) and such is (strictly)wrong - and a certain amount of this will naturally occur. What I object to are laws/practices etc which force this situation and force disadvantage (and worse) on the female...

Jugs - Lets see - you don't approve of sex with women - but advocate it for men - but not with other men - I see....guess that just leaves the sheep then - I was right all along. Luckily you have a very many of them in New Zealand...

quote:Originally posted by Mehderian:This is vicious, unfounded, unsubstantiated poppycock. It is no coincidence there are no examples of what you are referring to in this deliberately vauge passage. Even as America continues to support and defend people all across the globe, this babble is continually repeated(in various forms)on the internet and elsewhere. Hitler said that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. I guess he was right. [QB][/QB] You said it Mehderian! While we are not perfect (who could be) - and we certainly act in self-interest (who does not) - we are also a generous nation that does (generally) oppose tyranny (and please don't forget our role [& sacrifices] in defeating Hitler, Mussolini & Tojo). I certainly belive the world would be much worse off without the US. What gets me is that people like Juggernaut and others live in and benefit from the economies and ideals of the West (Europe/Americas/Australia/New Zealand/Japan etc) - the enlightend nations of the world - yet claim how horrible we all are (or specifically the US). Well sometimes tough choices must be made - sometimes - as we are all human - wrong choices are made - sometimes bad people are involved etc etc - but overall the US is an overwhelming force for good in our world today - pretty much everything else is just quibbling with details - IMO (and we should quibble and critisize and seak to improve - OK...but really now - would you rerally want China or Russia/Soviet Union or such with a free hand in the world? What is your ideal world order? No order? Yea - sure me too...but there be bad guys out there - really - and it would not remain idealic forever. For some reason there exsists the desire for certain men to dominate over others - to impose their will - to grab powewr..etc etc - ussually for some nationalistic and/or hateful reason. Well, the US and the West - under the current order....Democrocies...at least nominally...are a good check against suich abuses. So what is it you (Jugs) were saying? (we are waiting for your history of the US - can't wait really....LOL)

Just ran accross this - wondering if it may be a sign of things to come. Of course - some basic doctrine will have to change to take it further than this: New Gender-Neutral Bible Planned By Richard N. Ostling AP Religion Writer Monday, January 28, 2002; 8:07 AM The International Bible Society said Monday that America's best-selling modern Bible is about to get an update using gender-neutral wording, despite past criticism of that idea from conservatives. The revision will be called "Today's New International Version," or TNIV. The original "New International Version," which has sold more than 150 million copies worldwide since 1978, will remain on the market. The New Testament of the latest version goes on sale in April with the full Bible including Old Testament books expected by 2005. Zondervan of Grand Rapids, Mich., owned by HarperCollins, holds North American rights for both versions. To date, the Bible society and Zondervan have spent $2 million to develop the new translation but they did not disclose other financial terms. Both versions, the work of evangelical translators, are especially popular in the conservative, Protestant heart of America's competitive Bible market. The older version's gender usage became hotly disputed in 1997 when World magazine, a conservative weekly, reported that the Bible society was working on an inclusive-language revision. The society had already published such an edition with a British publisher. Leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest U.S. Protestant denomination, criticized the language change, as did James Dobson of the influential "Focus on the Family" radio broadcast. After meeting with critics, the Bible society said it would halt publication of Britain's inclusive edition and had "abandoned all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of the New International Version." The Bible society, based in Colorado Springs, Colo., isn't quite abandoning its pledge because the latest version won't replace the "New International Version" – it will just be sold alongside the older translation. Examples of some changes from 1978 to 2002: "sons of God" to "children of God" in Matthew 5:9, and "a man is justified by faith" to "a person is justified by faith" in Romans 3:28. A publicity release says "the TNIV is not merely a gender-accurate edition of the NIV," because 70 percent of the changes do not relate to gender. Also, terms referring to God and Jesus Christ have not been altered. Like the 1978 Bible, the new version is aimed at Protestants, and will not appear in an edition with the extra biblical books recognized by Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. The major U.S. sales competitor for the NIV has been the venerable King James Version. But the international versions will now also have to compete with two evangelical translations that appeared last year: –"English Standard Version" from Crossway, a slight update of the 1952 Revised Standard Version that makes modest use of gender-free terminology. –"Holman Christian Standard Bible" from Broadman & Holman, the Southern Baptist book house, which rejects gender-neutral wording. It is currently available only in the New Testament, with the full Bible due in 2004. All or part of the Bible is currently available in some 70 English translations. ––– On the Net: International Bible Society: http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs © 2002 The Associated Press

quote:Originally posted by Juggernaut: regarding intermarriage, inter-dating etc. I have nothing against inter-dating, and I think this should be promoted in the Armenian community because it expands our horizons in knowledge and also promotes us in other communities. Agree. Absolutely the only statement of any sense you have made here. quote:Originally posted by Juggernaut: Intermarriage I would not approve of, though I know how strong love maybe. So I guess you will be marrying your sister or cousin - as the Armenian gene pool in New Zealand couldn't be all that great. (and with your great looks and personality I'm not sure I would count on atracting anyone outside of the immediate family). Does New Zealand law specify that if you get the girl pregnant (after a rape) you have to marry her...(I'm sorry....thats the Bible...I'm confusing things...) And as with Artur - Armenians don't need your permission - they will act in their interests (as they always have) and not stick to your straight-jacket conservatism unreal dream world, etc... quote:Originally posted by Juggernaut: Mind you I have yet to 'fall in love', but a close friends of mine have and the effects are quite compelling. I for one understand that 'love' is simply chemicals messing with your brain , mind you its difficult to turn the tap off . Yea, thats the ticket...its simply chemicals, yea, thats right, all you need to know really...(my advice [for you] - stick to sheep...they are much less demanding on you). quote:Originally posted by Juggernaut: sex - is healthy and fun I'm sorry this may sound sexist , but men should get as much as possible before marriage, but women should stay virgins. I know its bad, but thats my currents stance (it will probably change after marriage). No, doesn't sound sexist at all - LOL. OK, could you please cite the Biblical passage that supports your contention...didn't think so (even that sexist piece doesn't quite support you here). So, I'm curious, just who are the men supposed to do it with? (realizing of course our sheep population is nowhere near adequate as yours is...you guys just have all the luck I guess). Or perhaps you are advocating young men and older (marrried?) women? (I'm all for that...good for guys to learn how to please a women...without the married part though...not a good idea in general...unless the husband approves of course...). Anyway, I fail to see the practical application of what I will refer to as "Jubbernuts Law" - men have sex, women do not...oh, it just dawned on me your meaning I think...You are talking GAY SEX! (mano-o-mano as it were) - and here we were prematuraly (perhaps) branding you a closed minded arch conservative type (do you think Artur will approve? Unlikely, as he doesn't even like the thought of sex at all - I think he wants to outlaw it)- must be some aborigninal or Micronesian influence you are drawing upon I guess - some right of manhood where first the boys go through some homosexual period - very popular in some of those cultures I here (and you thought you weren't assimilating any of the local practices...) or perhaps its from your pal/hero Rommel...not too many women in the tanks or foxholes in them days, or perhaps the sheep are already all taken...and as (in your Law) women can't have sex - just who is left...(please elaborate on your (neither so clear nor very fine) Law for us...its application is somewhat confusing. quote:Originally posted by Juggernaut: Armenian church- I am not much of a church-goer and have only so far read 1/3 of the Bible (I have read the childrens version several times when I was 10 ), but I believe Christianity and being Armenian are inter-twinned. If you are not Christian then you are not Armenian. I would agree that Christianity and being Armenian are and have been intertwinned. I would not agree that being a Christian is the do all and end all of being Armenian. And it matters not really what you believe (you live in New Zealand for Heaven's sake!)...like anything anyone from New Zealand might have to say has any bearing on things...I'm not sure that one can be an Armenian and be a New Zealander at the same time...moderators - could we have a ruling on this one? And you say that you don't go to Church? Are you certain that you qualify as an Armenian if you don't go to Church? quote:Originally posted by Juggernaut: So if you consider America to be 'your' nation, how are you Armenian? Yes, I am an American - red, white & blue! And proud of it (How little you know/understand). Has the US always been "right" etc etc etc - look only you and Artur beleive in the possibility of perfection... How am I Armenian you ask? Do I really have to explain basic biology/genetics for you or trace my lineage & such. I think a very many Armenians would consider me such (most seem to) - particularly all of those whom were saved (and smuggled out of the country) by my family during the Genocide - some very prominent ones in fact... quote:Originally posted by Juggernaut: And there is nothing great about 'your' nation, except perharps the SOCIAL, ECONOMIC and POLICTICAL rubbish originating from it Really now? And you are some expert? Samual P Huntington writing the foreword to your book? Be careful now - you might anger us. Perhaps your government is a bit too Green (anti-Nuke) for us - we don't like that you know. We have ways of dealing with your type. And we have a bit of an embarrasing economic crisis here at home (Enron - your pals MJ...) and we are looking to divert attention. Bad timing on your part. I'm sure that there are Muslims in New Zealand - or maybe you are undercutting our Leg of Lamb prices - subsidized ranching...down right socialist! And very un-American. I think I'll flood e-mail the White House and my Congressional representatives today. I think I heard we have some new series of bombs to test as well - goody! More night vision footage of things blowing up...you will take cover I hope...

quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: Thoth, you are a Daoist? Man, the more i read your posts the more sick i feel... I'm sorry (for you - very much so) that you cannot understand that there are people who believe/have beliefs differently then you in the world. Do you know what makes me more sick then anything: intolerance. quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: How old are you to talk about sex n public about it in such open manner??? There are kids coming to this forum. You are not serious! Does my saying that sex is a natural thing really bother you so much? You aren't just a (narrow minded supposed Christian) you are phobic. Question: Should children be allowed to read the bible? Unedited? (at what age then...?)Funny that its OK for your Holy book to be so very graphic when it comes to sex and sexual things (and extreme violence and worse)...but the mere mention of the word sex by me sends you into a frenzy. Kids - if your reading this - sex is (generally) good - it can be very good in fact - it is a really good thing in general - in addition to being anecessary for the survival of our species and a precondition (in most cases) to beginning and perpetuation of a family. But it is (decidedly) a grown up thing - because it is not a simple thing that you become invlved with when it comes to sex - there are many (potential)complications and issues , a great many - and any decision regarding such is a big one (for your life) and you don't want to mess it up. And it also requires maturity to understand all the emotional aspects of relationships that become sexually involved. You should not enter inot such a relationship before your truly ready and before the right situation and partner present themselves. You owe it to yourself to do it right so that (eventually) it will be a good thing for you to and not a source of (potentially very serious) problems for you. For all of these reasons I suggest you speak heart to heart with your parents (or some other adult(s) that you trust...maybe even a teacher at school, or perhaps even a priest [but be careful there]) for guidance before becoming sexually active/involved - hopefully they will not be like Artur - but will be understanding and able to correctly advise and help you to make the right decision. Please don't take/make such decisions lightly. Its more then just playing around. And there are many good reasons to wait until you are truly ready. Is that an OK warning/disclaimer Artur? I believe that proper sexual education is a very important thing for young people. The consequences of not having such are very readily apparent...don't you think? quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: Also, You said you are married... what are you doing wasting your time in forums? I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting I am not spending my time with my wife & children? Well this is untrue - I am often on the computer with them - such as today - and/or am doing other things in addition to stopping in here. I don't consider my involvement in various forums wasted time as I have interesting exchanges, often learn things, and get a certain amount of entertainment out of them (for a variety of reasons). I've also made a few friends - always a good thing. Whats your excuse?

quote:Originally posted by Lucid_dream: think of all of the ancient races that existed...they intermarried, etc....and years after, their customs, traditions... everything died out... Most of these "ancient races" had more problems then just intermarriage - most were overun and put to the sword. Well, Armenians already survived and persevered through the worst of that - even if diminished and ousted from our homeland... You must not forget that we are in an entirely new era. Communications is worldwide (& instantaneous), history/human events is/are digitized (and perserved), and what it means to be human is rapidly changing (in a great many ways) - the idea of race and (specific) culture (in isolation) is erroding for all peoples - not just for Armenians. We may not like it (though I suspect that our racial/cultural distinctions still have a few more generations at the very least...), but unless there is a worldwide political/economic collapse/devastating war etc - that drives people apart again (and toward the primitve) - I don't see it as very likely that the current trends will change. By all means you should hold onto the aspects of your culture that are meaningful (to you) and worthwhile. If others do the same (in varrying degrees) then it will survive...(and your children and theirs may well still think themselves Armenian...[as I do]) but you must not expect that it (society)/you (Armenians) will not change and that you can hope to truly forestall the dominant culture of the day (from being adopted by those exposed to it). At the same time all the cultures that comprise the West and the world are still a part of it - to varrying degrees - and many of thier ways are adopted and assimilated as well - the West too has changed and is changing (ever more rapidly...). But if being Armenian is indeed worthwhile in any/some way (and I think that it is) - then our distinctivenes will survive (again - at some level). But time will never stand still...in fact it moves more rapidly then ever....

quote:Originally posted by TigrannesIII: If I have to be a hypocrite to love my mother so be it. I'm sorry you can't see that. No I do see it - you are being a hypocrite...and a fool. quote:Originally posted by TigrannesIII: I, for one, will never be with an odar and all Armenians should be the same. You obviously failed that test. Your choice. One day you may wonder - looking back at your life - at the choices you made - and rthe limitations you placed upon yourself - if some oppurtunity for happiness or a fulfiling life of some sort may have passed you by (or vice versa). I'm not saying it will come to this - and for your sake I hope your choices work out for you, just...you never know sometime... quote:Originally posted by TigrannesIII: As for your culture? You're an atheist, a liberal, and advocate pre-marrital sex. You really have no business flooding this forum with your filth. Well I have plenty of company (here and among Armenians in general). Who are you to determine what is my business and what the business of this forum must be. Please refeer me to the forum guidelines that specify the limits of allowable political, religious, etc belief and expression.... And how dare you characterize my views as filfth. They are nothing of the kind I am an extremely moral and upright person. And my virews are very consistent with those of the founding fathers of our great nation. As such i may not practice certain behaviors etc - but I will certainly defend the rights of those to do such without interference. In addition, I advocate pre-maritial sex for some very good reasons - and I utterly reject your contention that there is in any way something immoral in such. Sex in general is a great and wonderful thing - it is something that ties us to nature and to the ways of our fellow creatures on the planet. I reject the belief that we must shun our natural behaviors to appease some prudish "other" being who demands such from us for largely (IMO) no longer relevant reasons. At the same time I respect the decision of anyone who chooses such for themselves - it is their body, their life and their choice. In my religion (Daoism) you must go with thoughts/behaviors/actions that are correct/natural for you - without applying artificial restrainst/conditions (as from outside influences...such as peer pressure etc) quote:Originally posted by TigrannesIII: Food doesn't mean anything. Au contraire - food is the essence of life. If I were like you - overly judgemental and narrowminded - I might claim that if you can't cook Armenian you aren't Armenian. But I would never presume to judge others in such a way...and I find it humourous ( but also sad) that you attempt to do so. Please worry about yourself and not the behaviors/activities of others quote:Originally posted by TigrannesIII: Is she in the church even? Oh wait, you're not even in the church. Unlike you I am not hypocrite. I imagine I could join a parrish for the social aspect (and I/we do participate, to a limited degree, in the social aspects of our local Armenian church...but I am not a Christian - I have other beliefs. Do you wish me to list some of the names of famous Armenians who do not attend Armenian Church etc..? Somhow I think there are manynames who you proudly claim as Armenian to Odars... You speak of Armenian traditions etc - yet you seem unaware of the history of diversity/adaptation among our people. While sticking to our traditions/beliefs has been a pillar of strength for us in certain situations in the past - I would argue that beaing able to adapt to the circumstancesx has played (at least) an equal role in the survival of our people. And in general time does not stand still. You exhibit no understanding of this fact. Change is inevitable. It is those who cannot change/adapt to change who become extinct. Think about it. My previous comments were meant seriously - I really think that the Armenian Diaspora (and otherwise) commuity has some very serious issues to deal with - that they largely are not (it seems to me). This over concern regarding assimilation is wasted effort IMO.

Rich - By your definition your father should never have dated your mother. Are you now telling us there are exceptions to this rule? Could you please define the exact circumstances of acceptability for an Armenian to date outside of the "race".... Your post has nothing to do with the point I have made. And who are you to claim a monopoly on what it is to be Armenian. I bet my Shish Kebab and Pilaf blow yours away any day. And BTW - my non-Armenian wife makes a fine paklava. i must admit I am the Pilaf make of the family - though her Persian rice is unbeatable - and I can't seem to be able to duplicate it. I also have a fine collection of Armenian carpets, ceramics, music and other items in my home. I follow Armenian political issues and am a staunch advocate of Genocide recognition - on the net or otherwise. No one who ever meets me - even when I travel to Turkey - has any doubt that my heritage is Armenian. So please refrain from telling me what I am or am not qualified or eligible to comment on...

And what if your god were in truth the devil - the great deciever...your sacrifice (?) for naught, your persecution of the heretic in vain, your deeds in support of the anti...etc...ever wonder why it was that the serpent told the truth and your god the lie? Are you familiar with the story of Prometheus? Do you know who Enki is? Have you ever studied the tales that your bible was based upon? Do you understand (anything of) the tale/fable(?) of Gilgamesh, the cycles of Osiris, the hero with the thousand faces...(etc)? Do you really believe that your ignorance could ever pass as wisdom? "To know is not to know" - Lao Tzu (?BC) "Ignorance is bliss": or is this your argument...? Either way your childish level explanations hold no true key, either way your presumption and arogance get you nothing in the end... Have you ever heard/read (the words of) Chief Joseph? Don't presume you know all/any answers... If I believe that if I brush my teeth 3 times daily I will go to heaven - who are you to prove me wrong? And I suspect you don't do so - should I mock you for your stupitidy? Should I hound you to do so...based on my (unable to be proven) belief? Considering the misdeeds of the (various) church(s) throughout history don't you think one has the better chance of being on the side of good (and all that this may entail) by opposing such? You seem to advocate adherence to archaic and inhuman practices based on presupisition of realities that can neither be witnessed or proven, and you suggest that it is in our interest to follow such suggestion for our own good. First - I question this (fear of punishment) as the basis for any religion (strictly unproven...and why worship our suposed punisher), and secondly I think our time might be better spent addressing the conditions that we can affect/witness. Is you/us being spiritual beings (under your definition) making us better people? If not, then who has it wrong? quote:Originally posted by ARTURian:In the name of God the Most High, the Son and the Holy Spirit! Some people believe that GOD exists and some do not. Those who believe don't lose anything. More! Spritually they find more peace in their mind. They live and they die. The same happen with those who do not believe. But they might lose, if God really exists. And they will lose with some eternal punishment of eternal fire called hell. But that's from believers point of view. And not all believers go to heaven... So, the outcome... We will all find out wether God exists or not, as we will al die one day. But not all will discover the truth. May God open your eyes as mine as i was a non-believer who did not believe in God at all. And i was trying to prove that God does not exists... untill one day ... single day... Peace! Artur [ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: THOTH ]

Artur, Artur, Artur... if it is so bad whay do they still come...? In fact, our life here is very good - weather you think so or not. Sickos are everywhere...reported or not...risk is part of life - are you saying you perfer that there were none? Even so, they still come...why? (you obviously just don't understand)

quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: Thoth, you've got wrong image. If you think it is fear of losing power in me, then you are totally wrong. There are women much clever than me, better drivers than me, better in many things. In my university classes, there are so many much more intellegent girls than me... extremely intellegent. But it is not about man-woman war. I understand why you might think that, because your society is filled with absessed feminists, when you say a word about woman, they start jumping from nowhere and defending how women generally better than men or equal to men. E.g. lucid, and 90% of girls arguing in this topic. But it is totally different case here. totally... I'm not sure that this disproves my contention...LOL quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: It is about family and about successful family. And what are the ways of having successful family. There are 3 ways: 1) Man and woman being equal 2) Man taking final decisions (now i am not going to use the word on the top or higher as for it seems to be very offensive and you start with this power thing) 3) Woman taking final decisions First would not work! Why? Too much arguments... and probably that's why you guys have 50% divorce rate. We i think pretty much agreed on this. Second and third are of similar concept but the difference is different person. If you consider the third option, then it means your wife has to work be major financial source and take most of the risks. If you are man, and respect your wife, you should make sure that your wife gets the happiest life without any troubles and worries. So i hope you get my idea. I don't agree that there are 3 ways. There are single parent families and there are group/communal/extended family arrangements - all of which can work perfectly fine (and are not exactly in the model that you espouse). You are much too rigid (and thus narrowmined) - that is your chief problem. What is your problem with arguments? I must say my wife and I do not argue about things as you are implying. We may (and do) disagree on something or another - this can sometimes lead to an argument (though contrary to what it might seem I am not at all the arguing kind - not in this way) - ussually it leads to a discussion concerning why one of us things one way and the other another. We ussually come to satisfactory comprimise (or she convinces me she was right all along [ussually] LOL) I challenge your contention that women can never be allowed to take risks or to provide finacially (two completely different things I might add). My wife has a Master of Business Administration - are you telling me she is only worthy to be a stay at home mother? Well - she would just eat you alive for suggesting such. In fact - my disposition (and skills - such as cooking/cleaning etc) make me more suited to staying at home and taking care of the houshold (if it required either of us to do such) - and I would have no problems - psychological or otherwise in doing such if need be. But we both work - we both take care of our children (and often have and do jump through quite a number of hoops to do so - such as adjust our work schedules to accomadate their school schedules etc etc - for a time I began work at 6:30 am to get to their schol at 4PM while my wife took them to school at 9 am and did not get home to 6-7pm. Luckily we now have an arrrangement where we can commute to work together and we have someone watching the children for an hour or two each day for us - and it is working out great. My point is twofold. 1) there are many family (and care) arrangements that can work for people - choices do not need to be constrianed - and I would challange anyone to claim that our children are recieving anything less then an ideal upbringing, education and loving care and 2) I think it is a great misconception that Americans or such do not love and care for their children and that they only think of themselves. Sure some people are like this...everywhere. But this is not the norm. And all this talk of 50% divorce rate. Much of this is folks who get married and divorced multiple times I think...LOL. In other cases its just a reflection in how the idea of family and the idea of relationships have changed somewhat (or I should say the definition has expanded) and Western society has goten away from single partner exclusivenss in all cases. I argue that this is not any big concern - it is just a different way of things - OK for some people. In fact in many cases divorce is a good option as some people are not happy together. People should be happy. And even when there are children - many are more happy and better cared for after the divorce - there is good experience and bad. I'm not sure you can even understand the points I am trying to make here.... quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: But I want you to understand that, if man does not allow his wife to do one thing or another thing, this is ONLY... again ONLY because of protection, care and love towards his wife. So, it isnt about bulshit man being more supperiour or higher or better... or because he wants to prove that "he is the man"... but rather about protection, care and love towards his wife. That's all. It is not for you to allow - pure and simple - the relationship is not - or should not be - master and slave - and this is what you propose. I can protect and care for my wife - without demanding obediance. etc quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: Thoth it is not misconception... it is the FACT... and you know, that in your society generally husband and wife first think about themselves and then about kids. If it would be opposite then the divorce rate wouldn't be so high... as it really harms kids, especialy when they are very young... so they don't know the word sacrifice... See above. And you are very wrong about sacrifice. Sure - some do not - and will never understand such - and they shouldn't have children in the first place (but there is no test you must take to have children). These problems exist in all societies - not just in the West. We are no different in this regard - good and bad. The truth may just surprise you (if you knew how to open your eyes). quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: And please don't use Taliban/Artur ... i am nothing like them, and you don't know who they are. except the propaganda your government has been feeding you about them. These people have their own way of living, so you should leave them alone. Yes yes - no your not Taliban you say - but you support them - we should leave them alone - etc. How do you know what I do and don't know about Taliban? You don't know very much IMO. Your argument is like a Young Turk saying to outsiders - you don't know what we put up with - just leave us to take care of our own problems. So is this the correct course of action? To do nothing? You think about it. And you keep an eye out for the stories of torture, mutilation, mass murder and supression of basic rights that the Taliban forced upon their nation. During this last campaign I had occasion to speak with a very many Afghans and I always began by expressing sympathy for what (the innocents of) their nation was going through with our invasion/bombing and the like. To a person (no exaggeration) they said no - this was all a good thing because the Taliban must go! Yet you are defending them. quote:Originally posted by ARTURian: Also, can you please define and explain why i am naive. That's probably how 95% of families operate in Armenia, so then the whole Armenia is naive... ) The best to you all, Artur Your naivite is obvious (to most of us) in your every post. I have been trying to explain it in my every response. If you can't understand then I guess it is due to you...I don't kow...naivite? LOL And perhaps much of (not all - you don't speak for/know all) of Armenia is naive in this matter - or still requires some evolving - IMO....and it is occuring...though I don't think it is as perhasp as bad/backword as you portray. I also think my nation and Europe have a ways to go in humaness and evolution of proper attitudes for people/governments etc. We all have quite a ways to go in general...IMO. [ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: THOTH ]

quote:Originally posted by hasmiek: I guess that was about why is wat bothered by his opinion, he don't mind if he and his future wife live like that. That's their lives. I just don't like the way Artur disagrees with our western lifestyles, and seems to look down on them. And I don't think that is a very_christian_ thing to do. The crux of it all really. And it seems that (some) Christians do take this approach. I don't ever wish to be disrespectful of ones religion and would never claim to be able to prove anyone's religion false - but I sometimes get defensive (mostly with Christians) because in their zeal they (I think sometimes blindly) denigrate anyone who beleives differently then themselves. I am so very often told I am going to hell etc or that I am not loved by God or will be punished etc etc - because I do not beleive as they do - I certainly find this insulting (even if I personally beleive the "threats" to be empty) and its certainly disrespectful (IMO). As i balance I should also add that I have a great many Christian friends who (while often overzealous IMO) are overwhelmingly positive and tell me how they pray for me (such as when i have been ill) and such (and how can I complain about that - eh? - I thinkk its very nice for them to think of me that way and shows love etc - a very proper Christian value - IMO) and who also show respect to my beliefs (even if we might sometimes argue specifics at times. And BTW (forgot where/which thread this came up but I have read the entire Old Testment [that some consider to be "The Bible" - as well as much of the New [enough to get the jist of the story I think]), I have also read a number of other primary (non-Christian) religious texts (in whole and part) - so I am not entirely uniformed. In fact, while in High School I was (for a time) a memer of the Young Life movement and nearly became born again - but I realised that it was not in my heart - just as now - and that I would hypocritical to claim to be a Christian if I did not beleive (and certainly not if only motivated by fear [of Hell etc]) quote:Originally posted by hasmiek: It sounds like you have a great family, it's nice to know that there are armenians like you somewhere... that i can learn from. Why thank you - we are very happy & content. I wish for you similar or better. Life is a wonderful thing - so full of surprises and oppurtunities for joy. there is certainly tragedy and sadness as well however. I just finished speaking with a very good friend of mine whose wife lost her baby last night - she was several moinths pregnant - and this was not the first for them. We are all very saddened by this - as we are when any friend or family dies or has serious problems - but these things too are part of life and our lives. They, like everything, happen - sometimes seeming for no reason - and certainly not based on whether one is of a certain religion or not etc. In the end it is the strenth of our character and the presence of good friends and family that matter in how we persevere and prosper again - as with anything.

hasmiek - Yes agreed, and what Arthur and others like him fail to appreciate is that here in the States and in Europe there still exists much of the traditional family - and thats perfectly OK - if thats what folks want. Additionally many families, such as my own, where my wife works and we divide/share our family responsibilities/duties/say equally, may in fact not be all that much differnt in many respects then the "traditional" family. There is love - of each other and the children - and all of the rest. I think it is a misconception that some (like Taliban/Arthur) have that everyone in the West is just wild and immoral....and that there is something inherrently wrong in giving women (and everyone) equal rights & such....