On Women

[Anonymouse]

by Freidrich Nietzsche

 

"Why do you steal so cautiously through the twighlight, Zarathustra? And what do you conceal so carefully under your coat? Is it a treasure you have been given? or a child born to you? Or do you yourself now follow the ways of thieves. You friend of those who are evil?"

 

"Verily, my brother" said Zarathustra, "it is treasure I have been given: it is a little truth that I carry. But it is troublesome like a young child, and if I don't hold my hand over its mouth, it will cry overloudly."

 

"When I went on my way today, alone, at the hour when the sun goes down, I met a little old woman who spoke thus to my soul: 'Much has Zarathustra spoken to us women too; but never did he speak to us about woman'. And I answered her: 'About woman one should speak only to men'. Then she said: 'Speak to me too of woman; I am old enough to forget it immediately'. And I obliged the little old woman and I spoke to her thus:

 

"Everything about woman is a riddle, and everything about woman has one solution: that is pregnancy. Man is for woman a means: the end is always the child. But what is woman for man? A real man wants two things: danger and play. Therefore he wants woman as the most dangerous plaything. Man should be educated for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior; all else is folly. The warrior does not like all-too-sweet fruit; therefore he likes woman: even the sweetest woman is bitter. Woman understands children better than man does, but man is more childlike than woman.

 

"In a real man a child is hidden - and wants to play. Go to it, women, discover the child in man! Let woman be a plaything, pure and fine, like a gem, irradiated by the virtues of a world that has not yet arrived. Let the radiance of a star shine through your love! Let your hope be: May I give birth to the overman!

 

"Let there be courage in your love! With your love you should proceed toward him who arouses fear in you. Let your honor be in your love! Little does woman understand of honor otherwise. But let this be your honor: always to love more than you are loved, and never to be second.

 

"Let man fear woman when she loves: then she makes any sacrifices, and everything else seems without value to her. Let man fear woman when she hates: for deep down in his soul man is merely evil, while woman is bad. Whom does woman hate most? Thus spoke the iron to the magnet: 'I hate you most because you attract, but are not strong enough to pull me to you'.

 

"The happiness of man is: I will. The happiness of woman is: he wills. 'Behold, just now the world became perfect!' - thus thinks every woman when she obeys out of entire love. And woman must obey and find a depth for her surface. Surface is the disposition of woman: a mobile, stormy film over shallow water. Man's disposition, however, is deep; his river roars in subterranean caves: woman feels his strength but does not comprehend it.

 

"Then the little old woman answered me: 'Many fine things has Zarathustra said, especially for those who are young enough for them. It is strange: Zarathustra knows women little, and yet he is right about them. Is this because n othing is impossible with woman? And now, as a token of gratitude, accept a little truth. After all, I am old enough for it. Wrap it up and hold your hand over its mouth: else it will cry overloudly this little truth'.

 

"Then I said: 'Woman, give me your little truth'. And thus spoke the little old woman:

"You are going to women? Do not forget the whip!'"

 

Thus spoke Zarathustra.

Edited January 19, 2005 by Anonymouse

[Anileve]

by Freidrich Nietzsche

style_images/master/snapback.png

Although I respect and admire Nietzche's philosophical theories, I could care less about what he thinks of women. He was known for insulting women, and often exuded clear signs of misogyny.

 

And woman must obey and find a depth for her surface. Surface is the disposition of woman: a mobile, stormy film over shallow water. Man's disposition, however, is deep; his river roars in subterranean caves: woman feels his strength but does not comprehend it.

This is pure hogwash, Mouse I wouldn't expect anything less from you when it comes to the subject of women.

[Azat]

Its okay. maybe he is just talking about his mom here. And maybe she should be thought of in that way Edited January 19, 2005 by Azat

[Anonymouse]

Although I respect and admire Nietzche's philosophical theories, I could care less about what he thinks of women. He was known for insulting women, and often exuded clear signs of misogyny.

This is pure hogwash, Mouse I wouldn't expect anything less from you when it comes to the subject of women.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Well, I don't entirely agree with the Nietzschester on all matters, you are assuming way too many things here. I wanted to throw out his particular line:

 

A real man wants two things: danger and play. Therefore he wants woman as the most dangerous plaything.

 

However, I felt compelled to include the rest of his writing in that particular point since it was so poetic, and powerful, and since I agree with about 70% of it.

[DominO123]

Well, I don't entirely agree with the Nietzschester on all matters, you are assuming way too many things here. I wanted to throw out his particular line:

 

A real man wants two things: danger and play. Therefore he wants woman as the most dangerous plaything.

 

However, I felt compelled to include the rest of his writing in that particular point since it was so poetic, and powerful, and since I agree with about 70% of it.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

"On women" is the title you have chosen for this thread, so I don't think she is assuming anything, but rather answering to this misogynic post of yours.

[Anonymouse]

"On women" is the title you have chosen for this thread, so I don't think she is assuming anything, but rather answering to this misogynic post of yours.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Oh no the feminist male came to the rescue! What will I do? I think she is assuming entirely too much as are you. The title is irrelevent from the beliefs I abide by because this was simply Nietzsche's rant on women, hence the title. Now, without making any more erroneous assumptions I suggest the feminists among us stop while it's still possible.

[DominO123]

Oh no the feminist male came to the rescue! What will I do? I think she is assuming entirely too much as are you. The title is irrelevent from the beliefs I abide by because this was simply Nietzsche's rant on women, hence the title. Now, without making any more erroneous assumptions I suggest the feminists among us stop while it's still possible.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Oh no! Donkeyshot is back for a new adventure.

 

I guess believing man and woman being equal makes me a feminist, so be it. I can afford this small inconvinience.

[Anonymouse]

Oh no! Donkeyshot is back for a new adventure.

 

I guess believing man and woman being equal makes me a feminist, so be it. I can afford this small inconvinience.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Man and women are not equal. That's the point. That is what Nietzsche was getting at. That is what Schopenhauer was getting at. It has never nor can ever be proven that they are equal. Feminists ( egalitarians ) believe that they ought to be equal, not that they are. If you believe they are, how are they equal? Respecting one another has no bearing on the idea of equality and is necessarily exclusive. There goes your argument.

[DominO123]

Man and women are not equal. That's the point. That is what Nietzsche was getting at. That is what Schopenhauer was getting at. It has never nor can ever be proven that they are equal. Feminists ( egalitarians ) believe that they ought to be equal, not that they are.  If you believe they are, how are they equal? Respecting one another has no bearing on the idea of equality and is necessarily exclusive. There goes your argument.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

The basis of your arguments, you don't need to repeat them, you've trown your BS more than enough. And I will repeat the weakness of it, the same weakness you had with your racist ideologies of why Blacks and Whites are not equal.

 

If your arguments were to support your theses, the same could have been said regarding two different white man, blue eyed, blond haired etc.

 

You can't grasp the difference between equal in mathematic, and equality in what concerns people in a society. And this is even more surprising, that given your obvious lack of basic mathematic knowledge, you will be able to condound them, when neither do you know what equality means in mathematic, neither do you know what equality means when discussing about people in a society.

 

It is even more disturbing, that after all the trillions of subjects you can talk about, you always come up with something like this, and then cry about why your positions are never supported by anyone, beside sociopaths, fundmentalist conservatives etc.

Edited January 20, 2005 by Fadix

[DominO123]

And just to add, to show you how credible you are. You well know that I am against feminism, but you still repeat this BS. Nothing surprising here again.

[Anonymouse]

The basis of your arguments, you don't need to repeat them, you've trown your BS more than enough. And I will repeat the weakness of it, the same weakness you had with your racist ideologies of why Blacks and Whites are not equal.

 

If your arguments were to support your theses, the same could have been said regarding two different white man, blue eyed, blond haired etc.

 

You can't grasp the difference between equal in mathematic, and equality in what concerns people in a society. And this is even more surprising, that given your obvious lack of basic mathematic knowledge, you will be able to condound them, when neither do you know what equality means in mathematic, neither do you know what equality means when discussing about people in a society.

 

It is even more disturbing, that after all the trillions of subjects you can talk about, you always come up with something like this, and then cry about why your positions are never supported by anyone, beside sociopaths, fundmentalist conservatives etc.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Yes, sadly, truth only exists in one texture and one touch, and those who wear rubber gloves can only touch it, but not feel it, instead they only feel something artificial such as the touch via the glove.

 

What 'weaknesses' have you repeated? Now my posts will be deleted by the moderators for somehow 'inciting' something, when it was clearly the self-styled feminists that have once agained started hurling nothing but regurgitated bromide of "we are equal you are wrong because I say so" and the usual ad hominems. It is irrationality that is offered as sacrifice on the altar of ignorance.

 

The fact that you have not shown the 'weakness' of my argument is itself proof enough of why you will not go into a frank discussion with me on what Nietzsche elaborates, namely the inequality between the sexes, spiritually, organically, of different essences. The egalitarians, feminized, romanticised, sensitive, indoctrinated cannot see a world of chaos and inequality but must only produce a steam of illusions, to blur the mirrors to hiding reflections. The fact that I really disturbed with the race discussion that happened eons ago in another forum and for you to still have nightmares about it and whine, is indicative of something. In the haze of reaching emotionally based conclusions cannot see that nothing in the world is equal, whether humans - individuals, races, sexes; or things ( not even two blue eyed blond haired people to satisfy your stereotypical categorizing ).

 

In your haste of trying to cover up your ignorance you resort to ad hominems and some failed attempt of trying to integrate 'mathematics' into the discussion of how that relates to 'equality'. I dare say, you have nothing to offer to the table thus stop beating around the bush. It is clear you hate my guts and cannot stand me thus stop responding.

 

And you resort to baseless innuendos again about how no one other than "sociopaths" support my claims, for when have I ever cried of people not supporting my positions? I do not care. But you seem to care more than I do and you seem to cry more than I do about what I post or not. It is clear I quake the foundations of your matrix and you cannot fathom that, for I am the antithesis of your comfortable illusions. Now run along mental midget, for clearly you can only discuss with those whom you agree and not those whom you disagree for why present your mind to criticism.

[Anonymouse]

And just to add, to show you how credible you are. You well know that I am against feminism, but you still repeat this BS. Nothing surprising here again.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

This has nothing to do with being against feminism. This has everything to do with starting a discussion on the differences of men and women a la Nietzsche. Now in an emotionally driven haze you are quick to jump to conclusions. Why is one not allowed to discuss arguments contrary to feminism? What is wrong with that? Trying to put up intellectual Berlin Walls to stifle discussion is a hallmark of a fascist. Just what "bs" am I repeating?

[Stormig]

Man and women are not equal. That's the point. That is what Nietzsche was getting at. That is what Schopenhauer was getting at. It has never nor can ever be proven that they are equal. Feminists ( egalitarians ) believe that they ought to be equal, not that they are.  If you believe they are, how are they equal? Respecting one another has no bearing on the idea of equality and is necessarily exclusive. There goes your argument.

style_images/master/snapback.png

That's right. I'm sorry for saying all along that we are equal but not the same - sorry - it should be that we are unequal AND not same.

Men are not equal to me. Into the sty, y'all!

[DominO123]

Yes, sadly, truth only exists in one texture and one touch, and those who wear rubber gloves can only touch it, but not feel it, instead they only feel something artificial such as the touch via the glove.

 

This statment may sound poetic for my ears, but as usual, you have trown once more a statment that has no relevency.

 

What 'weaknesses' have you repeated? Now my posts will be deleted by the moderators for somehow 'inciting' something, when it was clearly the self-styled feminists that have once agained started hurling nothing but regurgitated bromide of "we are equal you are wrong because I say so" and the usual ad hominems. It is irrationality that is offered as sacrifice on the altar of ignorance.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

The fact that you have not shown the 'weakness' of my argument is itself proof enough of why you will not go into a frank discussion with me on what Nietzsche elaborates, namely the inequality between the sexes, spiritually, organically, of different essences. The egalitarians, feminized, romanticised, sensitive, indoctrinated cannot see a world of chaos and inequality but must only produce a steam of illusions, to blur the mirrors to hiding reflections. The fact that I really disturbed with the race discussion that happened eons ago in another forum and for you to still have nightmares about it and whine, is indicative of something. In the haze of reaching emotionally based conclusions cannot see that nothing in the world is equal, whether humans - individuals, races, sexes; or things ( not even two blue eyed blond haired people to satisfy your stereotypical categorizing ).

 

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.

 

In your haste of trying to cover up your ignorance you resort to ad hominems and some failed attempt of trying to integrate 'mathematics' into the discussion of how that relates to 'equality'. I dare say, you have nothing to offer to the table thus stop beating around the bush. It is clear you hate my guts and cannot stand me thus stop responding.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

In your order of equality, White/Yellow man come first, then White/Yellow Woman, then, Black man and finally black woman.

 

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?

 

And you resort to baseless innuendos again about how no one other than "sociopaths" support my claims, for when have I ever cried of people not supporting my positions? I do not care. But you seem to care more than I do and you seem to cry more than I do about what I post or not. It is clear I quake the foundations of your matrix and you cannot fathom that, for I am the antithesis of your comfortable illusions. Now run along mental midget, for clearly you can only discuss with those whom you agree and not those whom you disagree for why present your mind to criticism.

 

After reading this more than once, I have found no argument to answer.

Edited January 20, 2005 by Fadix

[DominO123]

This has nothing to do with being against feminism. This has everything to do with starting a discussion on the differences of men and women a la Nietzsche. Now in an emotionally driven haze you are quick to jump to conclusions. Why is one not allowed to discuss arguments contrary to feminism? What is wrong with that? Trying to put up intellectual Berlin Walls to stifle discussion is a hallmark of a fascist. Just what "bs" am I repeating?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Einstein, if it has nothing ti do with being against Feminism, why have you called me "Feminist man" knowing that I was against Feminism. You have not answered my question.

 

BTW, I may be against it, but I understand that as long as there are mysogimics like you, Feminism will be there to stay.

[Anonymouse]

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

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.

[Anonymouse]

Einstein, if it has nothing ti do with being against Feminism, why have you called me "Feminist man" knowing that I was against Feminism. You have not answered my question.

 

BTW, I may be against it, but I understand that as long as there are mysogimics like you, Feminism will be there to stay.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Oh no he called me a mysogimics. Woe is me. What will I do? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/frown.gif

[Azat]

Its no wonder that your gay rat.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

I did not expect anything more...

[Azat]

NO MORE PERSONAL INSULTS

[gamavor]

A real man wants two things: danger and play. Therefore he wants woman as the most dangerous plaything.

 

I don't know if I'm real, but I don't mind the play...for everything else there is...... Durex:)))

[Sip]

..for everything else there is...... Durex:)))

 

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

[THOTH]

no wonder

[MosJan]

Public notice

 

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

[DominO123]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 January 21, 2005 by Fadix

[Anonymouse]

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

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".

 

 

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.

 

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.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

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.