are women to blame for tyranny?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dachshund
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by Dachshund » Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:41 pm

Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:39 pm


HOW are men and women supposedly very, VERY different creatures?
Gosh, you ask big questions, Age. I don't really know where to start.

Let me see...ummmm.....OK, last time I looked, my genitalia ( I'm a cisgendered, straight, non-intersex, male) it appeared VERY different from my wifes'. Last time I looked I didn't have a large pair of tits, but my wife did. Also my wife (a cisgendered, straight, non-intersex female) has all the anatomical, physiological, biochemical, hormonal etc, gear need to be able to get pregnant and have a baby, and she has had a baby - mine. I'm pretty sure that I (a normal male) can't do that ( that is, get pregnant and give birth to a baby I mean). So that's a very big difference between men and women, isn't. I don't ever wear pink dresses or put on make-up (like lipstick and mascara or walk around in high heels carrying a designer handbag, but my wife does stuff like that all the time. There's another big difference.


BTW, I hope you are not going to begin questioning me about sex/gender issues to do with(1): male and female homosexuals (2) persons who are medically diagnosed "intersex" (3) Transgender individuals with professionally diagnosed gender dysphoria (4) persons who identify as bigendered, genderqueer or agender and so on. These individuals are afflicted with medical and/or psychiatric disorders and I am not a qualified doctor of any kind. They have my sympathy, as these disorders can cause material impairments, there is good quality medical and psychiatric treatment available for these conditions and I hope that they take the opportunity able to avail themselves of the appropriate professional services. Adult individuals in categories: (1),(3) (4) have mental/ psyschiatric disorders. In the US the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Psychiatric Association no longer officially regard homosexuality as a mental disorder. The fact is that it IS a legitimate mental/psychiatric disorder and these two organisations have buckled under political pressure from the liberal political establishment to lie. (If you want evidence of this read the following free access literature paper: Robert L. Kinney III; Homosexuality and Scientific Evidence: On Suspect Anecdotes, Antiquated Data, and Broad Generalisations. The Linacre Quarterly, Nov;2015; 82 (4) 364 - 390.) Intersex persons primarily have a medical condition, as opposed to a mental/psychiatric disorder, though they may often demonstrate abnormal/harmful sexual behaviours/attitudes.


Also men and women have very different brains, they think very differently. If you haven't worked that one out yet, Age, I fear there's little hope for you in terms of engaging in a stable, meaningful, harmonious etc long-term heterosexual married relationship.(BTW, I say "married" and not merely cohabit, because I'm a traditional Conservative and the institution of "marriage", still has very important meaning for me. It is an official/legal state of union between a man and a woman as husband and wive. It begins with a sacred promise they make to each other (before God) to always be faithful, to honour and love each other, to support each other through thick and thin literally until death separates them. That still means a lot to me. To sum it up in modern kids' language It's very hard-core, but its VERY kwell at the same time).


To continue. Just this month (19th April, 2019) a scientific study was published in the literature (in a "high impact" Journal) that is a major "game - changer". I'll give you the reference right now so you can check it out for yourself:


M.D.Wheelock, J.L. Hect, E. Hernandex - Andraskey, S.S. Hassan, R. Romero et al; Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, "Sex differences in functional connectivity during foetal brain development", Vol 36, April 2019, 100632.

This investigation has found that significant ( some would say "dramatic") differences in the ways that the brains of male and female foetuses develop in utero (i.e. in the womb, prior to birth). The authors of the research wrote that "The present study demonstrates for the first time that the development of foetal brain Functional Connectivity ( i.e; the development of of the neural connections between different parts of the brain) varied with sex". The authors concluded that the foetal brain networks they observed were very likely to be "building blocks" for brain development throughout the baby's life.

This study will have an absolutely seismic impact on current research, scholarship and teaching in a number of academic disciplines, in particular, the social sciences, psychology, feminist/womens' studies in the Western academy where leftist "progressive" academics have, for decades, argued that gender is a social construct. They have done this out of fear that should they not toe the "Stalinist" political correct line they will be branded "sexists" and lose their jobs.

Well, now they have been placed in tricky situation, because the study will undoubtedly be followed by similar research that will demonstrate the same kind of findings. We now have indisputable, empirical evidence that there are conspicuous differences in brain function between boys and girls at a stage of development when a baby has NOT YET BEEN EXPOSED TO SOCIETAL INFLUENCES. And more such evidence will not follow apace. There will be a lot of embarrassed professors in American social science faculty struggling to explain why they wilfully and persistently lied ( and that is EXACTLY what they did) about gender being a purely social construct, when they knew full well even from the scientific research that preceded the study I am discussing that this thesis was almost certainly false !

Anyway, with this new study, we now know that the human brain is gendered prior to birth. That may be extremely politically incorrect, but it is an EMPIRICAL REALITY. WE now have evidence that male and female are, so to speak, "of God". They are hard-wired. They are innate.

Understandably, it is not yet clear to the neuroscientists what exactly the gender differences in brain function might mean in terms of how brain activity relates to mental events and states in the phenomenal domain, that is, in diurnal human experiential consciousness How precisely it is that the brain mediates the process of rational cognition or feelings like emotions or the regulation of impulsivity or propositional attitudes/intentional content, or reasoned deliberation or the experience of moods and so on and so forth. WE do not know because to date no one - no neuroscientist of Philosopher of Mind - has managed to solve the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness (aka the Mind-Brain problem).

So, in conclusion, the big news is that the category of "boy" and "girl" is now officially meaningful. They are NOT a mere performance or a social construct. They are clearly meaningful and real prior to birth.

On the 1st April, 2019 the New York Times published an OP-ED by one of those leftist, politically correct, female academics that make my blood boil. They are very destructive individuals, peddling a degenerate political ideology (socialism) and are responsible for a tremendous amount of social damage in the West. The one in question is a Dr Carol Hay, a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts - Lowell, who was endorsing the social constructionist theory of gender, calling gender "fundamentally a performance" based on and learned from social systems. Of Dear, it seemed that poor Dr Hay hadn't read the latest scientific study yet, and when she was confronted with the fact tried to scrabble her way out of being a long-time profession preacher of bullshit, by saying that when it comes to gender she "tends to be pretty critical of the sciences because I think it's often motivated by a particular political agenda, as all science is motivated by a particular political agenda."

Yeah, right. How about doing the right thing and admitting there is hard evidence that confirms you'r crazy,feminist theories of gender have just been proven to be totally FALSE - totally WRONG - 100% BULLSHIT

If I had time I could give you some examples of Ms Hay's beliefs about gender in some detail, but I don't. So you'll just have to trust me when I say trust this woman is completely off with the pixies - a certifiable head case.



Regards


Dachshund (GO THE BREXITEERS !!!)
Last edited by Dachshund on Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:18 am, edited 2 times in total.

Age
Posts: 3127
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by Age » Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:22 am

Dachshund wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:41 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:39 pm


HOW are men and women supposedly very, VERY different creatures?
Gosh, you ask big questions, Age. I don't really know where to start.

Let me see...ummmm.....OK, last time I looked, my genitalia ( I'm a cisgendered, straight, non-intersex, male) it appeared VERY different from my wifes'. Last time I looked I didn't have a large pair of tits, but my wife did. Also my wife (a cisgendered, straight, non-intersex female) has all the anatomical, physiological, biochemical, hormonal etc, gear need to be able to get pregnant and have a baby, and she has had a baby - mine. I'm pretty sure that I (a normal male) can't do that ( that is, get pregnant and give birth to a baby I mean). So that's a very big difference between men and women, isn't. I don't ever wear pink dresses or put on make-up (like lipstick and mascara or walk around in high heels carrying a designer handbag, but my wife does stuff like that all the time. There's another big difference.


BTW, I hope you are not going to begin questioning me about sex/gender issues to do with(1): male and female homosexuals (2) persons who are medically diagnosed "intersex" (3) Transgender individuals with professionally diagnosed gender dysphoria (4) persons who identify as bigendered, genderqueer or agender and so on. These individuals are afflicted with medical and/or psychiatric disorders and I am not a qualified doctor of any kind. They have my sympathy, as these disorders can cause material impairments, there is good quality medical and psychiatric treatment available for these conditions and I hope that they take the opportunity able to avail themselves of the appropriate professional services. Adult individuals in categories: (1),(3) (4) have mental/ psyschiatric disorders. In the US the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Psychiatric Association no longer officially regard homosexuality as a mental disorder. The fact is that it IS a legitimate mental/psychiatric disorder and these two organisations have buckled under political pressure from the liberal political establishment to lie. (If you want evidence of this read the following free access literature paper: Robert L. Kinney III; Homosexuality and Scientific Evidence: On Suspect Anecdotes, Antiquated Data, and Broad Generalisations. The Linacre Quarterly, Nov;2015; 82 (4) 364 - 390.) Intersex persons primarily have a medical condition, as opposed to a mental/psychiatric disorder, though they may often demonstrate abnormal/harmful sexual behaviours/attitudes.


Also men and women have very different brains, they think very differently. If you haven't worked that one out yet, Age, I fear there's little hope for you in terms of engaging in a stable, meaningful, harmonious etc long-term heterosexual married relationship.(BTW, I say "married" and not merely cohabit, because I'm a traditional Conservative and the institution of "marriage", still has very important meaning for me. It is an official/legal state of union between a man and a woman as husband and wive. It begins with a sacred promise they make to each other (before God) to always be faithful, to honour and love each other, to support each other through thick and thin literally until death separates them. That still means a lot to me. To sum it up in modern kids' language It's very hard-core, but its VERY kwell at the same time).


To continue. Just this month (19th April, 2019) a scientific study was published in the literature (in a "high impact" Journal) that is a major "game - changer". I'll give you the reference right now so you can check it out for yourself:


M.D.Wheelock, J.L. Hect, E. Hernandex - Andraskey, S.S. Hassan, R. Romero et al; Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, "Sex differences in functional connectivity during foetal brain development", Vol 36, April 2019, 100632.

This investigation has found that significant ( some would say "dramatic") differences in the ways that the brains of male and female foetuses develop in utero (i.e. in the womb, prior to birth. The authors of the research wrote that "The present study demonstrates for the first time that the development of foetal brain Functional Connectivity ( i.e; the development of of the neural connections between different parts of the brain) varied with sex". The authors concluded that the foetal brain networks they observed were very likely to be "building blocks" for brain development throughout the baby's life.

This study will have an absolutely seismic impact on current research, scholarship and teaching in a number of academic disciplines, in particular, the social sciences, psychology, feminist/womens' studies in the Western academy where leftist "progressive" academics have, for decades, argued that gender is a social construct. They have done this out of fear that should they not toe the "Stalinist" political correct line they will be branded "sexists" and lose their jobs.

Well, now they have been placed in tricky situation, because the study will undoubtedly be followed by similar research that will demonstrate the same kind of findings. We now have indisputable, empirical evidence that there are conspicuous differences in brain function between boys and girls at a stage of development when a baby has NOT YET BEEN EXPOSED TO SOCIETAL INFLUENCES. And more such evidence will not follow apace. There will be a lot of embarrassed professors in American social science faculty struggling to explain why they wilfully and persistently lied ( and that is EXACTLY what they did) about gender being a purely social construct, when they knew full well even from the scientific research that preceded the study I am discussing that this thesis was almost certainly false !

Anyway, with this new study, we now know that the human brain is gendered prior to birth. That may be extremely politically incorrect, but it is an EMPIRICAL REALITY. WE now have evidence that male and female are, so to speak, "of God". They are hard-wired. They are innate.

Understandably, it is not yet clear to the neuroscientists what exactly the gender differences in brain function might mean in terms of how brain activity relates to mental events and states in the phenomenal domain, that is, in diurnal human experiential consciousness How precisely it is that the brain mediate the process of rational cognition or feelings like emotions or the regulation of impulsivity or propositional attitudes/intentional content, or reasoned deliberation or the experience of moods and so on and so forth. WE do not know because to date no one - no neuroscientist of Philosopher of Mind - has managed to solve the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness (aka the Mind-Brain problem).

So, in conclusion, the big news is that the category of "boy" and "girl" is now officially meaningful. They are NOT a mere performance or a social construct. They are clearly meaningful and real prior to birth.

On the 1st April, 2019 the New York Times published an OP-ED by one of those leftist, politically correct, female academics that make my blood boil. They are very destructive individuals, peddling a degenerate political ideology (socialism) and are responsible for a tremendous amount of social damage in the West. The one in question is a Dr Carol Hay, a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts - Lowell, who was endorsing the social constructionist theory of gender, calling gender "fundamentally a performance" based on and learned from social systems. Of Dear, it seemed that poor Dr Hay hadn't read the latest scientific study yet, and when she was confronted with the fact tried to scrabble her way out of being a long-time profession preacher of bullshit, by saying that when it comes to gender she "tends to be pretty critical of the sciences because I think it's often motivated by a particular political agenda, as all science is motivated by a particular political agenda."

Yeah, right. How about doing the right thing and admitting there is hard evidence that confirms you'r crazy,feminist theories of gender have just been proven to be totally FALSE - totally WRONG - 100% BULLSHIT

If I had time I could give you some examples of Ms Hay's beliefs about gender in some detail, but I don't. So you'll just have to trust me when I say trust this woman is completely off with the pixies - a certifiable head case.



Regards


Dachshund (GO THE BREXITEERS !!!)
Okay, thanks for the clarification.

The reason for your biased views is explained by what you have expressed here. Again, thank you for your honesty.

Ansiktsburk
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by Ansiktsburk » Sat May 11, 2019 11:39 am

Have been away from this forum for a time, found this thead interesting

A lot of Jordan Peterson talk, and I am somewhat in his Fan Club too.

But I really think the tyranny issue with women is more basic, and independent of brains:
Women, Academical, Bluewhitecollared or skid row women takes the most of the care of their sons. And no matter how much egality in the world a woman, no matter how leftist, in an upper class or academical home wants, her own kids are going to have the fast lane (gräddfilen in my uncouth mothe language) no matter how average they are. A man really wants to let the kids be individuals and make their lives in a fair race with equal opportunities. It’s the mothers who keep the classes intact. As good mothers who wants the best for their children.

A short note, glancing through the thread. Scandinavian academical women must be well above average in responsibility also for big decisions in families. I would say that most big decisions in life, having kids, getting married, moving to another town, buying a house is are made by the woman in Scandinavian academical families. At least brougjt up to attention. The guy is usually snug where he is.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8117
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sat May 11, 2019 9:54 pm

Dachshund wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:04 pm
Women should never have been given the vote in the West.

Let's use the United States as an example. What happened when women were given the vote in the US is that they automatically, instinctively voted for the political left (Democrat). This is because the universal equality, peace, love, justice, communitarian, pluralist, "rainbow coalition" themes/vibe of Leftist rhetoric have an innate/inherent appeal for them. The want to believe that life is intended to be a walk through a rose garden, so to speak, and we can make it happen, we can make everyone's live all sweet and sun -shiny and luvverley, simply by voting for socialist politicians. When they are elected they will implement policies that will make all the nastiness, misery and suffering of human life progressively disappear with their clever policies. Everything will be sweet and caring and gentle and fair and sensitive and beautiful the world will smell like French perfume - Yipee !

This is how women think; they are primarily driven by their emotions and implicitly averse to confronting reality and what we know about the truth of human nature ,which is, admittedly, not much, but most men understand that all human beings have a tremendous capacity for profoundly immoral behaviour. There is a Hitler, a Stalin, a Ted Bundy, a "Jack the Ripper", a generic "blood-thirsty psychopath" lurking in the souls of every human being, and it's best to be aware of that at all times, especially in the realm of politics.

The ancient Athenian thinkers like Aristotle warned against allowing women to become involved in politics, likewise their rulers like Pericles, who basically thought that they should be - first and foremost - dutiful/attentive wives , mothers and efficient home-makers, and when in public "seen but not heard." Kant, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer likewise believe that granting women the right to vote would be madness.

Kant believed that women were morally deficient because they naturally possessed a inadequate capacity for the kind of rational cognition that sound moral understanding and moral behaviour demanded (He was referring to what is variously called prudential wisdom or practical reason, what Aristotle termed "Phronesis") I think Kant is vindicated by events in the modern history of America. In the 1960's and 1970's we saw the rise of a hair-brained, hard-Left feminist movement in the US, this movement played a substantial role in the passage of "No Fault" divorce legislation across America, marriages and families began to break up at an exponential rate, and there was every kind of disastrous social fall-out one could imagine. And guess who pays for the mess in terms of unemployed single mothers and children with psychiatric disorders due to family break ups ? Yes, that's right the bloated Welfare State; and how did the Welfare State get so huge and costly? Through successive Democrat (Leftist) administrations; and who voted these Democrats into power? Women. With respect to what Kant said about (irrational) moral deficiency, do you remember the early 1970's ? Do you remember how American women used their collective political clout to have liberal Supreme Court Justices legalise abortion ("Roe vs Wade", 1973) across the US (One of the most controversial rulings in American legal history !). Well, how did that turn out ? I'll tell you how it turned out. If we look at JUST ONE of the many organisations that proves abortion "on demand" in the US , namely, (the Federally funded :shock:) group called "Planned Parenthood", they perform 300,000 abortions per year; many of which are carried out on women in the 2nd or 3rd trimester of pregnancy. There's no way that's not cold-blooded, premeditated murder. If that's not appalling and horrifying enough for you, then know this: there is even a abortion Bill on the table right now in the US that allows a new-born infant to be "aborted"/murdered if that's what the mother wants. Funny how women, who are so averse to physical violence (especially male physical violence) and so moralistic about the evils of war, who are so soft and kind and gentle have no problem - no qualms about putting abortion on Mastercard and having the arms and legs and head torn off the child they are carrying with a pair of surgical pliers. The whole thing just mortifies me. I mean, what can you say ? To rub salt in the wound groups like "Planned Parenthood" LIE about what they are actually doing. They give out misleading statistics about the abortions they perform: the total number, how many are carried out in the third trimester of pregnancy, ages and ethnic groups of women who have been through their "clinics" for abortions each year, and so on. Why? Because they know full well that what they are doing is profoundly immoral and if the American public knew the truth about what was really going on, there would be rioting in the streets.

None of this would have surprised Nietzsche. As he pointed out in his philosophy on numerous occasions, women are essentially like big, naughty children who require the supervision and firm discipline of males at all time to prevent them from becoming a danger to themselves and others. Good advice, Friedrich !! He advised any man who was intending to get himself involved with women to, metaphorically speaking, make sure he took a WHIP with him (to keep them in line). As for Schopenhauer thought that women were, amongst other things exceedingly artful ( devious) implicitly treacherous and not to be trusted under any circumstances.

My own experience of modern women is that they are very hard work. One of the biggest issues in handling them is that what they REALLY want (if they are normal, average women) is for the male in a relationship to take control of the important day-to-day, bread-and-butter decision-making, to set the boundaries for the relationship, to take the initiative in most matters, to be a lover, but also to be someone they can rely upon to be firm , strong and decisive when it matters most.Unfortunately, what has happened in the West since the late 1960's is that the official mouthpieces of mainstream culture/morality/politics/the academy/the workplace have been pumping out a counter-narrative that tells women they don't need men ( because men are oppressive, abusive pigs, etc.), that marriage is essentially slavery, they should be totally independent and put having a career before having children, that there is absolutely no difference (physiological or psychological) between women and men, and such like. In short women have been more or less coerced into living out the tenets of a unnatural and false ideology of femininity. Many of them, in particular, well educated, white women are not. IMO, consciously aware of their predicament, rather they experience a tremendous existential confusion and sense of dis-ease. In case, I've found with modern women, that if you aren't careful you can find yourself in this impossible situation of having to live with and manage a woman who does not really understand what is and is not in her best interests in the relationship.

In conclusion, I have some parting advice for young, single men who are reading this post. Here it is:

Dude... when you decide you want to get married (you need a decent job and some money saved up, BTW, before you even think about it). Remember, a good marriage works like this.... When it comes to the really important things in your relationship, in your married lives together - not the little, inconsequential, trivial stuff, but the CRUCIAL stuff that MATTERS, that makes a big DIFFERENCE, it's YOU who calls the shots and your wife supports you and backs you up 100% no questions asked.. So when you're looking for a future wife, (you know, testing out different girls), at some point in the relationship you need to say them what I've just said.That is, you need say to a girl that you think might be marriage material:"There's something I have to know if you're serious about being with me long term. The way our relationship would have to work is that I would in charge of the big stuff (moral, political, financial stuff, etc.) in our lives, and when I made the big calls, (and it will be me who makes most of them, but NOT all) I would be expecting you to support me, 100%, automatically, no arguments , no ifs or buts, no BS. What do you think about that."



Kindest Regards


Dachshund (GO THE ARSENAL - WOOF, WOOF !!!)
You generate so much bullshit and hot air you should start up your own mushroom farm.

Dubious
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by Dubious » Sat May 11, 2019 11:39 pm

Absolutely! That's why Nietzsche handed his temporary girlfriend the whip! :lol:

He may have been able to keep her had he done it more often.

Dachshund
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by Dachshund » Sun May 12, 2019 12:39 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 9:54 pm


You generate so much bullshit and hot air you should start up your own mushroom farm.
No, I'm not interested, thank you for the suggestion though. I do ,however, think a mushroom farm might be a very sound business proposition for you Veggie. Why ? Because in "Noisyland" there's 6 sheep for every one person, right ? That means there would literally be sheep shit everywhere, (and all the way from arsehole to breakfast table) ! You could just jump on your Harley with a few empty sacks and gun it out to the nearest sheep field and fill up your sacks with luvverly, fresh sheep shit. I'm sure that the mushies would grow just as well on that as on bullshit ! (You could even grow a few "magic" (psylocybin) mushies for yourself, Veggie, and expand your consciousness so that you gain enough insight to stop being such a vulgar, Kiwi Kunt, that would be a bonus).


To continue. With all the money you make from selling your mushies, you would soon be able to afford to buy a nice house somewhere; somewhere pretty, say in Queenstown or Fielding ! Then, after that , if you meet a nice Kiwi boy you really like (a real spunk who's not a sheep-shagger or a Queer or a member of the "Mongrol Mob"!) you would be able to get married ( how romantic !) and have him "take you up the aisle" after he "pops the question". Now, I know you've (ahem) probably been "taken up the aisle" quite a few times already, Veggie, and been disappointed, but maybe you've just never met "Mr Right" yet? (And) you never know what the future holds do you, perhaps right now there a special boy out there you haven't met yet who is your true soul mate; someone who will perfectly fill that bottom(less) hole in your life ?


It's worth a thought, girlie ??!! (1) Harvest the sheep shit (2) Grow your mushies (3) Sell them and save up the cash you make (4) Buy a house in Queenstown or Fielding (5) Search for Mr Right (6) When you find him and he pops the question (i.e "Can I take you up the aisle, Veggie darling"?) GO FOR IT !!


Regards

Dachshund


PS: Here's a joke...

What did one Maori Statue say to the other Maori statue?

"Statue bro' " :D :D :D

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8117
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun May 12, 2019 1:07 am

Dachshund wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 12:39 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 9:54 pm


You generate so much bullshit and hot air you should start up your own mushroom farm.
No, I'm not interested, thank you for the suggestion though. I do ,however, think a mushroom farm might be a very sound business proposition for you Veggie. Why ? Because in "Noisyland" there's 6 sheep for every one person, right ? That means there would literally be sheep shit everywhere, (and all the way from arsehole to breakfast table) ! You could just jump on your Harley with a few empty sacks and gun it out to the nearest sheep field and fill up your sacks with luvverly, fresh sheep shit. I'm sure that the mushies would grow just as well on that as on bullshit ! (You could even grow a few "magic" (psylocybin) mushies for yourself, Veggie, and expand your consciousness so that you gain enough insight to stop being such a vulgar, Kiwi Kunt, that would be a bonus).


To continue. With all the money you make from selling your mushies, you would soon be able to afford to buy a nice house somewhere; somewhere pretty, say in Queenstown or Fielding ! Then, after that , if you meet a nice Kiwi boy you really like (a real spunk who's not a sheep-shagger or a Queer or a member of the "Mongrol Mob"!) you would be able to get married ( how romantic !) and have him "take you up the aisle" after he "pops the question". Now, I know you've (ahem) probably been "taken up the aisle" quite a few times already, Veggie, and been disappointed, but maybe you've just never met "Mr Right" yet? (And) you never know what the future holds do you, perhaps right now there a special boy out there you haven't met yet who is your true soul mate; someone who will perfectly fill that bottom(less) hole in your life ?


It's worth a thought, girlie ??!! (1) Harvest the sheep shit (2) Grow your mushies (3) Sell them and save up the cash you make (4) Buy a house in Queenstown or Fielding (5) Search for Mr Right (6) When you find him and he pops the question (i.e "Can I take you up the aisle, Veggie darling"?) GO FOR IT !!


Regards

Dachshund


PS: Here's a joke...

What did one Maori Statue say to the other Maori statue?

"Statue bro' " :D :D :D
Which century are you living in? Your little vision is quaint but decidedly out-dated. I believe NZ no longer has all that many sheep. Not such a demand for wool any more apparently.

gaffo
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by gaffo » Sun May 12, 2019 3:08 am

yes

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8117
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun May 12, 2019 3:23 am

Dachshund wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 12:39 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 9:54 pm


You generate so much bullshit and hot air you should start up your own mushroom farm.
No, I'm not interested, thank you for the suggestion though. I do ,however, think a mushroom farm might be a very sound business proposition for you Veggie. Why ? Because in "Noisyland" there's 6 sheep for every one person, right ? That means there would literally be sheep shit everywhere, (and all the way from arsehole to breakfast table) ! You could just jump on your Harley with a few empty sacks and gun it out to the nearest sheep field and fill up your sacks with luvverly, fresh sheep shit. I'm sure that the mushies would grow just as well on that as on bullshit ! (You could even grow a few "magic" (psylocybin) mushies for yourself, Veggie, and expand your consciousness so that you gain enough insight to stop being such a vulgar, Kiwi Kunt, that would be a bonus).


To continue. With all the money you make from selling your mushies, you would soon be able to afford to buy a nice house somewhere; somewhere pretty, say in Queenstown or Fielding ! Then, after that , if you meet a nice Kiwi boy you really like (a real spunk who's not a sheep-shagger or a Queer or a member of the "Mongrol Mob"!) you would be able to get married ( how romantic !) and have him "take you up the aisle" after he "pops the question". Now, I know you've (ahem) probably been "taken up the aisle" quite a few times already, Veggie, and been disappointed, but maybe you've just never met "Mr Right" yet? (And) you never know what the future holds do you, perhaps right now there a special boy out there you haven't met yet who is your true soul mate; someone who will perfectly fill that bottom(less) hole in your life ?


It's worth a thought, girlie ??!! (1) Harvest the sheep shit (2) Grow your mushies (3) Sell them and save up the cash you make (4) Buy a house in Queenstown or Fielding (5) Search for Mr Right (6) When you find him and he pops the question (i.e "Can I take you up the aisle, Veggie darling"?) GO FOR IT !!


Regards

Dachshund


PS: Here's a joke...

What did one Maori Statue say to the other Maori statue?

"Statue bro' " :D :D :D
They weren't sculptors.

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by A_Seagull » Sun May 12, 2019 5:51 am

People love to blame others for most everything.. it helps them feel good about themselves.. blame the left, blame the right, blame terrorists, blame men, blame women, blame the rich , blame the poor... etc. etc. etc..

But if you have a problem and you really want to do something about it... blame yourself.

mickthinks
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by mickthinks » Sun May 12, 2019 11:18 am

are women to blame for tyranny? Er ... No.

while this does sound a touch misogynistic ... Yes, more than a touch misogynistic.

Dachshund
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by Dachshund » Mon May 13, 2019 6:08 am

A_Seagull wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 5:51 am
People love to blame others for most everything.. it helps them feel good about themselves.. blame the left, blame the right, blame terrorists, blame men, blame women, blame the rich , blame the poor... etc. etc. etc..

But if you have a problem and you really want to do something about it... blame yourself.
Is that the advice you'd give to the Jews who were in Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps in the 1940's ?

They had a problem - a very big problem; namely, they were being forced to live in sub-human conditions - literally in their own shit; they were being starved and compelled (at gun point) to work until they were too physically weak/exhausted to work any longer. Then, they were gassed with cyanide - their corpses burned in ovens, and their ashes dumped in some anonymous pit.

The way you see it, is that these Jews should have blamed themselves for their predicament, right? Then they would have really been able "to do something about it" They needed to realise, it was their fault that they were rounded up by the Nazis at gunpoint, packed into the cattle wagons and transported by train to death camps in Poland and Germany; that it was their fault 1,000,000s were stuffed into gas chambers and murdered in these death camps?

What about the Ukrainian farmers in Stalin's Soviet Union in 1932/3. Do you know what Stalin did? He deliberately STARVED 5,000,000 (that is a conservative estimate, the actual number who perished remains unknown) of them to death in a man-made famine. This horror came to be known as "The Holodomor" In 2018,the US Senate unanimously passed a resolution where "The Holodomor" was legally designated as genocide against the Ukrainian people.

Stalin ordered that all of the food they produced - literally every last grain of wheat - be seized and taken away. Teams of police and Party officials smashed their way through the Ukrainian countryside, entering houses and confiscating all food stored inside as well as livestock and even pets. He stopped any food from entering the Ukraine and prevented the Ukrainians from leaving their country to find food elsewhere. All of this at gun-point.

If I were offered the choice of which method of execution I would prefer: the cyanide gas chamber or starvation, I would immediately take the cyanide. From what I have read by authors like Solzhenitzyn (in "The Gulag Archipelago and "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich") death by starvation is horrible beyond conception. Consider this extract from a letter a starving woman doctor in the Ukraine wrote to a friend in 1933...

"Here, the struggle to survive is a moral one as well as physical. I have not yet become a cannibal, but I am not sure that I shall not be one by the time my letter reaches you. The good people die first; those who refused to steal or prostitute themselves have died. Those who gave food to others have died. Those who refused to eat corpses have died. Those who refused to kill their fellow man have died. Parents who resisted cannabalism died before their children died. The regime has put posters up declaring "To Eat Your Own Children is a Barbarian Act."

I think that's enough said.

So, Seagull, the way you see it, for these 5,000,000 Ukrainians who starved to death, while they were slowly dying they shouldn't have blamed Stalin; rather, if they wanted to "do something about it" what they ought have done is blamed themselves?

Bad things happen to good people, Seagull. And not uncommonly, VERY BAD things happen to good people. ("Shit happens" - trust me, it just does). When those bad or very bad things are a direct or indirect consequence of human acts, in other words of purposive human actions/ behaviours that are immoral (wicked), then I cannot see how the perpetrators of such acts are not blameworthy, provided they are - as a lawyer would say - "sane" ( i.e; able to discern the moral right from the moral wrong).

I can understand why many Americans are do determined to defend their Second Amendment right to bear arms. It's because it's a fact that there are some very wicked ( profoundly immoral) people on this Earth: violent psychopaths, "stone killers, rapists, murders of all kinds, etc. If I was a married man with a young family living in a big American City and I heard someone break into my house late at night, I'd get my gun and then I'd "shoot first ask questions later". If I shoot the intruder dead,I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over the incident; and no court in the US would "blame" me for what I did.

Dachshund
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by Dachshund » Mon May 13, 2019 12:56 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 3:23 am

PS: Here's a joke...

What did one Maori Statue say to the other Maori statue?

"Statue bro' " :D :D :D
They weren't sculptors.
[/quote]




Whakianga mai !

Here's another joke, Veggie...

A teacher asks this Kiwi kid in a religious education class, "What's a Hindu" ?

The Kiwi kid says, "Lays iggs." :D :D :D

Churs Cuz, I'm off to get a cin of puss from me chullie bin.



Dachshund

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8117
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Mon May 13, 2019 1:01 pm

Dachshund wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 12:56 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 3:23 am

PS: Here's a joke...

What did one Maori Statue say to the other Maori statue?

"Statue bro' " :D :D :D
They weren't sculptors.



Whakianga mai !

Here's another joke, Veggie...

A teacher asks this Kiwi kid in a religious education class, "What's a Hindu" ?

The Kiwi kid says, "Lays iggs." :D :D :D

Churs Cuz, I'm off to get a cin of puss from me chullie bin.



Dachshund
[/quote]

Are you drunk?

Dachshund
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by Dachshund » Mon May 13, 2019 1:18 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 1:01 pm


Are you drunk?
Feel is an eel, Cuz



Dachshund

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests