The Feminization of Mankind

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Arising_uk »

n*****, I'll make your wish come true.
In your Peter Pan Paedophile dreams.
n*****, what preceded science?
So Science is now post-eminent of philosophy is it?
And here science is now nearing a ponit where it is turning to poetics to explain a world it cannot see or explain.

n*****, science comes from philosophy.
In your cultural dreams it is. That you think the bubble and froth that you read is 'science' and that 'science' is facing a 'philosophical crisis' is your lack, or identification, as a 'philosopher'.
Because, you dumb n*****, natural selection is the perception and qualitative interpretation of this appearance. No two interpretations are equal, n*****, and this makes consciuosness all the more important.

n*****, a photograph is a symbolic representation of reality, - a photo of a dog is not the dog - and so the quality of the photograph determines the accuracy of the depiction.
So you keep repeating but as I point out to you the photo of a dog is exactly that of a dog, else you'd not understand it? Logic runs through all.
Founded on percived patterns and coupled with evolved methods of interpreting - n*****, consciuos binary logic produces the logic of mathematics that presupposes the #1....and so logic in that system is the equation that remains loyal to that presupposition.

The message, n*****, is in the medium.
Oh my gwadd! I can add 'media theory' to your philosophical 'sins'? What the fuck is this "#"?
No time n*****. You'll have to wait for my Blog posting. Sometime before 2011.
Never then, as I have the 'will to power'. Do you mean you'll be back?
n***** thinking outside the box is overcoming the same human limitations. That I am forced to use binary language to express ideas that contradict it is part of the challenge, you dumb stupid n*****.
That you are a twat who think you can just exposes your cultural box. The idea of thinking outside the 'box' is lateral not psychotic. Try De Bono for this kind of stuff.
n*****, you n*****, is merely a reference to your ancestry, and so a part of your appearance.
What? the 'Eve' ancestry? you being down wiv the yoof!
How many fuckin' times can I repeat the same shit for ya n*****?I can't believe you are that stupid....Are you doing this on purpose?
Unfortunately for you no. What do you mean by a 'neural' or 'neuronal' net?
Yet they now speak of genetic triggers, you dumb n*****.
Who's this they?
On/Off merely designates flow-no flow.
If so then it applies even less to a 'neural' network.
You mean science is not conclusive and in agreement? Wow, n*****. I thought it was a done deal. Tell me about the particles n*****.
Of course its not numbnuts but its not like philosophy in that scientists do not think their opinions are correct by saying so.
they are not MY boundaries, n*****, the boundaries are determined by the sensual acuity and the mental acuity of the mind in question....yours, for example, are small...as small as a monkey's. Therefore you are more dependent on external sources to offer you what you cannot perceive on your own. You are a n*****, and you have or will pass on this genetically to your brood.
And thats what makes me laugh about you. As you allow a greater 'intelligence' to exist. Like Descartes I suspect its there to justify your own existence without 'god'. So I'll be happy to die knowing that my genetic inheritance will far surpass yours.
Then, n*****, no inert state is even theorized.
Talk to Socratus in the phil of sci section.
Human constructs trying to orient the mind.
Your mind need orienting?
The same way a mind uses the absolutes of nothing/soemthing, as orientation tools...Ideals with no reality. Symbolic projections.

In this case they designate a direction of flow, as it is experienced - one directed towards entropy, linear time, the other away from it, and in combination the Flux.

The mind, life, stands as an ordering in reference to entropy - a resistance and/or rejection, and the only way life and consciousness is possible or even necessary.
Like BB's words, I'll have to consider what this means as parts of it make sense.
Eating and drinking defines a lack, and lack is what is need.
This is your paucity as eating and drinking define a pleasure, that its to provide for a lack is true but you could just have a maccy dee.
No shit n*****? is the idea of me not enjoying anything comforting to you?
No, as I don't give a toss.
n*****, a dog enjoys licking its balls and chasing a ball around, a man needs to understand why and how...it's what separates a man from a simpler animal or a human from a n*****, like you are. Eat, drink, fuck, fart, shit and do not ask so many questions..... YOU are a n*****.
A dog licks its balls because it has no hands to wash. If a man needs to "understand why and how" and its what "separates a man from a simpler animal or a human from a n*****", why do you object to my questions?
Then no gains. Hedonism is good for animals.
Tell you what. Next time you are 'pumping iron' I'll stand over you and kick you in the balls to increase your gain.
Can't deal with the metaphor huh n*****? Jesus, what a stupid retard you are.
Says the muscle-mary :lol:
Who asked you?
You did numbnuts.
That's why you are a n*****. You like to remain as you are.
And you'llbe the next mutation would you? :lol:
It doesn't really matter, since you never actually say anything...nothing of interest anyways....so I use you as a proxy for others to read.
:lol: That you think this does not apply.
Do I?
Apparently so. Or do all you lumberjacks blog?
Keep begging n*****. You'll have to wait for my Blog entry.
:lol: Ah! Well! I'll just have to muddle on.
An ideal. One given to him or forced upon him. An abstraction.
And that just shows what a twat you are.
The same insights a Christian has....the Golden Rule, herd psychology made into virtues, methods of population control and human husbandry, naive idealism hiding a nihilistic angle, childish hope as an antidote to existential anxiety....etc..
etc... just about sums you up.
And yet you've managed to remian as obtuse as any religious fanatic.
It's a gift.
I will enjoy thinking of you finding pleasure in that hope.
Hope? An observation!!!!!!!
I want you to think so....imagine me in despair, forever unhappy, brooding....let it be your vengeance, your "advantage" over me. I bet a dog is more happy than any human.
I'd guess so depending upon its master. Still, why would you wish this upon me? Let me reassure you, once you have gone, whether you are in despair or not will be immaterial to me.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Satyr »

Arising_uk wrote:In your Peter Pan Paedophile dreams.
What a hater you are n*****.
Arising_uk wrote:So Science is now post-eminent of philosophy is it?
n*****, science is a philosophy with empirical evidence. It is sensually applied philosophical thought.

n*****, the underlying philosophy implied in science is that the world is knowable and that appearances matter...that the world is not an illusion.
Arising_uk wrote:In your cultural dreams it is. That you think the bubble and froth that you read is 'science' and that 'science' is facing a 'philosophical crisis' is your lack, or identification, as a 'philosopher'.
Ah n*****, you are trying to project your inadequacies upon me, to avoid dealing with them.

n*****, String Theory is a highly artistic and metaphysical perspective. And at the forefront of current cosmology.
Metaphysics begins where physics ends...where the senses can go no further.
Arising_uk wrote:So you keep repeating but as I point out to you the photo of a dog is exactly that of a dog, else you'd not understand it? Logic runs through all.
It is a simplification n*****, a depiction...not the actual dog, you sad sap.
the logic that is common is one based on human methods of perceiving...each pixel a representation of a particle or a point in space/time.

String enough pictures together and run then in succession and you've got what man calls consciousness. The juxtaposition of one static photo with the next and previous is what man calls change or movement. But, in fact, there is no gap, as in the movie reel, between photographs but only in between human perceptions.

So, cause is not separated from effect as 1 is not followed by a void before 2 comes along.
Arising_uk wrote:Oh my gwadd! I can add 'media theory' to your philosophical 'sins'? What the fuck is this "#"?
What does it look like?
Arising_uk wrote:Never then, as I have the 'will to power'. Do you mean you'll be back?
Do you want me back, n*****?
Arising_uk wrote:That you are a twat who think you can just exposes your cultural box. The idea of thinking outside the 'box' is lateral not psychotic. Try De Bono for this kind of stuff.
n*****, you love authorities.
I will, which means you are no longer necessary as you offer nothing but references.
You offer no ideas of your own, and except repeating those of others you are dull.

Is a philosophy proffesor a thinker, n*****?
Does knowing what Spinoza said and where Hume fits into the school of thoughts or the history of thinking, make him a thinker?
Arising_uk wrote:What? the 'Eve' ancestry? you being down wiv the yoof!
Oh jeez. :roll:
Arising_uk wrote:Unfortunately for you no. What do you mean by a 'neural' or 'neuronal' net?
The neurological interconnections, the brains geography, n*****.
Arising_uk wrote:Who's this they?
Your priests scientists.
Arising_uk wrote:If so then it applies even less to a 'neural' network.
No n*****, it applies perfectly.
Arising_uk wrote:And thats what makes me laugh about you. As you allow a greater 'intelligence' to exist.
n*****, superior/inferior is how wills interact.

Superorganism, n*****...an institution takes on a life of its own, with its own logic and so its own ideals and Will.
Arising_uk wrote:Like Descartes I suspect its there to justify your own existence without 'god'.
n*****, there is no need for God, as superior will only designates a superior organization. the mysticism is yours, n*****, because you need it to comfort yourself.

n*****, a cell is subservient to the sum of cells which is the organism.
Arising_uk wrote: So I'll be happy to die knowing that my genetic inheritance will far surpass yours.
It's part of decadence, n*****.
And ants procreate like mad, compensating for an inferior quality with superior quantity.
It's to be expected, n*****.
Arising_uk wrote:Your mind need orienting?
No n*****, I am born in the know....what about you?
Arising_uk wrote:This is your paucity as eating and drinking define a pleasure, that its to provide for a lack is true but you could just have a maccy dee.
n*****, pleasure is a momentary distraction, a negative state to the norm which is stress, need....just as light is a momentary state requiring constant effort, whereas dark just is....like your stupidity....it just IS.
Arising_uk wrote:No, as I don't give a toss.
But you do, n*****, given your own words.
I think you get much pleasure in imagining me as suffering and miserable, so as to comfort yourself for feeling so intellectually inferior...then you laugh, in that fake stress relieving way...and you make sure I know that you are now laughing....*LOL*!!!
Ah n*****, you are fun.
Arising_uk wrote:A dog licks its balls because it has no hands to wash. If a man needs to "understand why and how" and its what "separates a man from a simpler animal or a human from a n*****", why do you object to my questions?
Because you are like my two year old.
How long can I answer inane questions revealing an incapacity to comprehend and deep confusion, without losing interest? About 1 more day, n*****.
Arising_uk wrote:Tell you what. Next time you are 'pumping iron' I'll stand over you and kick you in the balls to increase your gain.
Ah n*****, you sit on your ass and make jokes....then snicker in the corner like a teenager.

No pain n*****, no gain....comfort equals stagnation. Evolution works on stress and the need to overcome challenges. Now go back to your nihilism...imagine a world where nobody suffers and nobody needs...paradise.
Arising_uk wrote:And you'llbe the next mutation would you? :lol:
Thee you go again projecting your insecurities upon me and assuming that this is about me and what I prefer....like all your ideas are.

n*****, beauty is not skin-deep, is exposes something real....now tell me how pretty I am.
Arising_uk wrote: :lol: Ah! Well! I'll just have to muddle on.
You're in good comany n*****....here amongst your own, telling each other tales of fantasy with that requires positive Hollywood ending, name-dropping to hid your empty skulls, repeating current cultural western myths, as an indication of community.
Arising_uk wrote:Hope? An observation!!!!!!!
a very hopeful one, n*****. Let us see the quality of that judgment, shall we?
Arising_uk wrote:I'd guess so depending upon its master. Still, why would you wish this upon me? Let me reassure you, once you have gone, whether you are in despair or not will be immaterial to me.
But you matter to me, n*****...because you surround me with your filth....not you personally...your kind.

You, as a person, are insignificant...a dumb and perhaps a more boring version of the usual.
I'll miss you n*****.

___________
1 and counting
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Arising_uk »

Satyr wrote:What a hater you are n*****.
Nah! Just one who understands that compassion and pity should not always stay ones hand.
n*****, science is a philosophy with empirical evidence. It is sensually applied philosophical thought.
So, you are a scientist?
n*****, the underlying philosophy implied in science is that the world is knowable and that appearances matter...that the world is not an illusion.
No!!?
Ah n*****, you are trying to project your inadequacies upon me, to avoid dealing with them.

n*****, String Theory is a highly artistic and metaphysical perspective. And at the forefront of current cosmology.
Metaphysics begins where physics ends...where the senses can go no further.
Please! Its still an unproved theory of Physics expressed in Mathematics. I still think the best explanation of Metaphysics is the book after the Physics. That scientists are a branch of metaphysical philosophy that has pretty much swept away the idea that 'metaphysics' in philosophy will be a future source of 'truth' is true. That scientists become philosophers when they reach an impasse is also true but so is the fact that they won't be turning to philosophical metaphysicians for solutions, although they do appear to like the logicians.
It is a simplification n*****, a depiction...not the actual dog, you sad sap. the logic that is common is one based on human methods of perceiving...each pixel a representation of a particle or a point in space/time.
'pixels' in a photo? You are a modern man. What "particles" or "points"? I thought you said such things do not exist?
String enough pictures together and run then in succession and you've got what man calls consciousness. The juxtaposition of one static photo with the next and previous is what man calls change or movement. But, in fact, there is no gap, as in the movie reel, between photographs but only in between human perceptions.
Don't be stupid, the frame is the whole point of the gap. So you agree, its all particles impacting and the body fills the gaps.
So, cause is not separated from effect as 1 is not followed by a void before 2 comes along.
So you are saying cause and effect exists because of having a body? I agree.
What does it look like?
A hash sign which to me has meant a hexadecimal number but wiki says it can also mean 'the number one', is this how you mean it? If so I'm puzzled as "1" represents the number one, so you are saying "#1=1"?
Do you want me back, n*****?
Not bothered.
n*****, you love authorities. I will, which means you are no longer necessary as you offer nothing but references.
You offer no ideas of your own, and except repeating those of others you are dull.
One reference is nothing but? Name the others that I reference?
Is a philosophy proffesor a thinker, n*****? Does knowing what Spinoza said and where Hume fits into the school of thoughts or the history of thinking, make him a thinker?
No? It just means they understand the historical scope of Philosophy.
Oh jeez. :roll:
:lol: That JC?
The neurological interconnections, the brains geography, n*****.
And they are binary are they?
Your priests scientists.
Unfortunately not as I think they've missed their chance.
No n*****, it applies perfectly.
Only in your cultural understanding.
n*****, superior/inferior is how wills interact.

Superorganism, n*****...an institution takes on a life of its own, with its own logic and so its own ideals and Will.
I did wonder when the super-ego would make its appearance.
n*****, there is no need for God, as superior will only designates a superior organization. the mysticism is yours, n*****, because you need it to comfort yourself.
:lol: "superior will", "superior organization", 'god'?
n*****, a cell is subservient to the sum of cells which is the organism.
:lol: 'subservient' cells.
It's part of decadence, n*****. And ants procreate like mad, compensating for an inferior quality with superior quantity. It's to be expected, n*****.
What is? That I fit your definition for superiority?
]No n*****, I am born in the know....what about you?
nah! I just grew into the know.
n*****, pleasure is a momentary distraction, a negative state to the norm which is stress, need....just as light is a momentary state requiring constant effort, whereas dark just is....like your stupidity....it just IS.
I think I'll quote,
"If the good or bad exercise of the will does alter the world, it can only alter the limits of the world, not the facts - not what can be expressed by means of language.
In short the effect must be that it becomes an altogether different world. It must, so to speak, wax and wane as a whole.
The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man."
Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 6.43
But you do, n*****, given your own words. I think you get much pleasure in imagining me as suffering and miserable, so as to comfort yourself for feeling so intellectually inferior...then you laugh, in that fake stress relieving way...and you make sure I know that you are now laughing....*LOL*!!! Ah n*****, you are fun.
Thats the trouble with you fraudians, always thinking you know what others think by slotting them into your theory. That you think pleasure is imagining others as "suffering and miserable" and that its "to comfort yourself for feeling so intellectually inferior" speaks volumes. That I turn not away from your vileness speaks volumes about me. Whether thats 'good' or 'bad' is immaterial to my philosophy.
Because you are like my two year old. How long can I answer inane questions revealing an incapacity to comprehend and deep confusion, without losing interest? About 1 more day, n*****.
I do so 'feel' for your kid. Still, at least he won't be competition for mine as he'll have long learnt that questions are not useful by the time he gets to learn.
Ah n*****, you sit on your ass and make jokes....then snicker in the corner like a teenager.
Please, a muscle-mary thinking the gym is not sniggering at you? Unless of course you are in the muscle-mary gym?
No pain n*****, no gain....comfort equals stagnation. Evolution works on stress and the need to overcome challenges. Now go back to your nihilism...imagine a world where nobody suffers and nobody needs...paradise.
I can just hear you grunting away producing those balloon muscles to satisfy the current fraudian gay image of the perfect male. Don't tell me, you're buffed and waxed as well?
Thee you go again projecting your insecurities upon me and assuming that this is about me and what I prefer....like all your ideas are.
Can't tell you how much I like the "thee", twice now across posts? An orthodox slip I see?
n*****, beauty is not skin-deep, is exposes something real....now tell me how pretty I am.
Does it? Are you?
You're in good comany n*****....here amongst your own, telling each other tales of fantasy with that requires positive Hollywood ending, name-dropping to hid your empty skulls, repeating current cultural western myths, as an indication of community.
Blah! Blah! Blah! That you can't hear yourself as following a cultural starnd just bodes ill for you, philosphically that is.
a very hopeful one, n*****. Let us see the quality of that judgment, shall we?
Lets. As its pretty much a logical 'win-win' for me.
But you matter to me, n*****...because you surround me with your filth....not you personally...your kind.

You, as a person, are insignificant...a dumb and perhaps a more boring version of the usual.
I'll miss you n*****.
Hear or see the confusion and contradiction in your words?

Still, all a bit unfair as you cannot reply but then what is unfair as I did not resolve to not reply.
User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Duncan Butlin »

Dear Mr. Arising-UK, and Mr. Satyr,

Please excuse me for interrupting, but the feminisation of society is an import matter: at the moment it is inextricably tied up with economic progress itself -- as illustrated so clearly on the covers of the last two issues of the London-based Economist newspaper. We have come to believe that control must be handed over to women, in order to give free reign to the lusts and materialism of free markets -- despite their destructive effect on our social lives.

The whole of the western world is dedicated to this project, and it is the basis of the Muslim disenchantment with us: they see we have entirely lost control of our women. They are quite right to be concerned, though the way some of them go about registering their objections is, of course, far too violent.

It seems sad, therefore, to see the debate descend into an inane trading of insults between you two. If we could solve this problem (the disentanglement of progress from feminisation), then things would look pretty good for the world: social relationships in the West would start to heal, and the Muslims would stop attacking us.

So might it be possible to return to the subject at hand?
Wootah
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:43 am

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Wootah »

You make a welcome return Duncan. Viva la resistance.
User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Duncan Butlin »

Dear Mr. Wootah,

Very kind of you to welcome me back. It’s taken me quite a while to recover from the enforced drug treatment (and I am still having to take a reduced dosage as I write), but I find I am the stronger for it. Hopefully I can make some useful contributions again.

You will find it impossible to believe, but I am at the moment subject to electronic attack by the Republic of Singapore! They are diverting my e-mails to the Economist, so they go somewhere else instead (God only knows how), and fighting them off is taking up quite a bit of my time. I have put a few details on my website, and my latest move has been to try and enlist the assistance of the surveillance people at our Government Communications Headquarters. Here's my letter of protest to the Singapore government:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=s ... NzJhMTVhYw

Still, it’s fun ... and you never know, it may provide the opportunity for a little publicity. I am going to try to meet the High Commissioner face-to-face in London on Wednesday, if he hasn’t fixed things by then.

I am utterly serious about decoupling progress from the liberation of women, and I am trying to get a letter on the subject published in the Economist this week. Here’s a link:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=s ... ZDgxNjk4Yw

Good to hear from you again.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Arising_uk »

Duncan Butlin wrote:...The whole of the western world is dedicated to this project, and it is the basis of the Muslim disenchantment with us: they see we have entirely lost control of our women. They are quite right to be concerned, though the way some of them go about registering their objections is, of course, far too violent.
Is that right?
So the history we've had with the Arab world since the Crusades has nothing to do with their disenchantment? Nor the Israeli/Palestine issue? Nor the wars and interference over oil? Its actually all because there are women in the City and the way to solve this is to remove the womens vote and stop them working?
Now far be it from me to deny that the City is not a hot-bed of radical feminism but surely even if we turn it back to an all 'boys' club, the issue with the City and the Muslim will still remain as the City is based upon usury which is not allowed by Islam, so I doubt that your suggested changes will make any difference.
User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Duncan Butlin »

Arising-UK: the worst examples of out-of-control female behaviour in the West are not in the city: divorce laws, pornography, single mothers, women’s fashions, women in the media, female priests ... business ladies come way below these on the list. In fact I believe there are several jobs in business that women do better than men -- just don’t think they should do them if they have young children.

I’m not denying there are other issues, I am just saying that Western women are by far the biggest problem. Muslims seem to have got round their sharia problems with usury, speculation and interest, for example, by inventing Islamic equivalents such as ‘sukuk bonds’, which are declared ‘sharia-compliant’. Malaysia is making a big business out of it. Here's a chart:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=s ... YjQ4MzYwMg

I have described before how I flew into Saudi in 1980 with the EMA manager for Japan Victor Company sitting beside me. He told me that, even at that early date, Saudi Arabia had the highest per capita density of VCRs in the world ... specifically for viewing porn videos. They hate being enslaved by our women, and are quite desperate as their own women take over control.

But your suggestion that we should go back to the good old days of ‘old-boy clubs’ simply will not work. We must control women’s misbehaviour openly and directly -- not simply ban them from certain areas of society. This must either be done privately by husbands again, or publicly so we have an equal number of men and women in prison. They are no more angelic than we are -- in fact a healthy male attitude is to think they are considerably worse! Just as they think we are.

My war with Singapore is hotting up, by the way. Three days after I complained to Singapore about my e-mails being diverted, the diversion was removed! This is proof positive to me that it was they who had organised it in the first place. The High Commissioner would not let me into the building on Wednesday -- perhaps because I have now filed a crime report against the government with the Singapore police. I am determined to see this through to the bitter end, to show that the PAP (their ruling party) is not above the law.
duszek
Posts: 2356
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by duszek »

What are the rational reasons for men controlling women, Mr. Butlin ?
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Arising_uk »

Duncan Butlin wrote:Arising-UK: the worst examples of out-of-control female behaviour in the West are not in the city: divorce laws, pornography, single mothers, women’s fashions, women in the media, female priests ... business ladies come way below these on the list. In fact I believe there are several jobs in business that women do better than men -- just don’t think they should do them if they have young children.
At least we agree upon something, so you think we should adjust business to account for the bright females who may also be reproducing? That the divorce laws produce a matriarchal society that capitalism may need is still an open subject I'll grant you. That it is the advance it is and whether males can adapt is still an opn question I suppose, but I've met a few rich males who have no problem with their equivalent across gender.
I’m not denying there are other issues, I am just saying that Western women are by far the biggest problem. Muslims seem to have got round their sharia problems with usury, speculation and interest, for example, by inventing Islamic equivalents such as ‘sukuk bonds’, which are declared ‘sharia-compliant’. Malaysia is making a big business out of it. Here's a chart:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=s ... YjQ4MzYwMg
I have no doubt that Islam can accomodate Money, who gave us 'cheque' after all? I have no doubt that the exchange of currency involves an exchange of 'debt' either. It's that the moslem(and once the christian) thinks that the 'debt' should not be in 'currency' I thought was the point of usury?
I have described before how I flew into Saudi in 1980 with the EMA manager for Japan Victor Company sitting beside me. He told me that, even at that early date, Saudi Arabia had the highest per capita density of VCRs in the world ... specifically for viewing porn videos. They hate being enslaved by our women, and are quite desperate as their own women take over control.
Then you should be rejoicing! As in the past thirty years this issue has been redressed and the women are firmly in their place, even the UK's Ambassadors wife apparently? So now Wahabbism is the name of the game with a favoured son much in the headlines. Are you saying if we go back to Victorian patronage all will be forgiven? Is this not where a lot of 'this' started? You forget the evils allowed behind such a system? How will you stop an Englishmans 'castle' being his Austrian 'basement'?
But your suggestion that we should go back to the good old days of ‘old-boy clubs’ simply will not work. We must control women’s misbehaviour openly and directly -- not simply ban them from certain areas of society. This must either be done privately by husbands again, or publicly so we have an equal number of men and women in prison. They are no more angelic than we are -- in fact a healthy male attitude is to think they are considerably worse! Just as they think we are.
You misread the world. Women are regularly punished with harsher sentences for equivalent crimes than their male counterparts. Its about the only area that 'feminism' has succeeded in its 'equality of pay' claim.
My war with Singapore is hotting up, by the way. Three days after I complained to Singapore about my e-mails being diverted, the diversion was removed! This is proof positive to me that it was they who had organised it in the first place. The High Commissioner would not let me into the building on Wednesday -- perhaps because I have now filed a crime report against the government with the Singapore police. I am determined to see this through to the bitter end, to show that the PAP (their ruling party) is not above the law.
Mate, if I was planning a war you'd be about the last person I'd recruit to win but as an Englishman I admire your style.
duszek
Posts: 2356
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by duszek »

I agree, the content is atrocious, but the style is good.
:D

It is for exactly the same reason that I read "Thus spoke Zarathustra" every now and then.

Men wish to control women because they hope that this control will give them a sense of power. They need it because they are the weaker gender. Have you seen the Y chromosome ? The innate weakness makes boys looking for support from early on. They identify with those in power and are easily manipulated. They can be sent into combat as soldiers or as suicide bombers.
Men who are strong have something to give and are not aggressive. They are relaxed and generous.
Aggressiveness is often enough a sign of fear.
artisticsolution
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by artisticsolution »

Hi duszek,

D: They need it because they are the weaker gender.

AS: I wouldn't say they are the weaker gender. They have led us to the point we are today there is no denying it. I can see the evolutionary design of it. Men are physically stronger so they hunted and we nurtured. I get it.

That got us in to a pattern. As society evolved, tradition kept us in those roles. However, now men no longer need to hunt. They are confused of their roles. They feel redundant. I get it.

It's only a matter of time that these new roles become the norm and men come to realize they are not redundant. They will see that women still need their strength (mental and physical) in order to survive. They will learn that they also need ours. We are witnessing the evolution of mankind. There is a purpose to it all...perhaps a more fine tuned society? Perhaps space exploration in which everyone will have to contribute in order to maintain survival. Women are in the process of learning and man is not strong enough to stop it and some are frustrated. I get it.
duszek
Posts: 2356
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by duszek »

I heard a lecture yesterday, in the institute of zoology, delivered by Prof. Hüther, who explained that the male sex is biologically weaker, because of the lack of the second X gene. Women have this "spare wheel" and therefore recover better after a stroke for example, because they have a speech centre in both the left and the right hemisphere.
Girls survive better in general, so nature provided for it by making the ratio of new-borns 105 males to 100 females.
And women live longer statistically, everyone knows that.

They are weaker in this biological sense.
I am not going to compete with men for jobs like fire-fighting, of course.

And female brains have more connections. This is another advantage.
artisticsolution
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by artisticsolution »

Hi Duszek,

I can't believe you have me defending men! LOL

D:I heard a lecture yesterday, in the institute of zoology, delivered by Prof. Hüther, who explained that the male sex is biologically weaker, because of the lack of the second X gene. Women have this "spare wheel" and therefore recover better after a stroke for example, because they have a speech centre in both the left and the right hemisphere.

AS: I would question what he meant by weaker. If you add up a list of pros and cons would it not basically come out even? I think some men have let political correctness make them feel as if they have to prop up women by stating how much better they are than men. This is just plain ridicules. NO one sex is 'better' than the other. each has it's own unique weakness' and strengths. I don't know why we just can't say...women have such and such ability which is different than men, and men have this ability which is different than women. But noooo...can you imagine a professor saying the same thing about men that prof huther said about women? If he for example said, " The female sex is biologically weaker..." He would be fired the same way Harvard fired Dr Laurence Summers for saying that statistically men are better mathematicians than women! So now people can get fired for stating facts? Where is the logic in that? How can we ever come to know why? Could it be that men are better at math because they lack the second x gene? How can we ever know without being able to be honest?

It is simply illogical to say one sex is biologically weaker than the other. It is like saying water is better than food. They are both needed to survive...and yet they are very different.

D:Girls survive better in general, so nature provided for it by making the ratio of new-borns 105 males to 100 females.
And women live longer statistically, everyone knows that.

AS: I think the reason girls survive better is because they are not usually chance takers. Even in childhood it is more likely that a boy will jump off the roof in hopes that he can fly rather than the girl. But then it is the chance takers who make way for new technology...in effect assuring our survival. One hand washes the other.
duszek
Posts: 2356
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by duszek »

Prof. Hüther did not suggest that the biological weakness of men should have as a consequence that men are to be forced into submission or eradicated or whatever.
He was promoting the truth as a scientist and he provided scientific arguments.

Innate weakness makes a being look for support and strength in the outside world. Being a part of a hierarchy can give a sense of strength. That´s why men like to organize themselves in the military.

If we advance towards the truth we will understand better behaviour like: being an impostor, trying to impress others etc.
Instead of reacting with dismissal and disgust a woman can be more understanding by telling herself: he feels weak and looks for strength. How can I reassure him so that he stops this ridiculous behaviour ?
Post Reply