Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-06-2013, 09:49 AM
RE: Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.
(21-06-2013 09:46 AM)Likos02 Wrote:  
(20-06-2013 07:26 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  All we are are smart animals.
It can also be argued that we are stupid animals as we know there was more peace when the world was led by matriarchal social demographics yet the men in power today and for many years now have been too stupid to implement the required conditions that would return us to more peaceful times.

The Noble lie is firmly in place and the populations are too dumbed down by those same male governments and people just don't know it.

I take it back. We are all dumb animals.

Regards
DL

Haven't you ever heard "there is only one race, the human race"? We are not animals...we are a species sure, but we are not animals. Animals aren't any less than Humans, but we don't have the same insticts/senses/impulses that animals do.

Also, When, if ever, were humans lead by a Matriarchal society? at least, the History I've studied had very few of them, and the women tended to be inflamed by power and become more sadistic in the long run.

Of course we are animals. No two species have "the same insticts/senses/impulses ".

Do you mean something like "We're not just animals" or "we are more than animals" or something?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2013, 09:52 AM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2013 09:58 AM by ridethespiral.)
RE: Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.
(21-06-2013 09:46 AM)Likos02 Wrote:  
(20-06-2013 07:26 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  All we are are smart animals.
It can also be argued that we are stupid animals as we know there was more peace when the world was led by matriarchal social demographics yet the men in power today and for many years now have been too stupid to implement the required conditions that would return us to more peaceful times.

The Noble lie is firmly in place and the populations are too dumbed down by those same male governments and people just don't know it.

I take it back. We are all dumb animals.

Regards
DL

Haven't you ever heard "there is only one race, the human race"? We are not animals...we are a species sure, but we are not animals. Animals aren't any less than Humans, but we don't have the same insticts/senses/impulses that animals do.

Also, When, if ever, were humans lead by a Matriarchal society? at least, the History I've studied had very few of them, and the women tended to be inflamed by power and become more sadistic in the long run.


I would argue that we do have roughly similar instincts to our evolutionary neighbors but that we also have higher brain functions that allow them to be subverted/twisted/channeled, etc.

It has come up a few times throughout history...Cleopatra...Dido...Catherine...Elizabeth...Wu Zeitan...and yes sometimes they are terrible petty voilent rulers...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Zetian

Who actually remindes me a bit of this lady:
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQT9LsLll88GWNh6tOcW8...R9JkIiQg7X]

...and yes, Greatest I am is still off his rocker.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2013, 09:55 AM
RE: Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.
We aren't more than animals, animals are equal to us from an ecological standpoint. But very few "Animals" possess the thought capacity, to lie, cheat, steal, commit Mass genocide, nuclear fallout, corrupting the entire planet. I'd say Humans were a parasite more than an Animal.

Shock And Awe Tactics-- The "application of massive or overwhelming force" to "disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy impotent with as few casualties to ourselves and to noncombatants as possible"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2013, 10:03 AM
RE: Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.
(20-06-2013 05:31 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  What would you call whoever is at the top of a male led herd or pack of animals?
Pope

[Image: 21omssh.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2013, 11:11 AM
RE: Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.
I don't think OP is aware of lesbians or asexual women, or women who do not want to procreate, or maybe he just doesn't consider them worthy of life. Women are not just incubators, and I don't think that the human race is in danger of extinction (seemed to be what OP was suggesting as to why women were worthy of "protection" as incubators).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2013, 11:34 AM
RE: Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.
(21-06-2013 11:11 AM)amyb Wrote:  I don't think OP is aware of lesbians or asexual women, or women who do not want to procreate, or maybe he just doesn't consider them worthy of life. Women are not just incubators, and I don't think that the human race is in danger of extinction (seemed to be what OP was suggesting as to why women were worthy of "protection" as incubators).

I think you are misinterpreting. He's not trying to shelter women, he's trying to put them in power, under the assumption that they are more intelligent and benevolent. He's stating that Males should only be relied on for protection and for nothing else. I think he's wrong in some of his assumptions, but I wanted to clarify his viewpoint for you.

Shock And Awe Tactics-- The "application of massive or overwhelming force" to "disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy impotent with as few casualties to ourselves and to noncombatants as possible"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2013, 11:45 AM
RE: Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.
I still have a problem with the fact that he seems to be defining people by their genitals. Yes, I see the part you're referring to, but I still think it's BS because it is still basing ability to rule on what genitals you have. He also seems to be romanticizing women as rules, which is a topic others have addressed in the thread. I disagree with OP that one's ability to rule is based on one's genitals, no matter what genitals they are. I suppose I based some of my reply on the topic title rather than the content, though.

Also:

Quote:Females, as the incubators of life and the most important within that species, must have the highest protection to insure that they will survive to continue the life of that species.
I don't think the species is in threat of going extinct right now due to a lack of procreation.


Quote:Generally speaking only; women are the weaker of the sexes and are better places to know what the requirements of survival are and should thus rule. Women should then demand the full protection and sacrifice of the Alphas males as that is the natural order of hierarchical species and must be to insure survival. This sacrifice gives sanctity to our species and insures it’s longevity. The religious and political right seem better suited to lead towards this end.
Again, the whole thread is saying that genitals, not people, should rule, and this is what I disagree with.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2013, 11:53 AM
RE: Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.
Genitals is a very crass way of saying Gender, but yes, that is true he's defining people by gender. As much as a woman may try, VERY FEW women gain the muscular fitness that men gain easier. As much as men may try, VERY FEW Men gain the intelligence that women gain easier.

Hormones and Genes are different between the genders and as much as we want to change that, we can't (for now).

Shock And Awe Tactics-- The "application of massive or overwhelming force" to "disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy impotent with as few casualties to ourselves and to noncombatants as possible"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2013, 11:57 AM
RE: Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.
(21-06-2013 11:53 AM)Likos02 Wrote:  Genitals is a very crass way of saying Gender, but yes, that is true he's defining people by gender. As much as a woman may try, VERY FEW women gain the muscular fitness that men gain easier. As much as men may try, VERY FEW Men gain the intelligence that women gain easier.

Hormones and Genes are different between the genders and as much as we want to change that, we can't (for now).
Sex is not the same thing as gender.

We are not talking about body fat percentage, we're talking about being fit to rule, which I think depends on the individual and has nothing at all to do with the amount of muscle you have. I'm also not talking about hormones and genes. I never said "Women have the same amount of testosterone as men!" (which also influenced ability to gain muscle mass) which you seem to think I have said. I said that ability to rule probably has nothing to do with genitals.

I would like to see peer-reviewed articles saying that men are unable to gain intelligence at the same rate as women.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2013, 12:02 PM
RE: Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.
(21-06-2013 11:53 AM)Likos02 Wrote:  Genitals is a very crass way of saying Gender, but yes, that is true he's defining people by gender.

As far as I can recall, preferred terminology these days is to refer to physical equipment as sex. Gender tends more to refer to identity (that is, self-identity).

(21-06-2013 11:53 AM)Likos02 Wrote:  As much as a woman may try, VERY FEW women gain the muscular fitness that men gain easier. As much as men may try, VERY FEW Men gain the intelligence that women gain easier.

That's not borne out by the statistics. There are many traits which occur bimodally in humans (that is, having a very slight correlation with one's sex).

The important point to note, however, is that the breadth of the distributions FAR exceeds the difference between their averages. What does this mean in pratical terms? It means that any particular woman is nearly as likely to be stronger than the 'average' man as to be weaker (and vice versa). The difference in group averages is not a significant means of judging any particular individual.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: