NationStates Jolt Archive

Proof? It's self-evident clearly. Even primitive tribes recognize this. :rolleyes:
?
Tell me some primitive tribes that realize this.
I don't see any self-evidence in there at all. And nothing clear about it. Is it that hard to accept that some men may want to help people learn?

?
Tell me some primitive tribes that realize this.
I don't see any self-evidence in there at all. And nothing clear about it. Is it that hard to accept that some men may want to help people learn?

The Iatmul, for one.

obviously not, according to the General. The male teachers are only in it for the children, if you catch my drift... :rolleyes:

Do you want to teach elementary school?
I had no real preference just History.
Regardless, I am not a shorteye, shorteyes all become Catholic priests not elementary teachers--check the percentages of incidents of molestation,
in the last 20 years.

I had no real preference just History.

Well then you won't be teaching elementary school will you.

And let's face it, elementary school is little more than a child minding service. Very little learning actually goes on there. (In fact, the current lionized status of the professional baby sitters responsible for grades k-6, is due to the insidious influence of women and their damn votes. Historical it was always viewed as an intellectually demanding job that simply required the ability to tolerate other peoples screaming offspring for extended periods. And rightly so. "Educators" pah.)

The Iatmul, for one.
Okay, that's one. Wonderful.

You ignoed the second bit of my post, I believe.

Okay, that's one. Wonderful.

You ignoed the second bit of my post, I believe.

What does teaching have to do with elementary school. At that point its all child minding and finger painting.

I'm not saying men can't be teachers, just that men who want to "teach" small children should rightly be viewed with suspicion. It's not natural.

Hence men should only teach at middle school (at the earliest), and beyond.

Well then you won't be teaching elementary school will you.
Where'd that come from?
And let's face it, elementary school is little more than a child minding service. Very little learning actually goes on there. (In fact, the current lionized status of the professional baby sitters responsible for grades k-6, is due to the insidious influence of women and their damn votes. Historical it was always viewed as an intellectually demanding job that simply required the ability to tolerate other peoples screaming offspring for extended periods. And rightly so. "Educators" pah.)
Very little learning?
Ha!
I'm sorry, but that's about as far off as you can get. If you kept a kid out of school during that time, I'd sure like to see how they'd function afterwards. Elementary school is where you learn the basics, not a "child minding service".

Gen Curtis E LeMay, did I hear you right before when you said that you were eating steak and EGGS?

EGGS

It's pansy new-age ponces(sp?) like you that give today's men a bad name and let these feminazis run their mouths off. You say you're a man and then you come on here spouting off about eating eggs of all things, hell they were probably scrambled too! It's guys like you who have really let the bar of male dominance slide! All talk and no action!

Well I'm gonna go have a bath or Kerosene and scrub myself with AJAX!!

Ooooo baby now that's MANly!

What does teaching have to do with elementary school. At that point its all child minding and finger painting.

I'm not saying men can't be teachers, just that men who want to "teach" small children should rightly be viewed with suspicion. It's not natural.

Hence men should only teach at middle school (at the earliest), and beyond.
You see, you've failed to explain why it's not natural. And if that's the crux of your argument, you kind of need to explain it, don't you?

Well then you won't be teaching elementary school will you.

And let's face it, elementary school is little more than a child minding service. Very little learning actually goes on there. (In fact, the current lionized status of the professional baby sitters responsible for grades k-6, is due to the insidious influence of women and their damn votes. Historical it was always viewed as an intellectually demanding job that simply required the ability to tolerate other peoples screaming offspring for extended periods. And rightly so. "Educators" pah.)
The only time more learning takes place is in infancy.
It is at this stage of developement the child becomes the person--these years require the best and most attention.
Second why would I not teach history in elemantary school? Or did the backwards locality that spawned you not begin education until the children were old enough to defend themselves from the rapid raping instructors you speak of?

I resent the implication that all Catholic priests are molesters. The only reason there was so much hype about the molestations is because of the anti-Papist feeling that runs through this mostly heathen, Protestant country. Imean look at how reluctant people were to have JFK as president.

Very little learning?
Ha!
I'm sorry, but that's about as far off as you can get. If you kept a kid out of school during that time, I'd sure like to see how they'd function afterwards. Elementary school is where you learn the basics, not a "child minding service".

Another victim of Oprah Winfrey and her agitprop. The "basics" as you call them are just that. Basics. It requires no specialized knowledge or the need to master any subject to teach elementary school. It's just a matter of cramming some basic arithmetic and ABC's between lunch and finger painting. The only reason anyone would want to do that is because they "like" small children. Which, for a man, is clearly unnatural. It's different for women. As Oprah is always telling society, women are nurtures, so thier attraction to the elementary school makes sense.

As I said, self evident.

I resent the implication that all Catholic priests are molesters. The only reason there was so much hype about the molestations is because of the anti-Papist feeling that runs through this mostly heathen, Protestant country. Imean look at how reluctant people were to have JFK as president.
Mostly heathen? Last time I checked the statistics, Catholics were the largest religious organization in the US. Protestant? Doesn't that sort of contradict the accusation of them being heathens?

The only time more learning takes place is in infancy.
It is at this stage of developement the child becomes the person--these years require the best and most attention.
Second why would I not teach history in elemantary school? Or did the backwards locality that spawned you not begin education until the children were old enough to defend themselves from the rapid raping instructors you speak of?


IIRC, in elementary school you only have one teacher for the whole ball of wax (per grade). If you want to teach history, you will at least have to be a middle school teacher.

In any event, what kind of history gets taught in elementary school?

Another victim of Oprah Winfrey and her agitprop. The "basics" as you call them are just that. Basics. It requires no specialized knowledge or the need to master any subject to teach elementary school. It's just a matter of cramming some basic arithmetic and ABC's between lunch and finger painting. The only reason anyone would want to do that is because they "like" small children. Which, for a man, is clearly unnatural. It's different for women. As Oprah is always telling society, women are nurtures, so thier attraction to the elementary school makes sense.

As I said, self evident.
Why do you say are women are the only nurturers?
And why did you try to use Oprah against me in saying that first I'm a victim to her, then try to use something she said to support your own argument?

By the way, I hate Oprah, so I'm not a victim of her "agitprop", whatever that is supposed to mean.

I resent the implication that all Catholic priests are molesters. The only reason there was so much hype about the molestations is because of the anti-Papist feeling that runs through this mostly heathen, Protestant country. Imean look at how reluctant people were to have JFK as president.
JFK the only seated senetor to win a presidential election.
Two-I am Irish Catholic.
Three--You check the figures.

The implication is not Catholics are child molestors, but that child molestors abuse the Preisthood for there own means. The Roamn Catholic Church has had a system wide couciling and relocation policy set up to hide this abuse of the church for decades.
IN short it is unfortunate that you resent facts.

Why do you say are women are the only nurturers?
And why did you try to use Oprah against me in saying that first I'm a victim to her, then try to use something she said to support your own argument?

By the way, I hate Oprah, so I'm not a victim of her "agitprop", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Men don't nuture. It's alien to them. Women do, they like kids and shit like that.

And I applaud you for hating Oprah. However her influence is all pervading. She sets the social agenda for her bon-bon eating mind slaves.

IIRC, in elementary school you only have one teacher for the whole ball of wax (per grade). If you want to teach history, you will at least have to be a middle school teacher.

In any event, what kind of history gets taught in elementary school?
I had mutiple teachers from second grade on, of course I also wasnt in the land of pantstouchers where it is you hail from.
Second grade was all State History.
Third grade was basic American History.
Forth Grade was more indepth American History--The workings of the branches of Government, and so forth.
Now of course I did not attend public school, so I see no relevence in comparing.

The "basics" as you call them are just that. Basics. It requires no specialized knowledge or the need to master any subject to teach elementary school. It's just a matter of cramming some basic arithmetic and ABC's between lunch and finger painting. The only reason anyone would want to do that is because they "like" small children. Which, for a man, is clearly unnatural. It's different for women. As Oprah is always telling society, women are nurtures, so thier attraction to the elementary school makes sense.

As I said, self evident.

i went to a magnet school for k-5 so what about my male teacher who taught me to play the violin and gave me an overall ear for music? he was an equal prick to both males and females. or my art teacher who got me to appricate abstract art and taught me the importance of being an individal, he was equally nice to boths males and females. and they were both there for very long times, without any sort of abuse cases. and why is it unnatural for a man to teach a 10 year old but not strange for a man to teach a 16 year old? both would mean he liked children enough to become a teacher.

HMMM...
I wonder why the media never covered any molestation in Protestant branches of religion? Could it be the dominance of Protestants in the U.S.? This country is far to anglophile, and its the catholics who have been getting heat ever since we came here. (by the way, Protestantism has 52% of the US's population. Dosen't seem like Catholics could have majority over that.)

Gen Curtis E LeMay, why have you ignored me? Are you such a sissy than you don't have the nerve to respond? I think you should support the feminist movement while you can, you that close to be an out and out woman it's not even funny!

...or are you too busy eating you dainty eggs and reading Cosmo?

JFK the only seated senetor to win a presidential election.
Two-I am Irish Catholic.
Three--You check the figures.

The implication is not Catholics are child molestors, but that child molestors abuse the Preisthood for there own means. The Roamn Catholic Church has had a system wide couciling and relocation policy set up to hide this abuse of the church for decades.
IN short it is unfortunate that you resent facts.

Warren G. Harding.

You have to be careful with catholic preists too. They have an eye for the young boys.

Saying that No learning occurs in Elementary schools is by far, the most absurd, asinine, ignorant thing to say. I learned more "basics" in one year of Elementary school than 4 years of HIGH school combined. You do more than just "cramming some basic arithmetic and ABC's between lunch and finger painting." You gain social contact with different people, behavior skills, life schedules, science, history, friends, and countless other things. Besides, those ABC's and arithmetic are by far the major skills you use EVERY day in life. Life would be outright impossible to interact with people without "ABC's" and "arithmetic"

Men don't nuture. It's alien to them. Women do, they like kids and shit like that.
You still haven't provided any proof.
Also, not all women like children, if that's what you're implying.

Men don't nuture. It's alien to them. Women do, they like kids and shit like that.

And I applaud you for hating Oprah. However her influence is all pervading. She sets the social agenda for her bon-bon eating mind slaves.
Actually most psycologists would disagree, boys at a very early age demostrate a superior level of empathy to females-- it is trained out by societal norms. Female children more often demostrate an indifference to the needs and feelings of others--it must be taught, while boys operate with nuturing behavior much more instinctivly.

By the way, I hate Oprah, so I'm not a victim of her "agitprop", whatever that is supposed to mean.
Don't try to fool us, now. I can tell, from our conversations in the past, that you would actually enjoy Oprah quite a bit. If not, well, barbecue sauce makes everything better.

Warren G. Harding.

You have to be careful with catholic preists too. They have an eye for the young boys.
Was Warren seated at the time? Huh.
Yes they most certainly do.

All I ask is that the feminists shave their damned body hair.

All I ask is that the feminists shave their damned body hair.
Here Here !!!

You still haven't provided any proof.
Also, not all women like children, if that's what you're implying.

No, not all women like kids, it's true. Women are far more likely to than men however. For a man to like little kids is just not normal. A clear sign of mal-adaptive behavior and potential pederasty without question.

I suppose if I said african crocidiles were dangerous, you'd want proof of that too.

I'd like to point out that Harding was an Anglo-Saxon, PROTESTANT!
Not exactly someone with kind words for the Holy Roman Church.

Was Warren seated at the time? Huh.
Yes they most certainly do.

Yes he was. (Don't they teach american history in schools anymore, or did it get lost amongst the female propaganda?)

I suppose if I said african crocidiles were dangerous, you'd want proof of that too.
I am guessing you could prove that male african crocodiles are dangerous, but that female african crocodiles are busy baking sewing and shit?

Originally Posted by Ryanania
All I ask is that the feminists shave their damned body hair.

Oh no, now you are putting constricting social trends onto these feMENists! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

HMMM...
I wonder why the media never covered any molestation in Protestant branches of religion? Could it be the dominance of Protestants in the U.S.? This country is far to anglophile, and its the catholics who have been getting heat ever since we came here. (by the way, Protestantism has 52% of the US's population. Dosen't seem like Catholics could have majority over that.)
Here we go.
Next it will be those dirty Jews aiding the Evangelicals right?
Fecking nut.

Actually most psycologists would disagree, boys at a very early age demostrate a superior level of empathy to females-- it is trained out by societal norms. Female children more often demostrate an indifference to the needs and feelings of others--it must be taught, while boys operate with nuturing behavior much more instinctivly.

Pyschobabble. Those people believe Freud to, but disparage Skinner. Anything that ends in -ology is not a science.

In any event, even if what you claimed about boys is true - which I highly doubt - it would all go out the window at puberty.

HMMM...
I wonder why the media never covered any molestation in Protestant branches of religion? Could it be the dominance of Protestants in the U.S.? This country is far to anglophile, and its the catholics who have been getting heat ever since we came here. (by the way, Protestantism has 52% of the US's population. Dosen't seem like Catholics could have majority over that.)

Hmm, you seem to be correct in your statement that protestants are dominant. It seems the magazines I got my information from had incorrect statistics.

Warren G. Harding.

You have to be careful with catholic preists too. They have an eye for the young boys.
Do we have a new troll?

Now of course I did not attend public school, so I see no relevence in comparing.

Private schools can afford to screen, as can magnet schools. Generally its just not worth the risk.

Yes he was. (Don't they teach american history in schools anymore, or did it get lost amongst the female propaganda?)
I could ask a similar question, as you seem to cling to the idea that women are superior at nuturing when in fact they are by nature inferior--with out instruction. Am I seeing some mother issues coming up?

Do we have a new troll?
Uh, yeah. You didn't know that a month ago?

Pyschobabble. Those people believe Freud to, but disparage Skinner. Anything that ends in -ology is not a science.

In any event, even if what you claimed about boys is true - which I highly doubt - it would all go out the window at puberty.
Oh, you mean like biology? Geology? Archaeology? Paleontology? Cosmology?

-ology is "the study of", if I recall correctly.

I could ask a similar question, as you seem to cling to the diea that women are superior at nuturing when in fact they are by nature inferior--with out instruction. Am I seeing some mother issues coming up?

The only thing you have to back that up is some ridiculous babble from some head shrinker. Pyschology is rubbish.

Uh, yeah. You didn't know that a month ago?
Today is the first day I've seen him.

I can't believe that in about a day, this post has recieved almost 300 replies at this moment!

Egg-loving coward!

The only thing you have to back that up is some ridiculous babble from some head shrinker. Pyschology is rubbish.
And your fondation for a counter arguement is...ahhh yes "anything that ends in ology is not a science". Wow.

Oh, you mean like biology? Geology? Archaeology? Paleontology? Cosmology?

-ology is "the study of", if I recall correctly.


Yep, all not real sciences, just studies.

Real sciences end in -ics. Like physics,

I can't believe that in about a day, this post has recieved almost 300 replies at this moment!
Point taken.

And your fondation for a counter arguement is...ahhh yes "anything that ends in ology is not a science". Wow.

No, my foundation for that is psychology has no more scientific basis than literary critism. It's just shit that a bunck of long hairs made up and is much better replaced with common sense.

Yep, all not real sciences, just studies.

Real sciences end in -ics. Like physics,

uhh.. biology is the study of life - its taught it school by science teachers. in fact, mine was a male.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=biology&r=67

Yep, all not real sciences, just studies.

Real sciences end in -ics. Like physics,
Then you dont go see doctors(MDs) right?
Biology, and physiology, and pharmacology being the root of their education, or lack there of according to you.

Pyschobabble. Those people believe Freud to, but disparage Skinner. Anything that ends in -ology is not a science.


So would that mean that Biology is not a science, then?

I had a male elementary school teacher, for the record. There was no molestation, and he was one of the best teachers I've had. Learned basic algebra in that class, if I remember right.

Personally, I am a feminist. I pay my way on dates, never require my boyfriend to buy me shoes, and rarely go off on him for illogical reasons. I take Tae Kwon Do, and soundly trounce many a male in my class. I believe that the wage gap should close, but women ought to be included in the draft. Fairness, you see.

To me, that's what feminism is about. You're treated equal, but that means for everything. You get the bad with the good-women should not be complaining about the negative aspects of it.

Today is the first day I've seen him.
Consider yourself fortunate.

Yep, all not real sciences, just studies.

Real sciences end in -ics. Like physics,
Chemics?
Are all things that end with -ics real science? Like orgonomics?
Ha, you don't know when you've lost.
I'll end for now with that.

So would that mean that Biology is not a science, then?


That's right. It's advanced nature study.

No, my foundation for that is psychology has no more scientific basis than literary critism. It's just shit that a bunck of long hairs made up and is much better replaced with common sense.
Define "common sense".

Chemics?
Are all things that end with -ics real science? Like orgonomics?
Ha, you don't know when you've lost.
I'll end for now with that.

Do you mean ergonomics? That's very important, without it the light fighter program would not nearly have been sucessful as it is.

Chemistry is really just a branch of physics.

That's right. It's advanced nature study.
Nature study?

Define "common sense".

Sense that is common to all, i.e, requires no specialized learning.

That's right. It's advanced nature study.

no, its the study of all life of any kind. again, im going to post this as even more proof. suprises me that you failed to prove that wrong.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=biology&r=67

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=biology&x=0&y=0

http://www.freedictionary.org/index.php

Nature study?

Yes, nature study.

Do you mean ergonomics? That's very important, without it the light fighter program would not nearly have been sucessful as it is.

Chemistry is really just a branch of physics.
No he didnt he means orgonomics--it is a real science by your, interesting definition.

Do you mean ergonomics? That's very important, without it the light fighter program would not nearly have been sucessful as it is.

Chemistry is really just a branch of physics.
But it doesn't end in -ics, so it doesn't matter what it's a branch of. You've already stated that it's not a real science.

And no, I mean orgonomics. The "science" of Orgone, some mystical energy or other.

no, its the study of all life of any kind. again, im going to post this as even more proof. suprises me that you failed to prove that wrong.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=biology&r=67

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=biology&x=0&y=0

http://www.freedictionary.org/index.php


1 : a branch of knowledge that deals with living organisms and vital processes

Notice how the real dictionary does not say "science." In fact it reflects my paraphrase "advanced nature study" rather well. Thank you.

Yes, nature study.
SO you studied rocks in biology?
The tides
The phases of the moon
Wow, your school was ...different.

Yes, nature study.
what about this? http://www.freedictionary.org/index.php

i will, however, give you this. you are one of the most stubborn people i have ever had the privilege of speaking to.

But it doesn't end in -ics, so it doesn't matter what it's a branch of. You've already stated that it's not a real science.

And no, I mean orgonomics. The "science" of Orgone, some mystical energy or other.

Well I can make words up too. What bearing does that have? Check this out. Asshaberdasherology. Now, by your definition, that is a science.

Then you dont go see doctors(MDs) right?
Biology, and physiology, and pharmacology being the root of their education, or lack there of according to you.
You dont go see doctors right?

Who needs medicine and science anyway? Maybe egg eating douches like the 'General' here. Real men don't worry about science, they eat what they kill and all injuries can simply be covered with masking tape and forgotten about!

The science of life and of living organisms

maybe you missed it.

Well I can make words up too. What bearing does that have? Check this out. Asshaberdasherology. Now, by your definition, that is a science.
We never said -ology makes it a science. We simply said that some -ologies are sciences.

Also, that doesnt make your definition any more invalid. I can make up as many words as I want ending in -ics, and unless you give up your position, you'll have to accept them as sciences.

SO you studied rocks in biology?
The tides
The phases of the moon
Wow, your school was ...different.


You don't study rocks in nature study :rolleyes: . That's geology.

Phases of the moon falls under astrometrics.

Well I can make words up too. What bearing does that have? Check this out. Asshaberdasherology. Now, by your definition, that is a science.
Dumbass, look up Wilhelm Reich.
I would never had called orgonomics a science until your insiteful definition of makes something a credible science. :rolleyes:

maybe you missed it.


The first link is not a real dictionary. It's some online crap. I'll stick with M-W thank you very much.

The first link is not a real dictionary. It's some online crap. I'll stick with M-W thank you very much.
Okay, let me go grab mine.

You don't study rocks in nature study :rolleyes: . That's geology.

Phases of the moon falls under astrometrics.
What is NATURE STUDY?
I have never seen this class.
I do know that rocks occur in nature.
As do the cycles of the moon.
As does everything.
All sciences study nature in some fashion.
Being vague is not being correct.

Dumbass, look up Wilhelm Riech.
I would never had called orgonomics a science until your insiteful definition of makes something a credible science. :rolleyes:

I have no idea who that is or what he said. I doubt its important. My superior male decision making skills allow me to dismiss it out of hand as crap however.

The first link is not a real dictionary. It's some online crap. I'll stick with M-W thank you very much.

so its definitions are any less correct? i dont think that they will stay online very long with false definitions

Okay, let me go grab mine.

Biology:
The science that deals with the origin, history, characteristics, habits, etc. of plants and animals.
Okay, that should clear that up.

I believe in equal rights, but I do not think that there would be many women in armies under a truly equal system. Genetically they do not grow to be as strong with the same training - this does not mean that they *can't* merely that less of them do.

You dont go see doctors right?


Saw bones have their uses. They are not scientist however, and the honest ones will tell you that. Stop investing everything with an importance it doesn't have.

I have no idea who that is or what he said. I doubt its important. My superior male decision making skills allow me to dismiss it out of hand as crap however.
Ooh. I'd call that a flame.
How bout you guys? Sounds to me like he was implying I can't make decisions.

And yes, it *is* crap. But, your definition says it is not crap. You can't have it both ways.

I have no idea who that is or what he said. I doubt its important. My superior male decision making skills allow me to dismiss it out of hand as crap however.
OK just so we agree that you gave up, call it whatever you want.
You still didnt answer as to whether or not you use the services of Medical Doctors whose training is in PharmacOLOGY, biOLOGY, and physiOLOGY.

Okay, that should clear that up.


M - W def of biology (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=biology&x=0&y=0)

Get a new edition.

Ooh. I'd call that a flame.
How bout you guys? Sounds to me like he was implying I can't make decisions.

And yes, it *is* crap. But, your definition says it is not crap. You can't have it both ways.
Neo, orgonomics is hard genuine science!!! It ends in IC for goodness sakes. How can you question its merit with such as that?

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=science&x=0&y=0

that would make the study of nature a, well, a science. and its m-w so you should be fine with this.

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>

theology, biology - whichever you perfer

General LeMay, may I ask you a question, pertaining to the original topic and your opinions of America's downfall, as you've stated a few pages ago?

Ooh. I'd call that a flame.
How bout you guys? Sounds to me like he was implying I can't make decisions.

And yes, it *is* crap. But, your definition says it is not crap. You can't have it both ways.


I said sciences end in -ics, not all words that end in -ics are sciences.

I wouldn't count econmics for example.

General LeMay, may I ask you a question, pertaining to the original topic and your opinions of America's downfall, as you've stated a few pages ago?


The US downfall is women getting the vote. They are too emotional to make rational decisions. Plus their increasing influence is turning us into a nation of cry-baby pantywastes.

I said sciences end in -ics, not all words that end in -ics are sciences.

I wouldn't count econmics for example.
Well to bad, because every recognized university in the world counts it as a science.

The US downfall is women getting the vote. They are too emotional to make rational decisions. Plus their increasing influence is turning us into a nation of cry-baby pantywastes.

I know that. What I wanted to ask you was this; Do you consider women to be the "gentler" sex, more empathetic to people?

amazing how you guys go from.. feminism to.. sciences?

nature study is something offered at the local highschool in washington state.. it incorporates alot of random foresty type things.

Anyways - feminism? As a female, I guess maybe, just like the majoirty of humans, I have my own little biased mind. Girls have disadvantages just as well as advantages.. after all, how much does it take for a girl to get a potential boss to hire her, if she just pouts a bit, or bites her lip? Little things make us tools of manipulation *shrug*

Feminists aren't all bad, and they aren't all good. Some guys just.. bleh.

Everything has its balance.

Well to bad, because every recognized university in the world counts it as a science.

So what? Those same institutions laughed at Robert Goddard. Universities are no more than reflections of societies' normative values. Doesn't mean they are always wrong, but it does mean your statement is an invalid appeal to authority.

M - W def of biology (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=biology&x=0&y=0)

Get a new edition.
Okay, so we're using the online edition now, huh?

Look at this then:


One entry found for pharmacology.
Main Entry: phar·ma·col·o·gy
Pronunciation: "fär-m&-'kä-l&-jE
Function: noun
1 : the science of drugs including materia medica, toxicology, and therapeutics
2 : the properties and reactions of drugs especially with relation to their therapeutic value
- phar·ma·co·log·i·cal /-k&-'lä-ji-k&l/ also phar·ma·co·log·ic /-jik/ adjective
- phar·ma·co·log·i·cal·ly /-ji-k(&-)lE/ adverb
- phar·ma·col·o·gist /-'kä-l&-jist/ noun


One entry found for geology.
Main Entry: ge·ol·o·gy
Pronunciation: jE-'ä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: New Latin geologia, from ge- + -logia -logy
1 a : a science that deals with the history of the earth and its life especially as recorded in rocks b : a study of the solid matter of a celestial body (as the moon)
2 : geologic features
3 : a treatise on geology
- ge·ol·o·gist /-jist/ noun


Main Entry: ecol·o·gy
Pronunciation: i-'kä-l&-jE, e-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: German Ökologie, from öko- eco- + -logie -logy
1 : a branch of science concerned with the interrelationship of organisms and their environments
2 : the totality or pattern of relations between organisms and their environment
3 : HUMAN ECOLOGY
- eco·log·i·cal /"E-k&-'lä-ji-k&l, "e-k&-/ also eco·log·ic /-jik/ adjective
- eco·log·i·cal·ly /-ji-k(&-)lE/ adverb
- ecol·o·gist /i-'kä-l&-jist, e-/ noun


Ooh, and the final clincher:


Main Entry: psy·chol·o·gy
Pronunciation: -jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: New Latin psychologia, from psych- + -logia -logy
1 : the science of mind and behavior
2 a : the mental or behavioral characteristics of an individual or group b : the study of mind and behavior in relation to a particular field of knowledge or activity
3 : a treatise on psychology
- psy·chol·o·gist /-jist/ noun


I believe that counts as just having been destroyed, does it not?

I know that. What I wanted to ask you was this; Do you consider women to be the "gentler" sex, more empathetic to people?

They like kids more, but otherwise not in particular. If anything their emotional nature probably makes them more bloodthirsty when their ire is up.

Saying that, they can also be self-destructively sentimental and irrational about crap. Look at the career and death of Diana Spencer-Windsor.

They like kids more, but otherwise not in particular. If anything their emotional nature probably makes them more bloodthirsty when their ire is up.

Saying that, they can also be self-destructively sentimental and irrational about crap. Look at the career and death of Diana Spencer-Windsor.
Guys can be plenty irrational as well.

Okay, so we're using the online edition now, huh?

Look at this then:





Ooh, and the final clincher:



I believe that counts as just having been destroyed, does it not?

No it just shows that they can only define biology correctly. I suppose they'll get around to amending the rest in time.

I believe that counts as just having been destroyed, does it not?

i would say so. but somehow i get the feeling he will attempt to disagree, maybe thats just me.

So what? Those same institutions laughed at Robert Goddard. Universities are no more than reflections of societies' normative values. Doesn't mean they are always wrong, but it does mean your statement is an invalid appeal to authority.
Your are a cute one arent you.
When my statement actually supported your mundane line of thinking had you been able to keep up with your own line of bullshit you would have known that.
Everything that you dont call science(The scientific community does call it science). Yet when you use a word to be the exception to your rule--your rule actually applies and you are too stupid to see it--absolutely amazing.
How do you manage to make it through a day?
Or have you grown used to the pointing and laughter?

Guys can be plenty irrational as well.

Well in todays society that's true. This is because they have been brainwashed to reject traditional male behavior. At any rate, they are still less emotional than women.

They like kids more

I abhor kids, actually. Other peoples kids are ok, but I find the majority of kids, especially really little ones, to be.. uh.. well, not usually likable. Cute sometimes, but I would never want to deal with one for long. I know alot of other females with the same notions.

No it just shows that they can only define biology correctly. I suppose they'll get around to amending the rest in time.

told ya. ah well. is anyone else finding this as humourous as i am?

No it just shows that they can only define biology correctly. I suppose they'll get around to amending the rest in time.
I'm loving this debate, this is the first time I've laughed long this week.
So you trust the M-W, but you don't trust them? Only sources that agree with you are correct? Because you're obviously right! At least, that seems to be what you're saying.

Give us a source with definitions of the words I just posted that agree with you, and then tell us why we should trust them over everybody else.

Your are a cute one arent you.
When my statement actually supported your mundane line of thinking had you been able to keep up with your own line of bullshit you would have known that.
Everything that you dont call science(The scientific community does call it science). Yet when you use a word to be the exception to your rule--your rule actually applies and you are too stupid to see it--absolutely amazing.
How do you manage to make it through a day?
Or have you grown used to the pointing and laughter?


What rule? As I said not everything that ends in -ics is a science, so how does this effect the price of milk. Really, try and be more rational.

You still didnt answer as to whether or not you use the services of Medical Doctors whose training is in PharmacOLOGY, biOLOGY, and physiOLOGY.
I am sorry you must keep missing this question. Here let me ask again.

told ya. ah well. is anyone else finding this as humourous as i am?
Oh yes. This was great, it instantly lifted my depression.

What rule? As I said not everything that ends in -ics is a science, so how does this effect the price of milk. Really, try and be more rational.
What is your definition of science, then?

I'm loving this debate, this is the first time I've laughed long this week.
So you trust the M-W, but you don't trust them? Only sources that agree with you are correct? Because you're obviously right! At least, that seems to be what you're saying.


Yes, where it agrees with me it is correct. Where it differs it is incorrect. I am right about this, the rest of the world has yet to catch up. But it'll get there eventually.

What rule? As I said not everything that ends in -ics is a science, so how does this effect the price of milk. Really, try and be more rational.
I was rational--I called the science of economics a science, your the one lacking rational bahavior, even your own.
I have never seen a troll so bad at being a troll.

Well in todays society that's true. This is because they have been brainwashed to reject traditional male behavior. At any rate, they are still less emotional than women.
Traditional male behaviour?
That's what I was referring to when I said guys could be irrational. Like the typical "I'm so macho and I need to prove I'm more macho than you" even though nobody actually cares.

I am sorry you must keep missing this question. Here let me ask again.


I answered it. As I said, I'll go to the saw bones. Don't make him a scientist though.

Oh yes. This was great, it instantly lifted my depression.

help me, im debating over a few psychology jokes for the general here.

Yes, where it agrees with me it is correct. Where it differs it is incorrect. I am right about this, the rest of the world has yet to catch up. But it'll get there eventually.
That sums it all up right there.

I was rational--I called the science of economics a science, your the one lacking rational bahavior, even your own.
I have never seen a troll so bad at being a troll.

Your not making sense. I said not all words ending in ics implies a science, and economics is not a science. This is not rocket science you know.

They like kids more, but otherwise not in particular. If anything their emotional nature probably makes them more bloodthirsty when their ire is up.

Saying that, they can also be self-destructively sentimental and irrational about crap. Look at the career and death of Diana Spencer-Windsor.

Princess Di's life actually contradicts your statement. She was a humanitarian who lived to help people, and she did quite a good job of it. She was loved and respected because she loved and respected others. Her death was an accident, not a result of her life.

What exactly makes you think that women voting has resulted in the decline of America? Do you realize that even before women earned that right, they were still very influential with their husbands, who did vote? Essentially, not much has changed except that now women can vote for themselves as opposed to having the men vote for them.

I answered it. As I said, I'll go to the saw bones. Don't make him a scientist though.
Of course it doesnt.
SO you would much rather see physicist for a broken arm?
Is that right sunshine?

Well in todays society that's true. This is because they have been brainwashed to reject traditional male behavior. At any rate, they are still less emotional than women.

so i am irrational and emotional and thus, feminine because i am not a chest beating walking bag of testoreone?

Your not making sense. I said not all words ending in ics implies a science, and economics is not a science. This is not rocket science you know.
No, economics is a science--regardless of your little ideas sunshine.
"Rocket science" is actually a group of sciences.
Try and keep up honey.

What is your definition of science, then?

No-one has an adequate definition of science. The current epistemological one is no good as several pseudo-sciences would be considered science under it. It's all prattle about "scientific method" and such. Bodies Without Organs can define it really well.

I know what's not science though, and pyschology is it.

Traditional male behaviour?
That's what I was referring to when I said guys could be irrational. Like the typical "I'm so macho and I need to prove I'm more macho than you" even though nobody actually cares.


No that's not traditional male behavior either. That's an outgrowth of the intellectually bankrupt "guyism' (or ladism) that is a product of the female dominated media.

No-one has an adequate definition of science. The current epistemological one is no good as several pseudo-sciences would be considered science under it. It's all prattle about "scientific method" and such. Bodies Without Organs can define it really well.

I know what's not science though, and pyschology is it.
This takes the cake!
So you're saying you can't define science?
Or that only definitions that agree with you are correct?

No, economics is a science--regardless of your little ideas sunshine.
"Rocket science" is actually a group of sciences.
Try and keep up honey.

Economics is bunk. It produces no consensus and is invariable wrong. It has little or no predictive value, and economists are always refining their models after the fact.

It's no more than modern day astrology.

Edit: It's rocket science, not rocket sciences.

No-one has an adequate definition of science. The current epistemological one is no good as several pseudo-sciences would be considered science under it. It's all prattle about "scientific method" and such. Bodies Without Organs can define it really well.

I know what's not science though, and pyschology is it.
If you know what something isnt, then by logical definition sweetheart you would know what it is. So since psycology doesnt fit into your parameters of a science what does. I mean if something cant be a science by your definition then that means you have a definition sweetiepie, just tell us what that is, ok sugar.

No that's not traditional male behavior either. That's an outgrowth of the intellectually bankrupt "guyism' (or ladism) that is a product of the female dominated media.
:D
So females are now responsible for guys being macho?
You kill me sometimes!
What is your definition of "traditional male behaviour" then?

(female-dominated media? Ha!)

Economics is bunk. It produces no consensus and is invariable wrong. It has little or no predictive value, and economists are always refining their models after the fact.

It's no more than modern day astrology.

Edit: It's rocket science, not rocket sciences.

There's more to economics than predictions. Supply and Demand is one of the simplest principles of it and everything lives by it.

Economics is bunk. It produces no consensus and is invariable wrong. It has little or no predictive value, and economists are always refining their models after the fact.

It's no more than modern day astrology.

Edit: It's rocket science, not rocket sciences.
We can talk about your horoscope later alright sassy.
We would like a definition of your distinctions that make something a science, just smile big and pretty for us and share your little button nose off.

Genny poo, do you know the difference between Psychiatry and Psychology?

If you know what something isnt, then by logical definition sweetheart you would know what it is. So since psycology doesnt fit into your parameters of a science what does. I mean if something cant be a science by your definition then that means you have a definition sweetiepie, just tell us what that is, ok sugar.

That's not logical. Say I'd never seen blue a car? I could still say a horse is not a car, even though I couldn't define what a car is.

That's not logical. Say I'd never seen blue a car? I could still say a horse is not a car, even though I couldn't define what a car is.
Slow down, honey, you're mixing up words.

Genny poo, do you know the difference between Psychiatry and Psychology?

Yes. One is a branch of patent medicine, the other is a psuedo science.

That's not logical. Say I'd never seen blue a car? I could still say a horse is not a car, even though I couldn't define what a car is.
Yes, it is logical. I am not asking you for anything other then your opinon-of which you obviously have strong one, now be dove and share.

Slow down, honey, you're mixing up words.

Ooops.

That's not logical. Say I'd never seen blue a car? I could still say a horse is not a car, even though I couldn't define what a car is.

Actually you couldn't for sure. If you've never seen a tiger before, could you say for sure that a tiger is not a cat?

Yes. One is a branch of patent medicine, the other is a psuedo science.
Wrong--Pharmacology is the difference.
Dont be angry though sweetie, you'll get the next one.

Yes. One is a branch of patent medicine, the other is a psuedo science.
Medicine isn't a science under your definition, correct?

:D
So females are now responsible for guys being macho?
You kill me sometimes!
What is your definition of "traditional male behaviour" then?

(female-dominated media? Ha!)


Yes, women are responsible for that. It's a well known fact that chicks dig provoking pointless fights for their own amusement. Another reason to stop them voting.

Tradtional male behavior is sensible rational behavior. Think of Gen. Marshall.

Yes. One is a branch of patent medicine, the other is a psuedo science.
Good. Then, can you tell me what a physicist does in his work that a psychologist doesn't?

Yes, women are responsible for that. It's a well known fact that chicks dig provoking pointless fights for their own amusement. Another reason to stop them voting.
Well, that seems to be what all the guys think. Personally, I wish they'd just shut up with their fights and such, as it's doing nothing to amuse or impress me.

Tradtional male behavior is sensible rational behavior. Think of Gen. Marshall.
I have no idea who he is. Oh, and I like this definition. Does this mean traditional female behaviour is irrational?

Oh, wait, and since when is tradition always the truth?

Medicine isn't a science under your definition, correct?

Correct, medicine is not a science. Nor is architecture. If anything they are professions.

Surely you have heard the expression medical arts.

That is not to say that there is no such thing as fraudulent quackery, like pyschiatry.

Yes, women are responsible for that. It's a well known fact that chicks dig provoking pointless fights for their own amusement. Another reason to stop them voting.

Tradtional male behavior is sensible rational behavior. Think of Gen. Marshall.

Going to war and killing people for a bit of land you want is rational? Killing people because they are different from you is rational?

Wow, if that's rationality, what the hell have I been doing wrong? I'm going to have to start liking all those war scenes I get sick at seeing now.

Actually you couldn't for sure. If you've never seen a tiger before, could you say for sure that a tiger is not a cat?
It's not the seeing, really, it's the not knowing. But you're right.

Correct, medicine is not a science. Nor is architecture. If anything they are professions.

Surely you have heard the expression medical arts.

That is not to say that there is no such thing as fraudulent quackery, like pyschiatry.
"Medical arts"?
That's new. I've always heard "medical science".

Wrong--Pharmacology is the difference.
Dont be angry though sweetie, you'll get the next one.

Um no. What about lobotomies, that falls under pyschiatry and that's a surgical technique. Or ECT for that matter.

Actually you couldn't for sure. If you've never seen a tiger before, could you say for sure that a tiger is not a cat?

Let x=2 and x=/=y.

I know x, I don't know y. But I know that 2=/=y without knowing what y is.

Going to war and killing people for a bit of land you want is rational? Killing people because they are different from you is rational?

Wow, if that's rationality, what the hell have I been doing wrong? I'm going to have to start liking all those war scenes I get sick at seeing now.

What does feeling sick have to do with whether or not a war should be prosecuted? Everyone is sickened by war, but sometimes it is a necessary evil and the decision to go to war should not be ruled by queasy feelings.

This is an illustration of my point.

"Medical arts"?
That's new. I've always heard "medical science".


Here (http://www.kcma.edu/Admissions/admissionsHome.shtml)

Let x=2 and x=/=y.

I know x, I don't know y. But I know that 2=/=y without knowing what y is.
You see, that's the problem. You've made a huge leap in logic with no justification, and covered it up with variables for some reason. It still says exactly the same thing:

I can tell something is not something else without knowing what something else is.

Okay, let's test it:

Is a snake a fsjdpwda?
How about the Empire State Building?
What about this plastic trashcan in front of me?

EDIT: Never mind, you specifically defined it as that one thing not being the other, so your point is invalid.

Let x=2 and x=/=y.

I know x, I don't know y. But I know that 2=/=y without knowing what y is.

You're forcing an example to suit you there. You're forcing x to equal y. In the original example, you don't know what y is, nor do you know is x is equal to y or not. Your point is not valid.

You're forcing an example to suit you there. You're forcing x to equal y. In the original example, you don't know what y is, nor do you know is x is equal to y or not. Your point is not valid.
:eek:
I can't believe I missed the fact that he made x not equal y!!

Let x=2 and x=/=y.

I know x, I don't know y. But I know that 2=/=y without knowing what y is.
Yet you do have prescribed definition for what defines the subject.
If you know something is not a science--then you know what science is(at least in your opinion) therefore you can answer the question.
How do you define science--since your are able to judge what is and isnt science, you obviously have a clear understanding of what you believe.
If you dont have a clear understanding of your definition of science then you admittedly do not have a clear understanding of anything you define as science or not science. So either you do have an opinion of what is and is not science and can define it--or you cant define your opinion parameters and therefore cannot logically determine what is science or not even in your own opinion.

You see, that's the problem. You've made a huge leap in logic with no justification, and covered it up with variables for some reason. It still says exactly the same thing:

I can tell something is not something else without knowing what something else is.

Okay, let's test it:

Is a snake a fsjdpwda?
How about the Empire State Building?
What about this plastic trashcan in front of me?

No I didn't, I simply pointed out that things can be defined by what they are not without knowing what the "not" is. There is no leap in logic.

What does feeling sick have to do with whether or not a war should be prosecuted? Everyone is sickened by war, but sometimes it is a necessary evil and the decision to go to war should not be ruled by queasy feelings.

This is an illustration of my point.

Maybe it should. I have a feeling there would be a lot more diplomats and a lot less soldiers if it were.

Yet do have prescribed definition for whatdefines a subject.
If know something is not a science--then you know what science is(at least in your opinion) therefore you can answer the question.
How do you define science--since your are able to judge what is and isnt science, you obviously have a clear understanding of what you believe.
If you dont have a clear understanding of your definition of science then you admittedly do not have a clear understanding of anything you define as science or not science. So either you do have an opinion of what is and is not science andcan define it--or you cant define you opinion parameters and therefore cannot logically determine what is science or not even in your own opinion.

Alright. Am I an extra-terrestrial life form? No I am not. That does not mean that you know what an extra terrestrial life form is, only that there exists a class -to which I belong - that is not extra-terrestrial life.

No I didn't, I simply pointed out that things can be defined by what they are not without knowing what the "not" is. There is no leap in logic.
I realize that now that I know that your point is invalid for another reason. You defined x as
x =/= y.
So when you say x is 2, 2 is not y. Because by definition 2 is not y. The x is just a variable, when you put the 2 there after what you said in the definition, you demolish yourself.

Sorry, honey, play again soon.

...do you think...?

nope :rolleyes:

Maybe it should. I have a feeling there would be a lot more diplomats and a lot less soldiers if it were.

It's the other way around. It leads to half measures and misjudgments that prolongs conflicts. It also leads to starting wars for no reason.

Yet you do have prescribed definition for what defines the subject.
If you know something is not a science--then you know what science is(at least in your opinion) therefore you can answer the question.
How do you define science--since your are able to judge what is and isnt science, you obviously have a clear understanding of what you believe.
If you dont have a clear understanding of your definition of science then you admittedly do not have a clear understanding of anything you define as science or not science. So either you do have an opinion of what is and is not science and can define it--or you cant define your opinion parameters and therefore cannot logically determine what is science or not even in your own opinion.
You are avoiding admitting your own glaring ignorance with hypotheticals and hyperbole. Simply please as I asked above, define science in your own opinion. Ok sweetheart.

Alright. Am I an extra-terrestrial life form? No I am not. That does not mean that you know what an extra terrestrial life form is, only that there exists a class -to which I belong - that is not extra-terrestrial life.
A) We do not know you aren't extraterrestrial life.
B) We know the definition of extraterrestrial, which is why we say you aren't one. The act of excluding something from something else partially defines it. And in a binary condition such as science/not science, it must fully define it.

You are avoiding admitting your own glaring ignorance with hypotheticals and hyperbole. Simply please as I asked above, define science in your own opinion. Ok sweetheart.

I'll try again. I have no definition of science, I do however know that psychology and economics are not science. Does that clear it up?

wow. im away for a minute and you go into math. general, out of curiousity, have you ever admited being wrong in your entire life?

A) We do not know you aren't extraterrestrial life.
B) We know the definition of extraterrestrial, which is why we say you aren't one. The act of excluding something from something else partially defines it. And in a binary condition such as science/not science, it must fully define it.

No-one knows what extra terrestrial life is. (Or if it even exists). We only know what it is not.

I'll try again. I have no definition of science, I do however know that psychology and economics are not science. Does that clear it up?
How can you know if you don't know what science is though?

That's like saying "I don't know what "bird" means, but I know you aren't one."
It makes no sense.

I'll try again. I have no definition of science, I do however know that psychology and economics are not science. Does that clear it up?

And now the simple obvious question we've been round-aboutly trying to get you to answer:

If you don't have a definition of science, how do you know that economics and psychology are not sciences?

No-one knows what extra terrestrial life is. (Or if it even exists). We only know what it is not.
You blatantly ignored it. We do know what extraterrestrial life is. There is a definition. It's life not from earth. It's a binary condition, and your being excluded from it is due to the specific fact that you are from earth.

Unless you care to justify the fact that you are not an extraterrestrial without using any of that?

I'll try again. I have no definition of science, I do however know that psychology and economics are not science. Does that clear it up?
If science is undefined then it has no set value in your opinion-so yes they are sciences because "science" has no value. So anything is science to you-- including nothing. -- since if you have no definition of science you can not logically have a definition what does not qualify for it. If you dont have definition of what does not qualify--everything qualifies.

And now the simple obvious question we've been round-aboutly trying to get you to answer:

If you don't have a definition of science, how do you know that economics and psychology are not sciences?
Not even round-aboutly, we've asked him directly to his face and he's skirted it.

Extraterrestrial life is not from earth--see how easy that is sweetiepie.

No-one knows what extra terrestrial life is. (Or if it even exists). We only know what it is not.

Sure we do. Extra meaning off, or other than, or something such as that, and Terrestrial meaning Earth, so Extra Terrestrial is not of Earth. Easy.

It sounds like you kids could use a healthy dose of logic.

Fluffles for all! :fluffle:

Now, who wants something to drink? I've got orange juice, milk, and water. Yeah, I know, choices galore. I was never meant to be a provider.

I realize that now that I know that your point is invalid for another reason. You defined x as
x =/= y.
So when you say x is 2, 2 is not y. Because by definition 2 is not y. The x is just a variable, when you put the 2 there after what you said in the definition, you demolish yourself.

Sorry, honey, play again soon.

Not really, I know that 2=/=y. But I still don't know y. I can however say with confidence that it is not 2. That's all. You don't have to know what something is to know what it is not.

1) The point raised about gender differences in primitive societies.

It was brought up that it was mostly biological differences in aptitudes that resulted in the males going out to hunt and the females to stay at home. I'm not sure I entirely buy this - it ignores potential socialogical/cultural implications, such as the fact that a woman will (usually) only have one child at a time, but it only takes one male to impregnate several females. Hunting, warmongering et al were the more dangerous professions and, quite frankly, males are more expendable in a primitive society. (And note, yes, I do realize that I'm ignoring the high mortality rates to the mother for childbirth before the trappings of modern medicine were born.)

2) Marketing and Commercials

A direct quote from the General: "Yes, because the women believe that by purchasing those products, it will make them more like bikini models. Women logic." Speaking as somebody who has actually studied and been involved in marketing, both genders are guilty of this. It's not women logic; it's human logic.

3) The entire 'Men are better at this, Women are better at this so they should not be assigned outside those roles' issue brought up by, once again, the General.

You may have been citing valid studies, and if proper statistical methodology was used then, yes, the results of those studies can potentially be applied to the population as a whole and, yes, they can be used to model the percentages of each gender that would actually be neurologically 'good' at a particular job or job function. However, the wild extrapolations and statements that the General has pulled out of these is, quite frankly, pure misogyny. Just because, statistically speaking, the majority of individuals in a given gender will not be ideally suited for a particular role does not mean that no individuals will be. That's what 'entrance requirements' and 'aptitude tests' are for. Equal rights means that the best individual available for a position receives the jobs, regardless of any individual factors, including race and gender.

4) Speaking of aptitude tests and entrance requirements

I may be misinterpreting a fair amount of what I've read, but the majority of objections to feminism revealed on this forum seem to all be saying one thing: Most of the individuals involved do not have a problem with feminism as a means to equal rites; they have an objection to feminism as a vehicle for reverse discrimination, which seems to be societies current solution to all forms of discrimination currently recognized under law. We have programs in place (at least in Canada) to ensure that/encourage corporations to maintain a favorable gender/racial mix in the workplace.

And, you know what? I'm not entirely convinced that these reverse discriminations programs are the fault of the evil "feminist agenda" or "minority agenda"; they are the misguided attempts of politicans and idealists who are trying to provide a solution to the problem by reversing the power roles.

5) And finally...

I have no idea why I'm contributing to this sorry mess of a topic, which has turned more into a mud-flinging contest between trolls. I will say that several of the well-thought-out, not-firing-from-the-hip (with-only-two-brain-cells-firing-while-chanelling-the-spirit-of-chauvinists-and-village-idiots-of-yore) posts raised interesting points. I think I'm going to end this post and go to bed. Which, while rather empty as it is lacking my girlfriend tonight, will actually be warm as all of the blankets will not be stolen in the middle of the night. (And, if you will pardon my own gender-biased observation, the stealing of covers has been, in my experience, a mostly female trend)

Not really, I know that 2=/=y. But I still don't know y. I can however say with confidence that it is not 2. That's all. You don't have to know what something is to know what it is not.
You know that 2 =/= y because you have defined y as something.

You know that 2 =/= y because you have defined y as something.

What is it then?

Extraterrestrial life is not from earth--see how easy that is sweetiepie.

Describe it then.

ha! I started a trend with my anti-feminism RP! God! I started my own little internet trend!


I'm so proud.

Sorry to burst your bubble but if you look at this thread here http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378220 you will see that it stated before your feminist RP. :p

Describe it then.
Okay, I will.

Main Entry: 1ex·tra·ter·res·tri·al
Pronunciation: -t&-'res-trE-&l, -'res(h)-ch&l
Function: adjective
: originating, existing, or occurring outside the earth or its atmosphere <extraterrestrial life>

It is defined. We don't need to know what it looks like, we just need to know that it is defined as something, which happens to lead to a binary set of possibilities. You can either be or not be it. If you know one thing isn't, you know why it isn't, ergo you know the definition.

Describe it then.

Ok I just saw this bit but extraterrestrial breaks down to extra = outside, terra = Earth.

It sounds like you kids could use a healthy dose of logic.

Fluffles for all! :fluffle:

Now, who wants something to drink? I've got orange juice, milk, and water. Yeah, I know, choices galore. I was never meant to be a provider.

careful now, your naturing - thats evil.

and i would like an orange juice.

What is it then?
What you said first was
x =/= y
Well, for starters, that does happen to be a definition. But I'll ignore that and get to the next bit.
2=x.
This becomes like saying
2=x=y
Except
2=x=/=y
You have defined X as two, after defining Y as not X.
Ergo, Y is defined as not 2. Which you yourself stated earlier.

Okay, I will.

It is defined. We don't need to know what it looks like, we just need to know that it is defined as something, which happens to lead to a binary set of possibilities. You can either be or not be it. If you know one thing isn't, you know why it isn't, ergo you know the definition.

You didn't tell me what y is.

At any rate, if you came across extra terrestrial life, how would you know? All you have said is what is is not.

and i would like an orange juice.
Cut with something strong.
:D

What you said first was
x =/= y
Well, for starters, that does happen to be a definition. But I'll ignore that and get to the next bit.
2=x.
This becomes like saying
2=x=y
Except
2=x=/=y
You have defined X as two, after defining Y as not X.
Ergo, Y is defined as not 2. Which you yourself stated earlier.

But what is y, what number is it, all you have done is given me the inequality y<!=2<!=y.

y is still undefined.

Describe it then.
You are dense, I did describe it. NOT FROM THIS EARTH.
You say X(psycology) is not a science.
But Y(physics) is a science.
Not math bullshit required--you claim one is and one isnt that means you know waht your opinion is--or you know you are full of shit.
If you can claim to know what is a science(physics) and then claim to know what isnt (psycology) then you have a definition--if you dont the nthen you dont really know anything.
Look up extra terrestrial in the dictionary--it has an entry. It is defined--moron.

You didn't tell me what y is.

At any rate, if you came across extra terrestrial life, how would you know? All you have said is what is is not.

no, they have said that an extraterrestrial is any being from any place other then earth. meaning anything living that comes from anyplace other then earth is an extraterrestrial, simple as that.

Cut with something strong.
:D

...could ya - please?

no, they have said that an extraterrestrial is any being from any place other then earth. meaning anything living that comes from anyplace other then earth is an extraterrestrial, simple as that.

Which is a definition by what it is not. i.e. not from earth. Doesn't give any information about what it is.

In the same way I am able to recognize something as not science, without being able to tell you exactly what science is. (In other words I only know some things that it is not).

You didn't tell me what y is.
If you are this blind, I'm sorry to say I'll have to end the debate here. You obviously have never taken a class in logic, or if you have, you misunderstood the basic principals.

I am going to sskip my second argument and go with my first one alone.

A) You defined Y in the beginning as not X. That is already a definition right there.


At any rate, if you came across extra terrestrial life, how would you know? All you have said is what is is not.
I never said I would know. You never said I should. There is a definition that clearly tells you what it is, by virtue of there being 2 possible states and it not being 1 of them. If you consider this incorrect, well, you'll have to go get math and logic redefined. And since they so happen to have been created by us and defined so, they are already correct in their own sense. Ergo, you, sir, are wrong.

With that, I bid you adieu.
Hugs & Kisses everybody :fluffle:, I hope you all survive this "debate".

Which is a definition by what it is not. i.e. not from earth. Doesn't give any information about what it is.

it give you info as to exactly what it is. its anything living from pluto. its anything living from venus. its anything living from mars. its anything living from the sun. its anything living from the moon. understand now?

Which is a definition by what it is not. i.e. not from earth. Doesn't give any information about what it is.

In the same way I am able to recognize something as not science, without being able to tell you exactly what science is. (In other words I only know some things that it is not).

Gah that makes no sense. The only defining charicteristic of an extraterrestrial is not being from earth, no other information can be gleaned from that one title, its a general word.

no, they have said that an extraterrestrial is any being from any place other then earth. meaning anything living that comes from anyplace other then earth is an extraterrestrial, simple as that.



...could ya - please?
Something strong like flunitrazepam...
*evil smile*
:D

Oh yeah, and for everybody who couldn't tell, that was a joke. Just a disclaimer so nobody decides I need to go see my local police officer for an implied threat of rape, cause that's no fun.

IT IS not from this earth.
Are you blind?

Which is a definition by what it is not. i.e. not from earth. Doesn't give any information about what it is.

In the same way I am able to recognize something as not science, without being able to tell you exactly what science is. (In other words I only know some things that it is not).

Wrong analogy.

You gave an example of what science isn't without a definition of what science isn't.

We gave a definition of what extra-terrestrials aren't without giving an example.

That's like saying a rock is not a mode of transportation, nor is a drop of water, nor is a beehive. None of that can explain what a mode of transportation is. You've said that economics isn't a science, but that doesn't tell us what science is.

Something strong like flunitrazepam...
*evil smile*
:D

actually, im partial to the rufie-coladas myself

You are dense, I did describe it. NOT FROM THIS EARTH.
You say X(psycology) is not a science.
But Y(physics) is a science.
Not math bullshit required--you claim one is and one isnt that means you know waht your opinion is--or you know you are full of shit.
If you can claim to know what is a science(physics) and then claim to know what isnt (psycology) then you have a definition--if you dont the nthen you dont really know anything.
Look up extra terrestrial in the dictionary--it has an entry. It is defined--moron.

You are really very emotional.

How's this. Science does not include pyschology, or other subjects that end in -ology. Nor does it include economics. It does however include physics.

There, I have defined it as completely as extra-terrestrial life.

(All that is not terrestrial, but includes the attribute life).

Wrong analogy.

You gave an example of what science isn't without a definition of what science isn't.

We gave a definition of what extra-terrestrials aren't without giving an example.

That's like saying a rock is not a mode of transportation, nor is a drop of water, nor is a beehive. None of that can explain what a mode of transportation is. You've said that economics isn't a science, but that doesn't tell us what science is.

You'll note that earlier on I excluded all subjects that end in -ology. Is that general enough for you.

Gah that makes no sense. The only defining charicteristic of an extraterrestrial is not being from earth, no other information can be gleaned from that one title, its a general word.

Like science.

Yet you do have prescribed definition for what defines the subject.
If you know something is not a science--then you know what science is(at least in your opinion) therefore you can answer the question.
How do you define science--since your are able to judge what is and isnt science, you obviously have a clear understanding of what you believe.
If you dont have a clear understanding of your definition of science then you admittedly do not have a clear understanding of anything you define as science or not science. So either you do have an opinion of what is and is not science and can define it--or you cant define your opinion parameters and therefore cannot logically determine what is science or not even in your own opinion.
The question is not about aliens or X and Y-- it is about the fact that you claim to be able to judge both what is and is not science without having a definition for either--which is clearly impossible.

*passes around glasses of orange juice*

You'll have to provide your own strong things. I'm afraid that my macho genes became subordinate due to all of my feminazi pre-school teachers.

You are really very emotional.

How's this. Science does not include pyschology, or other subjects that end in -ology. Nor does it include economics. It does however include physics.

There, I have defined it as completely as extra-terrestrial life.

(All that is not terrestrial, but includes the attribute life).

Does science include spit? Does it include blue bears? Does it include dancing beavers? Apparently you have not defined it as completely as extra-terrestrials have been defined.

The question is not about aliens or X and Y-- it is about the fact that you claim to be able to judge both what is and is not science without having a definition for either--which is clearly impossible.

Actually it means I have a partial definition, from which I can assign three cases: Science; Not Science; and Undecided. But I am yet to come across anything in the undecided catagory, although I cannot exclude it.

You are really very emotional.

How's this. Science does not include pyschology, or other subjects that end in -ology. Nor does it include economics. It does however include physics.

There, I have defined it as completely as extra-terrestrial life.

(All that is not terrestrial, but includes the attribute life).
Thankyou very much, that was all I was asking. Sorry Imissed it the first time.

You are really very emotional.

How's this. Science does not include pyschology, or other subjects that end in -ology. Nor does it include economics. It does however include physics.

There, I have defined it as completely as extra-terrestrial life.

(All that is not terrestrial, but includes the attribute life).
Now according to your to admitted definition--a little backwards I must say.
Chemistry is not science.
Geology is not science.
Linguistics is a science.
Logic is a science.
That about right?

I'm still wondering about my dancing beavers.

Though, if he's not going to answer, I'm just going to bed.

Now according to your to admitted definition--a little backwards I must say.
Chemistry is not science.
Geology is not science.
Linguistics is a science.
Logic is a science.
That about right?

Chemistry is a branch of physics.

Yes, linguistics is a science, although it is not generally practiced as such since that asshat Chomsky. (Skinner was a very smart man and a great scientist to boot on the other hand).

Geology is not a science. But Geotechnics is.

Logic is just a way of being wrong with confidence.

Does science include spit? Does it include blue bears? Does it include dancing beavers? Apparently you have not defined it as completely as extra-terrestrials have been defined.

Does extra terrestrial include blue bears?

Women are too emotional. They turn everything into feelings and crap. That's why society is going down the shitter and that's why they shouldn't vote.

Just take women in the millitary. It's a proven fact that intorducing women reduces combat effectiveness, (not to mention that women do not have the requisite skills to make adaequate combat pilots due to a difference in brain structure) nevertheless the women's lobby pushes for the integration of women into the combat arms because they feel exclusion is "unfair."

A rational person - that is one not governed by "feelings" and empathy - would realize that as we asking people to put themselves in harms way, our first responsibility is to ensure the highest rate of effectiveness possible, and if that means no women, then so be it.

This is such an insanely complex issue that 90% of the people, possibly myself included, really have no business arguing for one side or the other. So....i'm just gonna sat a few things...

Curtis is a moron, i need an ignore button.

don't bring abortion into this. arguing over it is a losing venture, for both sides....but for the record: 1) anti-abortionists like to call themselves "pro-life", because people for it (myself included, but only during the first trimester except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger) must be Anti-life, right? lol... 2) take a look at early development embryos...up to a certain stage in development, embryos from many different species cannot be differentiated without a dna test.....that does not make it a human to me....anyway

there will never be equal rights until women are eligable to be drafted into the military...and as much as I (a hetero-male) would like for them to have equal rights in reality, there will Always be double-standards

Curtis is a moron

This is such an insanely complex issue that 90% of the people, possibly myself included, really have no business arguing for one side or the other. So....i'm just gonna sat a few things...

Curtis is a moron, i need an ignore button.

don't bring abortion into this. arguing over it is a losing venture, for both sides....but for the record: 1) anti-abortionists like to call themselves "pro-life", because people for it (myself included, but only during the first trimester except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger) must be Anti-life, right? lol... 2) take a look at early development embryos...up to a certain stage in development, embryos from many different species cannot be differentiated without a dna test.....that does not make it a human to me....anyway

there will never be equal rights until women are eligable to be drafted into the military...and as much as I (a hetero-male) would like for them to have equal rights in reality, there will Always be double-standards

Curtis is a moron

Well argued.

I like the way you talk about abortion, which I never mentioned. I also like the way you think that the military is there as some form of social examplar or some such shit.

Clearly, the first duty of the military is not to kill people and break things as effectively as possible in times of war, but rather to ensure that is conforms its operations to your idea of civil rights. Once the civil rights issue is settled we can all be happy; everything else is secondary.

Because let's remember, the most important thing in any society is not how well its institutions function, or the actual standard of living. The main thing is that everyone feels equal.

Edit: And that's Gen Curtis to you.

Okay, here's a bit of common sense for you.

First: Women still ARE disadvantaged, which can easily be proved - wages rate men:women a dollar:sixty-something cents. Women fill very few leading positions, and it's not because they don't want them.

Aborted fetuses ARE NOT CHILDREN. At the time they're gotten rid of, they're just a lump of meat that might just as easily have evolved into a pig or a chicken. We might just as well punish people for eating caviar.

I do not say the pursuit of real equality should be a one way thing. Down here in Germany for instance, we have compulsory either military or civil service, but this goes only for men. I say, let's include the girls. Some of them could use a bit of social experience and some lessons in solve-the-problem-by-yourself.
I don't give a **** for exaggerated politeness, either. Let the chicks open the door by themselves and carry their shopping alone, too.

Last: Women are bitchy because they're brought up that way. So if we all taught the girls that their life does not take place only in department stores and that the posession of yet another pair of shoes is not vital, then, in the end, we would end up with two slightly different species of men and your problems would be gone with the wind.

*reads topic*

*logically evaluates options*

*punches Lemay somewhere sore*

*goes back to what he was doing*

If you met a human from another planet (on earth), would you be able to tell whether he's from another planet? (should I have said "she" for all you PC assholes?)

Gen Curtis, you are an absolute idiot if you believe that anything ending in -ology is not a science.

By your beloved M-W:
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>

If a science of theology exist, which I find hard because theology implies belief rather than rational fact, but a systematized KNOWLEDGE of the object of study.

You think that only physics is a science? What the hell are you smoking (pass it on, anyway!)? Because physics only studies a particular branch of the world. You wouldn't dare put physics into anything biological, because most of the time that would involve human parts splattered over a large crowd. CHEMISTRY, yes that very important science, has contributed a lot to development...quite a lot to your beloved Military, besides the whole world. Chemicals, mate. Producing reactions.

Talk to any real scientist, men and women trained in the field, and they'll literally laugh their socks off at your belief in the sciences.

Oh, and before you go declaring some assinine 'you must be male!' bullshit, in my previous post I stated I was a male. I believe that at this time I still am, though that might be tenuous with your warped world views. Well, to be exact, medieval views. To you the man must be the warrior, the soldier, commanding and pugilacious. While I agree on it someways (a guy should never lose his head, which is unfortunately often, and strangely the men who lose their heads the most are the ones who hold forth the traditional medieval views)

Oh, and to the guy who posted about the Islam and West thing: Do NOT confuse Islam and government-endorsed Islam. They become very different things. Also extremist Islam. It's much the same with extremist and crusading Christianity, and traditional Christianity. In some ME countries, the government strictly enforces rules that actually do not exist in the Koran, if you read it. For example, head-dress. In the Koran it never suggest that women MUST wear a headdress.

Oh, and how did England and the USA hold forth marxist views when they were engaged in the cold war? And dont talk about Hippies, while some might have followed Marxism for the most part it was a general youth-based gush of anger and denial at the USA's militarism in Vietnam. Specifically, the draft (which goes against the entire belief of free society) and VERY morally questionable attacks made. Haven't we all heard of the bombing campaign of Cambodia (attacking a nation that wasn't even hostile? for shame) and the destruction of villages, rape of women, it goes on...the US played dirty and to a nation where we believed in the good and the righteous, it stuns something deep.

What I don't understand is what do women not have now that men don't have (in a societal/political sense)? I mean men are the ones who are consripted during war,and are expected to provide for their family. I think feminism is just a product of people who are trapped in the past. Now we both have the same rights (and then some)
if men are still expected to be the ones to provide for their families, then feminism hasn't gone far enough.

if things were truly equal, then either partner would be expected to provide for the family, the responsability wouldn't just fall on the man in the partnership.

wow, I went to bed at about 3am, woke up at 1pm and there were 8 new pages of shit. GJ people!

If you met a human from another planet (on earth), would you be able to tell whether he's from another planet? (should I have said "she" for all you PC assholes?)

Of course, you could be able to tell whether it's a he or she, just look under the clothes. Then there wouldn't be any sort of PC issues. :)

I have said this about feminism before and I will say it again (only now in simple bullet point form)

1) Feminism originated at a time when women were opressed. Women are no longer opressed

2) Women no longer have inequality of law.

3) Women may have inequality of social perception, but then every group has inequality of social perception so I think Feminism needs to stop crying about that.

4) Feminism has nothing more to achieve so it should go away.

Equality is bad - everyone has the same rights/view in society.

BALANCE is good.

Women expect Men to: pay for dates/dinner/her 1000th pair of shoes/their new wardrobe, open the doors for them, and play stupid grab ass games with them. I believe it can be summed up with this from the Almighty Maddox
[URL=http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi?p=1#MARATHON]Maddox
Your comments are true in the way that the comment 'men rape women' is true, as in it's not untrue because it's false to say no man ever rapes any women, however if you intend to mean all women expect men to pay etc, then that is no more true than suggesting all men rape women, which is to say not true at all.
I for instance am a women and if I invite someone for a coffee, I intend to provide a coffee, same goes for dinner or 'dates' (actually I dont really date anyway) I buy my own shoes thank you very much and I sure as heck would be skeptical about allowing someone else to clothes shop for me; I do allow my boyfriend to grab my ass, and occassionally give his a light squeeze, but only because he makes it so obvious that he likes it, and it pleases me to see him happy.

I'm not convinced Maddox ever actually get's out from behind his screen long enough to encounter a real women, he's surely more in the 'laughed at' than 'laughed with' category when it comes to the female gender...

The great achievement of mankind (as in, males) was in convincing women that their role is somehow inferior to their own. It is natural for women to stay home taking care of the family. Thats why they have breasts, to feed the babies. What isnt natural is for this to be considered an inferior thing to going out and working.

As to how men and women are discriminated against today, Here is one example of how men are discriminated against:

In a custody dispute, the courts pretend to be fair and balanced but give the woman physical custody of the children in over 90% of cases, regardless of how good a parent the father is.
Ah the irony decrying the lack of the situation that causes the situation you complain of. Your premise that women staying home with the baby is natural where as working is not is untrue, both are natural (or at least I detect no supernatural aspect to either situation). But I suspect this isnt really what you mean, so to address your false premise, can you tell me why exactly gathering would be called gathering if all the nice roots and berries grew inside the cave?

The discrimination you refer to is a direct result of the mindset you espouse, if nature causes men to work and women to stay home, then who does nature cause to be custodial parent? As a feminist I am deeply concerned about this particular problem, even if I had no sense of justice and didnt understand that men and women are interdependent and their well being linked, I happen to know for a fact that some of those children denied their fathers or left with inadequate mothers are female, as are many of the effected relatives. I for one have personal experiance of battling to have a child removed from the care of the mother to the father and can assure you that the mindset that facilitated the unnecessary suffering of the child was exactly that you espouse 'women=home maker, care-giver/male= earner'. I know for a fact that many feminists are as concerned about the issue as I am.


Some men's rights groups do have valid points about how difficult it is for fathers to get access to their children (especially young children) following a divorce case.

[QUOTE]Hmmm, maybe still in some countries, but certainly not here in Canada. The test is "In the best interest of the child" a father can fight and win physical custody just as easy as the mother. In most cases whoever was the primary care giver before the separation retains physical custody. Lets not forget this about the best interest of the child, it's not really a woman's right or men's right's issue. Most parents except very selfish ones know that
We have the exact same test here, however in practise it just doesnt happen like that.

Women are too emotional. They turn everything into feelings and crap. That's why society is going down the shitter and that's why they shouldn't vote.

Just take women in the millitary. It's a proven fact that intorducing women reduces combat effectiveness, (not to mention that women do not have the requisite skills to make adaequate combat pilots due to a difference in brain structure) nevertheless the women's lobby pushes for the integration of women into the combat arms because they feel exclusion is "unfair."

A rational person - that is one not governed by "feelings" and empathy - would realize that as we asking people to put themselves in harms way, our first responsibility is to ensure the highest rate of effectiveness possible, and if that means no women, then so be it.

It's all Oprah. And those men who pay lip service to feminism only do so because they can't get a date, and are trying to impress chicks.
I dont see that women are too emotional, although studies have shown that females tend to be more emotionally skilled.
As for society going down the shitter, many societies have gone down the shitter throughout history, I'm not aware of any that were no male dominated.

I dont believe that you can substantiate that women all want women to be in the military because they are overly emotional, nor even that every single is unqualified either generally or as pilots particularly. A rational person - that is one not governed bias, would realise that expecting people to drive to work or walk across the street is asking them to put themselves in harms way, how is our first responsibility to ensure the highest rate of effectiveness possible, and what exactly does that mean in practise?
As for your Oprah theory, it clearly speaks for itself...

Very good point. It's just the ones that say "If you hold the door for me you're a patronising chauvinist pig!" when I'm just trying to be freaking polite that I dilike. If there feminists who actually want equal treatment of the sexes, then I fully support them. They have just been drowned out by the radicals, which happens a lot. I think they should rename themselves to isosexists, to say that they want to have equal treatment of the sexes. The very word femisim may connote that females want better treatment than males.
Your right of course, feminists in the media are associated with the most extreme of their kind because they make more spectacular stories, much like men and say murder and rape, after all we constantly hear about such things through the media and we dont hear much about the average male who goes to school, gets a job, participates in creating a new family unit, and contributes to them and society before dying a quiet and dignified death. The very word men may connote the acts that men primarily are perpetrators of (such as sexual assault), we must due to this association in the media immediately rename men so that people dont confuse the two, or does this confusion (that the minority extremists are representitive of the majority) only occur in relation to feminism?

It's called perspective. Something that women lack.
you know General, coming from you this is highly comical, perhaps you might want to read your own comments, but really without a sense of perspective there's probably not much point....

Of course men do bad things. That's why we have prisons and the death penalty. Nevertheless the influence of women voters has not been to the benefit of society.
Kind of interesting when one compares the desirability and living standards of nations that have franchised and liberated women compared to those that have not. You'd think if such societies were ruined, that the Westerners would all be trying to get out rather than control the numbers of inward migration....I guess everyone is just desperate to live in the worst place possible, and all those 'standards of living' surveys, 'productivity' studies etc are all left wing feminist propaganda designed to sucker all those better off folk (like those lucky people who lived in Afghanistan until the naughty US ruined it all by getting rid of nice Teleban boys) to migrate somewhere women have ruined....

Okay, I'll start out:

Women's disadvantages:

- Of 1.3 billion people living in poverty, 70% are women.
- Two thirds of illiterate adults are women.
- There is still a gap in earnings between men and women in every country on Earth.
- Only two countries have equal representation in government: Rwanda and Wales.
(Joni Seager, Atlas of Women, The Women's Press, 2003)

Some problems women around the world face:

- 79 million girls who would otherwise be expected to be alive are ‘missing’ from various populations, mostly in Asia, as a result of sex-selective abortions, infanticide or neglect. (this is not just because of 'women's choice'...many of these abortions are encouraged by all members of the family, as male children are thought to be more desireable)
- Rape and other forms of sexual violence are increasing. Estimates of the proportion of rapes reported to authorities vary — from less than 3 per cent in South Africa to about 16 per cent in the US.
-Two million girls between the ages of 5 and 15 are introduced into the commercial sex market each year.
-An estimated 4 million women and girls are bought and sold worldwide each year, either into marriage, prostitution or slavery. (this is not equating marriage with slavery...it is counting the marriages where money passes hands in the form of a dowry...slavery is a different category all together.)
-At least 130 million women have undergone female genital mutilation or cutting; another 2 million are at risk each year.
- So-called ‘honour’ killings take the lives of thousands of young women every year, mainly in Western Asia, North Africa and parts of South Asia.1
(New internationalist, issue 373)


these are all very valid points. i find it disturbing however that there are almost no figures for male rape, victims of domestic violence, or boys forced into the sex industry. while it may be more common for women to be victims of these crimes, at least as recognised victims they have a voice, men in similar circumstances get very little in the way of support or sympathy.

As long as there are men or women who think women are 'too emotional' to vote, hold public office, be professionals, etc., we need feminism.

I am a feminist. I have never watched the Oprah Winfrey show and don't give a toss what she says. I have never asked or expected a man to pay for my dinner on a date - I 'go dutch', or we take turns paying. I do not expect doors to be opened for me or coats to be draped over puddles for me - I am perfectly capable of opening doors and walking through/around puddles on my own. I do not, however, erupt into a tirade if a man or woman does hold a door open for me - courtesy is not a sin or a crime.

I do not believe that 'a woman's place is in the home.' There is no 'woman's place.' People belong where they belong as individuals, not as a sex. Discrimination against men is as wrong as discrimination against women.

I am not a wanton harlot. I remained a virgin until I got married because that was my choice. I respect the right of others to disagree with this; I made the choice that was best for me. I do not expect everyone to think or feel the way I do.

I want equal rights, not special rights. I want things because I've earned them, because I deserve them, because I am a hardworking, intelligent, articulate, compassionate human being, not as a handout. I want an equal wage for equal work, not to get paid for being female.

I am a feminist and I'm damn proud of it.

As long as there are men or women who think women are 'too emotional' to vote, hold public office, be professionals, etc., we need feminism.

I am a feminist. I have never watched the Oprah Winfrey show and don't give a toss what she says. I have never asked or expected a man to pay for my dinner on a date - I 'go dutch', or we take turns paying. I do not expect doors to be opened for me or coats to be draped over puddles for me - I am perfectly capable of opening doors and walking through/around puddles on my own. I do not, however, erupt into a tirade if a man or woman does hold a door open for me - courtesy is not a sin or a crime.

I do not believe that 'a woman's place is in the home.' There is no 'woman's place.' People belong where they belong as individuals, not as a sex. Discrimination against men is as wrong as discrimination against women.

I am not a wanton harlot. I remained a virgin until I got married because that was my choice. I respect the right of others to disagree with this; I made the choice that was best for me. I do not expect everyone to think or feel the way I do.

I want equal rights, not special rights. I want things because I've earned them, because I deserve them, because I am a hardworking, intelligent, articulate, compassionate human being, not as a handout. I want an equal wage for equal work, not to get paid for being female.

I am a feminist and I'm damn proud of it.
Very well put.

What do you think about this quote?

i think it is a quote from some idiots

Very well put.
ditto

these are all very valid points. i find it disturbing however that there are almost no figures for male rape, victims of domestic violence, or boys forced into the sex industry. while it may be more common for women to be victims of these crimes, at least as recognised victims they have a voice, men in similar circumstances get very little in the way of support or sympathy.

i hear you brother.

anybody want to hazard a guess at the numbers of males suffering genital mutilation?

Look you may think a nation of left wing chocolate eating oboe players that spend their time reciting poetry about their feelings and crap is something to aspire to, but I don't. I want the old US back, where people had the "right stuff" and we went to the moon and shit like that.



Hot Dog!!, wheres my oboe??

But seriously,

This is basically what has happened to this thread:

For people who have failed in whatever endevour they attempt, it is easier to blame others, Those "people" lurking in the Shadow, making sure YOU dont make it,than to admit that it might have something to do with theyre own abilities,or simply bad luck.. (in the case of the General I have my suspicions visa-vi not getting laid , but saying so would be crass and pure flamming, so I wont say it... :mp5: )

IE the Conspiracy!!!!!!!!
everything is the fault of the conspiracy!!!!!!!!!
EVERYTHING that i think is wrong with the world is because of the CONSPIRAY!!!!!
the milk I left in the fridge two weeks ago went bad, it must be the CONSPIRACY!!!
My car tire went flat while i was driving, it must be the CONSPIRACY!!!
I didnt get the job i applied for: It must be the conspiracy!!!!
The chick i tried to pick up by grabbing her ass and asking if she wanted to have sex with me said no: SHE MUST BE PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!!!!!

Pre-ww2 it was often "the jew conspiracy" theory (which is still alive in the neo-nazi and KKK type enviroments)

post- ww2 it was "The Commies"

The "general" has simply generated the next generation of this paranoid world-view:

IT MUST BE THE FEMINISTS!!!!

Note: if my spelling is bad I must apologise, as English is an aquired language for me)

Hot Dog!!, wheres my oboe??

did you lose it at band camp?

the oboe is the poor man's flute