NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm new to nation states, and i was looking over the forums and i am quite impressed with the variety of the topics, before i explain the title i should clarify who and what i am, i am a 21 year old white male, a libertarian and a liberal, and i have to say that i beleieve totally in equality, but when i say that, i mean just that equality. i hate rhetoric that states homsexual relationships are more stable, women ared more peaceful/ loving/caring/understanding/smarter/just plain better than men. all of this is nothing more than a bunch of people, with an over inflated sense of self importance tryin to justify why what they are is better than what i am. they are no different than the hard line christians who tell others they are going to hell for not beleiving what they beleieve. you want equality, here's equality, it comes from acknowledging that any woman can be as lazy/vile/ignorant/violent/stupid/hateful as any man, it comes from realizing that the only reason that gay relationships don't break up as often is because the #1 reason for relationships breaking up (unplanned pregnancy) doesn't exist for them, this doesn't mean they are more stable idividuals, or are better at raising children, it just means that for them a factor has been eliminated, it's like saying relationships between rich people are more stable because they don't have to worry about money, does the money make them better people no. so with all that explained equality doesn't look so attractive now does it? nevertheless i still believe in it (regardless o how i feel otherwise women should get equal pay, and gay marraige should be legal.)

i realise what i have written here is quite controversial and i am pefectly prepared for you people to start calling me an ass-camel.

Ass-camel!

*runs*




Couldn't resist, sorry. :p

*pies Asherban*

Welcome to NSG. Prepare for extreme seriousness mixed with extreme silliness.

True equality doesn't exist for the simple reason that all people are not created equal: some are smarter than others, some inherit more money or deadly diseases, some seek relationships with men while others seek relationships with women, and so on and so forth. Social equality, as it is spoken of, is the belief that in spite of this all people deserve to be treated equally. However, social equality has been hijacked by radicals who claim to stand for "equality" when actually supporting bigotry masquerading as such. The Devil may cite scripture for his own purpose.

And, before I forget, welcome to NS.

I'm new to nation states, and i was looking over the forums and i am quite impressed with the variety of the topics, before i explain the title i should clarify who and what i am, i am a 21 year old white male, a libertarian and a liberal, and i have to say that i beleieve totally in equality, but when i say that, i mean just that equality. i hate rhetoric that states homsexual relationships are more stable, women ared more peaceful/ loving/caring/understanding/smarter/just plain better than men. all of this is nothing more than a bunch of people, with an over inflated sense of self importance tryin to justify why what they are is better than what i am. they are no different than the hard line christians who tell others they are going to hell for not beleiving what they beleieve. you want equality, here's equality, it comes from acknowledging that any woman can be as lazy/vile/ignorant/violent/stupid/hateful as any man, it comes from realizing that the only reason that gay relationships don't break up as often is because the #1 reason for relationships breaking up (unplanned pregnancy) doesn't exist for them, this doesn't mean they are more stable idividuals, or are better at raising children, it just means that for them a factor has been eliminated, it's like saying relationships between rich people are more stable because they don't have to worry about money, does the money make them better people no. so with all that explained equality doesn't look so attractive now does it? nevertheless i still believe in it (regardless o how i feel otherwise women should get equal pay, and gay marraige should be legal.)

i realise what i have written here is quite controversial and i am pefectly prepared for you people to start calling me an ass-camel.

You have just segregated me, because my fleeting attention span cannot withstand your barrage of words into a single paragraph. Talk about equality.

I don't know much about equality because I think different people have different ideas on what is "equal".

At first i couldnt understand this. Then I realized it. It makes sense. Good point

Welcome to NSG

I'm new to nation states, and i was looking over the forums and i am quite impressed with the variety of the topics, before i explain the title i should clarify who and what i am, i am a 21 year old white male, a libertarian and a liberal, and i have to say that i beleieve totally in equality, but when i say that, i mean just that equality. i hate rhetoric that states homsexual relationships are more stable, women ared more peaceful/ loving/caring/understanding/smarter/just plain better than men. all of this is nothing more than a bunch of people, with an over inflated sense of self importance tryin to justify why what they are is better than what i am. they are no different than the hard line christians who tell others they are going to hell for not beleiving what they beleieve. you want equality, here's equality, it comes from acknowledging that any woman can be as lazy/vile/ignorant/violent/stupid/hateful as any man, it comes from realizing that the only reason that gay relationships don't break up as often is because the #1 reason for relationships breaking up (unplanned pregnancy) doesn't exist for them, this doesn't mean they are more stable idividuals, or are better at raising children, it just means that for them a factor has been eliminated, it's like saying relationships between rich people are more stable because they don't have to worry about money, does the money make them better people no. so with all that explained equality doesn't look so attractive now does it? nevertheless i still believe in it (regardless o how i feel otherwise women should get equal pay, and gay marraige should be legal.)

i realise what i have written here is quite controversial and i am pefectly prepared for you people to start calling me an ass-camel.

I like you because now I can call people ass-camels and it had never occurred to me before to call someone that.

Also, yes, people suck, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. (see? I read your OP!)

why should your post be controversial?

all you have said is that women and gays are PEOPLE and that they behave like people. (some of the analysis is a bit off, but thats not important to me)

and no, it doesnt make equality less attractive. letting people live as they choose is a good thing even if they are assholes.

Equality is an ideal to be strived for. We don't have it yet. We may never have it. It's the struggle to reach the ideal that makes the ideal worthwhile.

Like pizza. :)

You have just segregated me, because my fleeting attention span cannot withstand your barrage of words into a single paragraph. Talk about equality.

I don't know much about equality because I think different people have different ideas on what is "equal".

I suspect some people have a concept of "equal" that is actually a bit stronger than its definition and actually more closely resembles that of "identical".

Is there a big problem with people claiming that homosexuals or women are actually "better" than heterosexuals or men? I've seen claims like that made in jest, but I really haven't seen anyone claim it in earnest.

I'm new to nation states, and i was looking over the forums and i am quite impressed with the variety of the topics, before i explain the title i should clarify who and what i am, i am a 21 year old white male, a libertarian and a liberal, and i have to say that i beleieve totally in equality, but when i say that, i mean just that equality. i hate rhetoric that states homsexual relationships are more stable, women ared more peaceful/ loving/caring/understanding/smarter/just plain better than men. all of this is nothing more than a bunch of people, with an over inflated sense of self importance tryin to justify why what they are is better than what i am. they are no different than the hard line christians who tell others they are going to hell for not beleiving what they beleieve. you want equality, here's equality, it comes from acknowledging that any woman can be as lazy/vile/ignorant/violent/stupid/hateful as any man, it comes from realizing that the only reason that gay relationships don't break up as often is because the #1 reason for relationships breaking up (unplanned pregnancy) doesn't exist for them, this doesn't mean they are more stable idividuals, or are better at raising children, it just means that for them a factor has been eliminated, it's like saying relationships between rich people are more stable because they don't have to worry about money, does the money make them better people no. so with all that explained equality doesn't look so attractive now does it? nevertheless i still believe in it (regardless o how i feel otherwise women should get equal pay, and gay marraige should be legal.)

i realise what i have written here is quite controversial and i am pefectly prepared for you people to start calling me an ass-camel.

Forgive me if you please, but I would appreciate it if you could clarify all this. In other words, edit it. It seemed to me like you were under the silly impression that "unplanned pregnancies" were the number 1 break-up cause. Surely I read wrong?

Is there a big problem with people claiming that homosexuals or women are actually "better" than heterosexuals or men? I've seen claims like that made in jest, but I really haven't seen anyone claim it in earnest.

You'd see a lot of that sort of thing in one of the myriad gay marriage themed threads.

To the OP: Welcome to NSG!

(Wow, now I feel like I've been around long enough to welcome new people. SCHWING!)

Well let's see.
I'm not so sure about gay relationships, but i've heard that there is research to suggest they are more secure that straight ones.

"saying relationships between rich people are more stable because they don't have to worry about money"
Well actually this is true to an extent the upper classes can suffer like any other people, but from my own knowledge, it's very hard to find much research on them becasue many(not all) shut out the lower classes (social closure) and have isolated themselves from the rest of western society e.g. they send their children to private schools, they often gain managerial style jobs due to the wealth of money and education they are afforded, tend to look down on lower classes.:sniper:

As for the women bit well have you noticed how few women there are in western politics? or how few black men in western politics? yes there isn't equality and i doubt changes will occur for many years yet.:mp5:

However this doesn't mean we should abandon the idea of equality, eventually society's will change.:)

I see what you're saying almost anyone has the capacity to be cruel and unfair, we aren't born equal, the system of society is still run by a small minority, "upper classes in UK own 75% if private shares in companies"(Giddens 5th edition pg 311).:headbang:

I don't think your post is very controversial, but it does raise some interesting issues.:eek:

Is there a big problem with people claiming that homosexuals or women are actually "better" than heterosexuals or men? I've seen claims like that made in jest, but I really haven't seen anyone claim it in earnest.

I suppose some of Fass' posts could be misinterpreted to mean a claim like these, but I doubt he actually believes it.

OP: Welcome. Try to use punctuation and paragraphs correctly, it helps people understand what you are trying to say. I wouldn't say your point was particularly controversial, though.

Folks are all about Equality, until some group they dont like get some of it.
Rabid Fundies love the concept until the gays get treated like humans.
Its everywhere, and usually involves whining, and someone claiming to be oppressed.

This is because humans are born ass-camels (thanks for the phrase, and welcome to NS).
We are all petty, bitter selfish little bags of problems, and we look down on anyone who we feel is inferior to us.

If we were gorillas, (and we practically are) we would hate them dirty Chimpanzees, with their loud howling, and constant wankery.
Dont even get me started on those filthy Lemurs! Hopping about like wussies!
They dont even have the good sense to eat thier own leafy, green poo like us superior primates!!

Yah. so pretty much, the best we can do is actively strive to overcome our base instincts, wich say to be a Howling Ass-Camel to anyone different than us.

I treat all humans in total equality.

I HATE THEM ALL!

Forgive me if you please, but I would appreciate it if you could clarify all this. In other words, edit it. It seemed to me like you were under the silly impression that "unplanned pregnancies" were the number 1 break-up cause. Surely I read wrong?

Yes, I wondered about that, too. I always thought it was "unreconcilable differences."

To Asherban: Nice Wall O' Text, and welcome to NSG. I hope your seatbelt's fastened.

any woman can be as lazy/vile/ignorant/violent/stupid/hateful as any man

Being a member of minority group X is neither a character reference or a condemnation.

here's equality
Okay, I'm with you so far.
it comes from acknowledging that any woman can be as lazy/vile/ignorant/violent/stupid/hateful as any man
Yep.
it comes from realizing that the only reason that gay relationships don't break up as often is because the #1 reason for relationships breaking up (unplanned pregnancy) doesn't exist for them, this doesn't mean they are more stable idividuals, or are better at raising children, it just means that for them a factor has been eliminated
Not really sure what you're trying to get at here... more stable is more stable. The reason for the greater stability doesn't change the end result.
so with all that explained equality doesn't look so attractive now does it
You've lost me again. Are you saying that equality looks unattractive? Because, if so, you haven't convinced me, and I find myself still preferring the option to treat everyone equally rather than discriminating against them for whatever reason.
i realise what i have written here is quite controversial and i am pefectly prepared for you people to start calling me an ass-camel.
I wouldn't say controversial. A little confused, by my reading, but nothing close to some of the things I've read on here recently. I also see no need to refer to you as an 'ass-camel' at the present time but, although it is not a term I've ever even heard before and have therefore never thought to use, I reserve the right to use it in future.
:)

You'd see a lot of that sort of thing in one of the myriad gay marriage themed threads.

I'm usually in those. Again, I've never really seen the idea that homosexuals are somehow "better" than heterosexuals. Well, maybe from Fass, but I suspect that most of that is tongue-in-cheek.

i realise what i have written here is quite controversial
What is it with self-identified libertarians and their self-identification as "controversial"? Poorly-spelled ramblings about blazingly obvious realities are not controversial.

(And, furthermore, making shoddy Xerox fliers of your poorly-spelled ramblings about the blazingly obvious realities will not make you a revolutionary. HINT HINT Libertarian Dude By The Metro Stop HINT HINT THIS MEANS YOU.)

Maybe it's because you're 21--an age typically marked by excessive drunkenness rather than excessive insight--but if you're just now noticing that non-heteros and non-males are human beings then perhaps you should wait a few more years before you take a stab at answering Life's Big Questions.

After all, maybe next year you'll notice that brown people use toothbrushes just like white people, and just imagine all the controversy that shall erupt!

I'm new to nation states, and i was looking over the forums and i am quite impressed with the variety of the topics.

hehe, just wait a few months before saying we discuss a wide variety of topics.

What is it with self-identified libertarians and their self-identification as "controversial"?

This is not really an inherently libertarian idea anyway.

This is not really an inherently libertarian idea anyway.
But self-professed libertarians seem disproportionately like to IDENTIFY themselves and their ideas as controversial, even if (on closer examination) it turns out that 1) they aren't actually libertarian, 2) neither are their ideas, and 3) neither they nor their ideas are controversial in any way.

Yes, I wondered about that, too. I always thought it was "unreconcilable differences."

"The truth? You want the truth?... It is your earrings! It is your chopsticks! But it's so much more than that! You're pretentious! You call everybody by their full name! You called my doorman Sammy "Samuel"! But you didn't even say "Samuel", you said it "Samuelle"! Papier-mache? What is papier-mache?"

But self-professed libertarians seem disproportionately like to IDENTIFY themselves and their ideas as controversial, even if (on closer examination) it turns out that 1) they aren't actually libertarian, 2) neither are their ideas, and 3) neither they nor their ideas are controversial in any way.

I haven't noticed that trend on NSG to be honest.

i hate rhetoric that states homsexual relationships are more stable, women ared more peaceful/ loving/caring/understanding/smarter/just plain better than men.

I agree, that bugs.

You have just segregated me, because my fleeting attention span cannot withstand your barrage of words into a single paragraph. Talk about equality.

I don't know much about equality because I think different people have different ideas on what is "equal".

You're not the only one. I refuse to read any post that is not broken up into managable paragraphs.

Mostly the OP annoyed me.

I agree, that bugs.

Communists are more communist than non-communists.


Does that bug too?

I should probably clarify a few things, first the reason I thought this was controversial is because I have made similar statements before, and I've been completely shot down. I've been called both a mysoginist and a homophobe for making statements just like those.
Secondly while yes the term of "irreconcilable differences" is the #1 reason for divorce, unplannned pregnancy is the #1 reason for non-marital relationship break-up (why do you think the number of single mothers keeps rising).
Thirdly, I probably should have said this also that while yes, gay relationships do tend to be more stable (ie. have a lower liklihood of breaking up.) some people I have spoken with have taken that information and used it to infer that homosexuals are therefore more fit parent's or better people.
Fourthly, if you haven't heard people making literal statements of how much better at everything women are then men (and meaning it, not joking about it.) I suggest you start with the writings of Margaret Atwood and then work your way from there.
And finally, the origin of the insult came from me giving a speech at a school forum which was very similar to this one, there was some random girl in the audience heckling me throughout my speech. I finally got so fed up with it I turned to her and said "sit the hell down and shut up, you ass-camel" it might have gotten me disqualified form the competition, but damn did it feel good.

And while we're on the subject of equality, why do you think it is that in the whole width and breadth of Canada and the United States (I don't know about Britain) there doesn't exist one Center for Abused Men. I mean if men are also abused shouldn't they get help as well.

I should probably clarify a few things, first the reason I thought this was controversial is because I have made similar statements before, and I've been completely shot down. I've been called both a mysoginist and a homophobe for making statements just like those.
Secondly while yes the term of "irreconcilable differences" is the #1 reason for divorce, unplannned pregnancy is the #1 reason for non-marital relationship break-up (why do you think the number of single mothers keeps rising).
Thirdly, I probably should have said this also that while yes, gay relationships do tend to be more stable (ie. have a lower liklihood of breaking up.) some people I have spoken with have taken that information and used it to infer that homosexuals are therefore more fit parent's or better people.
Fourthly, if you haven't heard people making literal statements of how much better at everything women are then men (and meaning it, not joking about it.) I suggest you start with the writings of Margaret Atwood and then work your way from there.
And finally, the origin of the insult came from me giving a speech at a school forum which was very similar to this one, there was some random girl in the audience heckling me throughout my speech. I finally got so fed up with it I turned to her and said "sit the hell down and shut up, you ass-camel" it might have gotten me disqualified form the competition, but damn did it feel good.

And while we're on the subject of equality, why do you think it is that in the whole width and breadth of Canada and the United States (I don't know about Britain) there doesn't exist one Center for Abused Men. I mean if men are also abused shouldn't they get help as well.

so much wrong, so little desire to educate

1) your experience with your (rather young) friends and classmates reflects their lack of understanding more than it reflects the more mature understanding of ...well.. older thoughtful people. it doesnt take much looking around to figure out that women are as moral/immoral, smart/stupid, enlightened/craven as men. that gays are just as prone to bad behavior as straights. that people are people.

you will find that on this forum you get a wider breadth of opinion and that flat out stupid opinion (women are better than men, for example) gets destroyed pretty quickly. you wont need to wonder why you are the only one to see "the truth"

2) atwood writes FICTION. its not supposed to be taken as literal. read it again and youll see that her fiction does not depict women as being actually better than men.

3) abused women's shelters are set up by charities. anyone wanting to set up a shelter for abused men is free to do so. perhaps when abused men start getting together as abused women did, they can raise enough attention and money to get such places started.

it is hard for abused men to get the kind of help they need to escape their circumstances. but there is little sense in spending money on shelters for men that would go empty when there arent enough spaces for women now.

epic fail.

Communists are more communist than non-communists.


Does that bug too?

no. should it?

Secondly while yes the term of "irreconcilable differences" is the #1 reason for divorce, unplannned pregnancy is the #1 reason for non-marital relationship break-up.

Proof?

I think you need to watch Seinfeld more.

I'm new to nation states, and i was looking over the forums and i am quite impressed with the variety of the topics, before i explain the title i should clarify who and what i am, i am a 21 year old white male, a libertarian and a liberal, and i have to say that i beleieve totally in equality, but when i say that, i mean just that equality. i hate rhetoric that states homsexual relationships are more stable, women ared more peaceful/ loving/caring/understanding/smarter/just plain better than men. all of this is nothing more than a bunch of people, with an over inflated sense of self importance tryin to justify why what they are is better than what i am. they are no different than the hard line christians who tell others they are going to hell for not beleiving what they beleieve. you want equality, here's equality, it comes from acknowledging that any woman can be as lazy/vile/ignorant/violent/stupid/hateful as any man, it comes from realizing that the only reason that gay relationships don't break up as often is because the #1 reason for relationships breaking up (unplanned pregnancy) doesn't exist for them, this doesn't mean they are more stable idividuals, or are better at raising children, it just means that for them a factor has been eliminated, it's like saying relationships between rich people are more stable because they don't have to worry about money, does the money make them better people no. so with all that explained equality doesn't look so attractive now does it? nevertheless i still believe in it (regardless o how i feel otherwise women should get equal pay, and gay marraige should be legal.)

i realise what i have written here is quite controversial and i am pefectly prepared for you people to start calling me an ass-camel.

You're sure?

I should probably clarify a few things, first the reason I thought this was controversial is because I have made similar statements before, and I've been completely shot down. I've been called both a mysoginist and a homophobe for making statements just like those.
Secondly while yes the term of "irreconcilable differences" is the #1 reason for divorce, unplannned pregnancy is the #1 reason for non-marital relationship break-up (why do you think the number of single mothers keeps rising).
Thirdly, I probably should have said this also that while yes, gay relationships do tend to be more stable (ie. have a lower liklihood of breaking up.) some people I have spoken with have taken that information and used it to infer that homosexuals are therefore more fit parent's or better people.
Fourthly, if you haven't heard people making literal statements of how much better at everything women are then men (and meaning it, not joking about it.) I suggest you start with the writings of Margaret Atwood and then work your way from there.
And finally, the origin of the insult came from me giving a speech at a school forum which was very similar to this one, there was some random girl in the audience heckling me throughout my speech. I finally got so fed up with it I turned to her and said "sit the hell down and shut up, you ass-camel" it might have gotten me disqualified form the competition, but damn did it feel good.

And while we're on the subject of equality, why do you think it is that in the whole width and breadth of Canada and the United States (I don't know about Britain) there doesn't exist one Center for Abused Men. I mean if men are also abused shouldn't they get help as well.

http://www.uky.edu/Projects/Chemcomics/assets/images/argh.GIF

Too much block of text!

*dies*

a libertarian talking about equality? (and it appears that fad has not only reached the schools but also my spell check now!)

i realise what i have written here is quite controversial and i am pefectly prepared for you people to start calling me an ass-camel.

Hi ass-camel, welcome to NSG :)

I don't think anything you say is paticularly controversial, try harder! :P

Regarding equality, I recently read a nice interesting thought experiment.

Let's assume souls exist. Let's further assume that 5 unborn souls are given the option to choose which society they want to be born into. But only this, they cannot choose what sort of family they will be born into (rich or poor, one or two parents, abusive or harmonic, etc), what kind of mental capacity they'll have, what skin colour they'll be, what gender, what sexual orientation, what talents, what possible birth defects, etc.

A perfect society, a society that has achieved equality for everyone, would be the kind of society all those 5 souls would choose.

A perfect society, a society that has achieved equality for everyone, would be the kind of society all those 5 souls would choose.

Not neccessarily. Because some people will pick paticular societies according to religious or political beliefs. I.e. I doubt a rabid fundamentalist Christian would choose a "fag loving homo-hole" of equality over soem god-fearing society, even if he (or she) wasn't sure how he'd come out.

Not neccessarily. Because some people will pick paticular societies according to religious or political beliefs. I.e. I doubt a rabid fundamentalist Christian would choose a "fag loving homo-hole" of equality over soem god-fearing society, even if he (or she) wasn't sure how he'd come out.

Even if there was a fair chance they might be born as a homosexual in a Muslim family? I doubt it ;)

Umm also call me arse-camel if you like, but I have read, and re-read the OP's umm OP, and I still don't know what he is trying to say?

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/einsteinconfused.jpg

I should probably clarify a few things, first the reason I thought this was controversial is because I have made similar statements before, and I've been completely shot down. I've been called both a mysoginist and a homophobe for making statements just like those.

That tends to happen when you talk about how women and gays are lousy people. Boo hoo hoo.


Thirdly, I probably should have said this also that while yes, gay relationships do tend to be more stable (ie. have a lower liklihood of breaking up.) some people I have spoken with have taken that information and used it to infer that homosexuals are therefore more fit parent's or better people.

Oh, well if "some people" have said that, then this changes everything! Suddenly your ramblings have merit!


Fourthly, if you haven't heard people making literal statements of how much better at everything women are then men (and meaning it, not joking about it.) I suggest you start with the writings of Margaret Atwood and then work your way from there.

And if you haven't heard people making out-right statements about how women are inferior to men in pretty much every possible way, then I suggest you remove your fingers from your ears, take your head out of the sand, and emerge from the cave you've been hiding in.


And finally, the origin of the insult came from me giving a speech at a school forum which was very similar to this one, there was some random girl in the audience heckling me throughout my speech. I finally got so fed up with it I turned to her and said "sit the hell down and shut up, you ass-camel" it might have gotten me disqualified form the competition, but damn did it feel good.

Well, you sure showed that heckler when you lost control and got yourself disqualified! Bet that really put her in her place!


And while we're on the subject of equality, why do you think it is that in the whole width and breadth of Canada and the United States (I don't know about Britain) there doesn't exist one Center for Abused Men.

No, there's no "Center for Abused Men." There are, however, a great many shelters and organizations that help ALL victims of domestic abuse, male or female.


I mean if men are also abused shouldn't they get help as well.
The Violence Against Women act did more to help MALE victims of domestic violence than any other single act in recent history. So instead of crying about how nobody thinks about the poor men enough, why don't you first get down on your knees and thank all the female activists who helped make the world a safer place for men like you? Why don't you take your complaints to the MALE opponents of the VAWA, who want to gut the very programs that are helping men all over the country?

Women are disproportionately likely to be victims of domestic abuse. As a result, more resources are spent helping female victims of domestic abuse.

You guys really want to swap places with us? Are you really so greedy and desperate for attention that you'd be willing to experience the dramatically increased rates of abuse just so that you can get more resources devoted to you? Because I gotta be honest, I'd swap with you in a second. I'd rather, you know, not be fucking abused, even if it meant having to give up all that juicy funding for shelters and counciling services.

IFourthly, if you haven't heard people making literal statements of how much better at everything women are then men (and meaning it, not joking about it.) I suggest you start with the writings of Margaret Atwood and then work your way from there.

Margaret Atwood? The lady who writes about female criminals, female murderers, female religious fanatics??? THAT Margaret Atwood?
Yep, she sure is pointing out how much better than men women really are.... :rolleyes:


And finally, the origin of the insult came from me giving a speech at a school forum which was very similar to this one, there was some random girl in the audience heckling me throughout my speech. I finally got so fed up with it I turned to her and said "sit the hell down and shut up, you ass-camel" it might have gotten me disqualified form the competition, but damn did it feel good.

So, basically, she was being clever, and you reacted in the most immature and stupid way possible?
Yup, I'm sure that must have felt brilliant...


And while we're on the subject of equality, why do you think it is that in the whole width and breadth of Canada and the United States (I don't know about Britain) there doesn't exist one Center for Abused Men. I mean if men are also abused shouldn't they get help as well.

Well, what d'yah know? Here I was thinking that centers for victims of domestic violence and abuse were for both sexes...

Even if there was a fair chance they might be born as a homosexual in a Muslim family? I doubt it ;)

Of course not, because no one is born a hell bound fag, it's something you choose :p

And no one wants to be an ebil terrorist...

Don't be silly.
All animals are equal.
Some animals are more equal than others.

*giggle*

Of course not, because no one is born a hell bound fag, it's something you choose :p

And no one wants to be an ebil terrorist...

I remember when I opted for the gay lifestyle. After years of pro-gay propaganda I decided that being straight just wasn't FABULOUS enough for me! for the terminally stupid that's me being facetious.

Of course not, because no one is born a hell bound fag, it's something you choose :p

And no one wants to be an ebil terrorist...

Let's assume that the souls in question are aware of the latest research regarding the causes of homosexuality (i.e. very little choice whatsoever).

And no, no one wants to be an ebil terrorist indeed.

Methinks you're trying to miss the point ;)

Let's assume that the souls in question are aware of the latest research regarding the causes of homosexuality (i.e. very little choice whatsoever).

And no, no one wants to be an ebil terrorist indeed.

Methinks you're trying to miss the point ;)

I was having problems with the meaning of the word ebil. Then I realiased it was a just misspelling, why though somebody would choose to drop the G I just can't figure?:D

You know how I feel, everyone can be equal and free, but it is also a matter of rights. Treat others as you would be treated, you treat people poorly expect the same in return.

There is much that is wrong in society, but it all has a purpose behind it, else it would cease to exist.

If people would put others first instead of reverting to thier egotistical cashgrabbing selves much would be remedied.

Methinks you're trying to miss the point ;)

The sky here is beautiful today!!! ;)

Back to the point, I can see your point, but I think some people would still take a chance. Most wouldn't, but some would. People are not rational about things close to their heart, and whilst some would "play it safe" and go for an egalitarian society where everyone is treated fairly, others will not. There's several reasons

* Religion
* Culture
* Political Ideology
* Any combination of the above

It'd be an interesting idea for an NSG poll, methinks.

The sky here is beautiful today!!! ;)

Back to the point, I can see your point, but I think some people would still take a chance. Most wouldn't, but some would. People are not rational about things close to their heart, and whilst some would "play it safe" and go for an egalitarian society where everyone is treated fairly, others will not. There's several reasons

* Religion
* Culture
* Political Ideology
* Any combination of the above

It'd be an interesting idea for an NSG poll, methinks.

Actually, you will find that most people aren't actually born with these. And the thought experiment was about souls that weren't even born yet, gettingthe chance to decide what society they want to be born into...

But then if you are unborn (as in a foetus, as opposed to, say, somsone who has the choice to be reincarnated) then one wouldn't have such views also would have no experience of them, or any concept of them, so it would be a blind judgement for them to make.

However, if one could make a concious and meaningful choice, which one would it be?

(huh, Deja Vu just happened to me, weird...)

I'm new to nation states, and i was looking over the forums and i am quite impressed with the variety of the topics, before i explain the title i should clarify who and what i am, i am a 21 year old white male, a libertarian and a liberal, and i have to say that i beleieve totally in equality, but when i say that, i mean just that equality. i hate rhetoric that states homsexual relationships are more stable, women ared more peaceful/ loving/caring/understanding/smarter/just plain better than men. all of this is nothing more than a bunch of people, with an over inflated sense of self importance tryin to justify why what they are is better than what i am. they are no different than the hard line christians who tell others they are going to hell for not beleiving what they beleieve. you want equality, here's equality, it comes from acknowledging that any woman can be as lazy/vile/ignorant/violent/stupid/hateful as any man, it comes from realizing that the only reason that gay relationships don't break up as often is because the #1 reason for relationships breaking up (unplanned pregnancy) doesn't exist for them, this doesn't mean they are more stable idividuals, or are better at raising children, it just means that for them a factor has been eliminated, it's like saying relationships between rich people are more stable because they don't have to worry about money, does the money make them better people no. so with all that explained equality doesn't look so attractive now does it? nevertheless i still believe in it (regardless o how i feel otherwise women should get equal pay, and gay marraige should be legal.)

i realise what i have written here is quite controversial and i am pefectly prepared for you people to start calling me an ass-camel.

Dear Ass-Camel,

I too share your belief in equality. I also share your libertarian leanings. Although there are some areas where I disagree with you, the only reason that I am addressing you as Ass-Camel is because your practically invited it and I think it is sort of fun to address someone as "Ass-Camel". In fact, I never heard the terms "Ass-Camel" and it is pretty funny.

Ever since my college political science days I have thought it rather sad that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are so meaningless and confusing. Now we even have libertarians calling themselves "liberals". Sad days indeed.

Libertarianism is pretty darn conservative in the sense that personal liberties are emphasized and governmental authority to act is curtailed.

However, libertarianism is often thought of as "liberal" by some because liberals suspect that liberalism is about liberty.

Classic liberalism is the emphasis on liberty that today is considered to be conservatism. This is the idea that individuals should be at liberty to pursue their happiness as they see fit so long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others unless it is done with consent.

Unfortunately, everything is confused because we supposedly have a liberal party called the Democrats who are conservative on issues like abortion since this is a area of liberty of the individual, yet call for a larger scope of government in many areas which makes them in modern terms liberal.

We also have a Republican Party that people perceive as conservative when in fact they are conservative on economic issues but liberal on issues such as abortion where they (and what makes it really wierd is that most Republicans to the tune of 73% +/- are pro-choice) call for an increased government role in the area of abortion.

If we want to be understood and avoid being misunderstood, we should first recognize that modern conservatism means the limiting of government to act in any capacity, whereas modern liberalism means that the government's ability to act in a given area should be increased.

If you are a libertarian, chances are that you are a modern conservative.

I am not sure if it is a liberal or conservative issue for a government to recognize a homosexual marriage. It seems conservative because it seems to expand people's liberties although this is a bit tricky because the government is not saying that homosexuals cannot marry a memeber of the same sex, they are merely saying that the government will not recognize such a marriage. It seems liberal because the role of government is being expanded in the area of the recognition of marriage.

Anyway, welcome to NS.

Your NS Buddy,

Glorious Freedonia