philbymon wrote:
the male is being eradicated anyway.
This is just a ridiculous thing to assert. Males are NOT being eradicated. If anything, there is a threat to FEMALES, when China for example, has a one child per family policy, which encourages the selective aborting of FEMALE fetuses, in favor of keeping the males.
You are confusing "aggressive behavior" with being an actual MALE.
As long as I have a penis. I am male.
The adoption of progressive attitudes, which tend to be cyclical anyway, DOES NOT stop anyone with a penis, from being a male.
philbymon wrote:
women are not to be trusted. LOL
They are not hard-wired to rule. Men are.
This is just blatant sexism. Once again, a ridiculous assertion. There are MANY NUMEROUS traits that go into making a good LEADER. And speaking only in generalities here... men and women BOTH possess qualities that are favorable to good leadership. Men can often shut off an emotional connection to an ACT, more easily than a woman can, for example, to be in the midst of a gunfight and make the rational decision "Kill or be killed". I think, IN GENERAL, that men can handle killing in war, more easily than women can. But women are far better at COOPERATING than men are. And in DIPLOMACY, this is a better trait to have. It is true that women can be very competitive with each other, but when an important task is at hand, they are FAR BETTER at separating their egos from the equation, and WORKING TOGETHER to get the job done, for the benefit of the WHOLE. Men are more aggressive generally, and therefore quicker to violence as a solution.
You are just soooooo wrong.
The world would be a MUCH BETTER place, if there were more women in positions of power.
philbymon wrote:
I don't think that comparing humans to other primates is stupid at all, Craig. After all - we ARE primates, are we not? Comparisons between similar species is one way in which we learn about ourselves.
What you were doing is RATIONALIZING a behavior, and justifying it, because ANIMALS DO IT. "THAT" is the "stupid comparison" I am referring to. There is nothing wrong with ANALYZING the similarities between species, but what you were doing is extrapolating that out, into a justification for animalistic behavior... suggesting in effect, that we SHOULD act more like animals, and give into our every urge and impulse, rather than embracing the evolutionary process that has lead us to develop somewhat CIVIL societies.
You are wrong.
We need instead, to CONTINUE on that path of civility and mutual cooperation, especially among nations, so that the Biblical prophecy that states... that one day,
"Man will learn war no more" will be realized. WAR "IS" LEARNED and it is a scientific fact, that we are NOT hard-wired for "WAR". It is a
LEARNED behavior, and it can be "UNLEARNED" for future generations.
philbymon wrote:
Whatever you may think about how much "higher" we are than mere animals, you must keep in mine that we ARE, in fact, animals.
We are HIGHLY EVOLVED animals Phil. And you know my PERSONAL belief, that we are ALSO "spiritual beings" as well. We have an ANIMAL HERITAGE, where our FLESH is concerned, but a SPIRITUAL HERITAGE where our SOULS are concerned.
But where our flesh is concerned... yes, we are animals... HIGHLY EVOLVED animals. And I think that I told Chippy in other thread, that we are still animals, as highly evolved as we are, and we must remain VIGILANT, because we are often one act away, from chaos, and a return to violent behavior. But this is because we are evolving SPIRITUALLY as well as PHYSICALLY.
And my statement is certainly not in the same neighborhood as yours.
It is one thing to recognize our physical inheritance and as a result preach VIGILANCE against returning to a primitive animal state, and it is QUITE ANOTHER to acknowledge our physical inheritance, and use it to preach that we should DEVOLVE and ACT MORE LIKE PRIMITIVE ANIMALS!!!
philbymon wrote:
You yourself have allowed that "might is right" in foreign policy
If what you mean, is that "might MAKES right", then of course not. Being stronger that someone else, has nothing to do with the morality of the situation. What I have said, is that I believe we have a MORAL JUSTIFICATION for enforcing our will, for good. That is a tricky area however, considering that not everyone agrees on what "good" means. But when a nation invades another nation for it's own purposes, then yes, we have a moral justification to militarily REMOVE them from that nation. And yes, i also realize that AMERICA has sometimes been the perpetrator of such offenses, whether directly or indirectly. But as I have always maintained... America has done FAR MORE GOOD in the world, than evil.
philbymon wrote:
, for example, concerning the middle east & the oil that is under their sands. You think it is not only in our power, but that it is our right to make sure that we get our fair share of that wealth, & that is at the societal level.
No, you are perverting my position. And even following your stream of thought here... How are we getting a "fair share" of "THEIR" wealth? What wealth do they have, but SELLING the oil TO US? Their wealth comes from OUR PURCHASING their oil. No one is robbing them. We are BUYING the damn oil, along with DOZENS of other nations. But where you are confused, is that you don't understand, that when they artificially inflate the prices, or they shut down supply, as an ECONOMIC ASSAULT on us, then they may as well be engaged in an act of war. They would be trying to BREAK our nation, only financially, rather than militarily.
But again, this leads all the more, to the fact, that the WORLD must learn to COOPERATE for the common good of the SPECIES. Nations have to stop acting in their own selfish interests with complete disregard for the welfare of other nations. This is a DIFFICULT and PAINSTAKING process however, because there are still dictators and theocracies, and virtual enslavement by military dictatorships, etc... These people DO NOT WANT to give up power to the people.
But with expanding population and dwindling natural resources, THE WORLD MUST get it together soon, or we may ALL perish. We have to enlighten others, that we must move beyond BORDERS and recognize our common humanity, and our NEED TO COOPERATE for the survival of the species itself!
philbymon wrote:
Now, let's look again at the phenomena of the little girls getting thier periods earlier. Once again, this is due to our technologies, our dumping actual female hormones into our very foods. Once again, we force evolution, either with intent or not.
That has NOTHING to do with evolution. It is not an evolutionary process occurring, but a reaction to hormones (if that is the cause) into the food supply. It is no more evolutionary, than a weight lifter taking steroids to gain bulk. Remove the steroids, and we will NOT continue bulking up afterwards.
philbymon wrote:
However, it is only in the most recent of times that we have decided to make everyone equal in all things, whether they can physically or mentally handle it or not!
That's extremism.
People tend to take a "good idea" too far. Religions are phenomenally guilty of this.
philbymon wrote:Fewer men are being born, Craig, due to the pseudo & very real female hormones we're dumping into our systems in our foods & through our environment.
There has been a SMALL decline in male birth rats recently, but only in certain industrial countries. The most likely factor in this, apparently, is toxic waste and pollutants... NOT growth hormones in the food supply.
The CIA estimates that there are 107 Male births to every 100 Female births. Your fear of male extinction is GROSSLY exaggerated.
philbymon wrote:
As we have continued to force women to work through economic necessity, we also have had to dumb down the workplace, to a degree
OMG.. you are such a friggin' sexist!
Men are NOT smarter than women. They just tend to THINK they are, and women tend to UNDERESTIMATE their own intelligence, primarily because they have suffered MALE CONTROLLED societies for so long.
Statistically, men's and women's IQ are almost perfectly EQUAL!
And women have not entered the workforce primarily from financial necessity either! In America, women began entering the workforce, because the men were off fighting wars! Remember
Rosie the Riveter?
Once liberated by the necessity of WAR, many women REMAINED in the workforce, and as society has ADVANCED, this has increased. Are women supposed to stay home throughout their children's entire childhoods, or maybe forever even?
Technology has liberated women, from needing to remain home bound, more than anything else has. In the past, women spent HOURS UPON HOURS cleaning and cooking. They washed things BY HAND, and hung them out to dry. There was no such thing as "canned goods" before the industrial revolution. Preparing the food, and cooking it, was INCREDIBLY time consuming. There was a REASON to remain home, for all that work that was required. Now, with canned and frozen foods and powdered mixes, and blenders and microwaves and refrigerators, and appliances that aid in cleaning as well... washers and dryers, and vacuums, and on and on.... What took an entire day, can now be done in a matter of a few hours.
Mom, being at home for the kids? It is questionable whether this is beneficial at all. The idea that the mother is left alone at home to raise the kids, is a very American idea. And it is questionable whether it is a good arrangement at all. Studies have shown that motherly "tenderness" decreases, when mothers are stay-at-home moms. Isn't that one of the main traits we look to mothers for? Tenderness? Mom will comfort us. Mom will make it feel better. Statistically, women who are stay at home moms, get LESS TENDERLY, not more! Also, why would you condemn generation after generation of girls, to second class citizenship? In other words, when a young girl grows up SEEING her mother as a productive member of the workforce, and that little girl SEES women in positions of power... It allows her to envision that as a possibility for herself as well. Why do you believe it is beneficial to limit HALF THE POPULATION from joining the workforce, and thereby bringing their creativity and problem solving into the world, and instead you would have them be barefoot and pregnant and not much else?
God clearly gave women good brains, because they are EQUALLY intelligent to men. Why should that wonderful intelligence, be slighted, by having them remain in a role, that would prohibit them from helping solve some of our world's problems?
White slave owners felt that way about blacks at one time, remember?
You really believe your sexism is any better than racism?
Or perhaps you're racist too?
philbymon wrote:
in terms of those areas that were once considered strictly male-predominated fields. As we continue to create new ways of making the work easier for everyone,
Yeah. God forbid we continue to find ways to make work easier for everyone!
philbymon wrote:
As they have entered the work force, forcing more & more interaction between the sexes, we have had to write more & more laws to protect them
"As BLACKS have entered the public schools, forcing more and more interaction between the RACES, we have had to write more & more laws to protect them"
That was probably a mistake too, huh? Or are women just your primary target for enslavement?
philbymon wrote:
The women aren't supposed to do anything but become more male, & the males, more female, as a result of it all.
My wife hasn't grown a dick so-far. And I certainly haven't grown a vagina. Your vision of what it means to be a man or a woman, is certainly lacking. Most behaviors, you would consider feminine, are LEARNED and ENCOURAGED through cultural pressures. We give girls dolls, but boys shouldn't play with dolls. It is funny how, when you are looking for some moral justification to cheat on your partners, you then DESPISE the cultural pressures you claim are responsible, and yet now, when women are embracing the workforce and positions of leadership, you want to REVERT BACK to PREVIOUS CULTURAL PRESSURES, to put them back in their place.
Wow.
You are just a sexist pig.
Seriously.
What other name is there for it?
philbymon wrote:
This has nothing whatsoever to do with living in trees or men killing men over women & goods. It has everything to do with forced evolution, however, & I don't think that the direction we're pointed in is the right one for any species, because it's turning out that the male is much more fragile than we ever thought he was, & not in a touchy-feely sort of way, either.
The only fragile thing I see... is your EGO bro!
You miss the days, when white men alone, ruled our society, and rather than be man enough to make your own way and adapt to what is MORALLY RIGHT.... EQUALITY, instead you wish for a time, when you had far less competition, because WOMEN (and maybe Blacks too?) were prohibited from the paid workforce and the halls of power.
You are a dinosaur Phil.
Come into the future.... It's MUCH brighter here!
that's the only area for me, where "excessive length" scares anyone away! 
