basmaticathury
Junior Member
@basmaticathury
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 1,186
|
Post by basmaticathury on Apr 23, 2019 1:35:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 23, 2019 8:11:35 GMT
Fuck Islamists.
Yesterday I listened to a radio broadcast about Indonesia, and on how Islamists have been getting stronger there since Suharto is no longer president. Indonesia is no longer the tolerant Islam poster country.
Too bad earthquakes and tsunamis can't specifically target religious fundamentalists. Otherwise they'd be a good way to get rid of all those religious assholes; including those in Sri Lanka.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 23, 2019 22:06:11 GMT
ISLAM is toxic as hell and yet phony posturing SJW's think we need to embrace it and welcome the religion into our folds....  As I believe in humanism and egalitarianism, I believe that the tribalism that you and Phe De exhibit in condemning people in this thread is outdated and a retrograde step and counter productive. Even though people use SJW as a pejorative term, I am proud to be amongst their number, just as I am proud to be a feminist and Pro-LGBT amongst othere progressive ideologies because it is consistent with my humanist egalitarian socialist world view. People should be treated as individuals with human rights and if they behave badly suffer the consequence of their actions. In the case in the OP, I feel we should be supportive of these women who suffer under a regime which is against these ideals that we in the West have of freedom, yet in many countries there is a long way to go and who knows if we in the West are always right? Just look at USA at the moment. There are problems in every religion by its very nature of power and control over people, and to me it is stupid to single out Muslims when Christians and pretty much every other religion are behaving badly to each other. I don't welcome ANY religion into my fold as there are better ways to manage a society. If we could keep government secular and support people' right to practise their religion peacefully, and reasonably privately, then to me that is a better option.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Apr 23, 2019 22:30:01 GMT
no. say it isn't so. really. i mean c'mon.
a religious belief system is all up in arms when women try to insert themselves above their male hierarchy? and how many thousands of times has this happened through out recorded history? well, we will never know because men are the ones writing the history.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Apr 23, 2019 22:56:55 GMT
toxicity levels beyond readable gauges
tapping
on the leading edge
of
the fogged over
meter
i saw what later
would
turn out to be
either a matter
of
slave importance
or
a well healed
grave
exported from
a time when brightly colored
glass
held imaginations fast
as
sepulchers were cast
into
promotional materials
deemed empirical
to
maintaining the haze
now
before my eyes
as
i stood on the mountain
wiping
as i sighed
toxic are the prodigies
of gods
who use blind men
to foster lies.
sjw 04/23/19 inspired at this very moment in time as the portal soars beyond the mottled spores.
from the 'blasphemy series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 24, 2019 0:03:04 GMT
As I believe in humanism and egalitarianism, I believe that the tribalism that you and Phe De exhibit in condemning people in this thread is outdated and a retrograde step and counter productive. Even though people use SJW as a pejorative term, I am proud to be amongst their number, just as I am proud to be a feminist and Pro-LGBT amongst othere progressive ideologies because it is consistent with my humanist egalitarian socialist world view. People should be treated as individuals with human rights and if they behave badly suffer the consequence of their actions. In the case in the OP, I feel we should be supportive of these women who suffer under a regime which is against these ideals that we in the West have of freedom, yet in many countries there is a long way to go and who knows if we in the West are always right? Just look at USA at the moment. There are problems in every religion by its very nature of power and control over people, and to me it is stupid to single out Muslims when Christians and pretty much every other religion are behaving badly to each other. I don't welcome ANY religion into my fold as there are better ways to manage a society. If we could keep government secular and support people' right to practise their religion peacefully, and reasonably privately, then to me that is a better option. Do you believe Islam is about humanizing and egalitarianism? Get your hypocritial goosey head out of the sand gozling...
Christianity is an aspect of Western culture and much of our culture and secular law is founded on its values. Christianity as a belief, DOES get derided by non-believers\non-religious folk. The same happens with Islam and it should be no different and not protected and masked in this bogus tolerance of let them alone in peace. Religion should never be forced\conditioned onto children—especially when it is concerning a dualistic nature of what God is supposed to represent—therefore it need not be practiced at all. Religion takes away freedom of choice of the individual to make up their own mind about their life\being and is a deprivation of personal thought\liberty.
Islam is waiting in the folds and any opportunity to exert its authority it will. You as a woman, are being very shortsighted, stupid and naive, but what else is new. Do you really think by being this phony crusader for the rights of others, you are going to change Islam? All belief\ideal is not real, it is only given realness, by egocentric, deluded and controlling mindsets and this is at the core of Islam.
It is a historical fact that the Western civilization (largely Christian or at least Judeo Christian in Europe spreading to the New World through colonization) took place several hundred years ago and over time. This has not happened in the same way for Middle Eastern countries and Muslims culture. What are you suggesting MORE Crusades to make those Moorish infidels become more like 'US"? I believe that it will take time ( and technology and communications is our best 'weapon' ) for there to be a more homogeneous humanitarian and egalitarian ethos in our world. Laughably idiots like Erjenious call this a World Government/Order and think it is a bad thing. You are preaching to the choir. see above Last para...answered above hopefully without a new set of Crusade wars, which you would seem to relish. I guess it is a guy thing, though I would have to worry that your wrist was too limp to carry a sword! 
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 24, 2019 0:43:54 GMT
It is a historical fact that the Western civilization (largely Christian or at least Judeo Christian in Europe spreading to the New World through colonization) took place several hundred years ago and over time. This has not happened in the same way for Middle Eastern countries and Muslims culture. What are you suggesting MORE Crusades to make those Moorish infidels become more like 'US"? I believe that it will take time ( and technology and communications is our best 'weapon' ) for there to be a more homogeneous humanitarian and egalitarian ethos in our world. Laughably idiots like Erjenious call this a World Government/Order and think it is a bad thing. You are preaching to the choir. see above Last para...answered above hopefully without a new set of Crusade wars, which you would seem to relish. I guess it is a guy thing, though I would have to worry that your wrist was too limp to carry a sword! As usual, you subvert and twist points around, to sound like you know what you are talking about, want to intellectualize something with confused brick logic and rhetoric that is meaningless. You derail and throw stones at misappropriated targets with your own gertie limp wrist.
What is more like 'us'? It is your own personal ideal and agenda to make Islam more like us, with your phony, unrealistic ideals. You are the one thinking in terms of 'them' and 'us', I step beyond that. I see any religion that contains 'dualistic' ideals— both Christianity and Islam—as creating much of the world's problems and conflicts. Religion IS NOT REAL. It needs to be discarded, not embraced. You, yourself have a dualistic nature and that is the root of your problem. You can't and refuse to see the wholeness and connectedness of it all. Religion is flawed, you deride Christianity yourself, yet feel the need to tolerate Islam because you think Western influence can change it.....  If you want to be oppressed, then feel free to endorse this, which really goes against your own grain. You don't even understand what you stand for.... 
I know exactly what I am talking about. It is you who seems projecting and confused on this topic, mainly due to your bigotry. I am not a fan of any religion, however I am not differentiating all of them as to worst, least worst and almost acceptable as each has it's good point and flaws. I don't mind them if they stay out of my way and don't hurt others not inflict their values on mine politically, legally and socially. This, sadly is not happening at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 24, 2019 1:07:06 GMT
I know exactly what I am talking about. It is you who seems projecting and confused on this topic, mainly due to your bigotry. I am not a fan of any religion, however I am not differentiating all of them as to worst, least worst and almost acceptable as each has it's good point and flaws. I don't mind them if they stay out of my way and don't hurt others not inflict their values on mine politically, legally and socially.
This, sadly is not happening at the moment. "Them!" You don't know what you are talking about and never really have. Within their own folds, are these religions causing harm to the most impressionable amongst them, namely their offspring? You ARE NOT seeing the bigger picture behind your ideal and if anyone is a bigot it is you and your warped feminist notions. Even the term "feminsit", is bigoted against men. You claimed earlier you are a humanist. If you are, why are you a feminist then, which is biased and prejudiced term within itself phony?
Do you not acknowledge that Islam and Christianity are bigoted within their own beliefs, or is it easier for you to just sweep it under the rug and have it stay away from you?
I am going to quote Robert Owen: "All the world old is queer/a bigot save thee and me, and even thou art a little queer."
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 24, 2019 5:35:01 GMT
I am going to quote Robert Owen: "All the world old is queer/a bigot save thee and me, and even thou art a little queer." What is your point gozling? That thou art also a bigot. Please save thee world from 'old' gertie, hypocrite and phony....
The point is that you have some weird (queer) ideas that you air on here that I don't share. All this airy fairy nonsense of your alternate religion in which you are your own God in your own mind which is somehow disassociated with your body and everything is in and out and around about blah blah blah and then your ranking of religion in things you don't like, your misogyny and your belief in the superiority of the male for whatever weird reason, are all just plain ridiculous in my eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 24, 2019 5:50:42 GMT
As I believe in humanism and egalitarianism, I believe that the tribalism that you and Phe De exhibit in condemning people in this thread is outdated and a retrograde step and counter productive. Even though people use SJW as a pejorative term, I am proud to be amongst their number, just as I am proud to be a feminist and Pro-LGBT amongst othere progressive ideologies because it is consistent with my humanist egalitarian socialist world view. People should be treated as individuals with human rights and if they behave badly suffer the consequence of their actions. In the case in the OP, I feel we should be supportive of these women who suffer under a regime which is against these ideals that we in the West have of freedom, yet in many countries there is a long way to go and who knows if we in the West are always right? Just look at USA at the moment. There are problems in every religion by its very nature of power and control over people, and to me it is stupid to single out Muslims when Christians and pretty much every other religion are behaving badly to each other. I don't welcome ANY religion into my fold as there are better ways to manage a society. If we could keep government secular and support people' right to practise their religion peacefully, and reasonably privately, then to me that is a better option. I agree with most of your points, but I fail to see where I displayed tribalism in my post. We are talking about Islamic fundamentalism in this thread, and about how women are pressured to wear the hijab. Which was also one of the points in the broadcast I mentioned, about Indonesia. If the subject had been how women in the USA are more and more pressured to not use their freedom of choice when it comes to reproduction, I might have mentioned that it's too bad that hurricanes don't hurt exclusively religious fundamentalists. But this is not the subject here. I don't believe that condemning one case of religious fundamentalism without mentioning that cases of religious fundamentalism exist somewhere else is tribalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 24, 2019 6:00:16 GMT
As I believe in humanism and egalitarianism, I believe that the tribalism that you and Phe De exhibit in condemning people in this thread is outdated and a retrograde step and counter productive. Even though people use SJW as a pejorative term, I am proud to be amongst their number, just as I am proud to be a feminist and Pro-LGBT amongst othere progressive ideologies because it is consistent with my humanist egalitarian socialist world view. People should be treated as individuals with human rights and if they behave badly suffer the consequence of their actions. In the case in the OP, I feel we should be supportive of these women who suffer under a regime which is against these ideals that we in the West have of freedom, yet in many countries there is a long way to go and who knows if we in the West are always right? Just look at USA at the moment. There are problems in every religion by its very nature of power and control over people, and to me it is stupid to single out Muslims when Christians and pretty much every other religion are behaving badly to each other. I don't welcome ANY religion into my fold as there are better ways to manage a society. If we could keep government secular and support people' right to practise their religion peacefully, and reasonably privately, then to me that is a better option. I agree with most of your points, but I fail to see where I displayed tribalism in my post. We are talking about Islamic fundamentalism in this thread, and about how women are pressured to wear the hijab. Which was also one of the points in the broadcast I mentioned, about Indonesia. If the subject had been how women in the USA are more and more pressured to not use their freedom of choice when it comes to reproduction, I might have mentioned that it's too bad that hurricanes don't hurt exclusively religious fundamentalists. But this is not the subject here. I don't believe that condemning one case of religious fundamentalism without mentioning that cases of religious fundamentalism exist somewhere else is tribalism. Yes, there is nothing wrong in condemning Islamists. I think Goz misread your comments or thought you were referring to Muslims. Islamists are the extremist people within Islam and even Muslims condemn them. I thought your 3rd sentence employed exaggeration of speech.
And I do like to mention that for whatever reason that I don't know but many Muslim countries do slightly better under dictators than under democracy installed by force or outside pressure.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 24, 2019 20:47:33 GMT
The point is that you have some weird (queer) ideas that you air on here that I don't share. All this airy fairy nonsense of your alternate religion in which you are your own God in your own mind which is somehow disassociated with your body and everything is in and out and around about blah blah blah and then your ranking of religion in things you don't like, your misogyny and your belief in the superiority of the male for whatever weird reason, are all just plain ridiculous in my eyes. It is written all over your posts gertie, that you think you are "special". What you are, is a spoiled, narcissistic, misandrist troll that doesn't like to be told. Much of that is due to your estrogen drenched being.
Typical, contradictory feminist phony, that thinks its ok to preach her own ideals of female superiority and then play every transparent card in the book, in an anemic attempt to undermine males because of bitterness over not being born one. Yes, the world relies on males to build it up and that really stings you doesn't it. ^ ^ plain ridiculous. Thankfully it doesn't really matter what you think is you are not contributing to the continuation of the species like I am.  You can phaff about punching donuts as much as you like and hating half the species as well as all Muslims, and it really doesn't amount to a 'hill o beans'! It's the DNA and genes that endure unlike our imaginary souls.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 24, 2019 21:03:59 GMT
As I believe in humanism and egalitarianism, I believe that the tribalism that you and Phe De exhibit in condemning people in this thread is outdated and a retrograde step and counter productive. Even though people use SJW as a pejorative term, I am proud to be amongst their number, just as I am proud to be a feminist and Pro-LGBT amongst othere progressive ideologies because it is consistent with my humanist egalitarian socialist world view. People should be treated as individuals with human rights and if they behave badly suffer the consequence of their actions. In the case in the OP, I feel we should be supportive of these women who suffer under a regime which is against these ideals that we in the West have of freedom, yet in many countries there is a long way to go and who knows if we in the West are always right? Just look at USA at the moment. There are problems in every religion by its very nature of power and control over people, and to me it is stupid to single out Muslims when Christians and pretty much every other religion are behaving badly to each other. I don't welcome ANY religion into my fold as there are better ways to manage a society. If we could keep government secular and support people' right to practise their religion peacefully, and reasonably privately, then to me that is a better option. I agree with most of your points, but I fail to see where I displayed tribalism in my post. We are talking about Islamic fundamentalism in this thread, and about how women are pressured to wear the hijab. Which was also one of the points in the broadcast I mentioned, about Indonesia. If the subject had been how women in the USA are more and more pressured to not use their freedom of choice when it comes to reproduction, I might have mentioned that it's too bad that hurricanes don't hurt exclusively religious fundamentalists. But this is not the subject here. I don't believe that condemning one case of religious fundamentalism without mentioning that cases of religious fundamentalism exist somewhere else is tribalism. It is over-reacting to wish a catastrophic natural event on a group (or tribe in the anthropological and sociological sense ie in this case Muslims) for insisting that their women wear Muslim clothing. As you know ( how could you forget with Toast carrying on like a pork chop over my feminist egalitarian views) I am a dyed in the wool feminist. Yes, to the Eastern view it is symbolic of male dominance and I hope it will gradually be change, however we are being like fundamentalist Westerners preaching to Muslims to become more like 'us'. Forcing women to wear their traditional religious and cultural dress is NOT fundamentalism Many willingly wear it for many good reasons. THAT is the tribalism. This is a classic example of 'us' vs. 'them'. Let me give you another example. On these Boards I have been extremely critical of Catholic ( and other Christian) missionaries converting native tribes in Africa Sth America and elsewhere. The classic case of 'tribalism' of one tribe with more technological and 'civilised' powers forcing THEIR culture on others. In the 'civilising' process, if it was inevitable, it would have been preferable for the process to have been more gradual and with more choices for those on the receiving end. The missionaries were 'fundamentalists'.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 24, 2019 21:16:14 GMT
I agree with most of your points, but I fail to see where I displayed tribalism in my post. We are talking about Islamic fundamentalism in this thread, and about how women are pressured to wear the hijab. Which was also one of the points in the broadcast I mentioned, about Indonesia. If the subject had been how women in the USA are more and more pressured to not use their freedom of choice when it comes to reproduction, I might have mentioned that it's too bad that hurricanes don't hurt exclusively religious fundamentalists. But this is not the subject here. I don't believe that condemning one case of religious fundamentalism without mentioning that cases of religious fundamentalism exist somewhere else is tribalism. Yes, there is nothing wrong in condemning Islamists. I think Goz misread your comments or thought you were referring to Muslims. Islamists are the extremist people within Islam and even Muslims condemn them. I thought your 3rd sentence employed exaggeration of speech.
And I do like to mention that for whatever reason that I don't know but many Muslim countries do slightly better under dictators than under democracy installed by force or outside pressure.
Yes, I think there has bees some confusion of terms here. It is my understanding that Islamists are not necessarily extremist, They are, as the definition states those who impose Islamic faith doctrine and cause in a country or region such as Indonesia or Malaysia. All Muslim fundamentalists are Islamist however not all Islamists are fundamentalists, let alone terrorists, who take this a step further than either of the above categories. To me it is important that these definitions are clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 24, 2019 21:47:33 GMT
I agree with most of your points, but I fail to see where I displayed tribalism in my post. We are talking about Islamic fundamentalism in this thread, and about how women are pressured to wear the hijab. Which was also one of the points in the broadcast I mentioned, about Indonesia. If the subject had been how women in the USA are more and more pressured to not use their freedom of choice when it comes to reproduction, I might have mentioned that it's too bad that hurricanes don't hurt exclusively religious fundamentalists. But this is not the subject here. I don't believe that condemning one case of religious fundamentalism without mentioning that cases of religious fundamentalism exist somewhere else is tribalism. It is over-reacting to wish a catastrophic natural event on a group (or tribe in the anthropological and sociological sense ie in this case Muslims) for insisting that their women wear Muslim clothing. As you know ( how could you forget with Toast carrying on like a pork chop over my feminist egalitarian views) I am a dyed in the wool feminist. Yes, to the Eastern view it is symbolic of male dominance and I hope it will gradually be change, however we are being like fundamentalist Westerners preaching to Muslims to become more like 'us'. Forcing women to wear their traditional religious and cultural dress is NOT fundamentalism Many willingly wear it for many good reasons. THAT is the tribalism. This is a classic example of 'us' vs. 'them'. Let me give you another example. On these Boards I have been extremely critical of Catholic ( and other Christian) missionaries converting native tribes in Africa Sth America and elsewhere. The classic case of 'tribalism' of one tribe with more technological and 'civilised' powers forcing THEIR culture on others. In the 'civilising' process, if it was inevitable, it would have been preferable for the process to have been more gradual and with more choices for those on the receiving end. The missionaries were 'fundamentalists'. Yes they were. When I talked about Islamists I meant the fundamentalists. And I am aware that a natural disaster does not choose its victims. However, there is no good reason for Indonesian (or Malaysian) women to wear a hijab. This is a piece of clothing invented in Arabic countries close to huge sand deserts, and its purpose is to protect from desert storms. Not a smart thing to wear in Indonesia. But Islamic fundamentalists have declared this clothing to be Islamic. At least that's what I got from the broadcast about Indonesia. Fundamentalism to ideas, especially religious ones, is something I disagree with. Forcing people to wear certain clothings, or to take away their choice as to what to do with their own bodies, is a consequence of fundamentalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 24, 2019 22:03:51 GMT
It is over-reacting to wish a catastrophic natural event on a group (or tribe in the anthropological and sociological sense ie in this case Muslims) for insisting that their women wear Muslim clothing. As you know ( how could you forget with Toast carrying on like a pork chop over my feminist egalitarian views) I am a dyed in the wool feminist. Yes, to the Eastern view it is symbolic of male dominance and I hope it will gradually be change, however we are being like fundamentalist Westerners preaching to Muslims to become more like 'us'. Forcing women to wear their traditional religious and cultural dress is NOT fundamentalism Many willingly wear it for many good reasons. THAT is the tribalism. This is a classic example of 'us' vs. 'them'. Let me give you another example. On these Boards I have been extremely critical of Catholic ( and other Christian) missionaries converting native tribes in Africa Sth America and elsewhere. The classic case of 'tribalism' of one tribe with more technological and 'civilised' powers forcing THEIR culture on others. In the 'civilising' process, if it was inevitable, it would have been preferable for the process to have been more gradual and with more choices for those on the receiving end. The missionaries were 'fundamentalists'. Yes they were. When I talked about Islamists I meant the fundamentalists. And I am aware that a natural disaster does not choose its victims. However, there is no good reason for Indonesian (or Malaysian) women to wear a hijab. This is a piece of clothing invented in Arabic countries close to huge sand deserts, and its purpose is to protect from desert storms. Not a smart thing to wear in Indonesia. But Islamic fundamentalists have declared this clothing to be Islamic. At least that's what I got from the broadcast about Indonesia. Fundamentalism to ideas, especially religious ones, is something I disagree with. Forcing people to wear certain clothings, or to take away their choice as to what to do with their own bodies, is a consequence of fundamentalism. Read my post to AJ re: Islamist so we are not talking at crossed purposes. HOWEVER YOU saying that there is no reason for Islamic women to wear Muslim dress is purely YOUR opinion and quite frankly you have no right. YOU define it as fundamentalism when the reasons are possibly more 'cultural historic and anything else they wish'. It really doesn't have anything to do with you if it is their choice to wear one. I still support the women who choose not to, however you are reading too much into this whole situation due to your fundamental bigotry against Muslims, whether you call it Islamist fundamentalist or terrorist. My only real concern is with 'terrorist' and fundamentalist if it affects me, otherwise I tend to mind my own business...and yes I am a feminist. I also try to be culturally sensitive and not apply MY Western white views on others. BTW I ALWAYS smile at Muslim women wearing a hijab in the street... in solidarity of their choice, here in the freedom of Australia. May it become like that everywhere. I think women are forced in nearly all societies to do more things against their will than wear certain clothing, like with domestic violence, so I choose my battles.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 24, 2019 22:18:51 GMT
^ ^ plain ridiculous. Thankfully it doesn't really matter what you think is you are not contributing to the continuation of the species like I am. You can phaff about punching donuts as much as you like and hating half the species as well as all Muslims, and it really doesn't amount to a 'hill o beans'! It's the DNA and genes that endure unlike our imaginary souls. Your response only proves what a frivolous, in-denial, narrow-sighted, conceited self-important mindset you have. If phony idiots like you are contributing to the continuation of the species, then I don't hold much hope for the future of man-kind. Yes, the continuation of the species is frivolous, especially motherhood and the guiding of the next generations of humans. Luckily I seem to be doing OK on that front so far. Whilst there is no measure of success, so far MOTH and I have three daughters with 7university degrees between them, 7 children with good lives in two different countries. They all own or have owned property, have worthwhile relationships and jobs which range from teaching, in the medical technology industry [this one also did pro-bono work for the Gates Foundation) and design technology. You really shouldn't encourage me to boast like this, as I am normally quite modest. How many donuts have you punched?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 24, 2019 22:23:43 GMT
I agree with most of your points, but I fail to see where I displayed tribalism in my post. We are talking about Islamic fundamentalism in this thread, and about how women are pressured to wear the hijab. Which was also one of the points in the broadcast I mentioned, about Indonesia. If the subject had been how women in the USA are more and more pressured to not use their freedom of choice when it comes to reproduction, I might have mentioned that it's too bad that hurricanes don't hurt exclusively religious fundamentalists. But this is not the subject here. I don't believe that condemning one case of religious fundamentalism without mentioning that cases of religious fundamentalism exist somewhere else is tribalism. goz can get a bit confused due to her own hypocrisy at times. Her own tribalism regarding her feminist movement and ideals only negates her intelligence, because she is projecting from the same space that she is condemning. This is just her own distorted perception on males. Her point on tribalism being displayed is irrelevant and just a snide and narky side-swipe. You really should educate yourself on the topic of the evolutionary sociology of human civilisation especially with regards to religion before making such ignorant and ill-informed pronouncements. This has little to do with gender except for the traditional domination of males in early tribalism, often extending to modern day examples, which is side issue to the general thrust of 'tribalism' in societies.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 24, 2019 23:07:06 GMT
Yes, the continuation of the species is frivolous, especially motherhood and the guiding of the next generations of humans. Luckily I seem to be doing OK on that front so far. Whilst there is no measure of success, so far MOTH and I have three daughters with 7university degrees between them, 7 children with good lives in two different countries. They all own or have owned property, have worthwhile relationships and jobs which range from teaching, in the medical technology industry [this one also did pro-bono work for the Gates Foundation) and design technology. You really shouldn't encourage me to boast like this, as I am normally quite modest. How many donuts have you punched? I wouldn't boast about these things as it proves how much egoism you have.
You wouldn't have half the shit that you cherish and feel so arrogantly prideful about, if it wasn't for males and neither would your daughters. You have never been modest, so that is your first deceit and are passive aggressive with your stances. You want to pull the wool over people's eyes, but one has to have astute intelligence and smarts to play devil's advocate and you just don't cut the mustard dearie. The devil made me do it!  She's a bitch! 
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 24, 2019 23:09:29 GMT
You really should educate yourself on the topic of the evolutionary sociology of human civilisation especially with regards to religion before making such ignorant and ill-informed pronouncements. This has little to do with gender except for the traditional domination of males in early tribalism, often extending to modern day examples, which is side issue to the general thrust of 'tribalism' in societies. Nonsense rhetoric! Dressing up s<>t again to mask your own conceit. Males have always been the dominant species holding the tribe\society together and still do. Intelligence is not discriminating gender, only the natural biology will dictate where interests and pursuits lie.
You are always pronouncing your prideful feminist stance and often make it all about gender, that is what the bias of feminism is,  a tribe of deluded women who want to to take over from men so they can do a better job. At last you have seen the light! Hallelujah brothers and sisters!
|
|
a tribe of deluded women who want to to take over from men so they can do a better job.