"I. To live one's life so that it is worthy of respect and honor by all.
1.Fair Play
Never attack an unarmed foe.
Never charge an unhorsed opponent.
Never attack from behind
Avoid cheating
Avoid torture
2.Nobility
Exhibit self-discipline
Show respect to authority
Obey the law
Administer justice
Administer mercy
Protect the innocent
Respect women
3.Valor
Exhibit courage in word and deed
Avenge the wronged
Defend the weak and innocent
Fight with honor
Never abandon a friend, ally, or noble cause
4.Honor
Always keep one's word of honor
Always maintain one's principles
Never betray a confidence or comrade
Avoid deception
Respect life
5.Courtesy
Exhibit manners
Be polite and attentive
Respectful of host, authority, honor, and women
6.Loyalty
To God, Sovereign, Country, and the codes of Chivalry
Always respect and obey the law unless the law is wrongful
Always be kind and never cruel
Give mercy to those that ask for it
Always be truthful and never lie
Defend the Law of Good, and seek to stop injustice
Have compassion to the weak, frail, and oppressed, and seek to help them in any way
Be charitable to others and give to those in need
Always succor women when they are in distress
Love your country, family, religion, and uphold them in any way
Always put the needs of others above the needs of yourself
Live a pure and noble life."
I think that the family is the core of society, and chivalry is the core of the famliy. But modern feminism is now about teaching women, and men as well, that men are neither needed or wanted. I think feminism in that manner is getting way out of hand. There's plenty of single parent families, which is hard on the mom and the kids, because men are no longer taught the responsiblity that is their due. It's like ppl don't have their dignity any more...
So called "roles" in the family are getting turned around to where the woman is the worker, and the man stays at home. While I'm not 100% aginst this idea, I think that it isn't a woman's responsibility to perform that kind of role. Why? If anyone hasn't figured it out yet, men and women are different, and they are built to perform diffrent tasks that the other COULD do, but wouldn't necissarily be suited for. Of course the majority of women are capable of everything their husbands are, but does it mean that they should? Of course not. It just wouldn't be as productive. Sure, you can drive a nail in a wall with a wrench, but does that mean that it should be used like that?
What're everyone else's oppinions on this? Are any of you feminists that are aginst men being merciful to women just because they are women? Or are you gentlemen/ladies that are more accepting of this?
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-25 8:27
Families don't drive society, individuals do. Unless you are the mother or father of a child, you have no obligations toward anyone else in your family, as insensitive as that sounds. Only yourself. I'm not saying that acting like a normal family isn't the way to go, cause that's all very good, until you can take care of yourself. Then the rest of your family has no obligations to you, either. They shouldn't, I mean. I don't mean you shouldn't be close with family, but people have to be responsible for themselves. If someone a single parent as the result of a divorce, then that's being irresponsible on both the huband and wife's part as to their obligations to their children... As for chilvalry, I guess what I've explained so far has pretty much blown that out of the water. Would it be nice if everyone acted that way? Sure. Should they? Matter of individual choice.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-25 12:11 (sage)
Families don't drive society, individuals do.
...get out much?
Name:
Jaga Textures2005-10-25 13:50
I can imagine how a man can stay at home and still fulfill a traditional masculine/fatherly role. I'd like to live like that, stay at home and fix stuff, cook stuff I like, watch spike or discovery channel all day.
Name:
Smart guy.2005-10-28 15:44
Law.
Never attack an unarmed foe.
Avoid cheating
Avoid torture
Obey the law
Administer justice
Administer mercy
Protect the innocent
Defend the weak and innocent
Avoid deception
Always maintain one's principles
Respect life
Always be truthful and never lie
Defend the Law of Good, and seek to stop injustice
Always succor women when they are in distress
Personal choice.
Exhibit self-discipline
Show respect to authority
Respect women
Be polite and attentive
Respectful of host, authority, honor, and women
Always be kind and never cruel
Have compassion to the weak, frail, and oppressed, and seek to help them in any way
Be charitable to others and give to those in need
Love your country, family, religion, and uphold them in any way
Always put the needs of others above the needs of yourself
Live a pure and noble life.
Irrelevant.
Never charge an unhorsed opponent.
Consequential.
Never betray a confidence or comrade (depends on whether they are committing a cirme or not.)
Never attack from behind (depends on the consequences of your actions, head shotting a hostage taker for instance is ok)
Exhibit courage in word and deed (if you are in an important position in society you must exhibit courage in word and deed, otherwise it is a personal choice)
Avenge the wronged (depends on the lawfulness of the vengeance)
Fight with honor (sometimes "dishonourable" fighting is necessary)
Never abandon a friend, ally, or noble cause (you may abandon causes if you find out they are unlawful)
Always keep one's word of honor (maintain legal contracts, but one's word of honour by mouth is a personal choice)
Exhibit manners (usually a personal choice, extreme bad manners or harrassment is a crime)
Loyalty to God, Sovereign, Country, and the codes of Chivalry (depends on your religious beliefs and whether your sovereign and country are pscyhotic dictatorships or utopic democracies. Obey these revised codes of chivalry as it is all correct.)
Always respect and obey the law unless the law is wrongful (this is a very ambiguous statement, it is difficult to be sure whether some laws are wrongful or not)
Give mercy to those that ask for it (you can't let criminals go, but if a child rapist pleads not to be given the death penalty and you have the resources to keep him in jail for the rest of his life with big dong bubba, go right ahead!)
Name:
o_o2005-10-28 15:48
Law.
Never attack an unarmed foe.
Avoid cheating
Avoid torture
Obey the law
Administer justice
Administer mercy
Protect the innocent
Defend the weak and innocent
Avoid deception
Always maintain one's principles
Respect life
Always be truthful and never lie
Defend the Law of Good, and seek to stop injustice
Always succor women when they are in distress
Personal choice.
Exhibit self-discipline
Show respect to authority
Respect women
Be polite and attentive
Respectful of host, authority, honor, and women
Always be kind and never cruel
Have compassion to the weak, frail, and oppressed, and seek to help them in any way
Be charitable to others and give to those in need
Love your country, family, religion, and uphold them in any way
Always put the needs of others above the needs of yourself
Live a pure and noble life.
Irrelevant.
Never charge an unhorsed opponent.
Consequential.
Never betray a confidence or comrade (depends on whether they are committing a cirme or not.)
Never attack from behind (depends on the consequences of your actions, head shotting a hostage taker for instance is ok)
Exhibit courage in word and deed (if you are in an important position in society you must exhibit courage in word and deed, otherwise it is a personal choice)
Avenge the wronged (depends on the lawfulness of the vengeance)
Fight with honor (sometimes "dishonourable" fighting is necessary)
Never abandon a friend, ally, or noble cause (you may abandon causes if you find out they are unlawful)
Always keep one's word of honor (maintain legal contracts, but one's word of honour by mouth is a personal choice)
Exhibit manners (usually a personal choice, extreme bad manners or harrassment is a crime)
Loyalty to God, Sovereign, Country, and the codes of Chivalry (depends on your religious beliefs and whether your sovereign and country are pscyhotic dictatorships or utopic democracies. Obey these revised codes of chivalry as it is all correct.)
Always respect and obey the law unless the law is wrongful (this is a very ambiguous statement, it is difficult to be sure whether some laws are wrongful or not)
Give mercy to those that ask for it (you can't let criminals go, but if a child rapist pleads not to be given the death penalty and you have the resources to keep him in jail for the rest of his life with big dong bubba, go right ahead!)
Chivalry is so gay. Go back to Gaylic Frencherica, Frenchie.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-04 12:35
Its still nice to be polite to women, to act as a gentleman even if pop culture tells us its wrong. Women are something beautiful, to be taken care of, not expected to grow like a wild rose.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-04 12:59
>>11
Bleh. Screw that. They're people like us. Gender differences may beinborn, but my opinion is that they shouldn't be instituted by society. You should let individuals sort that out themselves.
I take it as "WIMMINZ DON'T HAVE A VAGINA! THEY'RE PPL JUST LIEK US!!!!!111onehundredeleven
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-09 10:28
Idiot, I said differences are inborn but shouldn't be instituted by society.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-12 22:33
woemen are generally less violent in thire role witch is why we have to protect them and not be violent to them
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-13 8:48
>>1
Your argument makes sense in the case of certain manual labor jobs for which men really ARE suited better; however, thanks to modern technology, there are very few jobs that women cannot do as well as men. If a woman wants to work, that's fine with me. Personally, I seriously cannot wrap my mind around the concept that women are fighting to NOT have someone else do work for them and supply them with money while they sit around all day, play with the kids, etc. Cooking and cleaning are way more fun than sitting in an office all day. I'm surprised MEN aren't fighting to GET women into the workforce so THEY can have a turn at sitting around at home all day. Imagine not having to worry about your job, your boss, getting up early in the morning, your obnoxious coworkers, all while your spouse goes out and makes money for you. Sounds like heaven to me.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-13 8:52
woemen are generally less violent in thire role witch is why we have to protect them and not be violent to them
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WTF with the spelling?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-15 12:42
>>15
Women are taught different problem resolution methods than the male, it doesn't make them less violent. They are simply encouraged to act it out differently. That aside, I have noticed as much violent tendancies in a lot of the women I've interacted with as I have with men.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-15 13:06
>>18
Women are generally weaker than men which predisposes them to less violence. OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-15 18:07
>>19
Weakness doesn't predispose someone to be less violent in *nature*. It predisposes them to fear *acting on* their nature. There *is* a difference, IMO.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-15 18:08
>>19
Weakness doesn't predispose someone to be less violent in *nature*. It predisposes them to fear *acting on* their nature. There *is* a difference, IMO.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-15 22:18
Post it a third time. I didn't absorb the first two.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-15 23:23
I am almost sure that Jennifer Anniston and Dustin Hoffman are one in the same.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-16 10:07
>>18
actually, that resolution thing is probably what would make them suck at certain jobs.
Then again, they couldn't be any worse than the pansified corporatists who ride fickle market demands expecting to win big. Losers.
If people of either gender don't learn how to step beyond what society tells them is acceptable, any progress as a society will be slow-going. Personally, I'm of the opinion that a well rounded set of conflict resolution methods would go a long way for members of either gender to tailor their response in a manner that best suits the situation at hand.
Women should learn how to "act like men" when they need to, and men should learn to "act like women" when they need to. Then again, I tend to favor finding the solution to the problem on the basis of the /problem/ and /not/ on my genitalia.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-18 23:38
>>26
Problem is that we call it "Acting like women" or "acting like men" when really they're things both sexes have the wiring for... Women are not neccesarily twitching balls of protoplasm, unable to do anything without the consent and lead of a male, and not all males are (or have ever been, actually) agressive assholes who'd beat you to death with a pool cue if you look at them funny.
We are all mixes of different factors, which I honestly don't think should be looked at as male and female, because there are other attributes for a person that could more validly be given those designations.
Name:
Biff2005-11-18 23:45
Women like to be slapped around periodically. They need it, and enjoy it.
Name:
Coon McBoon2005-11-19 6:50
muh deek be huge. ware iz da whyte womenz?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-26 1:09
Another thing is that women and men exist to crate children, and the best way to create effective childrens is via a supportive mother figure and strong father figure. We arent robots we are animals with specific needs.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-27 21:30
>>26
There's differences in gender than genitalia. Women are generally physically weaker, but have generally more intelligence, or at least potentiallly. Males are physically stronger and larger than females, but aren't as smart on average. >>30
Exactly. Some of Earth's cultures nowadays have the mentality to rid themselves of gender, maybe literally someday in the future, as they'll produce offspring in labs. Other societies will embrace their differences in gender and roles which are nothing more than maxing out on their productivity and taking advantage of their strengths. They'll be more successful and organized, and will most likely evolve at a faster rate than society #1.
It may seem primitive to consider natural instincts and function over technology, but mother nature didn't get this far half-assed. Human kind isn't above nature. In fact, the reason we've gotten this far is because of evolution and natural selection. If we embrace that, we'll develop even further.
Women and men have an equal mean intelligence, men have a wider range of intelligences, so a man is more likely to be stupid, but more likely to be a genius. Any society which "embraces" meritocracy will prosper, however this will have to be individually based instead of gender based otherwise it's illogical. Mother nature doesn't exist, evolution and natural selection are just occurances and won't bite us in the ass if we decide that a certain disease should be eradicated. If for instance a society lives on an island and needs wood to go fishing, but cuts down all the trees thus stranding them on the island with no way of feeding themselves, that's call being a stupid fuck and isn't mother nature casting down her vengeance.
>>32
Doesn't this bring us into new territory, though, concerning evolution and natural selection? Have species' in the past become extinct due to their actions, such as the society in your example due to it killing off its food supply? Or are we as humans the first race capable of committing, in a sense, mass-suicide?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-28 6:46
>>35
It's already happenned and we've learnt from our mistakes, so you can expect to see the world use crude oil to fuel to production of renewable energy sources soon. They will be the next big thing, considerring how expensive crude oil is predicted to get. Communist countries who are not blessed by self-perpetuating coorporations however will experience mass starvation.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-28 9:28
>>32
Mother nature gave us survival instincts, and that includes having the ability to know when to cut down a few trees to survive. Your logic is flawed.
I(>>31) may have misworded that about men, so you didn't exactly prove me wrong.
My girlfriend left me for a guy who beats her and apparently she loves him more than me even though i took her out to dinner, told her i loved her and made sure she had a good time. I don't think they want chivalry, feminists are pro-women and they don't want chivalry so I guess I will have to beat my women aswell.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-29 3:48
Ppl are more into hate and making everyone else more uncomfortable and making things more complicated any more. That's why feminists exist. The human race as a whole looks like it's plummeting downhill because of them...
LOOK FAGGOT. IF YOU HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT BY NOW THAT YOU'VE GOT GIVE THOSE CUNT-JUICE SOAKED FUCK_COWS A LOVING BUT SERIOUS BUSINESS SMACK ACROSS THE ASS EVERY NOW AND AGAIN IT MEANS THAT YOU ARE GAY. YOUR GENES ARE NOT DESIRED TO PROPAGATE THE HUMAN SPECIES
PREPARE UR SELF
FOR GAYNESS
IN THE ANUS
Name:
pro-chan2005-12-29 9:24
>>39
Go and beat the shit out of him and save her. Be her knight in shining armour!
IT'S LIFE IN YO MAMA'S ASS-HO
YOU FAIL AT BEING MY NEMESIS
ANTI-CHAN ENCOMPASSES ALL EXTREMES OF HUMAN NATURE AND INTELLIGENCE
STRAIGHT OMNIPRESENT LIKE A MOTHER FUCKER
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-29 11:43
>>39
You've experienced the standard girl. They are that fucking stupid. Forget about them, your right hand is much better, and it has more brains.
Fuck you women. If you want to be the dominant sex, go back in time and make your man clean while you hunt for mammoths. We were dominant for this long for a reason.
>>50
You misunderstand the point of feminism, which is to tell women they are superior and oppressed so they give you their money in the hope you will make the government give them money.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-01 22:31
49 speaks the truth
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-02 19:32
Feminists just make the life of guys difficult. Nowadays if you try to be chivalrous (sp?) as a guy, you are seen as some pansy and a sign of weakness. Some girls like chivalry but majority nowadays just either see it as an insult to them or like the guy has no clue wat to do. Yet if a guy doesnt be chivalrous at all, girls seem him as a bastard.
Same story when a guy compliments a girl.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-02 19:42
>>54
Hold doors open for old ladies and ugly people, slam it in the face of pretty cheerleaders.
Both sides win!
Name:
a female 4channer2006-01-03 13:13 (sage)
>>But modern feminism is now about teaching women, and men as well, that men are neither needed or wanted.
WOW. before you go attacking feminism like that, perhaps you should read up on it a bit and/or talk to some real feminists about why they feel the way they do. you people are fucking idiots. the only people to have spoken any truth in this entire thread are >26 and >27. are there any other females on this entire fucking board other than myself?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 5:22
>>56
You should hear what some of your fellow women have to say about that then. They'd rather eradicate all men from the planet and reproduce artificially than to live with males.
And does it really matter who's male or female on these boards?
>>25 and >>27, yeah, they are actually 100% correct. But still, the behavior of standard woman does pretty much fall along the lines that most men have expressed in this thread.
From my point of view (being a man), I don't see the behavior as completely biological- more actually of what society engrains into girls from the moment they step out of the womb.
However, I am getting fucking disgusted at the fact that whenever a man expresses a viewpoint on women, every set of titts feels obligated to come out of the woodwork and tell them how wrong they are. Do you really think we men don't know that "not every woman is like that"? Society makes males prone to some exaggeration regarding traits, but usually our viewpoints stem from some- albeit- observational truth.
The women and men who don't fit into the mold society creates are cheifly- homosexuals. Meaning: They'll never pair up with the opposite sex and pass down these values onto their children. It's one of the reasons why I'm for homosexuals having families, but that's an entirely different arguement.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 6:25
>>31
Big hint: America is now type 1. Better trade in those pieces of paper for some silver before the end comes you guys. I give it only 30-40 years tops, if you don't plan to be alive by then you should at least trade that money for some good trippy shit.
>>32
A meritocracy is only as good as the belief system encouraging it. Unless it's some guy that grew up distilling shine, I won't trust any American with something like that, especially not one that silver-spooned his way to the top as many of the older companies are facing as their original creators die off or pass the reins to another member of the board.
Chivary is dead, hardcore feminists killed it. Pure and simple. However, women nowadays are trying live the best of both worlds. On one hand, they want the equality for job and pay opportunities, yet they are enticed by what they were taught from school and films regarding males being chivarious and the women being the distressed maiden. Combine them both and you get females that want equality and have males practicing chivary but the thing is you can't have both together.
There will never be sexual equaltiy because males and females will never be equal, if they are equal then there would just be one sex. Feminism is basically the pinnacle of hypocracy
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 15:50
>>61
Its also because girls just want everything!!! No matter how illogical it sounds.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 19:36
Feminists think that being different is being unequal, when being different can still make one equal to the other. Women should get treated differently than men, yes, but they should still get treated equally.
IMO, anyway...
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 20:30
women are stupid and deserve to be subjugated
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 23:29
I think women should run the economy and government and men should go out and fight and kill each other and the victors get to impregnate the women.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 0:08
Power should be shared equally among everyone. Men and women should just drop the social role bullshit and get to fucking and squirting out babies.
Women are hot, men are not. Therefore, we need more women. So many that men can no longer see one another through the bountiful field of bouncy breasts. Or non bouncy, for you Not4 guys. ONLY THEN CAN PEACE BE ACHIEVED!!!
Hey, what kind of idiot thinks Muslims want to die for Allah anyway. That ain't why I'd blow myself up if I were an Islamic.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-12 0:10
Women are hot, men are not. Therefore, we need more women. So many that men can no longer see one another through the bountiful field of bouncy breasts. Or non bouncy, for you Not4 guys. ONLY THEN CAN PEACE BE ACHIEVED!!!
Hey, what kind of idiot thinks Muslims want to die for Allah anyway. That ain't why I'd blow myself up if I were an Islamic.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-12 0:47
>>72
We need more men and they must compete for the right to fertilise the female population. Weak stupid men such as yourselves with undesirable traits would be castrated and sent to work in the salt mines, I can see why you disagree, but it's the right thing to do, so you must agree out of morality and stop being so selfish. All I'm asking is that you have your penis sliced off and go work as a slave labourer.
>>73
Doesn't sound too weak if he's advocating harems. I SMELL PROJECTION BY A LIBERAL FAGGOT. I bet you think Freud is hot stuff too don't ya, wussy.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 21:20
>>75
He is advocating harems becasue he doesn't want to compete for his women as he knows he would fail and he is selfish. Maybe we should have more women than men, but I still think certain men shouldn't be allowed to spread their genes.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 21:28
Uh, no. Historically harems have worked in favour of a few men (and a few more women). The majority of men lose out.
Why is it that when a ruler of a polygamous society is threatened and wants support from the population that he makes monogamy the law? It's because the majority of men want women too. There are a surprising number of examples in history of this.
Look at it this way: if you're a woman and given the choice between marrying a powerful man (even if he has multiple wives) or Bozo the Clown (who has none), who would you marry? Who will give you a better life and better chances for your offspring?
Polygamy is a nice fantasy of men, but the majority would be losers. Real winners get the choice women, sorta-winners get most the rest, and every other man has to compete for what's left.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 22:47
>>77
Why not make it simpler and make the rulers women?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-14 4:02
Because men want to call the shots, and they're bigger.
>>76
What about the women who carry those "dirty" genes?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-14 5:37
What about them?
Given a choice, men will screw as many women as possible. After all, the point is to propagate their genes. They don't have as much to invest in bearing a child, so they don't need to worry about the perfect mate.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-15 1:09
>>81
In nature the males would be the gene testers. All men and women would be screened for genetic disease, if they have a the markers of a genetic disease, then the embryos they produce will be tested also to make sure the disease has not been passed down to them. Healthy embryos will be grown.
Obviously men and women with genetic disease have both allelles and would not be able to bear any offspring. Men in this situation would compete nonetheless. The women would live out their lives, but not have any children of their own genes.
Correct me if I'm wrong guys, but men and women are, and should always be different... But that don't make them unequal.
It'd be like saying that every culture in the world should act the same because our differences make us unequal. I mean over the years, isn't it a culture of sorts that has developed as 'gender roles'? Sure the roles have been created from society, but so have many of our most important values.
So what if some of us are at home raising our family? So what if some of us are out having careers and getting jobs? And so what if on average women are more productive doing the former, while men are better at the latter? There should be seperate roles in our society, BUT we shouldn't be forced to assume a cirtain role. Only one that workes for us INDIVIDUALLY.
Everyone should stop the hate and get along with each other, IMO.
>>83
alternatively you could simply not allow men and women with both allelles to reproduce and only pick embryos with one allelle and missing the other so that any superior genes they do have can be passed on
It's a movie. That's neither here nor there, really. The point is: Eugenics leads to facism. There's no way you're going to control who breeds or not, who has babies or not. Sorry.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-15 11:37
>>88
And who forces people not to implement eugencis if they have been persuaded to? Who prevents parents from having children if they know there is a way to prevent diabetes, but won't have anything to do with it? If the child grows up and has diabetes, isn't that akin to grievous bodily damage, seeing as it could have been prevented and the parents chose not to?
Inferiority exists and is very real and it is fascism to force people to ignore the facts which prove otherwise, especially if you are one of those facts that needs changing.
See all that? That was rationalization. You, the individual, don't have the right to violently enforce (psychologically, socially, culturally, physically) anything on another individual. Any laws of ethics or morals that are being "broken" in the practice of eugentics require too much rationalization for any true anti-facist to take seriously.
You can, by all means punish the choice in a variety of ignorant way and no doubt will, but there must always be choice.
Facism is Facism.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-15 16:54
>>90
So you admit you think it's ok for parents to intentionally give their children disease? This isn't justice infringing on liberty, liberty and justice go hand in hand. You can have no justice without liberty and no liberty without justice.
Giving children disease just to satisfy some perverse urge to transfer your genes is not liberty or justice. I don't care about your paranoid delusions about eugenics, it was national SOCIALIST liberals who fucked it up, not conservatives. You fuck everything up, you took over the civil rights movement fro mthe libertarians and to this day racism stil lexists. You fucked up welfare, hundreds of people make welfare a living instead using it to educate and improve themselves and their children.
You fucking suck, get the fuck out of politics you god damn annoying piles of shite.
The liberal/conservative meme is for teenagers. You can read as deeply into what I said as you want, my fanatical friend. Doesn't change the fact that if you go into eugenics under the basis of giving the government the power to fundamentally control the one thing no government (liberal, conservative, whatever) has business controlling - the way people reproduce- that will be percieved as facism...and rightly so.
The only thing that social eugenics will bring about is segmented societies. Effectively, two seperate human races. If that's what you want- some sick Gundam Seed situation playing out...then by all means.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-17 0:13
>>92
What the hell? More of this "YOU'RE A TEENAGER" crap? Anti-chan, is this you?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-17 0:22
>>92
Of course fascism is wrong and discrimination. I am saying you are discriminating against people who will exist in the future because they don't exist yet. If a simple medical procedure will stop your children from developping diabetes and you refuse to take it and your child gets diabetes, you have intentionally committed grievous bodily damage and you should be punished as a deterant to people who wish to give people disease.
Sorry if I was calling you a liberal, but I see this shit all the time. Liberals are ok on some things, but the extreme liberals are complete assholes who think we should abort children that can live outside the womb and let people into university in plas of people who have better grades than them despite supposedly being against racism. In my view this inhumane outlook on the world makes the communists and racists more liberal than liberals make out to believe.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-18 15:24
Wow, waaay off topic...
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-18 15:38
chivalry -> women -> reproduction -> eugenics
not far off
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-21 19:36
>>94
germany is the only ones who could make it look so SEXY.
Fascism for Germany, nobody else. There, solves one problem.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-21 21:13
QUIT FUCKING WHINING YOU SELFISH BITCHES AND GET ALONG WITH EACH OTHER
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-24 3:12
Feminists have gone all overboard about the rights of women. Just because of centuries of persecution, they now think they can rule the world the way they see it.
Look at some news now where women in the workplace file sexual harrasment suits AND yet they will not blink an eye to use their sexual prowess to move up the promotion ladder (think it was in the Daily Mail in UK).
And just one thing I don't like with ultra feminists (who also happen to be lesbians as well), they look freaking ugly. I mean its one thing to not want to conform to men's standard of beauty but for freak sake at least conform to a decent standard.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-24 3:37
And just one thing I don't like with ultra feminists (who also happen to be lesbians as well), they look freaking ugly.
Right and this is why I said: "The liberal/conservative meme is for teenagers." Why don't you just tell us how old you are, already? You didn't suggest a "medical procedure", you fucknut. You're suggesting that in the some faux-utopian future that certain people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. The only kind of state or society that would allow this is the kind that Hitler used to wipe out the Jews. Totalitarian. Facist.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...then it must SHOVED UP YOUR ASS BECAUSE YOU ARE GAYER THAN RICHARD SIMMONS' ASSHOLE.
So...seeing as how mankind's evolution shows evidence of moving AWAY from that...it's not going to go happen. SOWWY.
Name:
penishead2006-01-24 14:14
women love to be slapped around from time to time. If they say no, it really means YES YES!
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-24 15:43
>>101
If you think liberals act like kids, then stop acting like a liberal!
P.S. It seems you have some other issues to sort out aswell.
i mean, they hate men, and they hate lesbians, so where do they get their sexxors from?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-26 15:55
>>106
whoa!!! Thats the first time I heard of that. It is so.....just mind shattering. It doesnt make sense. But then again girls never make sense with their thinking.
No, I don't think liberals "act like kids". Other way around: People are intellectually immature result to bi-polar methods of thought. The typical: Us and them scenario.
I think the entire idea that you can reduce any argument down to "he's just a liberal" or "he's just a conservative"...is very, very childish. And it's the bastion of those that- quite frankly- don't have anything else to add in the way of debate.
If you think I'm wrong- fine- show me how I'm wrong. But sitting here and trying to paint someone as liberal or conservative just because you have no way around what they're saying makes you look like a fucking baby.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-26 22:14
>>108
Actually this is more of a we are correct and you are incorrect situation and you are using the ol' "U R A PART OF A CULT LOL" argument in a desperate attempt to cling on to your own cult.
Fact the facts, you are wrong. Admit this and either kill yourself or admit you are wrong and get on with the rest of you life. You don't have to admit this to me if you don't like losing, just admit it to yourself, AT LEAST.
Ah, see but the thing is: You are, in fact, part of a cult mentality if you're sitting there defending an ideal that would take mechanisms of nazi-like nationalism, facism and totalitarianism to put into real practice. These are unavoidable facts- so to keep yourself from losing you resort to the "us or them"/"black or white"/"evil or good" bi-polarizing of thought. It a typical dividing tactic used by "liberals" and "conservatives".
Human thought evolved away from singularities and we are now evolving away from bi-polarities. This is why your argument is inherantly wrong, to me. Because I'm able to call bullshit on your entire approach to this subject from the get-go. It's indefensible- so you do is what all liberals and conversatives do-- claim the other is on the "wrong side". Reduce everything to philosophical, psychological and political fork in the road so as to frame and control the entire argument.
In the end, you never address the real issue or the point brought up: "You indirectly advocating facism through eugenics". Instead we get sucked into a conservative vs liberal debate. You can't help yourself- it's like you have zero control over your ability to reason.
If that's not cult-like, then I guess you guys(libs/cons) must've snuck in and changed the context and connotation of the word.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-28 22:53
>>115
"Giving your children disease is a crime."
You cannot escape this fact and you are clinging on to the illogical notion that genetic medicine is fascist. Did I ever say we should bundle people into the gas chambers for having diabetes? I am stating that if you are going to have children, have the common courtesy to have a mouth swab and a blood test (blood tests are the norm for family planning anyway along with immunisation against certain diseases to prevent miscarriage and damage to the fetus, what's wrong with a mouth swab?) along with your partner to ensure your child is healthy and if your blod doesn't match or you have an allelle identified as a cause of disease, then take a procedure to ensure your child does not develop the disease. I agree that prosecuting parents because their children have diabetes or cystic fibrosis is a sensitive matter however, though in the future the world would be a better place if the only people at risk of genetically passed disease were those born from unexpected pregnancies.
This is the subject at hand, so explain to me why this is fascist. Otherwise you are just being a troll.
"Giving your children disease is crime" isn't fact. It's moral opinion. Fatal diseases are one thing- but diabetes is not the end of the fucking world.
Also, these are not mere matters of "immunisation"[sic] as you seem to suggest. What you said was: "Obviously men and women with genetic disease have both allelles and would not be able to bear any offspring. Men in this situation would compete nonetheless. The women would live out their lives, but not have any children of their own genes."
In order for your eugenics utopia to work, you have to regulate who reproduces. And most pregnancies are, in fact, "unexpected". The only government that would use these types of controls such as sterilization and enforcement of planned pregnancies would require a facist, super-nationalist system in place. One that fully exerts it's idea of "a better future" over those they govern and enforces said idea with punishments. If someone doesn't "get with the program" (hint, hint) they are subject to punishment by law for "doing greivious bodily harm". This isn't merely a "sensitive matter". This is facsism.
You can impress upon everyone this "better future" tripe on everyone if you want- in effect going in circles. I don't care what benefits you think we can *possibly* all glean from it. Doesn't change the fact that it would take an inherantly totalitarian government to put this into practice.
Notice how I just keep repeating that? It's to keep you from posting another long sentimental paragraph like the one at the beginning of >>116.
Multiple benefits, zero benefits- I don't care. Eugenics requires facism and totalitarianism for it to work.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-29 7:38
explain to me why this is fascist
That depends whether there's a "human right" to procreate. The government meddling in private affairs and all that.
This all strikes me as wankery though. We're approaching the era where we can fix issues like this with treatments that alter DNA. If you have a disease, won't you get it healed? Of course you will, and your offspring will benefit from it too.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-29 7:57
>>118
Only religious asshats won't. (at least, not in public.) Hopefully we'll be done with them by the time it comes around.
as to the original post...
Chivalry, in the proper sense of the word, has nothing to do with women but everything to do with men and war. As a lifestyle it was about brotherhood to your fellow knights and respecting your enemies skill and, since the enemy at the time where other knights, the enemies honour. The fact Saladin was considered one of the most Chivalrous knights of his time shows what chivlary was about, Saladin was a Muslim.
Here are the codes of Chilvary:
1. Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.
2. Thou shalt defend the Church.
3. Thou shalt repect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
4. Thou shalt love the country in the which thou wast born.
5. Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
6. Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.
7. Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
8. Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.
9. Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.
10. Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.
In those commandments where does it mention anything about women? Women took chivlary and mutated it into a bullshit notation that it meant protecting women, it has nothing to do with women and everything to do with men.
Chivalry was never about the princess, currying the "lady's favour" was just about luck. ~Modi Thorrson
Nevertheless, what you say and what he says are too different things. Questions of: "Why not fix it?" are different than commands of: "You will not be allowed to reproduce if you don't. It's for the future of the nation!"
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-29 11:10
>>52 >>54 >>57 >>75
Etc...
I really hope you guys are kidding.
I know a lot of Feminists. My mother was one, as well as many of her friends. My mother never said anything about being anti-male. She simply felt that women, as well as many races, socioeconomic groups, and religious groups, had been treated unfairly for too long and that it was unnecessary and idiotic.
While thinking back on her life, I can't seem to find the "OMG MEN = BAD DEATH DEATH DEATH STFU DIE" part.
Interesting...
Also, "liberals" don't agree with Frued. Stop making gross assumptions.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-29 12:38
>>121
I think when we are referring to the feminists we are referring to the ultra feminists, the ones that think all men are pigs and dun deserve a place on this planet.
Feminists like you mum are a prime example of reasonable thinking. What I think most of us are fed are the women out there who are demanding equality to the point where THEY are at the advantage instead of men as oppose to having a balance.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-29 21:36
>>121
So you don't hate men, but if we go on a date and we have sex in a rush of passion without me asking for permission first even though you were wearing a short skirt tight top and kissing and rubbing up to me, it's rape? It's nice to think you are not malicious, but until you stop being a hypocrite unfortunately I'm just going to have to assume you are lying.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-30 6:07
>>123
This makes no sense, seeing as how I have a penis, testicles, and plenty of bodily hair. These factors, when put together with the fact that I have no female breasts, would surely help one to assume I am Male.
Also, in response to the "It's nice to think..." line, only a malicious feminist/very odd woman with no self-respect would do that.
Again, stop generalizing.
You all make women seem like horrible creatures. The general consensus with me and my friends (male and female [including the feminist ones]} is that anybody who does that is fucked up and shouldn't be running around, humping dudes, screwing them, then getting them nailed with rape. It's not right. A lot of women view it that way.
So, stop generalizing.
Even I agree, ultra-feminists are radical, nonsensical, immature, etc. But you'd find that with any group that is absolutist about their ideal and would do anything to attain their goals. Al Qaeda, the KKK, and other supremacy groups are prime examples.
Word.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-30 16:21
>>121
Susan B Anthony types are mostly outdated, the majority these days are screeching harpies like Amanda Marcotte. They think their gender is an 'oppressed race' and they're continuing the fight against 20,000+ years of "male rule"
You're an idiot. If you don't see that women have been oppressed- then sorry...cash in your sanity certification because you're taking a ride down to the MENTAL HOSPITAL FOR PSYCHOPATHICAL FAGOIDS. YOUR LIFE IS 178-HIT FAIL AND LOSE COMBO. A COMBO FROM WHICH THERE IS NO BREAKAGE.
We come from a world where a woman couldn't vote, own lands even have rights her own children. How is that not oppression? I'm a guy, who uses cunts as convienant fuck sleeves and even *I* know that. Do I sit there and DENY IT like some delusional jack off? No, I acknowledge it and get on with my life.
I DON'T KNOW WHO AMANDA MARCUNTTE IS....BUT YOU DO
>>127
Look at what you wrote.
>>So you don't hate men, but if we go on a date and we have sex in a rush of passion without me asking for permission first even though you were wearing a short skirt tight top and kissing and rubbing up to me, it's rape? It's nice to think you are not malicious, but until you stop being a hypocrite unfortunately I'm just going to have to assume you are lying.
Looks like you referred to me as a women.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-01 1:47
Wow, my first topic here, and it's already this big... cool. ^.^
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-01 2:20
>>126
Actually, back in the oldest hunter/gatherer societies, women had a greater importance than men. They were the ones who got most of the food, and dictated what the tribe would do.
It was only during the rise of agriculture that this whole patriarchal society started.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-01 15:50
Look, women try on personas (personae) like they try on clothes. It is only ever about feeling good, looking good, being admired, in said persona. At some stage of her life, it made her feel real good to "be a feminist." Now, it makes her feel real good to "be" something else. Which makes you understand that for women, "being" is "being perceived." It's no accident -- they have very little in the way of interior life, and necessarily define themselves by the attention they can get from other people, and by the stories they can tell to make themselves (they think) look good to other people. ~alonso
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-01 15:56
'You're an idiot. If you don't see that women have been oppressed- then sorry...cash in your sanity certification because you're taking a ride down to the MENTAL HOSPITAL FOR PSYCHOPATHICAL FAGOIDS. YOUR LIFE IS 178-HIT FAIL AND LOSE COMBO. A COMBO FROM WHICH THERE IS NO BREAKAGE.'
>>131
That's actually a social pathology that transcends sexes. The reason you have this perception might be that you are attracted to that kind of woman, if only because you at first mistake those personas for reality.
I used to teach business subjects at university and every staff member had to abide by the feminists unethical ethics.
Remember that the number of women in every Western university is artifically increased through feminazi sexual discrimination (woops, affirmative action). This means that the men who are better qualified to become the doctors that treat our ills and reduce suffering miss out on gaining those positions to less capable women.
For this reason I could never be comfortable trusting any female doctor (or any other female professional for that matter). We need to stop using any service offered by women other than sex because chances are good that they only hold the job they have because of their gender.
Feminists have taken control of academia to effect their dumbing down of the population to a level where they can hide their own lack of intelligence and skill.
>>139
lol says the guy that is probably pussywhipped like no other. WHO GETS THE CHECK IN YOUR HOME EH? I'll bet you fifty pounds it ain't you mate.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-06 12:08
>>138
My father works at a university. Majority of the people there are men.
Nice try. But generalizations like THAT don't go unnoticed.
Here's my major problem with all the guys using the "feminazi" term, and go around acting like fucking psychological gods.
We often project the things we don't like about ourselves onto other people. Be it other races, other idealogies, etc.
From what I've seen in this post, we have a lot of men with security issues. So what if women get fair and equal treatment? Who gives a shit? Does that really matter?
I'd say it's high time for them to get equal rights. In every sense of the term. >>140
Wow. You read one line, you construe that. Awesome.
GREAT TO SEE THE BRAINS IN THIS FORUM ARE IN FULL WORKING MODE, HURR HURR...
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-06 21:43
>>141
i know you are a woman because you can't even contruct you thought processes into an adequate sentence. NOW GO BACK TO THE KITCHEN.
"I'd say it's high time for them to get equal rights."
I was in Florida for a few days, a couple weeks back. I wanted to go to a gym but the nearest one was tens of miles away because the one half a mile away was a Curves for Women. And that's when I finally noticed the problem. We got gyms made for women only. We got all kinds of organizations for women only. If anyone saw the Super Bowl in its entirety they might've caught that Dove commercial asking us to donate money for programs to raise girls' egos. We got the Comcast making ads teaching boys not to be violent against women. We got shelters for female domestic violence victims. Hell, in Norway there was this program that just started that calls for all companies to force half their boardrooms and such to be comprised of women. You call this "equal treatment"? Sounds more like preferential treatment if you ask me.