Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - istaros

1 [2] 3 ... 53
In my view, varg vikernes is a example that show us how a democracy doesn´t work very well in a big population, the majority have the rights to choice how will be this huge RPG rules, who is the life, and if a thing who is bad get the majority fidelity, this will be the only accepted. Is this the reason for the christians support the democracy, because if have a aristocracy only the good will be accepted, how christianity in geral dont make good things, they will not be accepted, maybe in 100 years ago.
Democracy doesn't work well in any size of population. Even if you're talking about just three people, you start seeing deception, manipulation, and other forms of political maneuvering. "Majority rules" is an intrinsically flawed concept for humans to pursue.

As for Varg, I'm honestly surprised. I thought this would have happened much sooner. Shameful, but not surprising.

Interzone / Re: Impression of reality
« on: August 05, 2013, 12:52:01 AM »
I always disliked Impressionist painting on an intrinsic level, ever since I was a child. For the longest time I couldn't verbalize it, and figured it was just rebellious identity-formation, since my parents both enjoyed it. Nowadays I can say I dislike it because Impressionism is specifically about conveying the artist's personal impression/mood/vision problem/whatever. I have no reason to find that moving, no matter how well conveyed it is. It may occasionally, depending on the specific artist and/or his specific mood, become interesting, as a mere curiosity. But I can never supplant my own emotions with those of another human. Nor should I.

A specific type of exaggeration of reality is something I can get into - e.g.:
Which should all feel vaguely familiar to anyone who liked the album art for Oath Bound. I enjoy this because it concentrates not how the artist feels about what he sees, but rather the things that make such sights amazing. They can display doom and glory in one fell swoop. They are majestic. And I do realize there is a very fine line between this, and Impressionism. But I think any person being honest with himself can clearly see the difference. And I think the key is in that sense of majesty; every Impressionist painting I have seen, even the ones that I can appreciate, feel rather fey in comparison. Navel-gazing.

tl;dr version: I don't like Impressionism because it's solipsistic, and because it looks fucking gay. I like stuff that inspires awe. That only comes from NOT being at the center of the universe.

Interzone / Re: The world government
« on: August 05, 2013, 12:30:14 AM »
There is also a third, for now occult reason, very trivial, why I posted this.  :P I'll be honest and say it later if anyone's interested.
I certainly am. Anything occult is interesting, even when trivial. Guilty pleasure and all that.

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they tend to bolster the enemy to Sauron-like proportions. Projecting everything we hate into some untouchable phantasm. The reality is that the enemy are most often idiots as we are.
Agreed. Hanlon's razor...

My own conviction is that there is agency indeed, that of the Enemy himself. For there is no good to Satan, despite the imagery of metal, he is the one who whispers in our hearts and nudges us away from the right path. This will not be an appealing explanation to those that do not believe or consider Satan a metaphor, but it is simple, straightforward and covers the situation completely.
I don't understand why this would be unappealing to those who consider Satan to be an actual being with independent will. The idea of him being a tempter, as opposed to a direct destroyer, is completely in line with the Bible. He is not one who attacks you, but one who leads you away. If he were so direct, if a Christian were to immediately recognize his approach as malicious, he would never succeed.

At any rate, I absolutely consider Satan to be a metaphor, and I agree with you. Well, not so much a metaphor as a symbol, but nonetheless... Essentially, I see no reason to ascribe the evil that men do to an outside source. I don't even see evil as a thing in and of itself, much as I don't see vacuum, cold, darkness, stillness, lifelessness, or death as things; they are primordial states, or rather lack-of-states, uninterrupted by anything "being." I put "evil" in this same camp - evil is the "natural" state of the universe. There is no good and evil; there is only good, and the varying degrees to which it is absent.

Interzone / Re: Your Soul.
« on: August 05, 2013, 12:15:19 AM »
Generally speaking, I prefer to speak of one's "heart" to one's "soul." This is because the soul is thought of as an existent, viable object, even if only a metaphysical one. Whereas "heart," in this context, is thought of less as an object and more as a vehicle by which some other process occurs. My heart yearns, my heart swells, my heart breaks. I find this to be more relevant to the concept's nature by a very long shot.

Whether soul, heart, or whatever else you wish to call it, it is both the most resilient and the most fragile thing you will ever possess. As you unwittingly implied, crow, there is nothing in the universe, physical or conceptual or otherwise, that can damage this thing unless you consent to it. The only one who can take your heart/soul from you is yourself. I say you unwittingly implied this due to this concept: "...that newly mature soul leaves the body, flies free into the cosmos, and becomes everything..." What can be more immutable than, well... everything? Totality? The universe as whole - not just in matter, but also in movement, time, change? The totality of existence, from beginning to end - or, if there are no such things, then all of eternity? What is more immense? What can one possibly do, to dilute eternity?

So then your soul, or whatever, is your only infinite sword in whatever war you choose to wage. But it is also incredibly vulnerable. It is a tool not of steel but of glass; it does not suffer slight damages. Any fracture is traumatic. You cannot take a minor hit to your soul. And the sharper your edge, and the more capable your wielding of it, the more damaging a blow to it becomes. It is only a hardened heart that bears its pain lightly, because only such a heart can both accept the knowledge that such injury was allowed by oneself, and simultaneously shrug it off, thinking "business as usual."

To see things with a critical eye can be useful sometimes, but it has in our times turned into an insane obssession.
True. Very sad. And this exists at every level, really. Authority apparently only exists to be mistrusted and disobeyed/abused, depending on which side of it you lie. Showing disrespect to others seems to be the only way to efficiently gain respect from your peers. Hierarchy is an intrinsically offensive concept. The nature of God changes based on what people want out of him. Relativism is the only absolute truth, whether in physics, anthropology, morality, religion, or taste.

My personal position varies so much that it is practically useless to describe it at any given time. Most of my arguments are never my own; they belong to other people... I do, however, worship the "absolutes" of our universe.
If you worship the absolute, why would your personal positions vary at all? I would suggest you simply choose a position, on any given issue, at whatever time it becomes relevant, and then stick with it. It doesn't have to be the position you like most, the one that is the most reasonable, or the correct one. Make your choice randomly if you need to, so long as you do choose. And then defend the hell out of it. Even if on some level you feel your choice of position was incorrect. Choose one, and then force yourself into believing it. Slay all heretics who dare blaspheme against it. Not literally, of course :)

This would be a path, not a destination in and of itself. Your attitude is one I recognize intimately. Because of this, you strike me as having reached the point in your particular approach where it can no longer serve you. You now need to graduate to the next level, which would be commitment in your case. Which will become loyalty. Which will become, and laugh at this if you like, faith.

My apologies if this insults you. But I do stand by it, even if it does.

Interzone / Re: Trolling Hipsters on the streets of NY
« on: August 04, 2013, 11:40:10 PM »
I'm not yet a versed expert in aging, although I am approaching such a state at what seems to be a mercilessly accelerating velocity. So, by all accounts, take the following with as many grains of salt as you find necessary in order to make it palatable: Age does not simply contribute to cynicism. Yes, you do continue to lose whatever rosy tint remains over your view of the world. But as everything outside becomes uglier, you eventually reach a point of reversal.

This assumes you have some sort of thing analogous to a soul, of course. But, assuming that, you do eventually come to the realization that the only possible rational response to the dreck and slime festering around you is to counterbalance it. Once you reach this point, you do continue to become more and more cynical - but this increasing cynicism in thought only feeds an ever-growing idealism in action. You become just as tired of complaining about things as you do of the things themselves. You realize all your moaning and tooth-gnashing has never convinced a single human being in a way that leads to any sort of improvement. Even those reveling in filth (e.g., hipsters) do this, this whining, even if regarding issues different than the ones you have become so accustomed to decrying.

So you stop. You stop bitching. You even try to not think too much about the things that bother you. But whereas you may have once done this because you were disturbed by the destination to which such roads could take you, you now avoid them because you are fully aware of them. You do not ignore them; you acknowledge them. You have become familiar. In some way, you embrace them. And in so doing, you have reached the point where dwelling on them does nothing but hinder your response. You know what your response must be, and instead of thinking about the problems, you think only of your own actions.

Anyway, that's my horrendously verbose response to that three-word conceptual equation. The "Cynicism = age + number of humans interacted with" question. Again, salt to taste. I am not old just yet, so who knows whether I will change in the future. I have many times already.

By the way, I don't think number of humans with which you have interacted affects your cynicism at all. The man who reaches death having had only one friend his whole life, will feel no less fulfilled than he who had many. If anything, I would wager he feels even more fulfilled. I see no reason why this would not also be true on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Interzone / Re: Suicide
« on: May 31, 2013, 01:17:20 AM »
Once I came across G. K. Chesterton's rant on the matter, it was difficult to see it any other way:

“Under the lengthening shadow of Ibsen, an argument arose whether it was not a very nice thing to murder one’s self. Grave moderns told us that we must not even say 'poor fellow,' of a man who had blown his brains out, since he was an enviable person, and had only blown them out because of their exceptional excellence. Mr. William Archer even suggested that in the golden age there would be penny-in-the-slot machines, by which a man could kill himself for a penny. In all this I found myself utterly hostile to many who called themselves liberal and humane. Not only is suicide a sin, it is the sin. It is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence; the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life. The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world. His act is worse (symbolically considered) than any rape or dynamite outrage. For it destroys all buildings: it insults all women. The thief is satisfied with diamonds; but the suicide is not: that is his crime. He cannot be bribed, even by the blazing stones of the Celestial City. The thief compliments the things he steals, if not the owner of them. But the suicide insults everything on earth by not stealing it. He defiles every flower by refusing to live for its sake. There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom his death is not a sneer. When a man hangs himself on a tree, the leaves might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury: for each has received a personal affront. Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape, and there almost always are for dynamite. But if it comes to clear ideas and the intelligent meaning of things, then there is much more rational and philosophic truth in the burial at the cross-roads and the stake driven through the body, than in Mr. Archer’s suicidal automatic machines. There is a meaning in burying the suicide apart. The man’s crime is different from other crimes – for it makes even crimes impossible.”

Hopeless people do not merit inclusion in the same category as kamikaze pilots. Those are hardly suicides in the same way wrist-cutters and overdosers are. This applies to suicide bombers and school shooters as well, albeit to a lesser degree since their acts show more insanity than effectiveness. The kamikaze pilot is not suicidal, but sacrificial.

Interzone / Re: Liberalism causes terrorism
« on: April 28, 2013, 01:48:18 AM »
Let those whites that hate their own societies so much live somewhere else, perhaps in the thirld world; they can provide the little bit of diversity over there (not too many of them). Who knows, they might even become wildly successful and hatch some kind of global conspiracy to take over/destroy the world!
"Might"? Five or so millenia from now, this is exactly how history will remember the USA.

Interzone / Re: Is life sacred?
« on: April 10, 2013, 11:55:34 PM »
I will it to be sacred, because this is a choice.
I had this same exact thought a few weeks ago. Although, I have to disappoint you: it was in regards to humanity specifically :)

Perhaps life is not sacred. I believe it is. Not because I see evidence for its sacredness. Not because I think this is the most logical course of thought. Not because I think this state is conferred by the natural world.

Rather, because I choose to. Even if we were to somehow prove the universe to be entirely materialist, I would still behave as if it were not. Not just behave, either; believe, as well. Even if we somehow knew, objectively and absolutely, that God and soul and importance and beauty are completely erroneous concepts no matter how they're formulated, I would still believe in them all.

This is, I admit, essentially taking pride in a dissonance between what is real and what is accepted. I also realize this is the main problem in sinister -i.e., left-leaning- ways of thought. The key difference is that, unlike the liberal's, this approach to life does not need to claim reality has re-aligned itself to my desires in order for me to have them. A liberal does not demand that society change itself according to his vision of utopia simply because he personally wants to control society. That would be too... authoritative. Monarchical. Will-driven. Masculine.

Of course, this is the only actual motivation behind his demands; it is the only actual motivation behind ALL such demands. But because he is so terrified of POWER, because he sees it as intrinsically flawed, he cannot accept such a motivation in others - leading him to be incapable of accepting it within himself either, as that would be hypocritical. So instead, his demands become justified by the rest of the world; they are fair, deserved, natural. It does not matter if the world does not actually reflect this; studies will be done, statistics quoted, exceptions pointed out, and metaphors made. All in an effort to prove that the natural, amoral world reflects his opinions of what he deserves.

Unfortunately, this makes it a lot easier for most people sitting in the middle to be convinced by the sinister ways than by the righteous. The left puts a lot of effort into distorting our image of reality, giving the impression that reality does support its methods of thought. It does this by default; it is completely necessary to liberalism, because liberalism is by definition a search for change - not an embracing of what is, but a rejection of it. Only it cannot admit that outright.

So the liberal's dissonance is hidden, unrecognized, and even denied. The dissonance inherent to my way of belief is openly acknowledged and understood for what it is. I do not require the universe to agree with me, in order to believe what I do. That is the blessing I have received as an occupant of the brotherhood of man. That is the unique and utterly salient power I possess as a human - the power to move beyond the realm of what is. The trick is to not to hate existence as a result, and thus imagine it to be something it is not.

Interzone / Re: Buying whores
« on: April 08, 2013, 06:24:48 AM »
Haha. I don't have time for a full reply at the moment, as I'm merely getting ready for the day - just wanted to say that I doubt we would agree on that either :p And pointing out the distinction between fallot's "owed" vs. your mistakenly-read "owned" was not a criticism; I was giving you the opportunity to modify the relevant paragraph you wrote to be more effective and appropriate to what he actually said, as the two words mean completely different things.

Interzone / Re: Buying whores
« on: April 07, 2013, 11:11:50 PM »
Not that I don't agree that liberal societies produce bad children.

Liberal societies produce nothing but children!
I fixed this for you.

Interzone / Re: Buying whores
« on: April 07, 2013, 06:45:40 PM »
The nature of trade is surplus goods. What you are describing is the nature of con men.
The nature of trade is getting something you want for something you don't, or at least for something you want less. That is not the nature of con men - although believing in something like rights would certainly lead you to think such a way. It's the nature of men. No "con" necessary.

There is nothing inherently wrong about giving up something you dislike in favor of something you do; your body does it every time it takes a dump or processes protein. If both parties in the trade end up giving away nothing in exchange for something, what's the problem? Who got conned? They're both satisfied. But, because you have this idea that value is more than a human invention, you find evil within said exchange; not because any suffering has occurred, but because it goes against what you believe. And fallot did not say rights are OWNED, he said they are OWED.

There's this logical flaw about the "no rights" argument that irks me. If there are no rights then what gives you the right to tell people they have no rights? We're just talking about different values here.
Logical flaw? Where? If there are no rights, nothing I tell people is subject to the concept. It's only a logical flaw so long as there are rights. I don't need the right to do anything I do - I am a man. I will do as I do, and there will be consequences deriving from those actions, which will inspire others to act in turn, leading to more consequences still, etc., etc. At no point does any of this need to be justified - it just is. It can be explained, but that's about it.

The only logical flaw is thinking that rights exist "just because." And although your attempt to prove their existence based on an innate human sense of fairness was noble, it does not at all reflect the general view of rights and you know it. Aside from that, it was also fruitless, because humans are innately wrong about all sorts of things; you describe nothing more than a failure of perception, one along the lines of thinking the world is flat because it that's how it looks to the naked eye. You are literally trying to tell me that "because we feel something is real, it is." I find you to be one of the better posters here, and more often than not I agree with you. Even when I don't, I never have a problem respecting you. In fact, I respect you too much to give this argument any sort of serious consideration. Get real.

If you were claiming that rights were God-given, I would still have to disagree but at least your position would be logically sound. Saying that "they only exist in our mind" cannot be rationally followed by "they still exist." THAT is a logical flaw; you know what another term is for something that exists only in the mind? Imaginary. Yes, this affects human behavior - nobody ever said otherwise. No, it is not real - mostly because humans cannot create things telekinetically. As far as I know.

You shouldn't treat different things as if they are the same, but the problem here is that treating things (women) differently usually meant treating them not as well (in the past). What is sick about women wanting to be treated fairly in society? Honestly I don't think we're going to agree so I think we should just drop this part.
So do you wish to treat them fairly or unfairly? You accept that they are different, yet also say that it's not fair to treat them as if they are. "Fair" doesn't mean "the same." If you want to treat women UNfairly, treat them as you would treat men. Of course, no feminist ACTUALLY wants this - they want men and women to be treated the same, but once they find out how men actually interact with each other, it offends them, and so they must change men's behavior to fall in line with how they actually want to be treated, which is "as women." Which doesn't even touch on the fact that a man who takes pride in his nature AS A MAN would never, ever, treat a women the same way he treats a man. Doing so is essentially a tacit approval of the idea that the concept of femininity is worthless.

No. Helpless people need to be done away with. They can't be helped. Why would you want to even bother? Assist those who are capable to be the best.
This is not how you run a society. You claim membership to an ideology that CLAIMS to seek maximization of everyone's (i.e., women's) potential; and yet drop something like this, showing that you care little for what is purportedly the driving motivation behind all sorts of -isms, including feminism. The best possible outcome is not to eliminate defects, but to turn them into successes. I know this is not usually possible, but my point is regarding your outlook.

Lol, no, it doesn't. Not for long anyway.
It doesn't, and yet it does? Although I did read the rest of your paragraph, its inclusion seems completely unnecessary when you start off contradicting your own argument. We'll see how "not long" it takes Saudi Arabia to actually end, once it ends. Until then, the fact is, that nation is successful whereas others in similarly fortunate situations are not. This is true no matter how much it bothers you.

Nope, but you will see the kids dying in the African mud hut. They don't have the fucking energy to misbehave. Not growing up to be drug addicts? Well I suppose in Ethiopia, where arranged marriages are still popular, we can just ignore the glue and paint huffing problems, along with the khat (stuff's legal but it's still a problem). That's just one example.
They have tremendous energy, actually. I doubt you have actual experience living among such people, because if you did you would not be saying something so visibly false.

What about a lifetime of resentment if your parents paired you up with a complete airhead? What if your arranged husband likes to get drunk and assault you?

Those societies have just as many problems. Not that I don't agree that liberal societies produce bad children, but I would avoid such sweeping generalizations in the future, they do not lend credence to your arguments.
Like I said: interact with people who actually live these lives. Get as far away from Western influence as you can. Based on your positions in this thread, I assure you that you will be shocked at the levels of contentment you discover. Don't rely on emotional movie plots or political gambits to guide your view of worlds different from our own.

Yeah, but who ultimately persuaded those in power to give women the vote? Women. I don't think voting should be for everyone, in fact I think most people shouldn't be allowed to vote (not many of them give a shit anyway, so I don't see how this would be a problem). But the point is, I don't know if you're seeing a middle ground here. You seem to think column A is feminazi uberliberal retard, and column B is ideal meek subservient woman. Correct me if I'm missing something. I would also like to point out what Umbrage said
Women should not be able to vote, but that is only because they first should not be a sizable presence in the workforce, which is a whole other can of worms. Men persuaded each other to give women the vote. The notion that women convinced them to do this is ridiculous. If this were true, and it were also true that women were owed this "right," howcome it took tens of thousands of years to achieve this state? Are you saying that women were too dumb to convince their men in the past? Are you saying that they were so trodden-upon that they were literally incapable of standing up for themselves? Or are you saying that they understood the concept of a division in responsibilities among men and women? I don't follow the (retarded) idea that people in older times were dumber than ourselves, so I'm inclined to follow the latter. Most people follow the middle proposition, which sounds stupid to me, as we're not talking about a small percentage of the population. When people are that beaten-down, they revolt. Men gave women the vote because they benefited from doing so. This is just plain old human nature. If their women in fact convinced them to do this, they did it by convincing them it was for their own benefit. Of course, there is no possible way to convince someone that giving away power for free is beneficial to your own position of power, so there had to be a trade; in exchange for losing power, they were made to feel noble. Nobody gives something for nothing. And even if men had, in fact, given women this privilege for free, out of a true sense of nobility, all that does is show feminism to be completely UNnecessary - because men had more power, and were just in its use.

I don't see columns A or B in women's behavior at all. I see columns A and B in men's views of reality, with women essentially molding themselves somewhere in the field that exists between these two standards. But women act essentially the same everywhere you go - there are varying degrees to which they reinforce their own varying traits, but the primary essence of womanhood I have never seen changed. That is one of the inherent qualities (not "strengths", not "weaknesses") of the female; she is malleable. Ultimately, though, it is still men who set the field on which women play. And this will always be the case. And it is good.

Interzone / Re: Buying whores
« on: April 07, 2013, 08:18:43 AM »
Because they're sitting above a sea of oil. If that weren't the case, well, they'd probably be just another podunk third-world goat-herding shit hole. "Feminist" Israel, on the other hand, is a cultural and technological powerhouse despite their acceptance of 'atraditional' gender roles. Why? because they have a strong sense of national identity and a culture that promotes excellence, not because they force women into motherhood.
Two can play that game. If Saudi Arabia is influential ONLY because of the circumstances of their existence, then Israel is likewise only a powerhouse because of the circumstances of ITS existence - namely, massive financial and military support from the one and only nation that can truly be called a world power. Israel's success is definitely not due to feminism. What a ridiculous notion. If this were true, Canada, France, and Sweden would be at the top of the list instead of the relative nobodies that they are today. You even seem to understand this with the last sentence, so any reason you have for mentioning feminism in this context in the first place remains a mystery. It is irrelevant. Saudi Arabia's society works, and no, you cannot dismiss this fact away by pointing out their circumstances. Plenty of sub-Saharan nations are sitting on top of vast fields of natural resources as well; regardless, they remain a collective joke. Their societies don't work, Saudi Arabia's does.

Divorce rates are just a number and do not bespeak of the most important aspect: quality of offspring. I don't have any studies to back this up, but it seems to me that children raised in a household where the parents voluntarily chose to live with one another would be more well-rounded than those raised in a household where the only thing keeping the marriage together is the threat of shame and ostracism. Besides, would you marry just any girl, or would you like to have a choice? How this isn't common sense is beyond me.
It isn't common sense to you because you've been fed the idea that choice is your right as a human being. Rights do not exist, and if they do, every man is born with only one: the right to die. Other than this, every concept of what we deserve is a societal invention. Happiness is not found in getting what you want; it's found in accepting what you have. I suggest you actually find and socialize with some of the people in your town who still practice arranged marriage - there's bound to be some old-school Indians or Pakistanis enrolled in your local colleges' language courses. Go in without the blinders shrill harpies have put over your eyes and you'll find far more contentment than in couples who have to tread carefully lest the other consider divorce for reasons as trivial as "he's not the same person he was when we got married."

Also, nice ninja move - at one point you decry arranged marriage because it's not "true love,"(in itself a fallacious claim, as ACTUAL love has more to do with dedication and sacrifice than it does with emotional pleasure) and now you're saying you dislike it because of the children. Of course, children in societies that practice arranged marriage are unquestionably better-behaved than those in liberal ones. Unquestionably. You will NEVER see a child throwing a fit in the dirt of an African mud hut. Nor will you see such children growing up to be drug-addled losers. Here's a dose of common sense: some of this is because they are given responsibilities and expectations from a young age. Such as the knowledge that they are already betrothed, and had better find some manner in which to make the investment that other people put into them well worth it. Just as in our societies, children respond to structure and discipline a million times better than they do to the freedom to do as they please.

Strawman on both counts.

Men are perfectly capable of sticking an IV in a patient; that is but one side of nursing. However, women, being naturally more empathetic and extroverted, excel at the social aspect of patient care, which is what separates a good nurse from a great one, assuming that nurse is competent in the scientific aspect.

(I will admit that my post was hastily written. Women do in fact work as nurses and school teachers in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the middle-east.)
LOL it wasn't a straw man. It was what you said. The Middle East suffers because it doesn't let women fill said positions. That means that it either doesn't have anyone fill those positions, or that men are inept at filling them. Those are the argumentative prerequisites necessary to arrive at that position. It wasn't "hastily written," it was just plain wrong.

I'm not a "left wing creationist". I realize that males and females differ biologically, psychologically, and spiritually. However, these differences do not need to be institutionalized as they are in the middle-east; instead, gender specific roles should exist as 'cultural recommendations', not laws. Furthermore, just as a man is free to choose whether or not to produce offspring (in which case he will hopefully devote his life to his career, religion, cause, etc; rather than hedonistic pursuits), so too should a woman be able to do the same. This is what is meant by equality. The pursuit of intellectual, political, or economic endeavors by women should, however, be seen a "special calling", rather than the de facto course of action as is promulgated by liberal sources.
"Cultural recommendations" and "laws" are exactly the same thing. Laws do not exist divorced from the culture in which they emerge. In fact, it is exactly in those societies without "laws" as we know them where the consequences for going against them is the MOST severe. If Nagwa the spear-chucker's wife decides she doesn't want to have children anymore, and in fact deserves the same opportunity to be a spear-chucker too, that represents a severe cost to her husband, her children, and by extension to her tribe at large. She would be completely cut off if necessary, but of course it never is, because people accept their roles in places like this.

The middle east never conquered the world (they had their chance in the middle ages but they fell to the Mongols), unlike Western Europe, which has typically had a more 'liberal' stance on woman's place in society, and even has a longstanding tradition of queens, empresses, and duchesses.

I agree that this modern feminism has to be reeled back in, but there is such a thing as a healthy feminism.
First, Muslim societies didn't "almost" conquer the world. Whether in the form of Moors, Turks, or what have you, they were THE power in the Mediterranean until after the Renaissance was well under way. The Franks (as they collectively referred to Europeans) were seen as not only culturally inferior, but also technologically inferior; this attitude existed from the so-called Dark Ages well through the 15th century. The main reason they didn't completely conquer Europe was because they didn't see much reason to do so. The Byzantines did provide a small buffer, but you don't need much of one when you're not being pushed against particularly hard; they had plenty of wealth due to their geographic location, which allowed them to control all trade to and from the European continent. The reason for Europe's eventual success was, again, not feminism. It was Columbus' stupidity. He thought the world was a lot smaller than it was (everybody else knew he was wrong) and lucked out by finding a brand new continent - bingo, new source of wealth. Since the Muslim lands had no way of interfering with this new-found trade route, they began to shrivel up.

And longstanding tradition my ass. There is a longstanding tradition of male rule, with rare exceptions to this rule sprinkled here and there, which are remembered only BECAUSE they are rare exceptions. Get real. I bet you couldn't give me more than five seriously competitive female rulers off the top of your head without making justifications for their inclusion.

There is no such thing as healthy feminism. It is literally sick. It is a perversion of what is real. Here is what is real: men and women are different. Why should I treat different things as if they are the same? I'm not going to try to make an apple pie out of asparagus just because the asparagus is fickle and wants to be apples.

Actually, a capable woman is the whole reason for feminism's existence. Early feminist movements were more about not treating women as second class citizens, not the third wave feminist man-hating drek you see today.
fallot is absolutely correct. A capable woman IS an argument against feminism. Feminism does not exist to empower those women that are rare exceptions, are you kidding? If a woman is capable enough to fill the same position as a man, AND actually desires that position for reasons beyond wanting access to the no-girls-allows treehouse, she will prove that capability and be accepted on her own merits. The idea that a system is necessary to achieve this is nonsense. She will prove herself or she will not - that's it. Feminism exists to satiate the desires of those women who want more than they can get on their own merits. This is so obviously true that it bewilders me to see otherwise-intelligent people, such as yourself, stating otherwise. Capable people don't need help. Helpless people need help.

Actually, allow me to correct myself. Feminism does not exists to satiate women's desires. It exists to make people in power feel less guilty about their position. We live in a world where obedience is seen as weakness, authority is automatically considered suspicious, and faith is little more than a way to be criticized. Choice reigns supreme, and post-modern attitudes of "my choice is as valid as yours" is the natural consequence, even when that "my choice" is joining a LARP club and working as a gas station attendant because it's easier than having actual goals. So there is currently an immense push to force anybody who achieves more than this, and anyone who lives by the standards of strict masculine power, to feel guilty. Some succumb. Feminism emerges. If you think this is false, just ask yourself who gave women the vote. It wasn't women.

Interzone / Re: Buying whores
« on: April 06, 2013, 10:26:18 PM »
In Saudi Arabia, women can't drive. How can a society be productive when half the population is effectively immobilized? Should fathers work a job and also be responsible for groceries and children's activities?

In rural Pakistan, small girls are betrothed while they are under the age of 10. How is a marriage supposed to be functional when there is no test for compatibility first? Is true love just a myth, like our cynical society would lead us to believe?

All over the middle east, women are discouraged from pursuing higher education. I wonder where they get their nurses, therapists, and elementary school teachers from? Oh well, at least the women can't fuck it up.

We can observe that Western society, which affords females more privileges, is more sustainable than the absolute patriarchy we observe in middle-eastern societies.
Are you trolling? Considering Saudi Arabia has a massive influence on the world at large, I would say their society is pretty productive.

If you think the primary point of getting married is to show how in love you are, you may as well write up a divorce letter now. Compatibility is not an innate value, that either exists or doesn't; it's a learned behavior. Considering that society's divorce rate is lower than ours, I'd say their marriages are more functional. Whether or not you agree with their concept of marriage is beside the point - you are trying to say it doesn't function, whereas it clearly does.

As to your third point, are you saying that the Middle East is absent of nurses, therapists, and schoolteachers? It's either that, which of course is nonsense, or you're instead saying that those societies suffer because men are doddering fools incapable of inserting an IV drip. That sounds more like "raising the lesser sex" than "making men and women equal" - which is an asinine proposal anyway, not only because it requires eliminating the very concepts of masculinity and femininity in the first place(and thereby showing its true nature, which is misogynistic), but also because it is literally impossible.

Finally, if Western society is indeed more sustainable than the absolute patriarchy that obviously intimidates you, there is no reason to believe that this is due to women being able to vote. In fact, the West experienced great successes prior to women being given positions of power. Women were given voting rights in the USA around, what, the mid-19th century? So that's about 150 years? Whereas absolute patriarchy has existed in the Middle East -hell, most of the world- in an uninterrupted state for... millenia. A proven system sounds more sustainable than an unproven one to me.

Reality is against you. Guess who wins.

Interzone / Re: Buying whores
« on: April 06, 2013, 10:01:04 PM »
In response to your edit: My wife is with me in a way you would not understand. That you would even ask this question proves that. She is a woman. Proudly and completely. And she values a man who is a complete man. She doesn't vote any more, and agrees she is often motivated by emotion, which is a very poor director of national policy. She scorns feminism for the destructive madness it is, and did so even before we met.
Congratulations on finding, and attaching to yourself, a woman who fully embraces her sex :)

Interzone / Re: Death vs. Hell.
« on: March 30, 2013, 01:05:12 AM »
Neither hell nor death exist.

That is a very odd thing to say.
Every human in history over the age of 120 is dead. That's quite compelling evidence of death's existence.
As for hell...
Well, we don't know a great deal about that, except as a euphemism for the state of most things human.
Christians are keen on it though. It's existence, that is.
I agree with Transcix's statement - or, at least, I would say the same thing myself despite possibly meaning something else. I don't know what he meant by it. What I mean by it is that life is not made up of opposites, as someone else claimed. Cold, darkness, vaccuum, evil - these do not exist, for they are not things. Neither is death; it is the cessation of something that does exist, does move, does shine.

These concepts are attempts by a living (existent) being to understand the void in a way that "it" can be interacted with in a practical way. But it describes human nature more than it describes reality itself. There is no light AND dark, warmth AND cold. You cannot quantify darkness, or cold, or emptiness, or evil. These are just states of absence. Life is an emergent event. "Death" is the common state - or non-state, as it were. Death and hell are not innately negative; they just are. Or rather, they just are not :) One describes an absence of life, the other an absence of God. This is why, at least in Christian religions, God is described not as a source of life and love, but as being life itself, love itself. For God to exist, He has to encompass all. But "all" does not include things that are not actually there.

There is not a dichotomy between what exists and what does not; there is only what exists. Any focus on "what does not" is either the tortured thrashings of a soul breaking, or a roundabout way to imply focus on what does. No death and no hell, only glory and triumph.

1 [2] 3 ... 53