reply to post by AussieAmandaC
Then perhaps you could further explain what you meant by your 'compliment', as my emotions got in the way of understanding clearly
Well, I thought you would understand.
I've mentioned it several times already so I'm not in the mood to go on explaining.
Read the long middle portion of this post
As for women and their emotions. Its a general statement. Woman, possess reason. They are humans.
Nonetheless, they have a monthly cycle which causes them to become unstable i.e. unreasonable, highly subjective and irritable, which makes it
difficult for them to argue that they are more 'reasonable' than men.
There are enough rules, far far too many in some areas. You are not allowed to walk around topless in general here at all, let alone full starkers
Australia is fair. Here in Canada, that unfortunately is not the case. But, nevertheless, women are still too biologically preoccupied with their
physical image - and thus, highly insecure - to walk around topless, so it's rarely seen.
Even then, for political reasons it's unjustified and unfair. It gives priority to the natural impulse and so the liberal position.
We do have nude beaches but those seem to be utilised by couples and triples of men, ah....enjoying the sun :/ so not a place for children at all.
Just so you know. I have no problem with beaches (Australia has some absolutely wonderful beaches) or woman at beaches etc. My sole restriction is I
think a practical and fair restriction: that woman be required to wear bottoms and tops.
If were going to ignore the effect a topless woman has on men - and so, ignore how it effect half the population - then what argument can be made to
keep people from walking bottomless?
We hide those parts which incite attraction in the other sex. For women, there are two parts, for men, just one.
You did come off as quite frustrated in your original posts to be sure, but perhaps you should speak more plainly then and not try to over
intellectualise nor paint everything with such a religious brush.
What do you mean, over-intellectualize. Would you criticize Hegel, or Descartes, or Kant for over-intellectualizing?? I'm not saying I'm in their
intellectual category, but when a subject of dispute arises I have to explain myself, and it just so happens to require abstract explication.
Religions for the most part and wanting to control is a lot of the why we are here as it is today
What do you mean by that??
Do you people just ignore that the grossest abuses against human life have been committed by secular, Godless governments? The communists i.e. Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot, Vietcong, Derg, the Nazis; all secularists, and it was they who showed the most disdain and disregard for human life.
As bad as religion can be, it is not religion that is the problem, but man. Religion CAN and SHOULD continue to exist. What needs to be understood is
for people to abandon these apocalyptic designs and come to a mutual understanding of their differences as well as an understanding of their
similarities; accept the differences and embrace the similarities.
It's essentially in our love for God, or the Absolute, that we can come to a mutual respect and love (which is a negative love, as opposed to the love
felt between lovers, or between close friends, immediate family members) for one another.
It is not religion. Religion is a beautiful thing. I would never want to live in a world in which people could not congregate and celebrate life or
Women are not inferior of thought because they have stronger emotions
Reason and emotion are diametrically opposed; the former is rational, the latter, irrational. The more 'emotional' one is, the less reasonable.
I'm not saying emotion is bad. One cannot be too much of either in my opinion. There should be a balance, but the reason should dominate by allowing
the objective to take precedence over the subjective situation.
edit on 11-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)