Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelangelica
ONLY? Then i should sell my shares in the Vibrator/Sex-toys Company!?
|
Sorry for being obtuse. The point is that women with multiple partners are far more likely to conceive with the male they are attracted to most.
<snip>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelangelica
How can women trust this promise?
|
By having confidence in Science and the slow grind of History. The very fact that at least since civilization began on large scale, the essential path over the last century has been one of increased female freedom and power. The case can be made for the human species as a whole that the overall balance of power has shifted almost entirely to women given the most fundamental power of choosing who lives and who dies out in the future has been added to with personal and political power while males have gained no new powers to check and balance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelangelica
|
I already stipulated that men employ violence in greater numbers but even that is directly related to womens' choices, whether conscious or subliminal. I think the important issue is to notice that women have the capacity for extreme violence eg: bathing in blood but also have the intelligence to get men to do the dirty work. Have you ever counted up or seen statistics on the gender percentages of Hawks vs/ Doves? What I have seen is nearly equal if not leaning in favor of "hawkishness". In the US at least, female voting practices are a huge concern and not one single president since Eisenhower has actually tried much less succeeded in reducing defense spending. This cannot be supported by men alone.
<snip>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelangelica
Is this why the Chinese kill female babies and we have an overpopulation (eventually, unsustainable) of males?
|
Obviously as China is the most population dense civilization on Earth they are attempting to keep the numbers down. Asking if this will continue to an unsustainable conclusion is far too speculative for me - too many variables such as the likelihood of famine, pestilence and war vastly reducing population numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelangelica
You think so? the Chinese are messing, IVF is messing, GM is messing, "New" (non-star-born) chemicals (POPs) are messing, medicine & drugs are messing, world poverty is mpessing, war is messing. In fact we can't help ourselves "messing"
The planet is stuffed, the economy is stuffed, we still kill, sell anything for money, go to war, drive too fast, beat women, kill women, repress women (EG Many Islamic countries and other fundamentalists). interpret "holy" texts in sexist ways, pay women less, our priests are sexist paedophiles, the Pope on a world campaign of genocide, etc
|
While all that is true, not only are there polar opposites in effect eg: for the first time since Deists dared to hint at a non-interfering God in the 1700's the onus of "atheism" has been diluted by becoming part of the larger "Science" group percentage-wise which is why in another thread it is noted that many fundamentalists see themselves at war with Science, not just non-believers, and non-believers are more and more unafraid to speak out, write books, from Ayn Rand to Sam Harris (and note the trend in the progression of tone and acceptance from her to him) and I will speculate here that before long, seek office. Fundamentalists IMHO are making a grave mistake (however welcomed by me) in facing off against Science in a battle they are highly unlikely to win. Despite all this, the most important point is that the above quote leading to the conclusion that women or the species need fewer men is a non sequitur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelangelica
|
FWIW I got 5 out of 10. I missed only 1,2,3,5 and 6.
As this thread contains considerable parallels with the "bullying" thread, I think we can also gain from those posts that show the number of people and institutions working to reduce bullying by exposing it for the fraud it generally is. I may be an optimist and a dreamer, but as in John Lennon's "Imagine" 'I'm not the only one' and that such a song was and is a Classic Hit which would have been impossible in almost any other time in history, even if the short term conclusion is another setback and the grind upward is slower than we dared fear, the direction is still a good one, or are you more pessimistic more often than I?
