Is the word "human" sexist?

[Dis]

oh well. glad I don't live in Europe. .

My friend says germany is becoming like that. She doesn't like to see women with their faces covered walking 10 feet behind their husbands in germany.

We don't have to worry about that in the U.S. The fast breeding mexicans are taking over the white population. The cool thing is mexican women are hot and aren't afraid to show some skin. I'm currently thinking about going after a mexican woman (actually she was born in the U.S.) right now (see my girlfriend thread for details). Just have to get her boyfriend out of the way. .

mexican women taking over the U.S.

[Son of David]

Pervert.

[Dis]

oh, and the state is not to facilitate the creation of families.

The purpose of the state is to defend those families against outside agression. I don't even think the state should be in the welfare business. But I realise there are just too many people who don't know how to take care of themselves. So I'm okay with welfare.

The state should exist to fund a military to protect from invaders.

[Elok]

I'm gonna go against my better judgment and try to seriously reply to this nuttiness.

Originally posted by Son of David
Because most people are demented, and if a policy of 'individual knows best' is continued, the indigenous populations of Europe will be completely replaced by cultural groups who know that religion, God, the attitudes of their forefathers, and group unity are more important than the whims of demented individuals.

Well, let's take your list from the top:
Maybe it's just a cultural difference, but I see religion as useful only insofar as it is freely chosen. If it is forcibly imposed, it becomes a mind-numbing chore devoid of personal meaning. Oh, and also such churches tend to become horribly, horribly corrupt.
God: see "religion."
The attitudes of their forefathers: Well, we Americans do respect many of the attitudes of our forefathers. We just tend to pick and choose, not regarding the ones about refusing to employ the Irish and whipping black people until they pick our cotton. The patriotic talk about "the spirit of the Framers" becomes rather silly as a result, but this is easily fixed by respecting people for their good ideas instead of good ideas because they happened to come from certain people.
Group unity: To a certain point, this is all well and good. But "group unity" as you describe it seems to entail disenfranchising half of the population, thereby making them totally dependent on the other half for their existence. That's a very uneasy and tenuous kind of "unity."

Plus, there need to be financial incentives for people who marry and have families, because at the moment the only way any individual can get anywhere is to slave away at work, and even then they pay far too much tax.

So how exactly are a bunch of uneducated immigrants supporting larger families on a single salary? That's a real feat, and I'm guessing it involves some sort of "work ethic" or "community spirit" unrelated to gender roles.

The whole purpose of the state should be to facilitate the creation of healthy families.

Okay, now you're just teasing us with Godwin's Law.

[Son of David]

Is the best you can do to mention African-American slavery and discrimination against the Irish?

Look more closely at the documents of your Founding Fathers. There is NO mention of such things there! Although there IS mention of the fact that private morality is essential for a healthy society, and there is also evidence there that the Framers believed that compliance with the 10 Commandments was essential to the entire American legal code.

And by the way, Aristotle and many others in no way connected to the Fuhrer have believed that the basis of any state is the family. You supposedly Christians ought to believe that too ... and if the state is built on the family, it must protect and nourish the family ... your beloved America is headed towards chaos, and you are simply expounding the hedonistic principle here because current conditions are too comfortable for you to consider thinking critically.

[Elok]

No mention of such things? Well, I'll admit that NINA was a bit later than the Constitutional period, but I do seem to remember something about slaves being counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation (of their voting masters) in Congress. Also they didn't let women vote, or anyone who didn't own property, IIRC.

And Aristotle, while better than Plato insofar as he did not endorse authoritarianism, was still horribly sexist, and tended to be racist as well. Not that it matters, because as I said, I value ideas on their own merits, not because of celebrity endorsements. The Hitler barb was directed at your emphasis on the State as a machine to churn out babies to overwhelm the inferior Mud-Person cultures and all that. I'm sure the similarities end there.

Now, about your theory that making women totally at the mercy of men is conducive to a more stable and viable society...?

[Son of David]

Originally posted by Elok
Also they didn't let women vote, or anyone who didn't own property, IIRC.

And your point is what?

[SIZE=1]
The Hitler barb was directed at your emphasis on the State as a machine to churn out babies to overwhelm the inferior Mud-Person cultures and all that. I'm sure the similarities end there.

Sounds like you are the hater here - referring to a proposal to make life easier for families, you call this a scheme to pump out Aryan babies and take over the world.

Have you done a sociology course recently? Modern sociology is pure poison. It usually churns out self-hating liberals like you. Some Christian you are!

[SIZE=1] Now, about your theory that making women totally at the mercy of men is conducive to a more stable and viable society...?

What a shocking misunderstanding!

I thought you said you've been reading Shakespeare recently?

I recently finished 'Merchant of Venice'. It is such an uplifting piece of work and demonstrates very nicely the root of Christian prejudices.

But perhaps your recent readings have made your mind cloudier. Perhaps your Jesus is not with you any more. Strengthen therefore thy faith!

[Flip McWho]

You know that whole comment you said about most people being demented SoD?

Ever thought it might just apply to you as well as most other people as well?

Whats your method of putting people into the different groups? Is it objective or is it based on the fact that people who don't agree with your general perception fit into the mentally demented grouping?

[Elok]

Well, you have been talking about the need to out-reproduce the dirty Muslims before they destroy our civilization. Or something to that effect. Nothing about Aryans, of course, but I don't see how it matters which ethnic group is being turned into a juggernaut of spawning.

I've never taken a sociology course in my life, and I'm a moderate as far as I can tell. I'm pro-life, am suspicious of unions, think affirmative action is a bad idea on the whole, and distrust big governments and big corporations more or less equally. I'm more liberal than you, yes, but then so is Sun-Myung Moon.

I've read "The Merchant of Venice," yes. For Shakespeare's day, it's pretty progressive, though Shylock is still an apalling stereotype most of the time. Now quit trying to guilt-trip me with lame accusations of antisemitism. You're not even making sense here; I'm (to you) a "liberal," and I supposedly loathe the constituency which is one of liberalism's core demographics? Huh?

[Elok]

Oh, my libertarian ladyfriend (the one mentioned earlier), who does not have sex but insists on her right to work (she's an artist), would like to direct you to the book of Proverbs:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=24&chapter=31&version=31

Note how the ideal noble wife is an active businesswoman. I'm warned that you might not consider the Proverbs canonical, but they at least don't push it.

[Dis]

actually my post in the other thread has more relevance in this thread. Don't ask me how we went from stairway to heaven to that discussion.

But as I said in that thread. Women can act like men all they want as far as I'm concerned. Just don't expect me to be attracted to that and accept them as a mate. I want a mate who will provide children.

[Son of David]

Originally posted by Elok
Oh, my libertarian ladyfriend (the one mentioned earlier), who does not have sex but insists on her right to work (she's an artist), would like to direct you to the book of Proverbs:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=24&chapter=31&version=31

Note how the ideal noble wife is an active businesswoman. I'm warned that you might not consider the Proverbs canonical, but they at least don't push it.

If only Solomon had followed his own advice!

He had 700 wives and 300 concubines, and they convinced him to worship strange gods, marking the beginning of the end for Israel (1 Kings 11).

So you see, the love of women can be a dangerous thing, when it is overdone.

[Flip McWho]

The love of anything can be dangerous, when its overdone.

(including religion/god)