re GA
Quote:It's all about their survival. When the EB exclude 'us', they're (effectively) excluding most of our evil. So it's not just something that we should be taking personally. Maybe part of the gripe is that they are also rejecting the 'ideology' that is feminism? If so, then don't worry to much, because as long as they allow even the slightest access to the outside world, the femminization process will eventually override all of their values regardless.
No, I dont take it personally. I merely disagree with their complicated set of belief and control system. They call themselves Christians. But its really against Jesus teaching to be 'exclusive'. Their so called "rules" were made by man to futher their own agenda, and hardly a beacon of salvation for a nation, or a vector of patriotism. In addition, what do you mean by "feminization" and ideology of feminism in this case? Please clarify.
Quote:Once again it's to do with survival. If we allow no distinctions to be made, then by default we become vulnerable. For example women and men have dressed differently for thousands of years, abandon this as a 'rule' then there must be a degree of risk created. So it's a bit of a gamble 'we' are taking and although there have been gains, it does now look like we starting to lose. And their dress code applies to the men as well (they're not allowed to wear shorts etc.)
But society is ever changing. What was considered acceptable in the past, does not necessary mean it is acceptable in the present and future. "Rules" in general are made by men (or women), and can be changed over time to adapt to the changing world. Time and time again, we see the regressive societies perish, and progressive and adaptive societies flourish.
Quote:Sure, but even if you were right about most of what you've said whose rules do we follow. If it's Nature's then there is no rule that says anything about 'equality'. If it's God's then much the same applies. 'Equality' is a vector for control by the left (which is in itself a representation of our X chromosome) consequently it's hardly something that can be represented as being 'fair'.
Well, this really depend on what do you mean by "nature". If by nature, you meant Mother Nature, Earth nature. Then yes, it is not fair. It is cruel. It is a place where only the strongest survive. It is then a matter of personal choice. If people are content to be the sheep, to be lead and used by the wolves, then by all means do so. However, even with no Y chromosome, I dislike the idea of been controlled, and rather like to be the wolf if I had the choice. As such, if I was born in EB, I would have no choice but to become a sheep. So, to me, the EB represents a regressive force in the society.
However, I argue that since the Industrial Revolution, our society have moved beyond just "Mother nature", which allow for more diverse and 'fair' society which have their advantages. For example, great minds like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawkings, would have never survived in 'mother nature', but made significant and material contribution to our society.
Forum
Pages: 1 
