Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Women's Vanity Rapes The Earth

racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 11:23:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I could start with Eve, but I'll make it Cleopatra. If we took nothing but the Egypt of Biblical times, the stats would be overwhelming. Consider the number of exotic animals slaughtered for their pelts and feathers alone. For some ultimate good of human society? No, just so a bored suburban 'queen' (housewife) can swan around and show off her ill gotten status and cheap gains. I won't labor the point. How many baby seals got their heads bashed in so that some female 'personality' or 'celebrity' could stake a shallow claim for excessive gaudiness? Add also, bear, marmot, fox, et al. Most of those animals were quite decent and intelligent by comparison. Miners die in disgusting holes in the ground gouging jewels just to decorate some shallow female parasite hanging off the arm of a brutal gangster or dictator. Great ethics.

Just 19th century Europe's consumption of whale oil and bone, the decimation of the seal population - pretty gross, no? How many million critters today are tortured and mutilated, not just for a medical benefit, but in laboratory 'testing' to make sure 'madame' does not have an adverse reaction to her expensive balms, lotions, moisturizers and soaps and the like. Does vanity know any limits for women (and pretend women?) except on the moon and perhaps Jupiter? I doubt it. I could go on and on, but you do get it, don't you. If women just went back to humble basket weaving and cooking with an Appalachian skillet, they'd stop breeding children who demand to be bribed with expensive, wasteful junk toys so that some wretched housewife can feel her spoiled brats 'love' her. If black was a good enough color for Henry Ford, it should be good enough for Mrs Obama.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 11:47:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 11:33:58 PM, Immortality wrote:
I take it that you're claiming that throughout the millenniums humanity has existed, ONLY women have exhibited vanity...?

Read carefully.I specifically noted 'pretend women'. Cheers!

Immortality
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 12:08:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 11:47:23 PM, racist wrote:
At 4/27/2011 11:33:58 PM, Immortality wrote:
I take it that you're claiming that throughout the millenniums humanity has existed, ONLY women have exhibited vanity...?

Read carefully.I specifically noted 'pretend women'. Cheers!



Either way, what you call a "pretend women", still implies a person who displays female characteristics, attempts to come across as a woman or functions as what you most likely view as a stereotypical female.

Consequentially, you are blatantly accusing females and males who attempt to address themselves as female, to be responsible of attaining vanity that "rapes the earth". Does that mean that you regard feminineness as something that can be linked to vanity?

Do you not acknowledge that males also express vanity???
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 12:46:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 12:08:27 AM, Immortality wrote:
At 4/27/2011 11:47:23 PM, racist wrote:
At 4/27/2011 11:33:58 PM, Immortality wrote:

Consequentially, you are blatantly accusing females and males who attempt to address themselves as female, to be responsible of attaining vanity that "rapes the earth". Does that mean that you regard feminineness as something that can be linked to vanity?

No, I'm blatntly stating my opinion - that being female is not attained. I is woven into the plumbing and wiring of all creatures. The hormone array is specific and needs to be fine tuned. Without display for the male, attraction would not be a viable thing The vanity part is just insurance. It is a good thing, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Overkill if you like. I'm not suggesting that the abuse of resources is un-natural. It's a fact of nature. Mining puts holes in the ground and that puts petrol in my car. I ain't gonna be agin' that and neither are you. Reproduction is a self managing system or process. Nature ditches what it doesn't need. Cruel but functional, no? Cheers!

racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 12:48:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 12:21:14 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Is it even remotely necessary to post in all bold?

Does it obscure meaning? Would you like a PM in Arial or Spider? Cheers!
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 12:52:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
yo racist, I'm lovelife, nice to meet ya (kinda).

I'd like to address several points right now.

1) many females, myself included, refuse to wear makeup, jewelry, oils, perfumes, fur/pelts, etc. Basically anything that possibly results in animals being harmed and not just because that shiit smells, and looks terrible, disgusting, ugly, and sickening but also because it in itself *IS* terrible, disgusting, ugly, and sickening, and also because it takes too much time and effort, for things that really DON'T matter.

2) I find that -mend to be much more shallow than women, but it takes a bit to see that. What your seeing is what the women have, but what I'm seeing is that men shower women with gifts of perfumes, makeup, expensive (fur?) clothing, jewelry, etc. because they think that that is what matters. women would be just as happy getting some fresh cookies, or time to cuddle up while watch a movie, as they are with the things men tend to give them. Men find value in the things they give the women, not in the women, or the 'thought' behind it.

3) If we just castrated men at birth, maybe they wouldn't try as hard to get in women's pants, thus destroying homophobia, sexism, and in the end racism too. It would end trying to find material items to please women, or trying to pressure women to be so skinny, and so tall, and so tan, and so blonde, and so caked in makeup, and so on and so on. Thus the only feasible way to end the problems you speak of is to castrate new born males at birth.

I think that covers it for now.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 12:56:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 12:48:59 AM, racist wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:21:14 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Is it even remotely necessary to post in all bold?

Does it obscure meaning? Would you like a PM in Arial or Spider? Cheers!

It's just annoying. I would prefer that you type like a normal person. It makes it easier for me to read, and doesn't make you look like a pompous jackass.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 1:24:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 12:56:33 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:48:59 AM, racist wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:21:14 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Is it even remotely necessary to post in all bold?

Does it obscure meaning? Would you like a PM in Arial or Spider? Cheers!

It's just annoying. I would prefer that you type like a normal person. It makes it easier for me to read, and doesn't make you look like a pompous jackass.

Anything else I can help with, O Sensitive One? Different color underwear,hairstyle, car model, menu exclusions? Do let me know - always ready to help. Oh, and should your mercurial whims direct you to feel like discussing the actual subject matter in the topic - don't be shy -let yourself go, no one wants to bite you - you can bet on that. Cheers!
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 1:32:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 12:52:39 AM, lovelife wrote:
yo racist, I'm lovelife, nice to meet ya (kinda).

I'd like to address several points right now.

1) many females, myself included, refuse to wear makeup, jewelry, oils, perfumes, fur/pelts, etc. Basically anything that possibly results in animals being harmed and not just because that shiit smells, and looks terrible, disgusting, ugly, and sickening but also because it in itself *IS* terrible, disgusting, ugly, and sickening, and also because it takes too much time and effort, for things that really DON'T matter.

2) I find that -mend to be much more shallow than women, but it takes a bit to see that. What your seeing is what the women have, but what I'm seeing is that men shower women with gifts of perfumes, makeup, expensive (fur?) clothing, jewelry, etc. because they think that that is what matters. women would be just as happy getting some fresh cookies, or time to cuddle up while watch a movie, as they are with the things men tend to give them. Men find value in the things they give the women, not in the women, or the 'thought' behind it.

3) If we just castrated men at birth, maybe they wouldn't try as hard to get in women's pants, thus destroying homophobia, sexism, and in the end racism too. It would end trying to find material items to please women, or trying to pressure women to be so skinny, and so tall, and so tan, and so blonde, and so caked in makeup, and so on and so on. Thus the only feasible way to end the problems you speak of is to castrate new born males at birth.

I think that covers it for now.

Well, that certainly lets us know all about you, and your likes and dislikes, how wonderful you are, the things you think about and the things you don't want to think about. Dammit. I'll just start a thread about guess what? No, you'll never guess Oh, all right! It'll be about YOU! Everybody will be reading it and that Hollywood contract will be THIS close! . won't that be just the peachiest thing ever? Cheers!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 1:49:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 1:24:59 AM, racist wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:56:33 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:48:59 AM, racist wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:21:14 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Is it even remotely necessary to post in all bold?

Does it obscure meaning? Would you like a PM in Arial or Spider? Cheers!

It's just annoying. I would prefer that you type like a normal person. It makes it easier for me to read, and doesn't make you look like a pompous jackass.

Anything else I can help with, O Sensitive One? Different color underwear,hairstyle, car model, menu exclusions? Do let me know - always ready to help. Oh, and should your mercurial whims direct you to feel like discussing the actual subject matter in the topic - don't be shy -let yourself go, no one wants to bite you - you can bet on that. Cheers!

Apparently, you aren't ready to help. You've just switched from bold to italics, you hypocritical piece of garbage.

Regarding the subject matte, however: given that your posts are formatted such that they are painfully annoying to read, I have NO idea what your argument is,
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:32:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 1:49:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:24:59 AM, racist wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:56:33 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:48:59 AM, racist wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:21:14 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Is it even remotely necessary to post in all bold?

Does it obscure meaning? Would you like a PM in Arial or Spider? Cheers!

It's just annoying. I would prefer that you type like a normal person. It makes it easier for me to read, and doesn't make you look like a pompous jackass.

Anything else I can help with, O Sensitive One? Different color underwear,hairstyle, car model, menu exclusions? Do let me know - always ready to help. Oh, and should your mercurial whims direct you to feel like discussing the actual subject matter in the topic - don't be shy -let yourself go, no one wants to bite you - you can bet on that. Cheers!

Apparently, you aren't ready to help. You've just switched from bold to italics, you hypocritical piece of garbage.

Regarding the subject matte, however: given that your posts are formatted such that they are painfully annoying to read, I have NO idea what your argument is,

Well, if you're going to personally insult me by referring to me as 'garbage' the only question left is, should I just cringe and grovel? Nah - I think I'll just be myself.

Let me set a few small housekeeping rules at this little stall in the marketplace of ideas. It is for those who do not have as strong a command of the King's English as I have and have seldom heard a singularly important word let alone comprehend its meaning. That little word is NO.

Do I believe this is a private and personal kingdom to be run like some gulag vwith your bullying ‘Thought Nazi' cronies? NO.

Do I allow ANYONE to dictate how I should walk, talk, speak, write, debate, or take a piss? NO.

If you are offended by something you don't agree with and get abusive, am I likely to pout and get abusive? NO.

Is there any law that says you are compelled to respond to anything I say or do? NO.

Would I ever reject a civil exchange with anyone, especially someone I disagreed with? NO.

Will I ever refuse to explain myself given the opportunity? NO.

Do I believe that being entertaining, informative and interesting – even popular is a criminal offense? NO.

Will I knee jerk to those who pretend to be in some mythical courtroom and then pompously demand ‘evidence' and ‘proof' and other such bullying nonsense? NO.

So there are your options. If it suits you, fine. If not, then go with God – but go – and rearrange the following into a well known phrase or saying: "Off piss". When you've done that, become the amateur astronomer I know you to be and shove it right in Uranus.Cheers.

reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:50:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 11:23:10 PM, racist wrote:
I could start with Eve, but I'll make it Cleopatra. If we took nothing but the Egypt of Biblical times, the stats would be overwhelming. Consider the number of exotic animals slaughtered for their pelts and feathers alone. For some ultimate good of human society? No, just so a bored suburban 'queen' (housewife) can swan around and show off her ill gotten status and cheap gains. I won't labor the point. How many baby seals got their heads bashed in so that some female 'personality' or 'celebrity' could stake a shallow claim for excessive gaudiness? Add also, bear, marmot, fox, et al. Most of those animals were quite decent and intelligent by comparison. Miners die in disgusting holes in the ground gouging jewels just to decorate some shallow female parasite hanging off the arm of a brutal gangster or dictator. Great ethics.

Just 19th century Europe's consumption of whale oil and bone, the decimation of the seal population - pretty gross, no? How many million critters today are tortured and mutilated, not just for a medical benefit, but in laboratory 'testing' to make sure 'madame' does not have an adverse reaction to her expensive balms, lotions, moisturizers and soaps and the like. Does vanity know any limits for women (and pretend women?) except on the moon and perhaps Jupiter? I doubt it. I could go on and on, but you do get it, don't you. If women just went back to humble basket weaving and cooking with an Appalachian skillet, they'd stop breeding children who demand to be bribed with expensive, wasteful junk toys so that some wretched housewife can feel her spoiled brats 'love' her. If black was a good enough color for Henry Ford, it should be good enough for Mrs Obama.


-get laid
-get money
Your right we should just sit around all day and do nothing .Cheers!!!
Immortality
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:13:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 12:46:38 AM, racist wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:08:27 AM, Immortality wrote:
At 4/27/2011 11:47:23 PM, racist wrote:
At 4/27/2011 11:33:58 PM, Immortality wrote:

Consequentially, you are blatantly accusing females and males who attempt to address themselves as female, to be responsible of attaining vanity that "rapes the earth". Does that mean that you regard feminineness as something that can be linked to vanity?

No, I'm blatntly stating my opinion - that being female is not attained. I is woven into the plumbing and wiring of all creatures. The hormone array is specific and needs to be fine tuned. Without display for the male, attraction would not be a viable thing The vanity part is just insurance. It is a good thing, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Overkill if you like. I'm not suggesting that the abuse of resources is un-natural. It's a fact of nature. Mining puts holes in the ground and that puts petrol in my car. I ain't gonna be agin' that and neither are you. Reproduction is a self managing system or process. Nature ditches what it doesn't need. Cruel but functional, no? Cheers!



The above response, defeats the entire purpose of your prior argument. :)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:54:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:32:42 AM, racist wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:49:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:24:59 AM, racist wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:56:33 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:48:59 AM, racist wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:21:14 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Is it even remotely necessary to post in all bold?

Does it obscure meaning? Would you like a PM in Arial or Spider? Cheers!

It's just annoying. I would prefer that you type like a normal person. It makes it easier for me to read, and doesn't make you look like a pompous jackass.

Anything else I can help with, O Sensitive One? Different color underwear,hairstyle, car model, menu exclusions? Do let me know - always ready to help. Oh, and should your mercurial whims direct you to feel like discussing the actual subject matter in the topic - don't be shy -let yourself go, no one wants to bite you - you can bet on that. Cheers!

Apparently, you aren't ready to help. You've just switched from bold to italics, you hypocritical piece of garbage.

Regarding the subject matte, however: given that your posts are formatted such that they are painfully annoying to read, I have NO idea what your argument is,

Well, if you're going to personally insult me by referring to me as 'garbage' the only question left is, should I just cringe and grovel? Nah - I think I'll just be myself.

Let me set a few small housekeeping rules at this little stall in the marketplace of ideas. It is for those who do not have as strong a command of the King's English as I have and have seldom heard a singularly important word let alone comprehend its meaning. That little word is NO.

Do I believe this is a private and personal kingdom to be run like some gulag vwith your bullying ‘Thought Nazi' cronies? NO.

Do I allow ANYONE to dictate how I should walk, talk, speak, write, debate, or take a piss? NO.

If you are offended by something you don't agree with and get abusive, am I likely to pout and get abusive? NO.

Is there any law that says you are compelled to respond to anything I say or do? NO.

Would I ever reject a civil exchange with anyone, especially someone I disagreed with? NO.

Will I ever refuse to explain myself given the opportunity? NO.

Do I believe that being entertaining, informative and interesting – even popular is a criminal offense? NO.

Will I knee jerk to those who pretend to be in some mythical courtroom and then pompously demand ‘evidence' and ‘proof' and other such bullying nonsense? NO.

So there are your options. If it suits you, fine. If not, then go with God – but go – and rearrange the following into a well known phrase or saying: "Off piss". When you've done that, become the amateur astronomer I know you to be and shove it right in Uranus. Cheers.

Two things: first, I will plainly admit that I got trolled. Even the best of us step off our game occasionally.

Second, allow me to point out a couple of the funniest bits from your self-glorifying rant:

Do I believe this is a private and personal kingdom to be run like some gulag vwith your bullying ‘Thought Nazi' cronies? NO.

That's just really funny because of the way it's worded.

If you are offended by something you don't agree with and get abusive, am I likely to pout and get abusive? NO.

This is funny because of:

bullying ‘Thought Nazi' cronies
rearrange the following into a well known phrase or saying: "Off piss"
become the amateur astronomer I know you to be and shove it right in Uranus

It's also funny because my problem is not with your argument, which I haven't read--it's with your annoying formatting, which, in addition to being patently unnecessary, makes your posts eye-bleedingly painful.

Will I knee jerk to those who pretend to be in some mythical courtroom and then pompously demand ‘evidence' and ‘proof' and other such bullying nonsense? NO.

This is funny because it's where you're showing your troll colors a bit too much. We're on a debate site, and we all know that demanding proof/evidence isn't pompous, but rather, critical to constructing a solid argument--in other words, that an argument without evidence is just an empty assertion. You need to go back and refine this part, as it's a black mark on your otherwise brilliant record.

Do I believe that being entertaining, informative and interesting – even popular is a criminal offense? NO.

This is funny because, even though some people are entertained by you, it's a pretty big leap to say that you're informative, interesting, or, heaven forbid popular.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:59:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you want me to try tackling your argument though, I guess I can take away the tags.

At 4/27/2011 11:23:10 PM, racist wrote:
I could start with Eve, but I'll make it Cleopatra. If we took nothing but the Egypt of Biblical times, the stats would be overwhelming. Consider the number of exotic animals slaughtered for their pelts and feathers alone. For some ultimate good of human society? No, just so a bored suburban 'queen' (housewife) can swan around and show off her ill gotten status and cheap gains. I won't labor the point. How many baby seals got their heads bashed in so that some female 'personality' or 'celebrity' could stake a shallow claim for excessive gaudiness? Add also, bear, marmot, fox, et al. Most of those animals were quite decent and intelligent by comparison. Miners die in disgusting holes in the ground gouging jewels just to decorate some shallow female parasite hanging off the arm of a brutal gangster or dictator. Great ethics.

Just 19th century Europe's consumption of whale oil and bone, the decimation of the seal population - pretty gross, no? How many million critters today are tortured and mutilated, not just for a medical benefit, but in laboratory 'testing' to make sure 'madame' does not have an adverse reaction to her expensive balms, lotions, moisturizers and soaps and the like. Does vanity know any limits for women (and pretend women?) except on the moon and perhaps Jupiter? I doubt it. I could go on and on, but you do get it, don't you.

I can sum this up, more or less, as "the cosmetics industry has done some ethically questionable things to satisfy a social demand for artificial beauty and highlighting of feminine features". Not really an original argument. Add to this my argument about normative contingency, and you've basically got a big, steaming pile of "so what?"

If women just went back to humble basket weaving and cooking with an Appalachian skillet, they'd stop breeding children who demand to be bribed with expensive, wasteful junk toys so that some wretched housewife can feel her spoiled brats 'love' her. If black was a good enough color for Henry Ford, it should be good enough for Mrs Obama.

And this is just blatantly sexist. You're basically trying to over-correct for the "evils" of cosmetic culture by reasserting the necessity of traditional and stereotypical gender roles without providing a basis upon which to make claims about their legitimacy.
Immortality
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 4:43:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 3:59:54 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If you want me to try tackling your argument though, I guess I can take away the tags.

At 4/27/2011 11:23:10 PM, racist wrote:
I could start with Eve, but I'll make it Cleopatra. If we took nothing but the Egypt of Biblical times, the stats would be overwhelming. Consider the number of exotic animals slaughtered for their pelts and feathers alone. For some ultimate good of human society? No, just so a bored suburban 'queen' (housewife) can swan around and show off her ill gotten status and cheap gains. I won't labor the point. How many baby seals got their heads bashed in so that some female 'personality' or 'celebrity' could stake a shallow claim for excessive gaudiness? Add also, bear, marmot, fox, et al. Most of those animals were quite decent and intelligent by comparison. Miners die in disgusting holes in the ground gouging jewels just to decorate some shallow female parasite hanging off the arm of a brutal gangster or dictator. Great ethics.

Just 19th century Europe's consumption of whale oil and bone, the decimation of the seal population - pretty gross, no? How many million critters today are tortured and mutilated, not just for a medical benefit, but in laboratory 'testing' to make sure 'madame' does not have an adverse reaction to her expensive balms, lotions, moisturizers and soaps and the like. Does vanity know any limits for women (and pretend women?) except on the moon and perhaps Jupiter? I doubt it. I could go on and on, but you do get it, don't you.

I can sum this up, more or less, as "the cosmetics industry has done some ethically questionable things to satisfy a social demand for artificial beauty and highlighting of feminine features". Not really an original argument. Add to this my argument about normative contingency, and you've basically got a big, steaming pile of "so what?"

If women just went back to humble basket weaving and cooking with an Appalachian skillet, they'd stop breeding children who demand to be bribed with expensive, wasteful junk toys so that some wretched housewife can feel her spoiled brats 'love' her. If black was a good enough color for Henry Ford, it should be good enough for Mrs Obama.

And this is just blatantly sexist. You're basically trying to over-correct for the "evils" of cosmetic culture by reasserting the necessity of traditional and stereotypical gender roles without providing a basis upon which to make claims about their legitimacy.

Couldn't agree more. :D
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 8:05:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:50:13 AM, reddj2 wrote:
At 4/27/2011 11:23:10 PM, racist wrote:


-get laid
-get money
Your right we should just sit around all day and do nothing .Cheers!!!


At last! An intelligent and deeply thought out assessment. Cheers!
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 8:18:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 3:13:45 AM, Immortality wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:46:38 AM, racist wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:08:27 AM, Immortality wrote:
At 4/27/2011 11:47:23 PM, racist wrote:
At 4/27/2011 11:33:58 PM, Immortality wrote:
The above response, defeats the entire purpose of your prior argument. :)

Not in the slightest. I'm in the NATURE camp of nature/nurture. People used to get persecuted for being left handed. Many reasons for advantage being taken of the poor southpaw, but science didn't enter into it. It was about politics of the village, nothing less. A guy finds a large diamond and hires servants. Slavery or business? A woman wears a baby seal fur. Yes, the critter was murdered, but she loves the fur and that's it. She maybe nails a better heeled guy than if she wore a plastic skunk hide. Where's the harm? I think we get the drift, no? I'm exercising non conformist incorrectness and my right to free expression. Good economy. "Vanity raping the planet" is not a judgmental angst belief. It's overstating the bleedin' obvious, I would ov fought, y' know, Guv. Cheers!
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 8:29:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Just out of curiosity - is your alarm, distress and annoyance over what something really important to you? I would have thought, like a nervous tic it was a pretty trivial sort of issue, since everyone else seems to hold back the vitriol. But maybe that's just me. Is this a medical, psychiatric, social or other thing? Were you held captive by some psychotic typographer or kidnapped and made to proof read for a gang of extremist, militant political typesetters? Were you tortured by a Jewish art director? I'm really interested. Cheers!
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 8:41:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 3:59:54 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If you want me to try tackling your argument though, I guess I can take away the tags.

At 4/27/2011 11:23:10 PM, racist wrote:


And this is just blatantly sexist. You're basically trying to over-correct for the "evils" of cosmetic culture by reasserting the necessity of traditional and stereotypical gender roles without providing a basis upon which to make claims about their legitimacy.

I can get credentials in a college to become a registered, bona-fide degree carrying biologist, biochemist, archaeologist, or physicist. Danged if I can get the bit of paper that recognizes me as a 'Sexist, Racist, Extremist or Terrorist'. Which universities would cater to such needs, do you reckon, in your ambit of vast experience? As for my 'intentions' - you might need to upgrade your "Acme" Telepathy Tron mind reader. It definitely needs new spark coil. I think, as would most rational beings, that a lifetime of observation and experience was a pretty good basis upon which to give a definite 'maybe' on swag of stuff, no? Non expert opinion is still a crime free zone, yes? Cheers!

Solomon_Kane
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 6:04:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 11:23:10 PM, racist wrote:
I could start with Eve, but I'll make it Cleopatra. If we took nothing but the Egypt of Biblical times, the stats would be overwhelming. Consider the number of exotic animals slaughtered for their pelts and feathers alone. For some ultimate good of human society? No, just so a bored suburban 'queen' (housewife) can swan around and show off her ill gotten status and cheap gains. I won't labor the point. How many baby seals got their heads bashed in so that some female 'personality' or 'celebrity' could stake a shallow claim for excessive gaudiness? Add also, bear, marmot, fox, et al. Most of those animals were quite decent and intelligent by comparison. Miners die in disgusting holes in the ground gouging jewels just to decorate some shallow female parasite hanging off the arm of a brutal gangster or dictator. Great ethics.

Just 19th century Europe's consumption of whale oil and bone, the decimation of the seal population - pretty gross, no? How many million critters today are tortured and mutilated, not just for a medical benefit, but in laboratory 'testing' to make sure 'madame' does not have an adverse reaction to her expensive balms, lotions, moisturizers and soaps and the like. Does vanity know any limits for women (and pretend women?) except on the moon and perhaps Jupiter? I doubt it. I could go on and on, but you do get it, don't you. If women just went back to humble basket weaving and cooking with an Appalachian skillet, they'd stop breeding children who demand to be bribed with expensive, wasteful junk toys so that some wretched housewife can feel her spoiled brats 'love' her. If black was a good enough color for Henry Ford, it should be good enough for Mrs Obama.


lol

The topic seems not quite so damning, when set against the backdrop of societal expectation and bias. Had women not been traditionally relegated to the status of inferiors, to be viewed in terms only of objectification, then perhaps the 'vanity' would have become 'self respect'. The difference being that the one is personal choice, where the other remains a hangover of brutal oppression.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 7:25:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 6:04:33 AM, Solomon_Kane wrote:
At 4/27/2011 11:23:10 PM, racist wrote:
lol

The topic seems not quite so damning, when set against the backdrop of societal expectation and bias. Had women not been traditionally relegated to the status of inferiors, to be viewed in terms only of objectification, then perhaps the 'vanity' would have become 'self respect'. The difference being that the one is personal choice, where the other remains a hangover of brutal oppression.

When viewed through extreme politico socialist spectacles, there is little that cannot be pigeonholed and translated to conform to a Greens/Marxist ideological mold. Nice little cupcakes all in a row from McLenin's. Strolling the streets, malls and village market places, however, it is plain to see that, persuasion offered and accepted readily by the female of the species is as traditional as birth and death. Bright, gaudy trinkets and expertly placed flattery work just as well as TV advertising hooks and snares as do lures and decoys in the fish pool and the duck pond. Thus it shall endure and continue until the sun grows old, weak and dark as ourselves. In other words - I've gotten used to an imperfect world - don't bugger it up for me now. Cheers!
Solomon_Kane
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 5:24:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 7:25:30 AM, racist wrote:
At 4/29/2011 6:04:33 AM, Solomon_Kane wrote:
At 4/27/2011 11:23:10 PM, racist wrote:
lol

The topic seems not quite so damning, when set against the backdrop of societal expectation and bias. Had women not been traditionally relegated to the status of inferiors, to be viewed in terms only of objectification, then perhaps the 'vanity' would have become 'self respect'. The difference being that the one is personal choice, where the other remains a hangover of brutal oppression.

When viewed through extreme politico socialist spectacles, there is little that cannot be pigeonholed and translated to conform to a Greens/Marxist ideological mold. Nice little cupcakes all in a row from McLenin's. Strolling the streets, malls and village market places, however, it is plain to see that, persuasion offered and accepted readily by the female of the species is as traditional as birth and death. Bright, gaudy trinkets and expertly placed flattery work just as well as TV advertising hooks and snares as do lures and decoys in the fish pool and the duck pond. Thus it shall endure and continue until the sun grows old, weak and dark as ourselves. In other words - I've gotten used to an imperfect world - don't bugger it up for me now. Cheers!

It's hardly a question of perfection, now is ?

Rather the acknowledgement of historical inertia. True, we have the offshoot of ideology which presupposes some future time of perfection, but even then, not literally. And apathy is stagnation. You needn't settle for less.