Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I don't see mutual respect for your fellow man as hypocritical...where about am i being so?
It appears you dislike corporate women as described because of their beliefs about housewives.
they believe housewives are lame
you believe they are lame
more just a comment that people have the right to believe whatever they want
Originally posted by queeq
I don't think religion invented the patriarchal system though. Times change, and whatever's at hand to excercise influence or power (the latter doesn't apply here though) will be used by people to get their way. And to be quite honest, economics have always been major driving forces behind customs and changes.
ya, I agree with that generally. Especially the economics thing
Originally posted by inimalist
It appears you dislike corporate women as described because of their beliefs about housewives.they believe housewives are lame
you believe they are lame
You are mistaken- I do not dislike corporate women, I simply choose that as an example of a highpowered woman. Corporate Woman are what they are and Housewives are what they are. Can't everyone respect that?
Originally posted by inimalist
more just a comment that people have the right to believe whatever they want
Yes they do, but they don't have the right to insult other people because of what the other person does.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Yes they do, but they don't have the right to insult other people because of what the other person does.
we are probably going to have to disagree on this one
being allowed to insult is covered in freedom of expression
we both do agree on the moral principal, however, my take on another person's morals are irrelevant to whether they should be allowed to behave in any fashion.
Freedom of Expression is always limited.
You can never have total freedom of speech- however indeed some women can bully other women because they deem them to be inferior.
However, don't you look forward to the day when there is equal respect for the housewife as the prime minister, for the bin man and the brain surgeon, for the princes and the proletariat?
But theoretically, you could strive to be the best at your position.
If you like being a garbage man, you could be the best garbage man there ever was and become the king of the garbage men.
The thing is, some people just love their jobs, and that's why they chose that certain job. Some people just failed and didn't pay attention at school and have to work on a low salary job that receives less respect.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Freedom of Expression is always limited.
indeed, and we can argue the borders all you want. I'd think something like confidential troop movements or violent/hateful expression would be they gray region however, not personal opinions about other ways of life.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
However, don't you look forward to the day when there is equal respect for the housewife as the prime minister, for the bin man and the brain surgeon, for the princes and the proletariat?
totally unrelated, but yes, of course
I am not arguing that women in high power jobs and dedicated to their careers are any better than mother's of 10.
Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, and we can argue the borders all you want. I'd think something like confidential troop movements or violent/hateful expression would be they gray region however, not personal opinions about other ways of life.totally unrelated, but yes, of course
I am not arguing that women in high power jobs and dedicated to their careers are any better than mother's of 10.
It isn't unrelated because that is what my original post was about- respect, women and men should not look down on other women and men because of the job they do.
Anyway, we agree on the Freedom of Expression thing anyway I believe. Ofcourse women can be against women who are housewifes, but I still think it is detrimental to their cause of female equality and would always defend a woman's life choice from the abuse of someone else.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavRespect as humans, yes. Respect for their job, no. I'd find that quite ridiculous, actually.
Freedom of Expression is always limited.You can never have total freedom of speech- however indeed some women can bully other women because they deem them to be inferior.
However, don't you look forward to the day when there is equal respect for the housewife as the prime minister, for the bin man and the brain surgeon, for the princes and the proletariat?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavOf course, they are people.
Ok, but thats just a stupid view-Do you respect people who clean sewers?
Oh, and their work is really ****ing important, too, I wouldn't do that.
As I said, I respect the people for being people. But their actions as well as their jobs do change that respect. Respect isn't and shouldn't be a constant for everyone. Some jobs are more important and better than others.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
It isn't unrelated because that is what my original post was about- respect, women and men should not look down on other women and men because of the job they do.Anyway, we agree on the Freedom of Expression thing anyway I believe. Ofcourse women can be against women who are housewifes, but I still think it is detrimental to their cause of female equality and would always defend a woman's life choice from the abuse of someone else.
there was never any argument there
as much as I enjoy feminist narratives, I feel I know where to draw the line. I'm not one for traditional values, especially for women, but there is no reason to attack those who choose it for themselves
i guess my point was that the rights of the disrespectful as just as important as the rational
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, nice to see you again queeq 😛was it the huns or the mongols who had the amazing calvary archers?
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Anyway my point was that these techniques pre-dated Medival warfare techniques. In fact I think hit and run is like democracy...humans develop it when the need arises. 😆
Well, they contributed greatly. First by driving many Goths into Roman territory, which spawned the Visigoths and the Goths led by Geiseric who took over a large chunk in France and North Africa. Then by wreaking havoc under Atilla's rule, causing a lot of damage and great military losses, allowing the Goths to expand their territory even more, decreasing once more the tax income for the Romans with which they paid their armies. When the Hunnic Empire fell, the Goths across the Danube rose in power and also threatened the Roman Empire.
They were maybe not always the active cause, but in general if the Huns had never moved to Europe north of the Danube, the Roman Empire may have lasted much longer.
Originally posted by queeq
Well, they contributed greatly. First by driving many Goths into Roman territory, which spawned the Visigoths and the Goths led by Geiseric who took over a large chunk in France and North Africa. Then by wreaking havoc under Atilla's rule, causing a lot of damage and great military losses, allowing the Goths to expand their territory even more, decreasing once more the tax income for the Romans with which they paid their armies. When the Hunnic Empire fell, the Goths across the Danube rose in power and also threatened the Roman Empire.They were maybe not always the active cause, but in general if the Huns had never moved to Europe north of the Danube, the Roman Empire may have lasted much longer.
That may be so, but its only hypothetical- there were many factors involving the collapse of Rome- which it never really did in some ways. Its power lingers on to this day.
Originally posted by queeq
The Huns were the cause of the Fall of the Roman Empire, that lasted for almost 500 years. Quite impressive.