Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

[Siggie]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

bel⋅lig⋅er⋅ent
2. of warlike character; aggressively hostile; bellicose: a belligerent tone.

con⋅de⋅scend⋅ing
showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority. (Sounds like arrogant to me)

You just can't help yourself huh? Just because the word hostile is part of the definition of belligerent doesn't make them the same. At best they are semantically related, but aren't even synonyms. And not everyone who is arrogant is condescending, thus those are not interchangeable either. See that little bit about patronizing? That's important too; They don't just toss extra words into definitions in an effort to be verbose.

Wow, more threats..??

It's clear that if I don't tell you to stop, you'll carry on indefinitely. I am not threatening you. I asked you nicely and now I'm telling you to quit it with the frivolous arguments and stick to the topic of the thread because we have departed from the topic entirely at this point. We need some semblance of order here... I'm asking as a moderator. Do not reply to this to tell me you're not afraid of me, that I'm threatening you, or with some other defiant comment. Just stop arguing for the sake of arguing. This is at least the third time I'm asking; I won't ask you again. And no, I'm not kidding.

And the same applies to the ongoing argument with Pedro. Distill it down to the relevant, ON TOPIC, points and carry on from there. Pedro, do the same please?

[levon]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

I explained myself how many times, and most historians don't call us that, ignorant people watching Indiana damn Jones do, I suggest consultign a Codex or not to waste my time.

Did I say historians, or Anthropologists..? Damn, now you're mixing and matching these two???

Labour = work done in production to benefit society or trade.

My point is women were often in all societies allowed to work and even participate in the military this changed with Capitalism, have you heard of the putter out system or not?

Wow, somehow I don't remember ever saying that women should not be allowed to work, or weren't allowed to work before. But its a great method of argument, make it seem as if I say something, then argue with that.

You wanted to point out that societies laws that are sexist are neccessary for empires to exist and evolve, I proved to you laws can exist contradictory to that and the empire will succeed, hence I call bullxxxx.

Wow, again..? When did I explicitly or implicitly say that sexist laws are necessary for empires to exist and evolve.?? I don't recall ever saying that. So how did you prove me wrong when I didn't say anything like that...?

Ultimately I feel like facepalming because clearly you don't read my posts properly.

Clearly........ (you done read my posts as well)....?

[levon]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

You didn't understand my point which was that small a difference only matters if it falls right on a cutoff in which case, even a 1 pt difference would become "important".

So what is the cutoff for determining whether two groups of people are of equal intelligence..????

And again I say SO WHAT?

BIG WORDS, huh? Way to make a point.

This is so pointless and childish.

Wow, another insult..??

Yes, there's consensus. You should look at the scientific literature when you want information and not at the more biased media.

Ok, so climate-gate was the result of biased media???

Qualified to die at war? Ability to die a qualification? Both men and women are free to enlist!
You just keep talking about draft. If that's the only condition under which your theory holds then say so.

Did I say qualified to die at war, or have the responsibility to protect one's country??? I have mentioned the draft many times, btw

Let's try this a different way...
If the draft only applies to men and women get the "privilege" of being exempt from mandatory military service, what right are you proposing we have to give up to enjoy that privilege? The right to equality in any sense? So, if women don't get drafted we have to be discriminated against in any and all regards because as you said "equality is all or nothing?"
What sort of sense does that make? By the way you keep pointing to draft, draft, draft, go die at war, etc. You're arguing that because women are not subject to the draft, then men have cart blanche to deny a woman every right, down to self-determination, because her government won't draft her?

Yep, so if you want equal rights, start be lobbying your government to draft women into the army as well, and in equal numbers.

No not simple enough. This illustrates further that you're just making stuff up.

Great, I'm making stuff up now.... (Insult yet again)

To be free we can't have anyone care about us? The way you state in your first example, the responsibility and privilege are opposites.

There is a difference between care for you and care about you.
And yes, a responsibility and privilege are opposites.

Your child example doesn't work. Parents have a legal and moral duty to care for their children. It is not a privilege of the child to be cared for. Yet you claim, it's me who doesn't understand what these words mean.

Parents don't have a legal duty to take care of their children, they can hand them off to adoption centers or orphanages whenever they want.

Parents have the responsibility of caring for their children, but children have the privilege of being taken care of by their parents.

So, the disabled and those who don't serve in the military have no right to vote? And in order to vote we give up the privilege of having someone else do what for us? Vote for us or protect the country for us? Neither follows logically (and I mean formal logic), such that that is the necessary conclusion.

Men as a group have the responsibility of protecting the country, and women as a group do not (except in Israel). Those who didn't serve at one time, may be asked to serve later, because they have the responsibility. The disabled are an exception, and unless the majority of the population are disabled, it makes no sense to bring them into the argument.

Everything is about war and defense for you...

Look back, our entire Armenian history is about war and defense.

Again, so how is it that corporations and people who don't serve can own land then? By your logic this is impossible, yet they do... So, your premises are wrong.

I believe KanadaHye answered that.

You said something ludicrous about needing laws to enforce that and the rights of the family and I pointed out that that doesn't make sense because, among other things, it's not feasible.

Did I say that, gosh, I certainly don't remember writing anything like that.

Your own rigidness of mind is confusing you.

Back to insults again...??

It's not a contradiction. You just keep trying to nail me down as having said something I didn't say. Keep trying.

I assure you, I'm not trying to nail you down.

So, women who are the providers are "acting like men"? And men who don't get drafted off to war are not men? Have I got that right?

Being drafted is a responsibility, as is being a provider. These are responsibilities that have traditionally been handed to men. Women that take on those responsibilities are acting like men. Men who evade those responsibilities are not acting like men.

Please also note, that not getting drafted is entirely different from evading the draft when you know your country needs you.

Knock it off!

Another threat..??

I said how much. I said the amount is determined by what level of error is acceptable to us. We decide. If you don't care about being wrong a lot then you'd need very little information.

Then, when you give more than "very little information" expect a judgment based on more than "very little information"

Do you not realize that hostile and belligerent are not the same thing? Neither are arrogant and condescending. I chose the words I meant. And you may find it offensive that I said the tone of your post was belligerent and condescending, but that doesn't make it a personal insult. If I wanted to hide, I wouldn't have said anything at all.

bel⋅lig⋅er⋅ent
2. of warlike character; aggressively hostile; bellicose: a belligerent tone.

con⋅de⋅scend⋅ing
showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority. (Sounds like arrogant to me)

Does it seem like I'm intimidated by you in the least?

Strong woman eh..?

Don't carry on about anything else.[/b]

Wow, more threats..??

So to recount, 2 insults, 2 threats, and one instance of declaring herself as not intimidated. Feminist watch alert has reached red.

[Pedro Xaramillo]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

I'm sorry, I never said that explicitly or implicitly. My arguments have been from a social point of view. Where you got that statement is a mystery to me, perhaps a product of your imagination?



You called yourself something, academics call you something else, and you're making an argument with my based entirely on that distinction. whatever...



And which labor might that be? You mean being a provider and dying at war are concepts alien to your civilization, to mine and to society in general? Really?

I explained myself how many times, and most historians don't call us that, ignorant people watching Indiana damn Jones do, I suggest consultign a Codex or not to waste my time.

Labour = work done in production to benefit society or trade.

My point is women were often in all societies allowed to work and even participate in the military this changed with Capitalism, have you heard of the putter out system or not?

You wanted to point out that societies laws that are sexist are neccessary for empires to exist and evolve, I proved to you laws can exist contradictory to that and the empire will succeed, hence I call bullxxxx.

Ultimately I feel like facepalming because clearly you don't read my posts properly.

[Pedro Xaramillo]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

And this is relevant/important how? Oh DreDre... as I end up telling you again and again tie it in please.

Are you saying that if this didn't happen, women still wouldn't be in the workforce? That in a way they did help with the war? Something entirely different?



Ay Bedros... Did he drive you to battling minor details that aren't important to the main topic of the thread too?
*tosses you an asprin and a Guinness*

Hehehe, yeah he did, but the asprin never works, dunno if Im allergic or not, I'll tell the bar to trade it for a shot and a brew and keep em coming, works when debating minor details when people don't listen to the first post

[levon]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

Levon, indzi ge mertsenesgor I'd help out on your argument but doesn't look like you need any help. I'll just follow along and pick up the pieces left behind.

Merci aper jan, you're doing a good job of it.

[levon]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

Because you like sexist laws, we never had them,

I'm sorry, I never said that explicitly or implicitly. My arguments have been from a social point of view. Where you got that statement is a mystery to me, perhaps a product of your imagination?

WE never called ourselves Aztec as an Empire, as tribal refugees WE called ourselves Aztecs, as an empire we called ourselves MEXICA, hence why it's called Mexico. I explained it to you now several times and even taught you some of my language, I hope you get it now.

You called yourself something, academics call you something else, and you're making an argument with my based entirely on that distinction. whatever...

Codices are the early documents the Spaniards wrote when observing Mexica society, my point with all this is there was no Gender Devision of Labour, hence what you are suggesting is alien to our civilization, to yours and to society in general, much of the labour you praise was done by women to before the birth of the Industrial Revolution, Capital and Lex Germanicus

And which labor might that be? You mean being a provider and dying at war are concepts alien to your civilization, to mine and to society in general? Really?

[levon]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

You obviously feel comfortable with displaying your sexist beliefs and that speaks volumes about the person you are. Everyone has the right to think anyways they want but the line is drawn when the thoughts turn to action and effect other people.

I'm happy, you didn't call me racist this time. Finally you understand.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

And this is relevant/important how? Oh DreDre... as I end up telling you again and again tie it in please.

Are you saying that if this didn't happen, women still wouldn't be in the workforce? That in a way they did help with the war? Something entirely different?

You were telling Levon that everything he says is about war and it is. You live in a country that is constantly in a state of war (for being a superpower) but you don't see or feel an ounce of it. You aren't taxed for it because China is essentially funding the entire US military. You also may not be exposed to its damaging effect on the entire economy because again, you aren't supporting a family.

Women weren't in the workforce because there weren't jobs for them. Men made enough salary to provide for the household so the role of women at the time was to increase the population. When the U.S. entered World War II, women worked in the plants to produce jeeps/military vehicles for the war effort. This is what brought many women into the work force. Obviously, some men died so the women became providers for the family.

As far as corporations who don't serve owning land... they are owned by wealthy people who don't have to answer to anyone and will always have others fighting their wars for them whether it be men, women or children... they couldn't care less.

[Siggie]

.

Actually, during WWII while the men went to battle, the women had to take over the auto plants back home in Detroit. This is what actually brought many women into the work force.

And this is relevant/important how? Oh DreDre... as I end up telling you again and again tie it in please.

Are you saying that if this didn't happen, women still wouldn't be in the workforce? That in a way they did help with the war? Something entirely different?

Because you like sexist laws, we never had them, just because society viewed one thing doesn't mean the law made by learned men was the same because some ignorant fool thought one way.

WE never called ourselves Aztec as an Empire, as tribal refugees WE called ourselves Aztecs, as an empire we called ourselves MEXICA, hence why it's called Mexico. I explained it to you now several times and even taught you some of my language, I hope you get it now.

Codices are the early documents the Spaniards wrote when observing Mexica society, my point with all this is there was no Gender Devision of Labour, hence what you are suggesting is alien to our civilization, to yours and to society in general, much of the labour you praise was done by women to before the birth of the Industrial Revolution, Capital and Lex Germanicus

Ay Bedros... Did he drive you to battling minor details that aren't important to the main topic of the thread too?
*tosses you an asprin and a Guinness*