Chop those men to bits! 55 replies

Please wait...

Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

Another news bulletin from the "model socialist state". http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602220826.asp I especially like the part about the proposed "man tax" - men should take "collective responsibility" for rape.:uhoh: I fould this especially insightful

What does it mean when a movement wants simultaneously to formalize gay marriage, equate marriage with mere registered partnerships, equate registered partnerships with mere cohabitation, and then abolish marriage itself? It seems contradictory, but it all makes perfect sense once you realize that Sweden’s social liberals don’t support either gay marriage or registered partnerships out of any affection for marriage itself. On the contrary, Sweden’s social left is simply using gay marriage as a lever to achieve the abolition of marriage itself.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, the socialists realized that their countries would share the same fate unless they accepted, or at least partially accepted, capitalism. Though their economic ideals are shattered, they are still determined to push through their social ideals - i.e. involve the government in every conceivable aspect of a person's life. Once marriage is gone, the government child care services will have complete control - and can mold their ideals into the young, impressionable minds of children. But like their economic ideas, their social ideas are also flawed. The original marriage system had a lot of advantages for men. The "gender neutral co-habitational co-partnership" offers absolutely nothing to men. This partially explains the declining European birth rate. The divorce rate is also a factor. Its very difficult to convince a man to have children with you if he knows that the marriage probably won't last a year. I think the last nail in the socialist coffin will be the male birth control pill. Sounds absurd, doesn't it? But scientists are working on it, just like they worked on the female birth control pill and the erectile dysfunction pill. It will be interesting to see what happens to the birth rate once men have complete control over whether or not there are any kids. more on this late.r




Pb2Au

Droolworthy

50 XP

4th October 2004

0 Uploads

8,461 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

The further institutionalization of marraige might be something to raise an eyebrow at, but you have to realize that the bottom line of marraige is really caring about your partner. Sweden (or any other nation) can pass as many laws making marraige as liberal and un-binding as possible, but if a couple love eachother the marraige will last far longer than, as you predict, a year. And the divorce rate is a confounding variable, not a factor. In America the divorce rate is orders of magnitude higher than in Europe, but the population of the U.S. is growing (so is the population of Europe, despite what you might stubbornly hold, MA). If such a high divorce rate clearly cannot unbalance the population growth in America, a lower divorce rate is not likely to be the cause of similar problems in Europe.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago

Hmmm, yes - the chicken and the egg question. Divorce may be a symptom, not a cause of Europe's problems. Excellent point. ;)

The further institutionalization of marraige might be something to raise an eyebrow at, but you have to realize that the bottom line of marraige is really caring about your partner. Sweden (or any other nation) can pass as many laws making marraige as liberal and un-binding as possible, but if a couple love eachother the marraige will last far longer than, as you predict, a year.

If this was really true, how come marriages 100 years ago (which were often done more out of economic expediency than actual "true love") - lasted so much longer than they do now?

is growing (so is the population of Europe, despite what you might stubbornly hold, MA).

I never said the population is shrinking - I said the birth rate. Longer lifespans and less disease means the death rate goes down dramatically. So while the population remains stable, the ratio between old and young Europeans continues to increase alarmingly. You can see this on a smaller scale in the local church I go to. Church memberships ebb and flow - one church might have a huge membership while one a few blocks away closes from lack of members. Our membership level is stable - but the ratio between old and young is disturbing. About 60% of the congregation is elderly. There simply aren't enough younger people to make up for it. So just because the total population numbers remain the same, doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Fortunately, your governments have noticed the problem, so they may find a solution to it. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546441.shtml

I find it interesting that radical socialists have seized gay marriage - a legitimate movement, and have twisted it to their own political agenda.

How about that law they want to pass requiring men to do an equal share of the childraising. Sheesh! What next?

Perhaps they'll outlaw the "missionary position", because the man is on top of the woman, implying that he is "better" than her. :rolleyes:

*Oops. Ignore the last paragraph. I don't want to give thme any more ideas.* :lol:




Pb2Au

Droolworthy

50 XP

4th October 2004

0 Uploads

8,461 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago
lasted so much longer than they do now?

Mainly because wives were expected to subject themselves completely to their husbands, stay in the house and take care of children, and generally be treated like lessers, not equals, in the matrimonial union. I say that society has made progress (maybe at the expense of a higher divorce rate- but that's also because people rush into marraiges at an earlier average age than a century ago).




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago
Pb2AuMainly because wives were expected to subject themselves completely to their husbands, stay in the house and take care of children, and generally be treated like lessers, not equals, in the matrimonial union.

Sadly, there's no evidence of this in most civilized societies. Greek literature is filled with stories of men getting henpecked by their wives. Women were not the delicate little flowers that feminists would have you believe they were.

I say that society has made progress (maybe at the expense of a higher divorce rate-

The family is the building block of society. The Black Family was destroyed - now their neighborhoods are dangerous ghettos. The lower class British family was destroyed - now they are living in slums. I would hardly call that "progress".

but that's also because people rush into marraiges at an earlier average age than a century ago).

People used to get married at 16 or 17. Now they do it at more like 30.




[CoUk]niu

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

12th March 2004

0 Uploads

2,110 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago
Machiavelli's ApprenticeSadly, there's no evidence of this in most civilized societies. Greek literature is filled with stories of men getting henpecked by their wives. Women were not the delicate little flowers that feminists would have you believe they were.

Reason enough to never marry.Nagging is not only universal,it`s timeless.:)

"People used to get married at 16 or 17. Now they do it at more like 30." Well,if your local priest threatens you with fire and brimstone if you screw without being married it would pave the way for hasty decisions.Must be very much like buying a car without a testdrive.




Locomotor

in spite of erosion

50 XP

13th May 2004

0 Uploads

3,490 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago

Marriage has been trivialized. An utter disappointment.




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago

Machiavelli's ApprenticeWith the fall of the Soviet Union, the socialists realized that their countries would share the same fate unless they accepted, or at least partially accepted, capitalism.[/quote]

Once again, someone's confusing socialism in general with communism. Not all socialists are communist you know.

And otherwise.... The reason why marriages used to last a lot longer is because they were arranged by the parents of the couple and they had to adjust weather they liked it or not.

[quote=Machiavelli's Apprentice]Once marriage is gone, the government child care services will have complete control - and can mold their ideals into the young, impressionable minds of children.

That sounds like a quote from 1984 :rolleyes: I don't quite understand how that would make them able to as you say "mold their ideals into the minds of children" My parents aren't married and the government hasn't molded my mind yet....




Locomotor

in spite of erosion

50 XP

13th May 2004

0 Uploads

3,490 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago

It's called "slippery slope" karst. I can guarantee, the bottom of the slope in question will be a much darker reality than anything Bush might be able to dream up.

Bork's book Slouching Towards Gommorah illistrated this issue quite well. Just finished it, good read.




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#10 12 years ago

LocomotorIt's called "slippery slope" karst. I can guarantee, the bottom of the slope in question will be a much darker reality than anything Bush might be able to dream up.

Bork's book Slouching Towards Gommorah illistrated this issue quite well. Just finished it, good read.

I appreciate your use of metaphors, but please, elaborate a little, i don't quite know what you're trying to say....