Let's Have an Intelligent Chat, Shall we?

Well, as long as the chat stays intelligent does the subject really matter?

I agree with Bret... seems like the subject shifted, but it's still clipping along intelligently... everyone's wry wit actually included. ;)

And Kaitlin, I think most of my female friends agree that often women are women's own worst enemies.

Even in my own work (social work... which is dominated by women) I've seen my female coworkers get along just fine with male coworkers at the same or lower levels of positions. Male coworkers likewise get along just fine with each other. But often competition between female coworkers would just get caddy and vicious.

And for another example, there have been lots of polls regarding women politicians where men have said they'd be fine voting in a female senator, vice-president, and/or president, but women had considerably lower numbers in favor. Strange that!

Personally I think it's the fault of patriarchalism... too many millenia of mothers telling daughters (thanks to the societal morés imposed by fathers) that they had to compete against the other daughters for the choice sons, essentially placing their value as women not on themselves but on the type of man that they could attract (and keep).

And despite what social progress we've made in recognizing women's inherent worth, those older, more degradative values are unfortunately still being passed on more often than not. But that's just my theory.

I'm a reincarnationist, though. So I have a vested interest in making sure everyone's as supported and equal as possible because I simply don't know in what gender or culture I'll return next lifetime, or even ten lifetimes from now. Makes one wonder, admittedly. ;)

Kevin: I am currently seeing someone, but may leave for a sexy guy in a kilt any day.

*

Anyway I agree full heartedly with Miles (and his girlfriends), women are women’s own worst enemies. I know that girlfriends will turn on you at any moment and I know that guys tend to be more loyal and straightforward. Females are very competitive with each other when in actuality there are many more things to fight in the world than each other, such as chauvinistic ideals that still exist today.

I however think that the views woman get of each other come from growing up with mothers who were competetive, from girlfriends that stabbed them in the back at an early age (middle school, freshman year in high school), or sisters. I know that my mother always competed with me growing up and did not show me a good way for women to treat each other, and when my sister was 16 told my dad that he had to choose between my sister and her. That is not a way for a woman to act towords her daughter, but she was eliminating the competition and saw my dads attention or any other mans attention as "hers" and did not want us in the way. This got worse when I got into modeling and also worse as I got older and started getting attention from men. This is the reason that after my parents got divorced and I moved in with my mom that I had to move back in with my dads, she was simply incapable of not being competetive.

Men tend to get along with each other much more than women do, and I think it is because they have an understanding of parameters between each other, women are more vicious when it comes to getting what they want, it is a kind of "no holes barred" system. They are ruthless when it comes to each other, yet at the same time women are immediately capable of being a loyal and faithful lover from when they are teenagers.

What is sad is that it takes boys so long to grow up and appreciate what a good woman can offer them, and they are so into playing games (boys, not men) that they break the girls hearts who could have offered pure and undiluted true love and dedication. Then the girls are never really the same and cannot offer the same thing because of their emotional baggage.

In my experience women hardly ever cause the problem in relationships, it is boys. Women will hardly ever act out just to hurt someone unless they are given reason from their current boyfriend or they are acting out a vendetta against men in general, and once their heart is broken once their response is then always jaded. A girl who does not have trust or abandonment issues is hard to find when boys grow up into men and are ready to marry, by that time women are manipulative gold diggers who don’t really love the man, which ends in divorce, or the woman marries a boy who is not ready for such a commitment and then the marriage ends in divorce as well. This is why it is so hard to match people together, because women gain emotional and mental baggage as they get older and men grow up and lose old mental baggage as they get older, so by the time they are compatible there are more things standing in the way on the woman’s part.

These are just generalizations on how I see things, people may disagree, but keep in mind I am deciphering BOYS from MEN, so no one need be defensive, because if they are responsible and love their woman like they should and give her respect, they are obviously not BOYS and I am not referring to you.

Well, I'm carrying plenty of metal baggage, but I think men rationalise this baggage much better than most women and so we cope easily as we have more important things to concentrate on like putting the next meal on the table, not dwelling on the past.

Boys cause most problems because of indirect territory threats from their partner. So while it is the boy, the cause is his reaction to the girl. As men we tend to see things as possessions, territory, things to own and gain at a later date. A big house, a good car, a beautiful girl, whatever.

Boys are learning about this and only learn properly by losing territory, usually because the girl (not woman) is playing the learning game too.
Funny thing is that women are constantly playing games but it can be circumvented with the correct subliminal attitude and stance. I'm not saying I'm an expert but I know what I am talking about. It's quite easy for me to change a woman's mood or perception of me just by the way I change my self presentation. This is where the game evolves.

The problems arise when a man thinks he knows about women but actually doesn't, which is 99% of men 99% of the time. But then on the other hand women are just as bad. Thinking we can be changed, moulded into something new, better when all along it was the guy as he was who attracted them.

But it's not going to change, it's the way we are. Most men will happily plod along knowing we know nothing about women and women will plod along thinking changing men is the way to do things. Human nature.

(Im working on the most basic of levels here, so don't go getting offended)

A tidy home, sex and a hot meal?

It works both ways though, they get our cash, a home and security.

Yes, I know... sexist blah blah blah.

My situation is very different. Im 28 and retired, I do the majority of cooking, cleaning and all the ironing. (There is no way on earth that I will let her near my shirts. My girl is a radiogra[her at Colchester hospital, works full time and is doing really well in her chosen profession.

I'll soon be able to contribute more when, not if, I get published. But not much will change, afterall, she's still not going anywhere near my shirts with an iron.

Well, Id like to start out by saying comenting towards Kaitlin's comment. You said that I was wrong in saying that men have to "sign up". If you dont believe that they all have a draft number go ask anyone over the age of 20. My fiance has a card that says hes registered to vote and it has a number on it. Its for selective service. When men sign up to vote they have to sign up in case of a draft as well. Granted they might have started making women do the same, but I didnt get one, and im sure they wont make it madatory for us to sign up. Men it comes with being able to vote. Not equal. Another instance of not being equal is Title XI. Yes we got "equal chances and funding and teams etc." but it also has made it impossible for some EXCELLENT athletes to go to college and further on in life. Let me put it this way.

There are 4 guys on a track team and 4 girls. At the end of the year only 4 total kids can go to college. The boys have three Excellent runners they came in at 1, 2, and 3 in all sprinting events at States, so in fact they are the best in the state. On the girls side, the top girl is excellent running number 3 in the state. One of the best. The other three are just average, nothing special. Any other year the three boys and the one girl would go to college, but this year under title XI only the top two boys go. The top girl goes, and then some girl who isnt even that good of a runner gets to go, leaving the boy who busted his ass all year long and who deserves the scholarship in the dirt. THIS ISNT EQUAL! NOT FOR THAT BOY! if you earn the scholarship you should get it, not just because youre a girl or black or PURPLE! People dont seem to understand that.

Next point i want to make is that it isnt all about the attidudes passed down generation to generation. When I grew up, my mom told me I HAD to go to college and that housewives and secretaries were lowlifes and only for the morons of the world. When I wanted to join the military, she refused to hear me out when I said about Enlisting. Her response was "No way. the only way my daughter will ever join the military is through the college!" She didnt want me to be a manager. She wanted me to be some physisist or something like that. She didnt care that I didnt like school or math or science or actually anything other then gym class. She neglected the fact that had I signed up I would have been far better off then I am now with a whole year of nothing from college under my belt. Well nothing save the ability to belch the alphabet and funnel a beer, along with knowledge of some really awesome drinking games and the title of beer pong champs along with my roomie Jenni. I wanted this for myself. No one person ever insisted that i act or feel this way.

Lastly I agree with you brett. I feel more secure and happy knowing that theres a roof over my head a meal in my stomach and sex coming later on at night. I like to spend money on clothes that make me look nice and I LOVE to go buy just stuff! If something catches my eye I want it. I enjoy being able to have him provide for me in return for a clean house a good cooked meal and the babies (when i get around to having some of them) clean and asleep.

What it seems to be here is that Kaitlin and her accomplises, want to see all women working and proving to men that we are worth something. If your husband or boyfriend or fiancee doesnt think you are you probably know by now. Every night Zack gets home the first thing he does (regardless of the truth) is tell me how beautiful I am hug and kiss me and tell me he loves me. I trust him, and he has never hurt me. I wont say I'm completely trusting of his friends at school and work, but I know he'd tell me if something were to be wrong and happen. Thats the relationship we have from struggling over who was right and wrong and whose ego was bigger. I let him be the big man and me the little wife because it causes less problems. I dont fight and I know what I am capable of as does he. Theres no quarrels as to who can do more because we both help out and we both do our "duties".

and just as a varification the truth statement i made earlier is more like wether or not I look like crap not wether or not he actually loves me

"...Tidy home; I could live in a 1 car garage.
Sex; hey, its 2005 not 1905.
Hot meal; no one died feeding on peanut butter and jelly.
I was thinking more on the terms of giving her a little less to complain about ...... maybe..."

Well then live in a one car garage and have sex with whomever you want and eat peanut butter and jelly, but I want to be able to give my fiancee what he wants and be comfortable. I want to be secure knowing I'm the only one hes screwing. I'd like a nice car and a nice big house and all of that and you know he's paying for it and I'm living basically "rent free" so why shouldnt I help out? Trust me, if all I have to do is cook and clean and watch the babies, I'm never going to complain! I get what I want so why should I? And furthermore why shouldnt I give him what he deserves? Other then selfishness, I cant find a reason. Its not like I have 90 other things to do each day.

I think if womankind followed Sparta's lead we'd all be much happier.

Women would have equality, and have a job of their choice. No one would bother enforcing anything other the need to have a few kids to further the state's longevity.

Women can be what they want without having to force anything on anyone other than their bodies. And let's face it, no one would complain about that.

Instead we have inequality through equal rights, gender issues, race issues (less prevalent here in the UK) and so on. If only people concentrated on living life and doing their job instead of worrying how the colour of their skin, or a pair of (admittedly intoxicating) breats has on the world around them.

It would strengthen us a people as only the strongest would survive to. Survival of the fittest would once again actually mean something worthwhile outside of a wildlife documentary.

The only thing that would change is that the men would be soldiers as well as carry on their normal jobs (I think people would complain too much if we introduced a Helot-like system).

HAHA thats great Bret! I'm with you if you want! Lets go Helot-like System! (ok so I dont know what one of them is but... the rest sounds good!)

I enjoy my world and life so why, is all I want to know, do people force their beliefs on me and tell me I am wrong to feel that way? I dont plan on forcing my girls (when I have some) to be like mommie. No if they want to be the president, then I will have them watch cspan. If they want to be an arciologist... I will get em a shovel and a bucket and let them excavate a corner of the yard. Its not about anything other then wanting to do something you like. I wanted to be a housewife. I wanted to raise the children I wanted to not have to go to school. If I have to work I have 5 years of customer service/management service under my belt. I am capable of other things, but I dont want to be told that I am wrong or forced to believe something that I dont.

When I told my prof during a women's studies class that I believed that women have equal rights and that since we are now equal we need to stop fighting over inane items like being able to included in things like the boyscouts she went nuts. Its not right, we have the girl scouts, why isnt that good enough? And if I recall Juliet Low (i think thats her name the lady who started girl scouts of america) was a pioneer for womens rights as well. We should be Proud to be a girl scout not adament about being a boy scout.

for Love!

Hey don, I wasnt so much attacking you as I was illustrating to Kaitlin that even though some men could live like that, they shouldnt have to. That women should let other women provide (in a way) the comfortable and luxiourious lifestyle that the men THEY love deserve. I wasnt arguing with you. If it came off that way I am sorry, I also assumed it was directed towards my comment. Eh, yes I flew off the handle but I havent taken my good woman pills yet today! HAHA! no I'm cranky and just woke up.

Bret ....another example at how a women is quick to jump all over you with out knowing details....

Or just a mis-read *grins*

Don, Sweetheart, Bret was talking about it earlier. And So was kaitlin. I dont care what you two want to piss and moan over. I was appologizing and dear if you think I wasnt I will take it back. Lastly I want to be a woman. The whys I can answer... shoot.

God bless freedom of speech.

Spartan politics in a nutshell:

# Its aristocratic, or more properly, oligarchic, and war-geared regime, with a limited class of full-right citizens, the "Equals" (homoioi in Greek), whose role was mostly to defend the city in case of war, and among whom were chosen each year five ephors in charge of most of the day to day administration of the city, under the supervision of a "Council of the Elders" (gerousia), a body of 28 citizens aged over 60 elected for life by the assembly of the citizens by acclamation. The city also had two hereditary kings from two different families, endowed with mostly religious functions but also involved in political life through their membership in the Council of the Elders, one of whom was chosen as commander in chief in case of war.

# Its reliance on a form of slavery for survival : the citizens were not supposed to work or cultivate the earth. This role was attributed to a special class of enslaved people known as the "Helots", mostly made up of local people subjected by the Spartans, especially neighboring Messenians. In between the Equals and the Helots, was a population of half-grade citizens enjoying freedom but not citizenship, living in the countryside and surrounding villages as farmers, craftsmen or merchants, and participating in the army in separate units.

# Its "communist"-like system of ownership : land and Helots were owned by the state, not by the citizens. Land was alloted among citizens in lots called "kleroi", which were not inherited, but were supposed to go back to the state at the death of their "owner" to be reassigned to another citizen (though, over time, the system was more and more often bypassed and inequality eventually prevailed among the "Equals").

# Its special program of education for the citizens, the agogè, which lasted from the age of 7 to the age of 30 in common quarters under the supervision of the state, and was a prerequisite to enjoy the rights of a citizen. It focused primarily on physical education and the art of war, but there were also specific provisions for women and strict rules about marriage and procreation. It included occasional raids against the Helots in which future citizens were allowed to kill slaves, to prepare them for war in actual conditions. The last step of this education, reserved to the best ones, was known as the cryptia (from the Greek word meaning "hidden", "secret") and consisted in living alone for one year in the countryside and neighboring moutains without being seen by anyone but with the right to kill Helots (Megillus, the Lacedemonian partner of the Laws, lists some of the features of Spartan education, including the cryptia, at Laws, I, 633b-c).

# Its daily common meals, known as syssitia, reserved to citizens but for them mandatory, and to which they were required to bring their share lest they lose their citizenship.

and God Bless the law against public nudity

GOD BLESS US! EVERYONE!

im all for helot like stuff... sounds fun! Who are we gonna make into the slaves?

Yeah, this is where it gets a bit touchy.

I suppose in a way we already have this system to some degree. But I don't think it would go down too well if some of the holoioi were to go into the fields and kill randomly to become a real man, like in history.

Why not. I think it would be a good thing... we could eliminate parts of this society that are undesireable, and althought I cant actually say WHAT i would eliminate, some things would actually help overall.

Definitely, but there's always someone who is going to be offended. Personally I'd make all football hooligans, gang members, drug abusers, perfectly abled people who scrounge off the system and stupid people Helots as a matter of course.

Anyone not assertive enough to take their place among the holoioi would automatically become Helots too.

Well if you actually want to say who I would make helots:

I'd chose those that have committed crimes and are getting a free education in jail. Those that cannot contribute anything intellegent towards anything (the block heads of the world) and celebrities that cannot contribute their millions towards research. I'd include the sports figures like this as well. Those that I would eliminate would include the slow mentally and retarded physically. If a child was born defected they would be ritually (either set afloat in a raft or something not so kind) killed. The world we would create would have to be flawless in that aspect. I'm sorry but thats how I feel.

Im frightened by this conversation

Historically speaking, imperfect children were cast off a cliff, which is fine by me. (I have two poems on Sparta' He is Raised a Warrior and Who is She?)

Sportsmen would make effective soldiers and would have to give up everything to make them equal, so if they chose this course freely, fine, if not I'd strip them of everything and make them Helots too.

if the mentally handicapped could work a field, plough and reap... Helot, if not, over they go too.

As always, I'm harsh but fair.

Whats a helot??? Im a bit stupid see.

i said earlier i didnt want to say who i would because i didnt want to hurt anyone's feelings. I am sorry but in a perfect world, as you said Violaxcore it would be efficent, and no not just, but it would also be a perfect world correct? and there would be no room for imperfection. Its not gonna happen. Why not step on some toes and find out what people feel and how their world would be run. Want to know who else I would eliminate? I know I sound Hitlar-ish, but the blacks and colored people (i.e. anyone not white) I would want a world that was one race in an attempt to eliminate all revolts caused by "less equality" or anything like that. And since I am white irish/scotish girl... im not gonna kill off the whites right?

Define Just.

Is it Just that someone who cannot contribute in any way shape or form should be supported unconditionally? Is it just that they are costing tax payers money that could be spent on strengthening defenses, yielding better crops and so on?

Or is it just that that burden on society be removed? Is it just that we ensure the strength of our species rather than propogating weakness by allowing the weakest to procreate and not only make the species weaker, but cost us more at the same time?

(Katie, read the Spartan system. it's in there)

KATIE, SEE ABOVE POST ON SPARTA

furthermore, i agree with you about the retarded, if they can run a plow, the helot. I also agree that should someone become too vain they too should be stripped of everything and as well be a helot. this would provide a way to control the "government" like checks and balances. If one person tried to control too much they get cast down.

I'd eliminate the thought of race as an imperfection rather than the race itself.

If you were to remove Blacks / asians etc, why not remove ourselves?

The only problem is that with a government like that, revolt is inevitable.

Is it? The Spartans lasted an age without revolt.

gotta run i have work to do no doubt ill be back for more later... KEEP IT GOIN BRETT!

Oh i understand now thanx =)

The only thing that goes against running say... the whole world as a Spartan society is that there would be no need for the soldier element other than as a policing force. Which is actually preferrable thinking about it.

Hmm this requires more thinking.

That's how it worked mate. The Helots are 'ruled' by the holoioi (equals) in a fabricated slavery sytem. Do as you're told or die, basically.

There is a middle class too which ran life on a day to day basis. They also served the army in an auxilia system.

I'm not saying it's fair to everyone, but it worked for so long they must have been doing something right.

Moral thinking often clouds judgement when it conflicts another's morals.

Unsympatheic? Definitely, Callous? Furthest from. it's calculated, streamlined and with purpose.

Putting a time limit on welfare doesn't work. (havent got the time to go into but, but believe me for now)

"Is it just to take away someone's loved one?"

This is for the betterment of the State, The needs of many outweigh the needs of the few.

((off to cook dinner, back later.))

Wow- Dare to go to sleep and look how much you miss.

Alright then. First off about men and women (I have to revert, because I feel somewhat misunderstood about my previous post), I feel like girls grow up into manipulating and playing games, and it is all for security.

The role of girls historically and mentally in the mind of a man (they cant help it, this is how they see us) is that we are property, always "belonging" to someone. Until we are married off we "belong" to our fathers and our brothers, hence how generally protective they are of us. I have one brother and one sister, my brother always got to and does get to do whatever he wants and date whomever he wants/ have sex with whomever he wants, etc. And no one ever has anything to say about it. If my sister or I want to do anything or another guy looks at us wrongly in public my dad or brother would readily freak out. There are different degrees of this, but this is also why symbolically the father walks his daughter down the isle, to "give" her away.

Girls are territory to men, this is why they protect and serve them, this is also why they would die for them and went to war. To A. defend their country, and B. Defend their woman and their family. Women can get jealous or possessive, but for all intents and purposes it is very different than the mentality of a man for his girl. Girls can pass around boyfriends, no problem. When one is done with him (and the heartbreak is over) she wont necessarily care if her best friend is dating him 2 weeks later, for guys, they have rights to you forever, and none of their friends can EVER touch you without you becoming a slut and your friend just having sex with you, the relationship can never be more than that. It’s a boundary thing and the dynamics are totally different.

This is also why men are so concerned with sexual history, much more than women, but that's a whole nother post entirely.

I still stand by my theory that women get more and more manipulative with more mental and emotional baggage, as they get older and men lose much of it (the kind that would interfere with a relationship). Women know how to LOVE and NURTURE immediately, any girl that I know that has not had her heart broken could, and would if she had the chance and the right guy, love someone fully and be totally committed for life. The problem is that boys grow up into good boyfriend/ husband material, and women are "purer" wife material when they are younger. This is partially why they married women off so early to older men throughout history. Women become game players because their hearts get broken or men treat them like crap, they gain personal vendettas against men in general, and then they see them as somewhat of a wallet. Again, and listen closely guys, I'm going to tell you ALL you need to know about women, its all about SECURITY. Strictly. Emotional security, mental security, physical security, etc. If we are secure we are YOURS totally and 100%. There is nothing better you can give us. But a girl will sacrifice emotional and mental security for physical security as she gains more and more mental baggage, this is why there are gold diggers and women stay in unhappy marriages, their bills get paid and they have very few differing options that they would be content with, so they suck it up and stay for the physical security. If they have kids, this is doubly true.

This is going to sound somewhat silly or even pessimistic, however I am going to say it. You know what system society closest resembles?

Strip clubs. (Symbolically and figuratively, of course)

Life is one giant strip club, just not on such a concentrated scale, but girls grow into the strip club mentality, and it is subconscious most of the time, but quite frankly most women do have men figured out, and they know what to give them to get what they want. *Generalization.

Men seem to have an inability to understand women, but we are simple creatures in reality, we would just like you to think we are complicated. There are a few things that make us tick, and security in all forms is the biggest one. Women want to feel protected and safe, above all, and they nurture in return.

Earlier in this conversation people were joking about Ali's sudden shift in mood and approach, showing how easy women are to put off tilt, and then Bret said that he could control a woman’s reaction by slightly adjusting how she perceives him. This is so true.

Some women are moodier than others, but what you have to understand is that women are first and foremost REACTIVE. While men are PROACTIVE, or you could remove the "pro," either way. This is why women change with the tides, we observe things and pick up on everything. We make our judgments based on how someone "comes off" to us and how they make us "feel." If a man does something wrong, he may have NO idea that he did anything at all, and not the slightest clue WHAT he could have done. Little does he know he made a comment about his X girlfriend half an hour back, and his girlfriends’ mood is now TERRIBLE. She is being sarcastic, distant, manipulative, and will NOT tell him what he did. She assumes he should know, but men really don’t pay that much attention, ladies. You're better off just freaking SPILLING it, because he wont get it unless you do, and punishing him for nothing is just cruel and unjustified, because he really doesn’t know that his little tiny comment could make you that upset.

So we get pegged with the dreaded, "drama queen," label, but to be honest, we really deserve it. Girls are so temperamental.

The thing I like most about my boyfriend is that he inherently understands women, and he can control my every reaction to him, simply because he knows what his actions are going to stir in me. He knows that if all the sudden I am acting funny that he did something, most often unintentional, but I am not acting that way for NOTHING, not in my mind anyway. He knows how to handle it, and very few men ever could. Girls hardly ever do anything but love, nurture, and respect until they feel justified to do something else, from a current boyfriend or from a past heart break. This is why I disagree with Bret about boys reacting to girls, when girls are most reactive, whether the guy knows what he did or not.

I, personally, would love to be a stay at home mom and to just cook and clean, nurture and emotionally provide for my family. This is also what my boyfriend wants for me, he would prefer that I not work and be there for him and for our kids when we have them. Supporting him is worth his paying for my living expenses, and he wants to take care of me the biggest way he can. I think that if men are going to offer physical security to their woman that the woman is obligated to offer the same support to him by nurturing him and caring for him, that includes cleaning, dinner, and sex, however if a woman is working a full time job just like her man, then the tables must be turned and both of them need to help out, just like if the woman was working, the man would take care of the house, etc. So its not just WOMEN, its whoever carries the monetary support burden on their shoulders.

About equal rights: I don’t believe in total equality of PEOPLE. This means that I believe what you can do, versus what you cannot do, should not be dictated by race or gender, but by skill. For instance in the earlier example given by Ali, there are 4 spots for scholarship, and the 3 top boys are better than all the girls but 1. It’s not fair that 2 boys and 2 girls go, because the 3rd guy is better than the 2nd girl. Thus, determining by SKILL and not gender is the fair thing to do. Women should not be demoted in society because they have a vagina, but if their skill is less than a man in a certain field she should not come first because of it.

I am not for total equality throughout the world, and I think that the feminists are pushing it too far, I am for skill and intelligence dictating your place in society, however I do think that women deserve just as much respect and honor as men do regardless of if they are a housewife, secretary, or politician.

Discrimination (for instance against the 3rd boy) for equality (the 2nd girl getting his spot) is not the right thing and not a fair tradeoff.

Now about the Spartan system of government: This system simply could not work in today’s high tech society, in the days of simple society where all the jobs were was mainly agricultural and building that system worked well. Life was simpler, you raised your family, you ate, you fought, and you died. Those were the four accomplishments that any of those people could have hoped to make, don’t jump all over me, I am proving a point that requires slight underestimation, now life is so much vaster, there are too many jobs to instill a system like this, in today’s society everyone has to carry their own weight and add to it, the problem that we are running into now are the dead weights that society is carrying, yet every system has its fair amount of defection.

And weren’t we talking about Gandhi earlier? Now we are talking about warrior society lol. We all agreed earlier that peace was the best option, only when you are fighting aggression and unpredictability must you fight fire with fire. Ultimately the goal we have for the world is to fit cohesively together and stop ruining OUR planet and OUR resources and killing OUR own kind, or any other living thing. There is no point to it. Hopefully someday we will reach that point, but I think that America is enough like the Spartan system now to get some heat for it, the fact that we are so readily able to go to war is what people dislike about us, and they dislike our power. As for who the slaves would be, I would pick idiots. Idiots drive me nuts, and if anyone would have to be a slave for upper society it should be separated by intelligence.

When it comes to killing deformed or diseased babies, I somewhat agree, but I see both sides. I see kids in wheel chairs and feeding tubes with spit dripping down their chin and know that they are going to be that way for the rest of their lives, and who knows what’s going on in their head. They are going to be a financial drain on their parents and never be productive in society, so why are they here? What purpose do they serve? I don’t mean to sound insensitive but look at it logically.

And if we cast out weaklings, the deformed, and the sick, then ultimately the race would get stronger over time, we wouldn’t have serious diseases and deformities weeding throughout humanity, over time it would cease. Yet I know it’s insensitive to kill kids just because they aren’t "perfect." Doesn’t matter what I think; no one is going to condone it. There are too many humans rights activists out there who would slander this argument forever, but what kind of life does that kid in a wheel chair have? I would die before I would live like that, and it’s insensitive to keep them around for our own selfish reasons while society carries them.

Regarding women... I forgot entirely about the whole 'If you knew why I was angry I wouldn't be angry in the first place' thing. it's annoying as hell and I have kind of trained it out of my wife over time. If I do or say something wrong I expect to be told there and then, rectify the matter and move on. No hints, not bluffs. If you have a problem, you tell me straight up and we go from there. It's a philosophy that saves a few pointless petty arguments a month.

America as a Spartan system? Well, I'll start believing that when the threat of force compels people to act. The Spartans were so revered and RESPECTED that they went to war less times in 500 years than the US of A did last century.

The technology side is an interesting side as culture and artistic devolpment is something held in the lowest light by the Spartan system.

# At the beginning of his history of the war between Sparta and Athens, Thucydides (Histories, 1, 10) remarks that, were Sparta to be destroyed, future generations centuries later, judging by the remains of its buildings, would never imagin how powerful the city was, whereas were the same fate to happen to Athens, by the same criterion, one might judge it much more powerful it ever was!

Reverting to a Spartan system would remove much of the requirements that would bring about it's downfall.

The human rights activists believe wholeheartedly in survival of everything that happens to be born whenever that maybe. It is weakening us as a species and there is not one solitary person who argue against that with anything resembling reasonable debate.

As to the average age of 55... Maybe, maybe not, but those 55 years would be ten times more fulfilling then 80 or 90 of today's.

Bert

Haha. You said "trained" out of your wife and earlier you talked about how you dont like when women get off on "training" men or moulding them, however I agree with you that its a better thing to get out of the way and your wife is probably better off for it.

In my relationship my boyfriend actually "stuffs" more than I do and I wont know something is an issue for weeks sometimes, so we now use the same system for both of us. We talk about it then or we never talk about it again.