Intelligent Chat 2:

What is the point of this discussion if you refuse to look at any proof that is offered? I would quote you, but I cant stand "quoters," because it means they have nothing originally poignant to offer to the discussion to support THEIR beliefs. Bring us something to support what you say instead of just trying to prove us wrong, because your main argument of why we are wrong is because "it is understood that..." which does not prove anything, because we have all already come to the agreement that MEN DONT TALK ABOUT ABUSE in any form, stigmatic society does not support it.

WOMEN ABUSE MEN MORE THAN MEN ABUSE WOMEN.

Is that statement true or false? ANY LEVEL of abuse. The facts clearly show, and my personal experiance shows, men get abused more, or at least it is equal.

I resent all this "women have it harder because men do this..." crap. It's absolutely wrong and feministic bull shit. Women are not held accountable for their actions, they get away with more, and we do exactly what we say the men do, yet cry about it.

And when Bret said that you should have a guy hit you across the face as hard as you can hit him, he was proving a point. How he said it was how he meant it, he is saying that any slight thing a man does (such as hitting a woman as lightly or as hard as she could hit him) is labeled abuse, yet you are saying that when a woman hits a man, it can be overlooked simply because they dont stereotypically hit as hard, which is absurd.

Women feel justified to do what they do because they believe like you do (that men are just abusers and women are victims), or because the man does something to irritate them and they think it's alright to retaliate in an abusive way, which is, again, bull shit. Neither is true.

That's patently untrue.

We are not debating discrimination. We are debating feminism, exactly what it is fighting against, and statistics of abuse.

Whilst discrimination is an aspect, it is not the center of the discussion.

"I suggest you beat your 'bloke' across the face as hard as you can and see how long it takes before he says it is violent."

Makes perfect grammatical sense, thank you very much.

"See, I had to laugh about this because again back to the military argument, you stated that men have stronger mental and emotional stability, sooo that doesn't really make sense in your argument considering that you said your expected to deal with these things, yet first you said you CAN deal with these things."

I am talking about MAN and spousal abuse, not ME and spousal abuse. I wouldn't get abused because I wouldn't tolerate it. Just because I don't tolerate it doesn't mean everyone won't as well. And yes, whilst men are more suited to soldiery than women they are just as susceptable to abuse as women.

I am not 3 billion men, I am but one man.

When I speak in these discussions I tend to speak about the whole spectrum not just myself. The reason for this is that I like to look at the big picture and not let allow every subject to revolve around me and my feelings.

I am not talking about this subject anymore as nothing I say is even going to be considered worthwhile by an out and out feminist, especially when it disproves her thoughts without fault.

Pink, good luck in everything you do, I just hope the blinkers don't stay on forever and you eventually realise that just because you don't agree with it, it doesn't mean it has no weight.

Blinkered minds make for blinkered opinions, remember that.

Next topic:

What does the United Nations do for us?

The UN is a great concept.

Now if all of the countries in the world had the same amount of power and influence (like each country gets one equal sized vote) it would work much better, but considering that is not the case, its weaknesses are all surrounding that issue.

Some background and a brief description before we get going:

The United Nations was established on 24 October 1945 by 51 countries committed to preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security. Today, nearly every nation in the world belongs to the UN: membership totals 191 countries.

When States become Members of the United Nations, they agree to accept the obligations of the UN Charter, an international treaty that sets out basic principles of international relations. According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. It does, however, provide the means to help resolve international conflicts and formulate policies on matters affecting all of us. At the UN, all the Member States — large and small, rich and poor, with differing political views and social systems — have a voice and a vote in this process.

The United Nations has six main organs. Five of them — the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council and the Secretariat — are based at UN Headquarters in New York. The sixth, the International Court of Justice, is located at The Hague in the Netherlands.

(sigh, sigh) ok Kaitlin, don't blow a fuse

Kaitlin, I don't know what you have against women, but whatever it is, I hope you get over it.

Anyway, I read your post and honestly, I am tired of explaining my thoughts and there were waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many things wrong with what you said about my arguments that I'm not even going to try to explain them to you.
Maybe in a couple years you'll look back and be able to contemplate what I'm saying. until then, have fun.

Anyway, Bret I agree. I am done with this discussion as well
And, I still don't get your response,
"I am talking about MAN and spousal abuse, not ME and spousal abuse."
Because you yourself were talking about all men when we were discussing the military, so I don't think that makes sense, but whatever.

Anyway, ummmm I don't agree at all with your statement about, "blinkers" because you seem to keep saying that I refuse to see anyone elses' point but my own, buttt as I recall I admitted myself to be wrong a few times respectfully in our argument, sooo whatever.

"When I speak in these discussions I tend to speak about the whole spectrum not just myself."
So do I

"The reason for this is that I like to look at the big picture and not let allow every subject to revolve around me and my feelings."
In no way do I let things revolve around me and my feelings, and I did look at the "big picture"

I don't know if there is a word for the antonym of feminist, but I think you are it Bret

Anyway, when you said
"especially when it disproves her thoughts without fault."
Ummm I actually proved that almost none of your statements disproved mine, and I admitted to them when they did, but again, whatever.

( annnd Bret, "I just hope the blinkers don't stay on forever and you eventually realise that just because you don't agree with it, it doesn't mean it has no weight."
hmmmm doesn't that sound just a weee bit like yourslef?)

Anyway, yes I'm done with this discussion. Bret I appreciated your arguments, they were intelligently stated, you made valid points, and even proved some of mine wrong. So I respect you and your argument.
i suggest Kaitlin you guys move on to the racial discrimination convo, i might join eventually, till then I'll involve myself in another post for a while.

The General Assembly

All UN Member States are represented in the General Assembly — a "parliament of nations" which meets to consider the world's most pressing problems. Each Member State has one vote. Decisions on such key issues as international peace and security, admitting new members and the UN budget are decided by two-thirds majority. Other matters are decided by simple majority. In recent years, a special effort has been made to reach decisions through consensus, rather than by taking a formal vote.

The General Assembly in session. At its 2001/2002 session, the Assembly is considering more than 180 different topics, including globalization, AIDS, conflict in Africa, protection of the environment and consolidation of new democracies. The Assembly cannot force action by any State, but its recommendations are an important indication of world opinion and represent the moral authority of the community of nations.

The Assembly holds its annual regular session from September to December. When necessary, it may resume its session or hold a special or emergency session on subjects of particular concern. When the Assembly is not meeting, its work is carried out by its six main committees, other subsidiary bodies and the

Just to finish off the feminist thing...

I have NOTHING against women. I am a woman.

I just think that they have it a lot easier than they think they do in SOOO MANY ways. If we want equality, stop playing victim and start facing the facts.

STATISTICS are FACTS, pink, of which you cannot argue with. You gave nothing but your opinion to support what you said.

And me, needing to grow up? I wont retort because I think it's absurd to say that, especially because you are 15. Maybe in a few years YOU will have a paradigm shift and adjust to reality, many women AND men need to.

I am not a feminist. I am a realist.

A quick reply about your misunderstanding, Pink. There are about 35 million men in the UK. Of them only 97,260 are worthy to be soldiers.

Men are more cut out for soldiery, but even then it's only a few who can actually do it.

The mathematics are simple; only 1 man in 360 (rounded up) is cut out for soldiery. Right now that leaves 34,902,740 men that don't have what it takes in the UK. It takes a special kind of man to make it in the military.

The antonym of a feminist is a free thinker.

The Security Council

The UN Charter gives the Security Council primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. The Council may convene at any time, whenever peace is threatened. Under the Charter, all Member States are obligated to carry out the Council's decisions.

There are 15 Council members. Five of these — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — are permanent members. The other 10 are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. Member States are discussing making changes in Council membership and working to reflect today's political and economic realities.

The Security Council has established well ovwe 50 peacekeeping operations.Decisions of the Council require nine yes votes. Except in votes on procedural questions, a decision cannot be taken if there is a no vote, or veto, by a permanent member.

When the Council considers a threat to international peace, it first explores ways to settle the dispute peacefully. It may suggest principles for a settlement or undertake mediation. In the event of fighting, the Council tries to secure a ceasefire. It may send a peacekeeping mission to help the parties maintain the truce and to keep opposing forces apart.

The Council can take measures to enforce its decisions. It can impose economic sanctions or order an arms embargo. On rare occasions, the Council has authorized Member States to use "all necessary means," including collective military action, to see that its decisions are carried out.

The Council also makes recommendations to the General Assembly on the appointment of a new Secretary-General and on the admission of new Members to the UN.

The Economic and Social Council

The Economic and Social Council, under the overall authority of the General Assembly, coordinates the economic and social work of the United Nations and the UN family of organizations. As the central forum for discussing international economic and social issues and for formulating policy recommendations, the Council plays a key role in fostering international cooperation for development. It also consults with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), thereby maintaining a vital link between the United Nations and civil society.

The Council has 54 members, elected by the General Assembly for three-year terms. It meets throughout the year and holds a major session in July, during which a special meeting of Ministers discusses major economic, social and humanitarian issues.

The Council's subsidiary bodies meet regularly and report back to it. The Commission on Human Rights, for example, monitors the observance of human rights throughout the world. Other bodies focus on such issues as social development, the status of women, crime prevention, narcotic drugs and environmental protection. Five regional commissions promote economic development and cooperation in their respective regions.

The antithesis of a feminist is a REALIST (Harsh, just proving a point though).

And fact is undisputable.

Perception of fact is another thing.

Statistics speak for themselves.

The Trusteeship Council

The Trusteeship Council was established to provide international supervision for 11 Trust Territories administered by seven Member States and ensure that adequate steps were taken to prepare the Territories for self-government or independence. By 1994, all Trust Territories had attained self-government or independence, either as separate States or by joining neighbouring independent countries. The last to do so was the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands — Palau — which was administered by the United States and became the 185th Member State.

Its work completed, the Trusteeship Council now consists of the five permanent members of the Security Council. It has amended its rules of procedure to allow it to meet as and when the occasion may require.

The Secretariat

The Secretariat carries out the substantive and administrative work of the United Nations as directed by the General Assembly, the Security Council and the other organs. At its head is the Secretary-General, who provides overall administrative guidance.

The Secretariat consists of departments and offices with a total staff of some 7,500 under the regular budget, and a nearly equal number under special funding. They are drawn from some 170 countries. Duty stations include UN Headquarters in New York, as well as UN offices in Geneva, Vienna, Nairobi and other locations.

The International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, is the main judicial organ of the UN. Consisting of 15 judges elected jointly by the General Assembly and the Security Council, the Court decides disputes between countries. Participation by States in a proceeding is voluntary, but if a State agrees to participate, it is obligated to comply with the Court's decision. The Court also provides advisory opinions to the General Assembly and the Security Council upon request.

Now, all of these things about the UN have been taken directly from the horses mouth.

Hopefully this will stop any baseless and inane ranting.

The UN has come in for some major stick from the US over the Oil for Food doohickey.

Now, is the Oil for Food scandal the only (heavily hidden) reason that Fance and Germany vetoed armed action against Iraq or is there more to it?

Ashley:

FACT is UNDISPUTABLE

PERCEPTION OF FACT is.

That sums it up.

And statistics are unarguable, how correct they are is of course dictated by the pool of people that they were analyzing. I will give you that, but it is easy to see what percentage of women are sentenced for crimes, things of that nature. That has nothing to do with independance and personality. Those are FACT.

*

When it comes to your last question, Bret, I cant comment. I dont know much about it.

Another subject to run in tandem...

Vegetarianism.

We are omnivores, we are built and designed to eat both animals and plants.

Eating meat is instinct, not eating meat is choice. Now, should any business that sells meat have to include a vegetarian option by law or should it be a choice for businesses to make just like the vegetarians have done?

In the buger king or MacDonalds thread Vix claims that they both discriminate against her because she is a vegetarian. Personally I think that selfish beyond rational thinking. I think Vix is discriminating against meat because she refuses to follow human instinct.

I do NOT have incompetence in this matter whatsoever, thank you for your opinion.

Fact=truth

"Fact" as people see it=perception.

Pay attention to the quotations there.

No need to complicate it. This was my FIRST post:

And fact is undisputable.

Perception of fact is another thing.

Statistics speak for themselves.

YOU then reitorated what I said.

The discrimination against vegitarians thing:

That is like going to a sporting goods store and getting upset because they dont have cell phones for sale.

If you want vegitarian food, go to a vegitarian restaurant or one that caters to vegitarians. EVERY store cannot sell EVERYTHING for EVERYONE. That's not discrimination, that is the restaurant/ stores choice.

Vix said: "I’m a vegetarian and fast food outlets take every opportunity to discriminate against such as myself so even if I wasn’t completely repulsed by fast food I wouldn’t make a habit of eating their filth."

cheeky.

Firstly, I did not implicate anything. What I said is very straight forward, dont hurt yourself by trying to read between the lines here.

I disagreed with what you said, not reiterated it.

*I'm easily irritable today, dont hold me accountable for this when I'm in a better mood ;)

Vix needs to:

A. Go back to school and join a 5th grade English class
B. Get some protein, it'll help her brain function
C. Look up the difference between discrimintation and choice, as in: Restaurants get to choose their menu. People who do not like the menu do not need to eat there.

lol, Ash, I'm just being overly bitchy. Sorry.

Nothing was between the lines though. I meant exactly as I said.

Good stuff.

Plus, I dont know of a restaurant that doesnt have something vegetarian, including Mcdonalds and other fast food places.

I dont know of a food place that says: We will not cater to vegetarians. Everything we make HAS to have meat.

Not that it matters, they arent discriminating regardless.

Discriminating would be to say that they dont serve black people or blondes, etc.

When it is the customers CHOICE, such as, "what do I want today? Mcdonalds or ....?" they are deciding what they want to eat, not discriminating against EVERY restaurant they dont pick.

No, because the fast food industry/service is catering to all humans. Everyone is able to buy the food by choice, but not everyone chooses to eat meat.

Fast food outlets aren't discriminating anymore than a butcher's shop is.

The customer has a choice to decide where they want to eat.

A business that offers a service cannot discrimate (it is illegal to do so) against a certain demographic or group of people (unless the law permits, for instance minors cannot be in bars). Although you will see signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," in some business'. If they discriminate ratially or in some other fashion, they can be taken to court and the judge will decide what happened.

Either way, a service is offered, people will take it or they wont. Obviously, if you want a cell phone, you wont go to a sporting goods store and say it's discriminatory that they dont sell cell phones.

Same with vegitarians.

I discriminate against stupid people.

I am IQist.

That's not really true.

I admit, I am also IQist, as well as common sensist.

I discriminate against idiocy and ignorance.

I will admit it.

That's not shallow at all.

I choose not to associate with idiots. That is my personal discriminatory practice.

I dont really care if they cant help it, I just dont choose to hang around it.

Most idiots have NO clue they are idiots. That's the funny thing.

Firstly, is that a true story?

Secondly, it doesnt prove anything really. That's not to say that idiots cant be SWEET, and that's not to say they cant be great people who achieve much in their lifetimes.

I still see nothing wrong with discriminating by intelligence. It is what sets us apart from the animals (OTHER animals) and it is what seperates us from each other.

IQist might not the right ideal...

I have very little time for people who have no common sense.

You may think that makes me ignorant, but it helps set up my personal environment with better security.

It is no different from keeping clear of rapists, murderers and other criminals. I want the best environment for me and my family. If that means keeping stupid people from entering that circle, so be it.

IQist wasnt the right word, I was being somewhat sarcastic when I used it. I also added common sense and "intelligence," which I do not consider to be the same as IQ.

If someone is intelligent they can think for themselves, solve problems, have common sense. If someone is "smart" (which is what I put IQ under) they can't necessarily think for themselves, and I refer to that as idiocy.

Exactly.

Good point.

Then I am an IQist as well as a common sensist.