Re: nbc Pelosi should be ashamed nbc

On May 20, 10:18 am, Evolution <myn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
rawbylaw wrote:
On May 20, 1:14 am, Evolution <myn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
rawbylaw wrote:
On May 19, 4:06 pm, Evolution <myn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
rawbylaw wrote:
On May 18, 2:02 am, Evolution <myn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
rawbylawwrote:
On May 16, 9:21 pm, Evolution <myn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
rawbylawwrote:
On May 15, 5:43 pm, Evolution <myn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
stuthalb...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 15, 10:44 am, Evolution <myn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Virtually EVERY woman who's led a government has led it into war, I
suspect largely because they believe they need to show bigger
testicles than men.
No, it's probably because men control the world and the only way a
woman
 could get in that position in the past is by playing the male game.  
 >  or be born to it like a Queen who led their country's in war such
as
 > Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, Isabella of Spain, the Rani of
 > Jhansi,  Queen Jinga of Angola, and Queen Boadicea.   But, of
course,
 > they were all manipulated by thier male subjects. Not.
 Remind me which *started* wars.
-------------------------------------------------------
errr, all of them. Isabella had a co-conspirator in Ferdinand but,
yes, all of them *started* large scale violent conflicts resulting in
mass death and destruction.
- You're going to have to prove this.  Elizabeth I didn't start any
wars.
-   She defended Britain against Spain.
 Wrong.  The Anglo-Spanish war began with Elizabeth sending her army
into the Netherlands.
  One might say, as you did, that this was a defensive move, since
England was only attacking the Netherlands
before the Spanish used it as a base to attack England, which, of
course, then puts you in agreement with Bush in using the same
reasoning to invade Iraq.
- Queen Nzinga fought the Portuguese from taking over her country and
- taking slaves.  Hardly an aggressive war.
-----------------
 Yes, Queen Nzinga fought fiercely towards that effort.  However, she
it noteworthy for her willfully employing the tactics of infacticide
and cannibalism. You know, one woman's terriorism is another woman's
lunch.
 After dining on one her vanquished she reportedly remarked, 'He's not
half the man I am, or half the man he used to be, either'.
- I didn't look up the others, but again, show me a woman who started
a
- war other than in defense.
----------------------
  I'll give you one, you can look up the others.  Catherine the Great
reign was one of expansionist invasion into central europe extending
Russia's borders to the Black Sea. Her conquests in the Russo-Turkish
war against the Ottoman empire included some of most barbaric bloody
battles, as well civilian slaughter, in that period of history.
- Ah, so the only example you can come up with is one woman in the
1700s,
- an age of worldwide empire expansion... and a royal to boot.  One
might
- question whether royalty are raised in a normal environment with
normal
- values.  But I'll give you the one.  Out of dozens.  An exception to
the
- rule, and one can always find that.
-
  i see you didn't look up the others mentioned.
- I looked up two, and neither had started any war, so it's up to you
to
- prove your point.  You only came up with one.  I'm not going to do
your
- research for you.
 -------------------------
 Aethelflaed, Lordess of the Mercians.She united Mercia, invades and
conquered Wales, and subdued the Danes becoming the de facto ruler of
the Mercians and Danes.

- Okay, you're really struggling here, aren't you?  ;)

No. Aethelflaed was a woman ruler who initiated war.
Here's another whose actions still have have bloody consequences to
this day:
Sirimavo Bandaranaike, prime minister of Sri Lanka. She increased the
historical oppression against the Tamils, by ruling that Sinhalese
should be used for all government business. Before then, English was
used, as the unifying language. This action meant that most Tamil in
government, were unable to continue their government. The Tamils,
responded by non-violent civil disobediance. Sirimavo responded to
this, by declaring a state emergency, which
was goverment doublespeak for declaring civil war on the Tamils. The
number dead from this war is estimated at 68,000 to date.
Again, it's silly and dangerous this notion that women leaders
haven't initiated wars.


-jim






 > I would never under estimate your ideological tendicies, even if
 > you're only half-serious but, this is a very dangerous notion, that
 > women are incapable of starting war, for two reasons.  First, any
 > country/faction that would believe such nonsense, would put itself
at
 > to fatal naive disadvantage against any potential rival led by a
 > woman.
- Nonsense.  You might have a point if I were claiming that women
wouldn't
- go to war if attacked, but we are talking about wars of aggression.
  And, second, and more importantly, it's an exclusionary
 > notion, one that views women as non-human.
- What the hell?  Are you saying it's human nature to want to take
over
- other countries?  Nonsense.  Humans lived sustainably in their
- environment for 100s of thousands of years, and have been grabbing
land
- and living unsustainably only for the last 10,000 years.  The few
humans
- left living in tribal societies don't invade and occupy other
people's
- lands.
 hey, what's 10,000 years between friends. and, as far as living
sustainably in our
environment before that, ha!  we fooked over the neaderthals to
extinction 30,000 years ago
- That's one theory.  Most common are gradual climate change or
interbreeding.
- Given the nomadic existence of early humans, it's unlikely that
genocide
- occurred.

 Actually, after being hunted and killed elsewhere in europe by our
ancestors, the last of the neanderthals
were clustered on the iberian penisula, when it was that a severe
rapid freezing, not a gradual change, leading to their extinction.

That's one theory.  Not a likely one.  It's very unlikely that humans
would hunt other humans to extinction; it just doesn't fit the profile
of a nomadic, tribal people.  Species go extinct all the time.  In the
case of Neanderthals, our ancestors weren't much different and some put
them as a sub-species, and claim that they interbred.  Show me a tribe
of humans before the agricultural revolution or existing today which
wipe out other tribes, much less a whole race or sub-species.

Most likely, the Neanderthals were a race which, much like the later
Celts, gradually moved north in times of good weather, and unlike the
Celts, couldn't survive when the cycle turned colder.  The race or
sub-species which remained in warmer climates did thrive, and in later
times again moved north.







 >  Is it human nature to want to take over other countries? as the
song
 > goes, poor gal wanna be rich, rich gal wanna be queen, and a queen
 > ain't satisfied........ever.    But, seriously, i'd like to believe
it
 > is not our nature but, tens of thousands of years prove it in the
 > range of our behaviour  as a species, which includes females and
 > males, alike.

- No, kings and hierarchical societies arose only about 10,000 years
ago.
-   Before that, humans lived in tribal societies where there were no
- possessions, no owning land.  This coincided with the "agricultural
- revolution" which for the first time, enabled humans to accumulate
- surplus and gain power.  We all know power corrupts.  Humans then
began
- living unsustainably in their environment and the age of kings and
- slaves began.  Humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years in
- tribal, sustainable societies, and the greed is a recent thing in
the
-last 10,000 years.  It is definitely NOT in our nature, but a
cultural
- thing.  As greed spread, more and more tribes were absorbed into
this
-culture, like a cancer growing.  The salvationist religions also
sprang
- up around this time to help humans deal with the misery the
hierarchical
- society begat.  The biblical story of Adam and Eve is based on the
true
- story of the tribe which left "paradise" (living sustainably) and
tasted
- the forbidden fruit, which gave them the "knowledge of good and
evil"
- which relates to how humans began to live unsustainably.  Instead of
- observing the laws of nature, we began to change our environment and
- decide which animals and plants would live (our food) and which
would
- die (wiping out animals and plants which weren't considered food).
- Previously, the laws of nature were left to "god" who decided
whether
- the lion would kill the deer or whether the deer would escape and
the
- lion go hungry... the laws of good and evil.  After Adam and Eve
gained
- this knowledge, they began deciding that the lion should die out and
the
- deer become exclusively their food, that some trees should die so
that
- crops could be grown... thereby upsetting the balance of nature.
-
- And 7 billion people later, we are heading towards the fate of
*every*
- species which lives unsustainably.  The dinosaurs lasted millions of
- years, but humans barely made 10,000 once they stopped living
sustainably.
---------------------
 Fug!  one lousy ape catches on how to cultivate the stuff growing out
of buried poop and you
 pin the whole fookin end of the world on the poor fucker.  typical..

No, farming had been done for thousands of years.  Subsistence farming,
slash and burn farming, such as is done in the Amazon by tribes today.

The difference came when a tribe of humans developed greed and started
full time farming, producing surpluses, which gave them power through
trade and emergency times.  Land for the first time became a commodity
to own and buy and sell (or take by force).  This revolution made
specialization possible, money exchange, bartering, crafts, art,
civilization, etc.  And also kings and slaves and misery, theft, murder,
war (as we know it today), genocide, rape, suicide, etc.  And, most
importantly, living unsustainably in our environment... which is the
eventual death of a species.  We are no exception.  12,000 years ago,
the population was a million people in the world, and then 6000 more to
get to 7 ...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Loading