[ninja_talli]

Originally Posted by oxymoron

And shall we all please stop abusing the 'thank yous' and 'groans' by 'ganging up' against each other? It looks quite silly to me...and am sure to lots of them as well.

And at the samet time its hysterically funny!!!!


Won't comment on the earlier posts(that would take me all day!!! ), but will give a true *incident* that happened to me a few months ago.

Do make up your own conclusions!

Around 10.30 P.M., A friend of mine (obviously f. of the species as oxy has nicely defined) accompanied me on my bike to buy a cake (it was a common friend's bday). When we came out of the shop, a drunk (drunk is wrong here, he was sober, but not completely, also was smelling like anything ) beggar approached us and started pestering us for money(when i started the bike, he caught the bike's handle). I ignored him, but my friend panicked and nearly shouted at me to start the bike and move out of there... I did so, end of incident...

Two days later i got a call from her around 10 in the night; she had just returned from office, while waking from the bus-stop (she was alone) the same beggar approached her for money; this time she ignored him and walked away, again he didn't do anything...

Case of un-necessary protection eh? :-?

[maheshtk_21]

Originally Posted by Oxymoron

Fallacies
Atheism: Logic & Fallacies

Really thank u for this link Girish.
Can be helpful in confusing others if one perfects these few pages.
One is safe till he does not start believing in it and start thinking on
these rigid ,soulless lines.
When one is down in the dumps,this can add to the existing
torment.Only the seemingly illogical can help then.

Ofcourse gr8 resources .
Am forced to subscribe to ur neutral opinion in this context.

will try learning as much as possible for mudslinging fests in the future

[razabpn]

Women are no less than men be it Business or pilots or Sports or any field.... They want to treated at par with men...True...ther are equals...

If you pay the bill on a date they feel offended, then they accuse you of demeaning them...
If you happen to travel in Bus, and dont offer your sit to a standing women, then you are not gentleman...

What is this bogus concept of chivalry??? ISnt it double standards???

If they are so equal..cant they take the pain of standing??? Why all this "Reserved for women"??? Women dont you feel demeaning to be offered a reservation???

[Digital_Saint]

November 03,2006; Hindustan Times (Chandigarh Edition, Page 4)

[warrior]

Originally Posted by Oxymoron

May I ask on what basis you make this categorical statement? :whatthat: and no you cannot take refuge in the word' almost' I am curious to know what gave you this interpretation of 'free will'. original Sin? Think man is inherently 'evil'? Why?

Hope this satisfies you. Just copy pasting a little phrase.

"Animal Urges", as it relates to human beings, is a behavioral theory preached by renowned WOW Head and dominant human being, Daniel Gillard. In this theory, Gillard argues that humans are merely animals which have the ability to reason and use logic to solve problems. However, Gillard argues, that when in a compromised state (enebriated, enraged, etc.) the human being loses all sense of logic and reason and reverts back to the use of their animal instincts to control their actions. Anger, rage, and lust all come into play. A beautiful woman who is of no affiliation to the person may appear as an excellent mating candidated, therefore, the human being will act out their animal urges signaling that they are interested in mating with the woman. Also, if challenged by another male in an altered state, a human being will resort to their instinct of being the alpha male, and a fierce battle may ensue.

So given a free will all men/women will try and maximize their pleasure. Obviously they won't like to share this with their fellow mates and see them as hindrance in attaining it to fullest.

Why we see most humans around us behaving is societal pressure or fear of being rebuffed by the majority other.

[Oxymoron]

Originally Posted by ninja_talli

Around 10.30 P.M., A friend of mine (obviously f. of the species as oxy has nicely defined) accompanied me on my bike to buy a cake (it was a common friend's bday). When we came out of the shop, a drunk (drunk is wrong here, he was sober, but not completely, also was smelling like anything ) beggar approached us and started pestering us for money(when i started the bike, he caught the bike's handle). I ignored him, but my friend panicked and nearly shouted at me to start the bike and move out of there... I did so, end of incident...Two days later i got a call from her around 10 in the night; she had just returned from office, while waking from the bus-stop (she was alone) the same beggar approached her for money; this time she ignored him and walked away, again he didn't do anything...
Case of un-necessary protection eh?

I am not exactly sure what was the point of this anecdote.. Or even how this incident can be extrapolated to the title of the threasd perse but If I have to venture a guess as to the reason for the question I guess you meant to ask (with all due deference to your frnd ) why did your friend 'panic' on the first day when she didnt turn a hair,in a manner of speaking, on the second day?
Well hardly anything concrete can be validated from anecdotal instances but is it not perfectly possible that having been 'acquainted' with the tramp ( I dont use the word beggar ) on the first day and realising he is 'harmless' she could have been more confident on the next day? :huh:
Anyway it just says something about your friend but hardly in 'general' about f. of the s.

Originally Posted by maheshtk_21

Really thank u for this link Girish.
Can be helpful in confusing others if one perfects these few pages.
One is safe till he does not start believing in it and start thinking on
these rigid ,soulless lines.
When one is down in the dumps,this can add to the existing
torment.Only the seemingly illogical can help then.

You are welcome.
err..confusing other? I assure you my intention au contraire was to use these 'tools' to make clear the conflicts and logical inconsistencies which inhibit clarity..
sou..err..what? :huh:huh: I am not sure I get that. If my understanding is right logic makes one souless...which is true because you see logic makes one see that there is no such thing called 'soul'

As for your recourse in illogicality it's your call. I am not telling you how to lead your life.But when you come to the debating table it is imperative that the viewpoints survive the knife of rationality.

@warrior: I would like to make this clear this is not an exercise in 'one upmanship' but some genuine doubts which naturally arises from the quote.

Originally Posted by warrior

"Animal Urges", as it relates to human beings, is a behavioral theory preached by renowned WOW Head and dominant human being, Daniel Gillard. In this theory, Gillard argues that humans are merely animals which have the ability to reason and use logic to solve problems. However, Gillard argues, that when in a compromised state (enebriated, enraged, etc.) the human being loses all sense of logic and reason and reverts back to the use of their animal instincts to control their actions. Anger, rage, and lust all come into play. A beautiful woman who is of no affiliation to the person may appear as an excellent mating candidated, therefore, the human being will act out their animal urges signaling that they are interested in mating
with the woman. Also, if challenged by another male in an altered state, a human being will resort to their instinct of being the alpha male, and a fierce battle may ensue.

Some Fallacies which are immediately obvious...

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

-->Pray who is 'Daniel Gillard'? :huh: what's his expertise? What is WOW??
A google search for his name reveals nothing. (the implicit assumption being ofcourse if he is an expert enough to be quoted as an authority he would have some online credentials *atleast* . Given the circumstances and the spread of the internet that's quite a reasonable assumption .)

And if I were you I would cross check all 'authority' quotes in wikipedia next time... surely I mean surely the adjective 'dominant' qualifying a 'human being' must have been a give away? :huh: (

Anyway that is only with respect to the crednetials. That still doesnt perse invalidate the claims made by the author ofcourse. Now let us analyse it piecemeal.
What exactly is the author trying to say?:huh: that 'animals' (What defines an animal? biped?triped?cold blooded?species of ant?species of lion? ) have the 'urges' ( 'anger','lust' and 'rage'? as opposed to 'compassion','coperation','sympathy' being 'human' values? ) ) .To extend
that reasoning the 'animals' now should then be still having those urges ( The author claims no reason of them being deprecated ) and for all you know the m. of the s. ( Do you notice how it is primarily about 'males'? why a beautiful woman? why not a 'handsome man'? I guess the same animal urges is justfied in a woman 'beating up her husband...or is it that the 'lust','rage' and 'anger' are restricted only to the m. of the s. ?:huh: )

And dont you think it seems like a convenient excuse to blame man's irrational behavior on 'animal urges'??

And what exactly does the 'beautiful' woman has to do when the 'alpha male' expresses his intention to 'mate' ? Try to give into the 'animal' urges which are naturally attributed to the f. of the s.?

Originally Posted by warrior

So given a free will all men/women will try and maximize their pleasure. Obviously they won't like to share this with their fellow mates and see them as hindrance in attaining it to fullest.

From wherefore did this follow logically from above?? Was that inductive reasoning? or deductive?? in the example you have quoted I dont see 'women' maximizing their 'free will'. Unless ofcourse you meant implicitly that she has the 'will' to decide the 'order' in which the alpha males can mate with her...:P

I hope you understand why I am far from being 'satisfied'...And I would be very glad if anyone else is out there who got satisfied to tell me 'why' and 'how'...

Girish...!

[razabpn]

Many attribute 'the Dowry culture' to patriarchal Society...Its not...

many Women themselves propagate this dowry culture themselves...They want to be married royally, get expensive gifts(Dowry) so that she can show off her Hubby's family, frens, relatives etc. She aspires in her mind to get the most valuable and expensive things be it Biggest Flat TV or Diamond necklace..And if all these things are so called gifted or exchanged as part of dowry then she feels false pride in it.. An often repeated phrase by married women taking pride in the items brought during marriage,"My Father gifted this Car for us", "My mother gifted me this Necklace"!!! and so on..

Even the mothers always want to gift their daughter everything that they can.. So that while talking with the aunties in the neighbourhood, she can boast how much she spent on her daughter's marriage!!!
Similarly for the mother in laws....Actually, if you observe the practice of dowry, it is the Mother in laws who actually list down the items to be demanded...Its a common practice atleast in orissa!!!

SO, if you are blaming patriarchal society alone for dowry then its wrong...even women play part in it...probably more...on any day women just want to be gifted and gifted more...

Again, in this context Gift and Dowry goes together...As Gift is something that you give to someone without expecting anything in return. Gift becomes Dowry,when it is demanded. and also when the giver gives it to show off... Many can pass this off saying, what they get is gifts but in some ways gifts are not gifts if it is to comply to a tradition... So here, consider Gifts and Dowry to be same....

many cases Gifts, its value and scale is benchmarked and given return...[Ex: If my elder sister gave me 50000 bucks in my marriage as gift then I will give something similar to that amount when her boy gets married]

Dowry is still partriarchal????

[tatimatla]

Excuse me for being a spoilsport...

It's a 'mail' dominated society for sure...
And this is not a cliche!

[ninja_talli]

Originally Posted by oxy

I am not exactly sure what was the point of this anecdote.. Or even how this incident can be extrapolated to the title of the threasd perse but If I have to venture a guess as to the reason for the question I guess you meant to ask (with all due deference to your frnd ) why did your friend 'panic' on the first day when she didnt turn a hair,in a manner of speaking, on the second day?
Well hardly anything concrete can be validated from anecdotal instances but is it not perfectly possible that having been 'acquainted' with the tramp ( I dont use the word beggar ) on the first day and realising he is 'harmless' she could have been more confident on the next day?
Anyway it just says something about your friend but hardly in 'general' about f. of the s.

As i said each could make up his/her own conclusion...

The way i saw it, when she didn't have any *support* to hang to, she composed herself and took care of the situation herself. Regarding the point of her panic-ing without turning a hair, nothing like that; i didn't elaborate, bcoz i thought one could picturise the scene...

Forget that incident, i have seen umpteen other cases... For e.g. if your friend or sister is going alone somewhere, some elder would always ask a you or somebody else to accompany her (especially if she's travelling alone and/or during evening/night). Reality? Nothing actually happens, but the above is done in case something happens... I call it un-necessary... not every time a girl goes out alone in the night in any city she gets raped or molested... But the hype is created in each and every city :huh:

I find the new law (for women) on similar lines... and hence put up my *anecdote*

Hence my statement; un-necessary protection!

[zephyr..]

Originally Posted by ninja_talli

As i said each could make up his/her own conclusion...

The way i saw it, when she didn't have any *support* to hang to, she composed herself and took care of the situation herself. Regarding the point of her panic-ing without turning a hair, nothing like that; i didn't elaborate, bcoz i thought one could picturise the scene...

Forget that incident, i have seen umpteen other cases... For e.g. if your friend or sister is going alone somewhere, some elder would always ask a you or somebody else to accompany her (especially if she's travelling alone and/or during evening/night). Reality? Nothing actually happens, but the above is done in case something happens... I call it un-necessary... not every time a girl goes out alone in the night in any city she gets raped or molested... But the hype is created in each and every city :huh:

I find the new law (for women) on similar lines... and hence put up my *anecdote*

Hence my statement; un-necessary protection!

talli..oxy..chill maaro yaar..
bt talli..
this un-necessary protection thing..hmm...evn i dont quite agree with u..bt thn..thats my perception..