|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:18 pm
Norayr GuruLazer I think what Cornetto is pointing to is that it's not a selfless act if you seek some satisfaction from it. That takes the whole meaning away. To be charitable now is to give money to keep face in society or to satisfy your own feelings of self importance. Sure, if the end result is the same, what's the big deal? Think about it, it's an entirely selfish motive to helping other people. I see what you're saying. Though I'm curious, are you saying that what happens is a paradox or are you contradicting what Cornetto said? (Heh, next time I do something where I'm spending my money on the poor, and giving up my time and comfort to help people out, I'll be sure to remind myself that what I'm doing is selfish xp ) Good grief, try to understand this. I am contradicting part of what Cornetto said, I do believe people can be charitable, but it's a very, very rare quality to have. People are too overly concerned with themselves and their own good karma that they treat everything as a means to an end. Also, as for the remark about reading your statements as being shallow or truly meaningful, I think it's the way you've worded it that makes people read what you've said as being shallow. You juxtopose the physical and strong to attractiveness, which suggests you mean for the same physical application. Maybe rewording is in order?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:23 pm
GuruLazer Norayr Sure they're outdated. I'm using some biblical points. And I did mention working on your mind as well, check the first post. It's still unedited. And the man I'm talking about wouldn't have a strong ego, but the love he would receive from those he's heading would overpower the ego. Just to run something by you. Many powerful women—those who held very influential positions in the business place (fortune 500 companies), regarded as the business place as nothing once they had children. That they just left the bread-winning to their husbands. And those who opposed this didn't have any kids. It goes to showing you how the views change, and how some of them vary. You can't really assume anything till you've experienced almost all that life has to offer. And that doesn't go into saying that I've experienced everything and know anything there is about the human race. I'm still growing and learning as well. As I can tell, for your views still seem pretty limited. This is not a judgement or criticism intentionally on my part, just an observation. As for leave to have children, it's not much for business women to ask to leave whilst they deliver their own child; something a man is incapable of doing, but would undoubtedly be given better treatment and consideration if he did. Some women choose to leave work to raise a family, some stay working. Some men make the same choices, but I notice you didn't bring them into the equation. However, one question. you say you were using Biblical references, I must have missed them. Could you point them out? They were subtle points, give me a second to go back and look over to shed some light on them. Here's the thing. Mothers have a lot easier time connecting to the offspring than the fathers do. This doesn't mean that the father is not going to invest time into their child. I commend fathers that do this, and I personally want as much time away from my work to spend with my family. I have priorities. These women that I mentioned earlier on chose to completely quite their jobs to connect with their child(ren). It's crazy how in Europe families that receive a newborn get so much time with them. I believe for about more than half a year, but over here, it's only a month or so. It's ridiculous! Plus in this fast paced world, one of them has to stay home for the kids, on has to work. Though there are alternatives like a nursery , day-care, grandparents, it's a good idea to have the person that cared for the child from however many months before birth to care for them a couple months/years after birth. Though again, I want to emphasis, that the male would contribute to the offspring as well. That is what makes a man. Helping with the family and bring up the child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:25 pm
I think what defines a man is his actions. Because I believe that actions speak louder than anything else. You can look at a guy and see that he is attractive but then he goes about being a jerk. The fact that he's a jerk is going to define him more than the fact he is hot.
I'm just saying. I've seen a lot of it but for some odd reason some females don't get this and just date guys because they think they are cute. And then they end up in abusive and sucky relationships.
But I digress. Defining a male can be difficult. But I say go more with what he does than what he looks like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:25 pm
GuruLazer Norayr GuruLazer I think what Cornetto is pointing to is that it's not a selfless act if you seek some satisfaction from it. That takes the whole meaning away. To be charitable now is to give money to keep face in society or to satisfy your own feelings of self importance. Sure, if the end result is the same, what's the big deal? Think about it, it's an entirely selfish motive to helping other people. I see what you're saying. Though I'm curious, are you saying that what happens is a paradox or are you contradicting what Cornetto said? (Heh, next time I do something where I'm spending my money on the poor, and giving up my time and comfort to help people out, I'll be sure to remind myself that what I'm doing is selfish xp ) Good grief, try to understand this. I am contradicting part of what Cornetto said, I do believe people can be charitable, but it's a very, very rare quality to have. People are too overly concerned with themselves and their own good karma that they treat everything as a means to an end. Also, as for the remark about reading your statements as being shallow or truly meaningful, I think it's the way you've worded it that makes people read what you've said as being shallow. You juxtopose the physical and strong to attractiveness, which suggests you mean for the same physical application. Maybe rewording is in order? …ok, you want me to change my wording. I'll do it. Also know that I enjoy some light hearted fun and puns and everything like that. I'll be serious, but I'm going to include things like that parantheses from my last post. No need to grieve over that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:26 pm
Norayr nikki stix Norayr nikki stix Norayr Then I'd never appeal to you physically. Well... i wouldnt be too sure. I mean it al depends. ive liked some FUGLY people but it was because their personality changed how i saw them. Definitely. Have you noticed that the more you spend time with a person the less you consider their appearance. To some extent you've forgotten their appearance till you stop and just look at them for a while. True, or until one night the ugly man who turned pretty for his personality showed his dominating side and bitched at you because hes "not you little play thing" and then you see them in a WHOLE NEW LIGHT... yep its true. when you think so highly of some one it takes one bad action to turn it all around. That's ugly, and I'm so sorry you had to experience that. I hope you don't generalize now; hope he hasn't tarnished men in your eyes. Nope... hs just made me see that no matter how much you knwo a person, theres allways another side. He was the... no second person i liked after my god awful boyfriend. And thanks to him im like.. "yeah, boys? not too much... im.... uh.... *thinks hard* oh yeah im taken" this is the first time ive been single with no feelings for another in..... YEARS! gosh it feels good to be free and the jealous bug has been terminated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:27 pm
Cornetto1 Norayr Thanks for the first comment. I already said that attractive has a wide array of meanings. You just chose to see the superficial. Oh and just to clarify, "If you interpret it in a shallow way, then that's you," means you choose to see it that way. I'm not saying you're shallow. No problem wink Sure, I see where you're coming from, but since when has attractive, in any that context ever meant anything other than "sexy". confused Maybe the dainty ladies of the household are looking for someone to carry heavy shopping bags because they're afraid of breaking their nails? Glad we cleared that and got it out of the way. As for the attractive, I will add my definition of it then, so that we don't have more confusion. heh, broken nails sure do hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:28 pm
This is the 21st century!
We have emos, high rates of teen pregnancies and awful music.
Come onnn, these are incredibly outdated standards and expectations. The line between male and female roles are blurring, BRILLIANT!
Equality IS and always HAS BEEN a GOOD thing!
I know the world is going to s**t, but at least it can go to s**t knowing that gays can marry and women can be in positions of authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:29 pm
Norayr GuruLazer Norayr Sure they're outdated. I'm using some biblical points. And I did mention working on your mind as well, check the first post. It's still unedited. And the man I'm talking about wouldn't have a strong ego, but the love he would receive from those he's heading would overpower the ego. Just to run something by you. Many powerful women—those who held very influential positions in the business place (fortune 500 companies), regarded as the business place as nothing once they had children. That they just left the bread-winning to their husbands. And those who opposed this didn't have any kids. It goes to showing you how the views change, and how some of them vary. You can't really assume anything till you've experienced almost all that life has to offer. And that doesn't go into saying that I've experienced everything and know anything there is about the human race. I'm still growing and learning as well. As I can tell, for your views still seem pretty limited. This is not a judgement or criticism intentionally on my part, just an observation. As for leave to have children, it's not much for business women to ask to leave whilst they deliver their own child; something a man is incapable of doing, but would undoubtedly be given better treatment and consideration if he did. Some women choose to leave work to raise a family, some stay working. Some men make the same choices, but I notice you didn't bring them into the equation. However, one question. you say you were using Biblical references, I must have missed them. Could you point them out? They were subtle points, give me a second to go back and look over to shed some light on them. Here's the thing. Mothers have a lot easier time connecting to the offspring than the fathers do. This doesn't mean that the father is not going to invest time into their child. I commend fathers that do this, and I personally want as much time away from my work to spend with my family. I have priorities. These women that I mentioned earlier on chose to completely quite their jobs to connect with their child(ren). It's crazy how in Europe families that receive a newborn get so much time with them. I believe for about more than half a year, but over here, it's only a month or so. It's ridiculous! Plus in this fast paced world, one of them has to stay home for the kids, on has to work. Though there are alternatives like a nursery , day-care, grandparents, it's a good idea to have the person that cared for the child from however many months before birth to care for them a couple months/years after birth. Though again, I want to emphasis, that the male would contribute to the offspring as well. That is what makes a man. Helping with the family and bring up the child. The way you've described this bringing up of the child makes the father seem very distant. I'm not sure about other families, but in mine both parents had an equal hand at raising the children. I think prioritising is in order. A father in your desciption misses out a lot of their child's life while the mother stays home to care for him/her. Very well, he has a career and is a busy, busy guy. But won't he regret later in life when his children have all grown up and flown the nest not spending more time with them when they were growing up? If you can see this point and sympathise with it, then you must surely understand the pregnancy leave a woman has. She has an extra price to pay, her own body is undergoing changes to carry the child. Listen, in the end somebody has to work to pay the bills, if not both parents. What I'm saying is that the role of the housewife is no longer as relevant as it used to be, when a woman was tied to the kitchen by her apron strings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:31 pm
kaintehdragoon I think what defines a man is his actions. Because I believe that actions speak louder than anything else. You can look at a guy and see that he is attractive but then he goes about being a jerk. The fact that he's a jerk is going to define him more than the fact he is hot. I'm just saying. I've seen a lot of it but for some odd reason some females don't get this and just date guys because they think they are cute. And then they end up in abusive and sucky relationships. But I digress. Defining a male can be difficult. But I say go more with what he does than what he looks like. Yes! Very good point. Actions do speak louder than words. It's what I believe what love is. Love is more of an action than a feeling. And a man must have love and the actions to back up what he believes. A man must be someone that can keep his word. <-Reliability and Dependable. Someone secure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:33 pm
Norayr kaintehdragoon I think what defines a man is his actions. Because I believe that actions speak louder than anything else. You can look at a guy and see that he is attractive but then he goes about being a jerk. The fact that he's a jerk is going to define him more than the fact he is hot. I'm just saying. I've seen a lot of it but for some odd reason some females don't get this and just date guys because they think they are cute. And then they end up in abusive and sucky relationships. But I digress. Defining a male can be difficult. But I say go more with what he does than what he looks like. Yes! Very good point. Actions do speak louder than words. It's what I believe what love is. Love is more of an action than a feeling. And a man must have love and the actions to back up what he believes. A man must be someone that can keep his word. <-Reliability and Dependable. Someone secure. Haha thank you for agreeing with me. I was worried I was going to get laughed out of here. But yeah. I've always liked people with more personality. This way I'm not stuck with some person that looks good, but is a jerk to me. lol biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:33 pm
nikki stix Norayr That's ugly, and I'm so sorry you had to experience that. I hope you don't generalize now; hope he hasn't tarnished men in your eyes. Nope... hs just made me see that no matter how much you knwo a person, theres allways another side. He was the... no second person i liked after my god awful boyfriend. And thanks to him im like.. "yeah, boys? not too much... im.... uh.... *thinks hard* oh yeah im taken" this is the first time ive been single with no feelings for another in..... YEARS! gosh it feels good to be free and the jealous bug has been terminated I'm glad to hear that you don't feel you need a man to complete you. That's very good. Though do you feel you're still incomplete (not from a "I need a man" pov)? Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:34 pm
By "what defines a man", do you mean a male? Or a human?
Because practically all of these things apply to both genders...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:36 pm
Cornetto1 This is the 21st century! We have emos, high rates of teen pregnancies and awful music. Come onnn, these are incredibly outdated standards and expectations. The line between male and female roles are blurring, BRILLIANT! Equality IS and always HAS BEEN a GOOD thing! I know the world is going to s**t, but at least it can go to s**t knowing that gays can marry and women can be in positions of authority. I never said though that the they're not equal. There a sort of mutual agreement here, that makes the relationship equal. Though I'm still struggling to figure out how it works. From the Bible (yea, I'm a Christian) Husbands love your wives as yourselves (equality) You're not going to put the woman over your head, and you're not going to Lord over them though you're the head of the family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:40 pm
GuruLazer Norayr They were subtle points, give me a second to go back and look over to shed some light on them. Here's the thing. Mothers have a lot easier time connecting to the offspring than the fathers do. This doesn't mean that the father is not going to invest time into their child. I commend fathers that do this, and I personally want as much time away from my work to spend with my family. I have priorities. These women that I mentioned earlier on chose to completely quite their jobs to connect with their child(ren). It's crazy how in Europe families that receive a newborn get so much time with them. I believe for about more than half a year, but over here, it's only a month or so. It's ridiculous! Plus in this fast paced world, one of them has to stay home for the kids, on has to work. Though there are alternatives like a nursery , day-care, grandparents, it's a good idea to have the person that cared for the child from however many months before birth to care for them a couple months/years after birth. Though again, I want to emphasis, that the male would contribute to the offspring as well. That is what makes a man. Helping with the family and bring up the child.The way you've described this bringing up of the child makes the father seem very distant. I'm not sure about other families, but in mine both parents had an equal hand at raising the children. I think prioritising is in order. A father in your desciption misses out a lot of their child's life while the mother stays home to care for him/her. Very well, he has a career and is a busy, busy guy. But won't he regret later in life when his children have all grown up and flown the nest not spending more time with them when they were growing up? If you can see this point and sympathise with it, then you must surely understand the pregnancy leave a woman has. She has an extra price to pay, her own body is undergoing changes to carry the child. Listen, in the end somebody has to work to pay the bills, if not both parents. What I'm saying is that the role of the housewife is no longer as relevant as it used to be, when a woman was tied to the kitchen by her apron strings. You've misunderstood me, if you think that I'm saying a man should stay away from the development of the family. I'm trying to stress that he has to be involved. I say he has to stay at work because even a week off is going to cause some hardship economically. I've seen this happen. Though at the same time, he NEEDs time with his family. Thus, I come back to the balance comment I made earlier on in the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:40 pm
Norayr Cornetto1 This is the 21st century! We have emos, high rates of teen pregnancies and awful music. Come onnn, these are incredibly outdated standards and expectations. The line between male and female roles are blurring, BRILLIANT! Equality IS and always HAS BEEN a GOOD thing! I know the world is going to s**t, but at least it can go to s**t knowing that gays can marry and women can be in positions of authority. I never said though that the they're not equal. There a sort of mutual agreement here, that makes the relationship equal. Though I'm still struggling to figure out how it works. From the Bible (yea, I'm a Christian) Husbands love your wives as yourselves (equality) You're not going to put the woman over your head, and you're not going to Lord over them though you're the head of the family. On the contrary, you did say the sexes are not equal the moment you stated that they must know their places as different sides of the species. Dress it however you want, the fact still remains that the relationship is wholly unequal when the woman has to reach a compromise to satisfy the male. It's all well and good saying love your wives as yourselves, but there's always going to be that overarching metanarrative of inequality when the women wait on the needs of the husband and put themselves second (third if there are children).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
