[kahljorn]

Yeah, you fucking retard fuckwad, I do not think you understand what is going on here but are just nit-picking.... etc

Was that (everything coming after that) supposed to be an argument? Sounds more like a bunch of crap. Do you know what equivocating is? Look it up. You could be said to be commiting the error of composition, as well.

You obviously don't understand that there are different definitions of FEMININE. or at least that there are different types of FEMININE, and that all of them might not be bad. But yet, you attach the word feminine to them and they instantly become bad.

Fallacy. Error. Bad thought.

Or her advisers ran much of the show; or she is an exception amongst women.

You don't know? Why don't you study her. She isn't known as Catherine the great because her advisers made all of her decisions for her. She killed her husband who was ruling because he was weak, ugly and unambitious.
and why is she an EXCEPTION. Because of ABILITY or because of CULTURE?

Stoicism is about the suppression of such passions to some extent, however, few argued more patiently for the invasion and destruction of Carthage than the stoic Cato the Elder.

How is that relevant or even a refutation? Why did you put HOWEVER there? That's not a HOWEVER.

lol.

My argument is that embracing feminine values and not taking hard line stances on moral questions is the downfall of civilization.

Jeanette already asked what feminine values are ( ididnt read all of her post though CAUSE I COULDNTWAIT TO TEAR INTO YOU).

Hardline stances on moral questions? What does that have to do with the feminine? Possibly because BEING FEMININE IS BEING SOFT. IF YOU LIKE WEARING MAKEUP, THEN YOU LIKE BEING FEMININE. IF YOU LIKE BEING FEMINE, THEN YOU ARE SOFT. THEREFORE IF YOU LIKE WEARING MAKEUP THEN YOU ARE SOFT ON MORAL ISSUES.
man there's like two examples of equivocation there. Good job ;\ Sorry, but many females take extremely hard stances on stuff like abortion, female rights etc. etc.

I would say the majority of the downfall comes from a sense of luxury and riches which lull the nation into a dreamlike, sated state of decadence.

Its good that you are capable of saying that. I mean, you aren't begging the question or anything. Do you have any reasons to support this? Any historical evidence that decadence, luxury and riches are what caused the downfall of rome? There are tons of theories about what made it fall, by actual historians who have reasons and evidence to support it.

You know what I can say? Masculinity and cunts like you caused the downfall of the west. I guess it must be true cause i said it.

I was not thinking of stoicism in the pure sense of the Greek philosophy but more in how it is portrayed in the way people act; I wasn't clear enough for you, or rather, I was, and you chose to pick out just one, small part of the argument.

Actually, no, i wasn't. Your argument was small; and it wasn't even an argument. You didn't clarify anything, you just said STOICISM. You just SAY things. That isn't the same as making an argument. Arguments are usually in paragraph form and the sentences build on eachother -- you know, supporting eachother in a way that isn't purely occidental?

The German concept of 'vir' is a good notion of what I am talking about here, I guess... Manliness, soldierliness, harboring strong values and a strong path. Stoicism plays a certain role in all of this, naturally.

Okay well where is your argument based on this. You can't just say, VIR IS LIKE WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT. IT HAS THESE QUALITIES. ITS GOOD MAN. VERY GOOD. STOICISM PLAYS A ROLE IN IT. Who does the concept of VIR come from so that I can look it up?
What does any of that really mean?
I can get STRONG VALUES AND STRONG PATH but what does it mean to have "MANLINESS" and "SOLDIERLINESS."

you're just trying to change things around so you don't look stupid.

(2) Women have attached themselves to the more emotional side of things because of estrogen and lack of testosterone, I guess. I am not really sure. Maybe it is even environmental -- I guess if you were the physically weaker gender in an environment ruled by force, it would behoove you to be submissive and harbor differen values.

Maybe its because of THE CULTURE. DO YOU KNOW WHAT CULTURE IS? AT ALL? MEN AND WOMEN ARENT BORN TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. THEY ARE TRAINED TO. Men are trained not to show emotion because it makes them look weak, and women are trained to show emotion a lot because its nice. But they don't inherently show more or less emotion.

You aren't really sure is probably the smartest thing you've said. But if you aren't SURE, WHY DO YOU KEEP TALKING? WHY NOT SHUT THE FUCK UP INSTEAD?

lol, what? Because women can do something, it is all over? The arguments are done?

You obviously don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying, since women can be masculine, then they can just replace men. And men can replace women. Hope that's simple enough for you. You seem to thrive on one sentence responses.
Basically, if women started to hold STRONG VALUES, MANLINESS, SOLDIERLINESS, AND THE STRONG PATH, then if we put them in authority to replace the men who have become weak, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, the west would not fall.
This is because masculinity would still be the active principle.

This is why I keep telling you that your association of MEN with MASCULINE CHARACTERISTICS and FEMALE with the FEMININE is little more than EQUIVOCATION and CULTURE.

It's kind of like how BLACK AND WHITE have been historically and culturally tied to GOOD AND EVIL, HEALING AND DECAY. But it doesn't mean that black people or bad, or even that white people are good. Your argument would basically be like if i said, "George has black hair. So obviously he's a bad guy." that's what you are doing.

THESE ARE JUST ASSOCIATIONS, ITS NOT THE SAME AS FACT. PEOPLE CREATED THESE DEFINITIONS AND DENOMINATIONS, THEY DONT NECESSARILY RELATE TO FEMALES. DO YOU KNOW WHAT EXISTENTIALISM IS, EXISTENCE PRECEDES ESSENCE?
MAKEUP FOR EXAMPLE ISNT EXPLICITELY FOR WOMEN. OR WIGS. GUYS USED TO WEAR POWDERED WIGS ALL THE TIME. I THINK THE FOREFATHERS DID. WERE THEY WEAK? YET YOU WOULD CONSIDER THEM FEMININE BECAUSE NOW A DAYS FEMALES WEAR IT. BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN MAKEUP HAS ALWAYS BEEN OR EVER WAS ONLY FOR WOMEN.

If you look to the exception to every rule as the rule, then you are an idiot.

Certainly, if something is always an exception, then it must be a rule that it will always be an exception. But i wasn't looking to "Exceptions." You obviously don't know how to follow arguments or engage in intelligent conversation. I apologize.

Well, Romans later went on to be feminine douche bags like all great civilizations that compromise their values.

When? How were they feminine douchebags? The roman empire technically continued until like the 18th century or something... How did they compromise their values? What other civilizations became FEMININE and had a downfall? Which feminine characteristics did they have? How can an ENTIRE CULTURE BE FEMININE? THAT DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE.

I can probably argue that many socieities have flourished because of some of their feminine values. Religious tolerance, for example. And I can argue that STRONG VALUES have caused the downfall of others. but whatever.

your problem is that you attach the label FAILURE and WEAK to feminine and thereby think that by attaching the label FEMININE to something you have defined it, showed it's characteristics, and discussed it intelligently with historical facts and information and thereby refuted its validity.

when really all youve done is beg the question over and over, and supplied no reasons. Please use some reasoning. Combine sentences. Like... you know.. paragraphs.

Luxury bred out the warrior spirit within the Roman people, and it made peopel grow attached to the material and sated as opposed to desiring a more disciplined life.

Do you have a historical source for this

How have women been a model of stoicism?

Because, historically women haven't been allowed to indulge in anything. They weren't allowed to own riches, they weren't allowed to drink, they weren't allowed to have sex with lots of people (women were sometimes killed for adultery). Usually the reason why women dressed up so pretty wasn't because THEY wanted to, but because men wanted something pretty to look up. The men were indulging themselves by making women adhere to their values, not vice versa. Also im not sure that roman women dressed decadently, so that's prolly irrelevant anyway.

what did roman women do that was so indulgent, luxurant or leisurely that wasn't forced on them by men? And dont say something like, STAYING AT HOME AND RAISING the kids cause that isn't necessarily easy.

oh yea and the lower class is way different than the upper class, too.

abortion has marked the downfall of most civilizations, including the Greeks and the Romans, as have low birth rates.

Where's your historical source for this? You can't just say shit like its true.

Look, again. Abortion has caused the flourishing of many societies. See how I said it? It's not true because i said it.
Societies that have low birth rates aren't necessarily due to abortions. Do you think abortions alone are what causes low birth rates in america? No, its because our cultural values have shifted to one in which popping out children isn't necessarily the highest value for women.
In fact, most women's values have changed to one of ambition. Rather than get knocked up young, they want to be educated, get good jobs, and be successful in life. So, again, here's another example of women being masculine, and how CULTURAL VALUES CAN SHIFT. And this is what i mean by women could replace men.
You should argue that BIRTH CONTROL causes low birth rate. Don't let me make your arguments for you, though. its not as fun...

Women have generally been portrayed as the emotional upbringers of the children.

Yep, but that's not necessarily what they are. That's a CULTURAL THING. Read the second sex. Study cultures that had strong women, and why they were strong. Women don't go around crying all the time.
You know what else? When women get angry they are called cunts and bitches. That's what you might considering labeling (look up labeling theory) and discouragement from being strong. Its how culturization works.

Your arguments are shit. I can already think of several ways to argue your points more strongly.

Here's some interesting facts:
In cultures in which women had similar roles as men, their skeletal structures became more equal. This happened somewhere in australia; i can find the exact place and research for it if you want.
A lot of feminism is about removing these negative ascribed values associated to feminine and female. It's not necessarily about MAKING MEN LESSER (thats an extreme) but about taking these negative values away.
Kind of like how for a long time blacks were thought to be less than human (that was the justification for slavery in America), but now we know that they aren't because of all the cultural changes.

HERESOME LITTLE FACTOIDS FOR YOU:
in societies in which women had similar roles as men, their skeletal structures became the same. Women were as strong as men.
Interesting huh?