The Official Tony Blair Is A f***ing Arsehole Thread

[HIM]

You oughta get your head out of your anus. Biology plays a part in certain behaviours and characteristics, and I'm not talking about anything aesthetic here, because that's all variable.

I'm talking about genetically inbuilt characteristics, which are related to chromosomes and hormones. Testosterone is the more agressive hormone, yes? Surely even you knew that? That's why violence, and aggression are more prevalent in males than females.

Everyone here seems to know this except you. And I'm not a feminist, either, so I don't need to know about the basic tenets of feminism. It's irrelevant to me, most of it is written by women who have been around the block more times than a tramp's dog, so they're basically hypocrites anyway.

your subtly nuanced arguments are impressive.

however, on we plod.

to reiterate the point, you are mistaking correlation with causation. you've made the assertion that chromosomes and hormones cause violence and aggression. can you demonstrate that these characteristics do not simply appear together, or are you just trying to recite a half-remembered headline from a newspaper about a particular, dominant, paradigm of natural science?

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

Yes, there are violent women - but the point I was making is that violence exists far more in men than in women.

once again, i will state this simple but important point;

violence is not an ends, but a means

see, im not talking about women or anybody for that matter 'being violent'
or
doing violence
i mean
by all accounts, me like Adolf Eichmann were peaceable, mild mannered fellows
BUT HE DID CONTRIBUTE TO MUCH VIOLENCE
however, he need not do any of it himself

also
another historical example is the once time honored practice
of

dueling
see, we know from historical records why most duels were fought
and by far the leading reason was some matter involving some woman
furthermore, it was also a common practice for many of these women to marry the winner of duels!
&
to be perfectly honest
speaking much experience on this point
man, did the girls find me alot more attractive
when i wore this

and i know i am far from alone in this
so maybe women are as integral a part to our violent societies as men
by so many of them being attracted to wealth, power, 'animal magnetism'
etc etc

 

[Kickstand]

With all due respect, you can't possibly make that assertion, since Thatcher is probably the only female leader you can name.

Hillary Clinton, Rice are two women who are pro-war and who supported the war on Iraq, it's not gender that matters, it's what the persons stance is. Now I am not saying every woman is pro war, this is simply not true and I actually want to see more women in higher roles in society. Clare Short is anti war and a very good politician. However what I'm saying is that 99% of leaders who are branded failures in the earlier days as Prime Minister are more than likely to turn to warfare in order to make their mark on that countries political history and to gain popularity, there have also been male leaders who are against war, James Ramsey MacDonald was a famous politician who was against war, David Lloyd Geroge almost stepped down as chancellor when Herbert Asquith declared war on the Kaiser of Germany in 1914.

Women are probably more anti war than men, I can well agree with that, although I am male, John Lennon's male, Morrissey's male and there are thousands of males who oppose war fare, Robin Cook resigned over the Iraq war. So I can see where you coming from , but you have been a bit stereotypical.

 

[The Crime Of The Century!]

your subtly nuanced arguments are impressive.

however, on we plod.

to reiterate the point, you are mistaking correlation with causation. you've made the assertion that chromosomes and hormones cause violence and aggression. can you demonstrate that these characteristics do not simply appear together, or are you just trying to recite the half-remembered headline from a newspaper about a particular, dominant, paradigm of natural science?

Actually, no. I was thinking back to high school biology. I have some vague recollection of listening to the teacher talking about chromosomes etc.

The testosterone levels in males can be held accountable for their more aggressive behaviour.

High school biology was dull, apart from the times when everyone sniggered at pictures in textbooks of men's cocks.

 

[The Crime Of The Century!]

Hillary Clinton, Rice are two women who are pro-war and who supported the war on Iraq, it's not gender that matters, it's what the persons stance is. Now I am not saying every woman is pro war, this is simply not true and I actually want to see more women in higher roles in society. Clare Short is anti war and a very good politician. However what I'm saying is that 99% of leaders who are branded failures in the earlier days as Prime Minister are more than likely to turn to warfare in order to make their mark on that countries political history and to gain popularity, there have also been male leaders who are against war, James Ramsey MacDonald was a famous politician who was against war, David Lloyd Geroge almost stepped down as chancellor when Herbert Asquith declared war on the Kaiser of Germany in 1914.

Women are probably more anti war than men, I can well agree with that, although I am male, John Lennon's male, Morrissey's male and there are thousands of males who oppose war fare, Robin Cook resigned over the Iraq war. So I can see where you coming from , but you have been a bit stereotypical.

I actually did say the majority of men, not all men. But again, how many pro-war men can you think of, compared to the amount of anti-war men? Who instigates the wars?

Clinton and Rice are only trying to boost their political careers. They will never have power or leadership because the American right would never allow it. Neither would ever be president; they simply wouldn't get the votes. Sad, but ultimately true.

 

[drunken goldfish]

to reiterate the point, you are mistaking correlation with causation. you've made the assertion that chromosomes and hormones cause violence and aggression. can you demonstrate that these characteristics do not simply appear together, or are you just trying to recite a half-remembered headline from a newspaper about a particular, dominant, paradigm of natural science?

I know you're not speaking to me, but this has been proved long ago, you can control people's hormone levels so it's not hard to make a "real" study rather than just a correlatory study (sorry, forgot the proper English terms).

Hey Kickstand, I made a post to you earlier that actually had to do with the subject of this thread .

 

[HIM]

Actually, no. I was thinking back to high school biology. I have some vague recollection of listening to the teacher talking about chromosomes etc.

The testosterone levels in males can be held accountable for their more aggressive behaviour.

High school biology was dull, apart from the times when everyone sniggered at pictures in textbooks of men's cocks.

well, perhaps you should penetrate the world of natural science a little more deeply, prior to trying to invoke it as a support for half-baked hypotheses.

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

The testosterone levels in males can be held accountable for their more aggressive behaviour.

many women's apparent love for agressive behavior may have something to do with male agressive behaviour
dontcha think?

 

[The Crime Of The Century!]

well, perhaps you should penetrate the world of natural science a little more deeply, prior to trying to invoke it as a support for half-baked hypotheses.

It wasn't half-baked, Dim. It's simple logic, really. Only you can't seem to understand that.

 

[Kickstand]

I hope I don't sound too blunt, but these lines are very very naive. Have you ever read any speeches made by these leaders? Do you know their positions? I don't have a lot of time to at the moment (have to go to bed soon) so I hope someone else will expand on this (*cough* Theo *cough* ).

As for me being pro-American, yes, that is predictable , however you may be surprised to know I agree with you that bombing Japan was unjustified.

I just refreshed and saw Crime's post, real quick response: "Why is he anticipating attack"? Um, hello? Honestly, it seems you guys don't know who you're dealing with. a global effort? Come on!
For the record, I also think women would never start wars, but that's exactly why we don't control the world - we don't have this rediculous desire to dominate everything...

Perhaps they are very naive, do feel free to call them utopian, I am often living in my own world, but you know that's what happens when you have a vivid imagination like me. I read too much John Milton it would seem, I am very young, I have lots to learn and learn I shall, but I pay attention to world and current affairs so I feel I can comment on things and of course be corrected. I'm not afraid to get things wrong, so perhaps you and Theo, could educate me on such matters.

I have read speeches, I watch the news, I do not know their stance, although I did read about Iran wanting to wipe Israel off the map, which is why all nuclear energy should be banned, period. Of course Iran aren't stupid enough to use them, no they'll threaten, but they'd never do it, it just gives the US a reason to use theirs and lets face it, the US has had nuclear technology for forty nine years. Iran are just starting, or so I believe.

Let's not forget that Israel aren't angels either, so I won't take notice of Israeli propaganda.

Thatcher, Iron Lady, declared war on Falklands, she was a woman, Clinton, Rice supported war on Iraq.

That's like all women stay faithful to their partners. Utopian, naturally men are more geared to violence, but women can be too.

 

[The Crime Of The Century!]

many women's apparent love for agressive behavior may have something to do with male agressive behaviour
dontcha think?

I don't know what you're saying... explain further, please.

 

[HIM]

you can control people's hormone levels.

which kinda bears out the point that behaviour isn't determined by sex, but, instead, by factors external to the person.

 

[The Crime Of The Century!]

which kinda bears out the point that behaviour isn't determined by sex, but, instead, by factors external to the person.

Nonsense. Hormones are internal, genetic, hereditary. Soon as the embryo develops a sex, certain behaviours have already been pre-determined.

 

[Kickstand]

Since I'm not going to bed anyway , I thought I'd revive the previous discussion. For Kickstand, difference number one between the U.S. and Iran/Korea: it is a democracy, not a dictatorship. I once read an interview with some Koreans, it sounded like something off "1984". I didn't realize such things actually existed, it was pretty shocking. As for Mr. Ahmadenijad, he doesn't have quite as strong a hold on his people, but he's still a dictator. Sidenote: he recently held a conference to debate whether the Holocaust ever happened or not. So - not a big fan of his either.

The US is a representative democracy, not a democracy, true democracy is what they had in ancient Greece. I am well aware of the consequences of Communism, I do not agree with extreme politics, but it's simple if the Chinese people and Iranian people wanted to, they could over throw the regimes that opress them. However they do not want to and so these people exist, Bush and Blair are just as dangerous, there is no good vs evil in warfare, both sides are going to see the opposing leaders, regimes and countries as evil, wicked people.

I'm not a fan of any politician, but many of these problems have occured from the US interfering in other countries politics.

 

[drunken goldfish]

Kickstand, I already wrote another post . EDIT: oops, you replied, going to read...

which kinda bears out the point that behaviour isn't determined by sex, but, instead, by factors external to the person.

Well, since most people don't get hormone therapy, their behaviour is influenced, amongst other things , by their natural hormone levels, which are influenced by their sex. I didn't realize these things were in dispute, I shall look for actual studies if you still need convincing .

 

[The Crime Of The Century!]

The US is a representative democracy, not a democracy, true democracy is what they had in ancient Greece. I am well aware of the consequences of Communism, I do not agree with extreme politics, but it's simple if the Chinese people and Iranian people wanted to, they could over throw the regimes that opress them. However they do not want to and so these people exist, Bush and Blair are just as dangerous, there is no good vs evil in warfare, both sides are going to see the opposing leaders, regimes and countries as evil, wicked people.

I'm not a fan of any politician, but many of these problems have occured from the US interfering in other countries politics.

I know their human rights record is appalling, but Communist China actually has some really good policies. Restricting the number of children per family is a great idea.

 

[HIM]

It wasn't half-baked, Dim. It's simple logic, really. Only you can't seem to understand that.

hmmm... "logic", with the emphasis on "simple".

it's the same sort of logic used to "explain" the domination of women, by men; blacks, by whites; poor, by rich. it's because rich, white men are inherently (that is to say, biologically) superior, of course.

stick to the physical stuff, Sporty.

 

[hatfull]

wow. People are having serious social and political discussions...and I'm gorging myself on Big Brother

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

I don't know what you're saying... explain further, please.

who do you think gets more girls?

wimpy, passive, or weak men
or
agressive, strong, virile types

and
do 'we' men decide or women what you all
are gonna find attractive?

cuz sister
let me tell you

it is WOMEN that have taught be to more agressive
in order to gain their favor
than ever caring a single bit about what 'other guys' think

 

[Kickstand]

I actually did say the majority of men, not all men. But again, how many pro-war men can you think of, compared to the amount of anti-war men? Who instigates the wars?

Clinton and Rice are only trying to boost their political careers. They will never have power or leadership because the American right would never allow it. Neither would ever be president; they simply wouldn't get the votes. Sad, but ultimately true.

Have faith, Nancy Pelosi is the first woman to have such a high ranking Government job in American history, I think you'll find women are starting to make an impact in American politics. It will take a while, African Americans spent well over a century fighting for their civil rights and they eventually got them.