Intelligent Chat 2:

1 Got locked, so heres the second one.

Well, heck... come home and find everything locked. And then you didn't even start a new topic, Kaitlin! :)

By the way, thank you... glad what I last wrote encapsulated some things for you. Always wonderful to be loved. ;)

Bret, start a new topic for us! You can be intellectually controversial! ;)

Yes~ I'm lacking intellectual inspiration tonight. Bret's always full of intelligent ideas.

And Miles, you are very loved :)

That's a good one.. and a tough one too, Bob.

I guess my opinion is that there isn't a "proper" thing to do.

Part of it would depend on the person's wishes. My parents both have living wills and don't want to be put on life support of any kind. I guess that means it's out of my hands and I don't have to make that decision if that time ever comes.

For any other case (if there is no living will) it would be a GREAT matter of faith and prayer if that's your thing (it is mine, for sure!)

It's a harder decision when the person is living with out the aid of any machines... and they are a vegetable, like you mentioned. I really can't even fathom what I would do if one of my loved ones was in that situation.

(I guess, I really didn't answer the question, eh??)

Heh, being controversial and playing the devil's advocate is great fun. But onto the topic...

If my organs are healthy then keep the heart pumping until a suitable donor or preferably donors can be found for organ donation.

My mum is DNR, and whilst I'm not too chuffed with that I respect her choice completely. At the end of the day, any choice that we make for loved ones cannot be for our self interest, but in the interest of our loved one's beliefs.

An interesting aspect could be if your soul is locked to a living body. You could be brain dead but your journey to the next level/plane/incarnation/what ever you think is there is halted until your body dies. In terms of time it is not a big deal unless you're supposed to move on when your spirit and body are no longer properly linked. What would happen in such an instance?

See, that's what I was struggling with. I'm a Christian, so I personally believe that the second you die, your spirit goes to Heaven. So the big question is... if only machines are keeping your body alive... is your spirit already gone, or is it stuck there in the body until it officially quits working? I definitely wouldn't want to keep my loved one from moving on to Heaven.

My gran has motor neurons disease which is crap and I love her very much however if She was only alive because of machines then she wouldn't really be living at all, Though it would be awful we have to think of the other people who may need that bed xx

Thanks Bob, good topic.

Personally, and because of my metaphysical and spiritual views more than anything else, I wouldnt want to hang around the earth plane as a vegitable, especially if I were brain dead.

I would not keep a relative alive if machines were the only thing sustaining them either, unless they were conscious and they told me that they wanted to be alive, in which case it would be their decision, but again, the main thing that concerns me is being brain dead. If my relative were brain dead or comatose with little probability of ever being normal again, I would do them and my family a favor and pull the plug.

I believe in reincarnation, and I dont think that just because we have found out how to have a machine sustain life for extended periods of time that the technology should be utilized, simply because when the body gives out I think its time to pass on.

I believe that if machines are used to rehabilitate ONLY and not SUSTAIN life, that it can be beneficial.

I wouldnt want to be comatose in a bed for 15 years with spit running down my chin breaking my families hearts each time they see me and being an emotional and financial burden to them.

but it sounds like veg-i-table :(

hoo hoo boo.

Got it, thanks Mr. Bob Shank

Vegetable
Vegetable
Vegetable....

OOOKKK....

The intelligent conversation is halted on spelling vegetable... sad....

Anyone got any more intelligent ideas???

Ummm... not meaning to vegetate on the previous subject, but I've got to agree with Kaitlin (I suppose fully, including the reincarnation bit).

As to what might happen if you're meant to live? Well, to comment from something that happened to my grandfather... he was clinically dead for several hours when he was 5. The doctors gave up but his mother refused to do so. She brought in the Elders (at the time he was Mormon) and they prayed for I believe 7 hours and suddenly he awoke.

Now however you want to look at what happened, obviously if he was meant to stay dead, he probably would have. Similarly, if someone's life support is cut and they hang on, well... seems to me like something (whether it's that person's soul or something else) is telling you something. Sometimes people rest in comas for years before achieving full consciousness, so you never know.

Now if you remove life support and they die... well, that says something as well.

Oh, and this is a shameless pump, but I posted the last of my Destined Bower Cycle last night. And yes, Bob, I'll get around soon to posting the entire Cycle in one "poem". But I've got to warn you, it's 60 stanzas in its entirety.

I'm rather annoyed, though... was having some nice ratings on the final canto and then someone rated it a 1 but left no comments for improvement. I don't know why people do that.

If a poem is that bad, hopefully there would be _some_ constructive criticism that could be offered to make it better. After all, from a 1 there's nowhere to go but up! ;)

Ok... here's an intellectual chat... let's analyze the following. And let's analyze it without worrying about origins or anything else... just reading it and discussing what the heck we think the author was trying to say. Let the games begin!

1: Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

2: Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them.

3: Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks.

4: Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men.

5: Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.

6: Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, I will get me to the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense.

7: Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee.

8: Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse, with me from Lebanon: look from the top of Amana, from the top of Shenir and Hermon, from the lions' dens, from the mountains of the leopards.

9: Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse; thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes, with one chain of thy neck.

10: How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices!

11: Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue; and the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon.

12: A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.

13: Thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits; camphire, with spikenard,

14: Spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices:

15: A fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon.

16: Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.

Ok, in the interests of keeping thngs lively and up beat I'll use some English coloquial terms. Do not be offended.

1: what have we here? Good looking lady on first appraisal. Nice eyes, hair like a goat though. (yes, that's a joke)

2: nice teeth, an even and perfect smile.

3: Thin lips, but a nice shde of lipstick.

4: Ahh pomegranates... Food of the Gods, temples, worship. Nice touch. She has obvious intelligence, probably wit and wisdom.

5: Roe.. fish eggs? A small but lively pair, enjoyable all the same? (Anything more than a handful is a waste.)

6: Oh, are we having good night? No reference to a wandering star though? Shame.

7: All in all she scrubs up well. not too shabby at all

8: Lebanon; the cradle of humanity, with you I am safe.

9: You're my best friend and you have THAT look in your eyes (busy night ahead and I'll leave it at that).

10: You're number one, girl. Nothing compares.

11: everything about her is intoxicating, comfortable, homley and yet more.

12: looks like a sexual reference, but beyond me at this state of tiredness.

13-16: Officially brain dead. (organ donor) I'll try again later.

Nice Bret.. I really enjoyed that! Here's mine:

I’d love to write what these lines are REALLY about (though the info came from books and people much wiser than I)… however, I’m taking that and making my own practical application:

* In lines 1-15, a man is addressing his wife. The first seven lines, he is praising mostly her outward appearance (in the third one, he not only likes her lips, but what comes out of them as well) *

1: Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

~ thou art fair: She is nice to look at -- so much so that he repeats it three times, he wants to make sure she knows and delights in telling her.
~ thou hast doves' eyes: doves are a symbol of peace and innocence. Maybe he is emphasizing her purity and/or the purity of their love.
~ thy hair is as a flock of goats: of course goats have a not so nice connotation attached to them nowadays, but even so, their coats are valuable and usually long. Her hair is thick, valuable and long.

2: Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them.

~ Her teeth are white, even and healthy

3: Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks.

~ lips are like a thread of scarlet: scarlet denoting health (pale would denote weakness)
~ speech is comely: Whether it is romantic things or just appropriate speech, he likes what she’s saying.
~ temples…pomegranate: rosy cheeks…maybe blushing… denoting humility and modesty
~ within they locks: another mention of her hair being long. It covers her face.

4: Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men.

~ She is strong – physically, emotionally, mentally.

5: Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.

~ young roes/feed : I know Bret’s comments were meant to be humorous, so I’m sure he knows that young roes are baby deer. I can’t help but think of “Bambi” when I read this. When he and the other fawns are feeding in the meadow, the does are watching over them. Her breasts are important to him and he wants to protect them.
~twins: convey the thought of equality. If we take the outer breasts as a metaphor for what’s inside (the heart) we get to the thought that her emotions are rational and that she is impartial and non-judgmental.

6: Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, I will get me to the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense.

~ To whatever these “mountains” are referring, myrrh is bitter and frankincense is sweet. So the idea is that no matter what, good times and bad, they will go through it together…forever. (until the day break and the shadows flee…death?)

7: Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee.

~ another repeating of the “thou art fair” and a proclamation that she is without spot… or perfect.

-----

Lines 8-13 he repeatedly calls her “my spouse” & “my sister, my spouse”. I don’t think he means literally she is his sister, too, but that they have a close relationship similar to that of a brother & sister. I think mostly he wants to emphasize that she is his wife and he is proud of it.

8: Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse, with me from Lebanon: look from the top of Amana, from the top of Shenir and Hermon, from the lions' dens, from the mountains of the leopards.

~He bids her to be with him. He wants to take her away and keep her safe (from the lions’ dens and the mountains of leopards)

9: Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse; thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes, with one chain of thy neck.
--Merriam-Webster has two definitions of ravish: 1. to seize or take away & 2. to overcome with emotion or joy SO:

~ with one look from her eye, one sparkle of her necklace, she has stolen his heart and/or filled it with joy

10: How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices!
~ her love is intoxicating and her scent better than all spices.

11: Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue; and the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon.
~he loves her voice and what she says to him.

12: A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
~ she is his and only his, for his delight and enjoyment. Enclosed for protection.

13: Thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits; camphire, with spikenard,
14: Spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices:
15: A fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon.
~she is everything he needs and gives him everything he needs

------
* Her speaking to him *

16: Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.
~ Awake…: as the wind blows on a garden and moves it, she longs for his presence and influence to bring out the best in her.
~ Let my beloved…: she is inviting him to enjoy her and all the benefits that come from having her as his wife.

Ummm... your perception was.... intelligent.....

I wont bother to break down the poem because Ann Marie did it so beautifully and I agree.

Hhhhmmm. This topic is getting kind of slow.

By the way its kind of the antithesis of intelligent to look up the definition instead of giving your own personal opinion.... that was what Miles asked for.

While I actually always liked the name Miles as a first name, by all means, call me Frank.

And yes!! What's all this looking up the meaning?! Booo! Booo!!

I enjoyed what Bret wrote, though. No reason we can't take some humor from the Song of Songs, after all. ;)

Ok... we need a different topic, obviously. Kaitlin, do you have any suggestions?

Alright Frank, I'll go... (you're a fellow Oregonian by the way, which means I have no choice but to love you :) lol)

Anyway, what psychological impact do you think that how a child is raised has on the personality? How much effect do environmental circumstances have on personality development and how adults turn out to be later on in life? Do you think you are born a blank slate and then get conditioned to act a certain way, or do you think that you are born with a personality that reacts to the life you get put into and everyone responds differently? What would create a "personality" anyway? And how do life, circumstances, and the people around you mold it developmentally?

Philosophical, semi intellectual. Depends on how deep people are willing to go.

Discuss the possibilities:

Ok, may I join in?

I think the way in which a child is raised has a pretty major psycholoical impact on it. If the parents of the child spoil it, the child is very likely to grow up believing that it's every will should be obeyed.

Ok, I'd like to answer more but I seriously have to go, sayonara folks x

A child is a canvas with the background scenery pre-painted.

There are somethings that will be there forever, dictating reaction to certain and specific events in a set way.

But for the most part, everything we become is the result of environment. Look at the Army, it changes a man without direction into a soldier, disciplined, mentally aware and prepared to do things that in any other circumstace would seem more than crazy. and that is just four or five months of training. Imagine the effect that 18 years of childhood must have.

(keeping this one relatively short for now as I'm interested in other people's thoughts on this.)

What about mental abuse? At the time when the foundations of a mental frame work is being built, isn't that worse?

(First of all anyone is allowed to join the intellectual conversation as long as they have something intellectual to offer, everyone else will be booted with a swift kick in their idiotic ass :) )

(Bret, are being built, not is being built)

A childs' reaction to the world around them has to be based upon SOMETHING to begin with, otherwise we would all react the same, and we don’t. There are stereotypes, that even I sometimes have a hard time looking past, that could be considered generally true, like the statistics that Bob put forth for us. Then there are also people like my brother, sister, and me, who don’t fit the mold of any stereotype. This is why I put forth the question- is it DNA that dictates personality traits? Or just tendencies, such as alcoholism, or is it not DNA, is it just being raised in an environment where the father was an alcoholic, so that was what their experience was and they succumb to it.

There are two choices in everyone’s life, they can do it the same, or do it differently, but what key factors influence THAT decision.

For instance a Mike is an 8-year-old boy, and his father had a hard day at work. He comes home and he has a couple drinks to wind down, then Mikes mother (who is obviously PMSing) starts an unnecessary fight with his father. Mike then spills coke all over the new white carpet in the house, and because his fathers’ fuse is short, he starts yelling that he is a worthless idiot and hits him.

This is the first time that Mikes father has ever done anything like this, and it leaves a huge impression on him. He no longer ever feels the same around his father and he never feels like he can make a mistake is OK to make, because his fathers reaction to something completely unintentional instilled in him psychologically that making a mistake is something that you cannot do without getting hurt. The associative link has been made.

Mike grows up and has a family of his own. He has a hard day at work, he gets in an argument with his wife, he has a couple drinks, and then his 6-year-old son accidentally breaks the front window of the house playing baseball with his younger sister.

Mike experiences an immediate flash back and feels immense anger towards his father, this really hits home for him, but he is so angry that he starts yelling at his son.

He now has a choice: He can do it the same, or do it differently. If he chooses to do it differently he overcomes what in his life has affected all of it, he knows that what his father did scarred him for life and changed his reaction to the world immensely, even though it was a relatively painless experience, he was just a kid and couldn’t comprehend it. He overcomes his childhood demons, and feels no need to act out upon his son for his pain, and he spares his son the hardships he has had to endure. Or, Mike hits his son and continues screaming about what a worthless idiot he is. The sick cycle continues, and Mike is heartbroken that he would do that to his son. He knows he can never change it, and he feels the same remorse that his father did once his actions struck him realistically.

What factors influence that key defining choice? Why do some kids that get spanked or harshly disciplined as children grow up and think its not only alright, but made them better adults, and in turn do it to their kids, while some think it was the worst thing a parent could do and swear that they would never lay a hand on their child.

What causes abuse patterns to continue generationally, for instance a girls father is an alcoholic who abuses her mother, and she hates it, but she grows up and marries a man who has the same character traits and personality, and then is shocked to find herself in her mothers position the first night he strikes her.

Can you hit kids if you LOVE them enough and show them you care?

Can you abuse them and work it out later, or is the psychological impact always there?

I was hit plenty as a kid and I am grateful for it. But I was only hit for being bad, not making mistakes. So therein for one lies a huge difference.

Generational trends are genetic I think, attraction to a certain kind of man or behaviour comes not only from your mother who is attracted to the type, but also the father who has those traits already. The alcohol is a minor factor, he would no doubt behave in a similar nature with or without the alcohol as a fuel, however it would be less frequent but more violent.

I was never hit as a kid, I never needed to be hit. However I would hit my kids only when they did something bad (if I have them in the future), depedning on personality.

Girls and boys are different too, I dont know if I would hit a little girl like I might spank a little boy.

Girls and boys are no different. Well, thinking about it, girls are worse than boys, so I'd say it was the other way round.

In what way are girls worse and why would they benefit from spanking more than boys?

I also think that there is a difference between the mother being the physical disciplinarian and the father.

Girls get away with so much more than boys, don't even try denying it (yeah, I know you know). Boys get up to high jinks in the mainstay, we're boys we like pranks. Girls are altogether that much more devious.

Having helped raise my sis I know where of I speak. I hit Lauren once, and I felt terrible about it, but I'd do it again if I felt it necessary.

The man is natural disciplinarian, the hunter killer. It's part of reinforcing the presence of strength.

A woman disciplinarian is altogether more scary. I know, because I've had a few class wallops and it meant more coming from my mum. I'll have to think a bit to describe why.

The only problem with a father hitting his daughter is that she may not know how to respond, at the same time it imposes a male dominance feature in her psyche in which she will understand a man is supposed to lead, control, and protect. I dont mean outright, of course women do that as well, but in general it is good if a man has that position while still respecting and loving his woman.

I agree, girls are generally much bigger trouble makers, but its not as blatantly obvious. Boys are hyper, they run around, they lie, they play pranks, etc. and people often have a harder time with them when they are toddlers or small children, versus girls are better at those ages and grow up into snotty, sarcastic, manipulative brats.

My nephew is 5 and at a terrible age, I babysit him all the time and his parents dont discipline him nearly enough, so he is hard to handle, but I have disciplinary rights, so I exercize them. My niece is 10, and she is at a TERRIBLE age. I can hardly stand her sometimes, its all I can do not to smack her, and if I were her mother, I would, but I am her aunt (and only 6 years older, even though I cant imagine I was like that at 10), so I wouldnt feel right doing it.

I will mainly have my childrens father be the physical disciplinarian, because I think that psychologically it teaches boys and girls a good lesson, but I will discipline my kids in general to show that my daughter needs to respect the boundaries of other women, and that my son needs to respect women in general and not walk all over them. I wouldnt be against giving them a little smack across the face when they do something innapropriate though.

Bret, seeing as we're talking about psychological conditioning, you've been brainwashed by the military mate, sad but true...they don't have a training program...they have a dehumanising program that enables naturally free thinking beings to follow orders blindly...and even to kill their fellow mortals...usually for reasons they do not understand, or after pump up sessions and weeks of learning how to be nothing more than hired killers, care about.

I guess to you this is an admirable thing...doing the job for Queen and country, being manly and all that mince.

It disgusts me to the extreme.

And another thing! [ oh god not more] your male/female seperatist diatribes are getting boring....there are NO EMOTIONS or behaviours that are naturally occuring in males and females to a greater or lesser degree in the way you keep suggesting...it's all conditioning and a little body chemistry.

Boy are not natural pranksters, and though it may be a shock to you [ and i'm beginning to think you live on an island populated by ex hired killers and weight lifters] girls are not born naturally more sensitive or more inclined to wash up and clean.

Fact.

I think that everyone is different, women are not just baby makers, etc.

But I do think that subconsciously women are one way and men are another.

Everyone has different personalities, most of these are generalizations. My nephew I was talking about in a different post is 5 and I often babysit him. He is very hyper and has no boundaries or rules of any kind, he tends to be disrespectful because no one has taught him any differently. Once when he was being partucularly obnoxious and sticking his tongue out at me I told him the next time he did it I would cut it off. He took me seriously and began to freak out. He is a very sensitive person, for a girl or a boy, he takes things like that seriously. I shouldnt have said that knowing him INDIVIDUALLY, almost any other 5 year old would laugh that off, especially boys (in my humble opinion), but I got caught up in the stereotypes that he wouldnt be affected and said something that I shouldnt have said.

That right there is an example of what you are talking about, Kevin, and if he were my son I would probably never spank him because his temperment couldnt handle it as well. His sister, 10, on the other hands personality is much more conducive to that type of discipline, rough and tumble, unphazed, etc. if she were my daughter I would spank her because her personality would take it and learn from it, where her brother would feel more victimized and taken advantage of.

Stereotypically Bailey (my nephew) is much more like a girls personality than Caresse (my niece), who's personality is actually much more like a boy in many ways.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I am addressing "female" personalities more than just girls, and "masculine" personalities more than just every boy, in the above posts when I say differences between men and women.

Although subconsciously I still think that there is an underlying need for women to feel almost "dominated" in a form by a man, and that men feel a territorial need to protect their woman. The physical differences between men and women (meaning not personality), I think are dictated by Freuds philosophies, and I think that subconsciously interaction between men and women is always somewhat sexually based, they deal with each other that way. For instance males often dominate women in bed, although some women really get off on dominating the man, and some women are naturally very submissive, etc. The way someone behaves sexually is very representative of how they feel about the opposit sex and want to deal with them. In about 7 or 8 years I can imagine my niece cuffing every guy to a bed that she can and taking full control, whereas I imagine Bailey being more gentle and loving. Their personalities reflect that, and thats how they want to be treated by the other sex, however I also know that Caresse really has admiration for when someone puts her in her place, and that Bailey gets off on being a leader of other little girls when he plays with them, which I have observed, so there are still driving forces that dictate that Caresse and Bailey have individual responses, as well as subconscious psychological responses and reactions to the opposit sex based upon their gender.

They are my little lab rats, I learn alot from analyzing them :)

Kaitlin, the kinds of personality traits you are ascribing to men and women, such as sexual domination etc, are no indication of natural gender differences.

More prudent to this issue is the centuries of sociological conditioning men and women have gone through...conditioning that is now so deeply soaked into our superstructure..no one can escape it.

Look there for your "naturally submissive women"

Well there are also naturally submissive men, thats not social conditioning. They fight their inherent natures because of social stigmas of how "men" should be, but I think its a mix of all 3. The stigmas didnt get created because it wasnt general. I generally agree with the roles of men and women as society has defined them, some people dont fit the mold, and they dont have to, but I think most do in many ways.

For instance I am both a hugely opinionated and strong person, yet very submissive at the same time. People can be two ways, and one way can be conscious thinking and one subconscious, and people will think that they are ONE WAY when they are not, they have different responses for security, for safety, for how they want to be handled in different situations.

I'm not one for personal attacks, but I'll defend myself every time:

"you've been brainwashed by the military mate, sad but true...they don't have a training program...they have a dehumanising program that enables naturally free thinking beings to follow orders blindly...and even to kill their fellow mortals..."

One approach, Kevin. If you think I am not thinking freely then I think you need to join up and experience something personally before passing comment on something you clearly know nothing about other than tired cliche and [oh god, not more] boring liberal diatribe. There's a little thing called the Geneva Convention, you have heard of that, right? It demands that soldiers know what they do and why they do it. If an order is wrong it is our duty as soldiers to dis-obey. But then I guess the A5 pamphlette you got your information [probably titled The Army and De-humanising] from didn't mention that.

"I guess to you this is an admirable thing...doing the job for Queen and country, being manly and all that mince."

Yes I do, protecting people like you from people like *insert any number of very naughty people here* is helping the nation to prosper... so I would like to know exactly what your point is?

"It disgusts me to the extreme."

Bully for you. Do something about it. Change the law, solve the worlds problems, make it a safer place with flowers not guns. Until then stay disgusted and impotent to the extreme.

"And another thing! [ oh god not more] your male/female seperatist diatribes are getting boring...."

Again, bully for you. Though I was only seperating because it was in answer to a question that seperates boys from girls. Remember I play devil's advocate more than anyone else. (Why? Because I can... I think freely.)

Like me or loathe me, you need people like me to enjoy the freedom you have. Thanks for your support.

OK... onto the actual intelligent chat topic:

I disagree that emotions and behaviours are not naturally occuring more in boys or girls, an even keel of primordial emotional matter on creation so to speak. There are exceptions, we all know this, none of say anything in here thinking it affects 100% of the field we talk about. Girls, as they grow are naturally more nurturing and protective of siblings and friends in that manner. Boys are more aggressive and protective of friends and siblings in that manner.

Whether we like it or not from birth we are producing hormones that affect our way of thinking. Throughout childhood our genitals are not completely dormant. Boys create testosterone and girls create oestrogen. There's no argument there. The argument comes in the amounts that any one boy or girl produces.

This is where the affore-mentioned canvas with a pre-painted scenery comes into play. This is the genetics that determine how we will behave in a given situation until we are trained one way or another to respond in a different fashion.

Bret, i don't need to join up to know it's not for me, and if you think that is a sign of weakness on my part, some signal that i'm some kind of lame liberal hippy, then come along to my work with young kids who've been through their own personal wars one too many times and i'll show you another way to change the world. I don't use a gun , i use my mind and my heart. As long as we are lead by the government to believe we need guns to defend ourselves, and armies to defend our countries...we will always have those things and all the violence that goes with them, even if we don't really need them. Haven't you read 1984?

I guess i feel that i'm actually changing in a positive way the lives of the people who make up society, and in extreme cases, cause problems for it[ like dictators and extremists], whilst people who join the army are dealing with societies inability to deal with social and political problems by destroying them...though i know the army does more than that, combat is it's key function.

We all have to ask ourselves why we believe certain things, and what influence the superstructure has on those beliefs. You believe that being a soldier is a just and righteous way to protect people, and that anyone who disagrees with that, and thinks the army is corrupt, is a weak willed liberal who would rather debate than act. Let me ask you a question, if you were the government, and you knew you had to get normal people to become soldiers, and eventually kill people, wouldn't you do everything in your power to instill this way of thinking in every recruit? Thats it's ok to kill for your country, and anyone who says otherwise is unpatriotic and most likely weak.

I also must ask myself why I don't like the army, have i been influenced by protest organisations and procrastinating hippies? What is the motivation behind each of these groups? The army wants you to do what it says, even with the Geneva convention, rarely do soldiers disobey oders, given the insane amount of group peer pressure they are under to conform. The protest movement wants me to not join the army, and to oppose the government that controls it.

Who is right?

[I just wrote a lengthy and comprehensive reply only to time out... I'll re-write it later]

I said it in the first thread, and I'll continue to say it now:

Ghandi's tactics only work when you are fighting Buddha.

Sometimes fire is the only thing to fight fire, then everything cools off, but realisitically you cannot fight an enemy with peace that is willing to use destruction.

With the state the world is in today it is only up to the world leaders to police each others actions, some of them are responsible, some of them are not. The major civilized influences (such as America) will not attack unprovoked, but it is the threat of attack at provocation that keeps other countries in line.

Armys are necessary. Maybe in the future they wont be, that is my sincere hope, but it is not the reality.

Who is right? Easy, both of us. We're both products of the same system, we're both exercising free speech and standing up for our beliefs.

1984 is one of my most prided books, and I still chose to serve. Work that one out.

The Army (and combined services) is much more than a destroyer of mankind. It is a builder of nations, builder of diplomacy, a builder of dreams. Liberation, peace keeping and the continued development of hearts and minds campaign is integral to the British Army. Combat today is much more of a secondary function to being an extention of the 'British way'.

If I was the government I would want only the most determined and intelligent, open minded people. Enlistment is proof enough that they would not only be prepared to take lives but also give theirs for their country, so the next step is creating a versatile and quick thinking army.

The geneva convention, much more important than you would think. We were versed in the law of combat and the convention on a regular basis. twice yearly as standard and heavily examination before going operational. Things went overtly sour in N.I. for my team but the convention was upheld, orders were questioned daily and we got the job done.

As to patriotism I will vigourously defend any british citizen's right to protest. I draw the line at acts that demean the people who are doing their job for them. Examples: The defacing and mockery of Churchill's statue is not protesting, it's vandalism and an insult to every man woman and child of Britain who lived through WWII. Burning of the Union Flag is not act of free speech, it's the defiant destruction of the symbol our country unifies under. It is a massive **** *** to all troops and servicemen stationed all over the world. People who burn flags should try burning a civic centre, a town hall, their own home, themselves instead as an act of free speech.

Not nearly a descriptive or emotional, but it'll have to do.

There is a big difference between Ghandis position with the British Empire and with Americas position with the rest of the world.

If you cant see that, you are blind.

Armys are necessary because if you dont have one, you will be the only country left unprotected. This becomes more and more true the bigger the country you are talking about.

And Bret, I agree with you, for whatever that's worth.