01-05-2005, 12:55 PM
Sunder,
I disagree with you.
You are trying to equate human beings to animals. Animals do not have the sense and because of which they do not have any concern on Sex, dresses etc. Once we say that human beings are equal to "animals", then we can talk about "full independence and freedom". NO LIMITS ABSOLUTELY. I see human beings differently.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Freedom by definition has no limitations. If there are limitations, then it is not called freedom, it is called containment. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There has to be a balance. My argument is that it should be a "Contained freedom".
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Raja:
1. Women have the freedom and independence to have sex with everyone in the society ?
 If not, will you define this as a rule (or) how will you define ?
Sunder:
Yes. I honestly believe that any being belonging to the animal kingdom have the freedom to mate with anyone of it's choice. If not, then the process of natural selection would be meaningless.
Just because women have the freedom to mate with anyone of their liking would not mean they would be irresponsible enough to. Sadly, in most cases, women end up in marriages with men they hate to live with and are stuck in marriages that they cannot get out of (and vice versa).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the argument posed by the westerners. You will agree how their life is spoiled now. You can see young school girls morally abused (one out of four school children) and getting pregnant . 60-70% of the families getting seperated ! Tragedic diseases getting spread !! Total "Moral degenerosity".
Can I ask you one simple question :
One day, if your girl child, probably 15 years, comes back to you saying that she is pregnant, how will you feel ?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Raja:
2. Women can walk without dresses in the public ? If not, where is the limit ? How will you define?
Sunder:
Yes, they CAN walk without dress in public (as do some tribes) and as did our ancestors.. Does this mean they are irresponsible enough to? There again comes the difference between freedom and responsibility. By posing this question, you are strengthening my point and not countering it. Hope you follow this.
Honestly, I would be more worried about men walking about undressed in public. They should be the ones restricted from wearing dabba-kkattu.
(I am sure I know your counter questions to my answers above.) and no, none of the women related to me are irresponsible enough to do any of the above.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Honestly, I am not going to debate on going back to the nudist culture.
Probably, you have not seen such lowzy scenes. In major cities in india ( For ex. in Bangalore) you can see girls walking with almost everything seen outside !!! Probably because they are not aware how low and crazy they look when they wear such dresses !!!
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have one question for you. Would you force your wife into submission or have a meaningful discussion when there are family issues..? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a good question. I will see this through the 3 points that I have mentioned earlier :
1.Proper communication -- Try to mutually communicate the issues and have a good understanding
2. Mutual understanding --- Try to close this with the mutual understanding between us
3. Give and take policy --- If it cannot be closed by mutual understanding, See whether one of us can sacrifice their viewpoint and allow the interest of the other without any damage to the underlying fundamentals .
4. Final Call --- If by all these, we are not able to arrive at any solution, I will take the final call as the HEAD of the family. <b>Here comes what I call "submission".</b>
Hope I am clear.
Raja
I disagree with you.
You are trying to equate human beings to animals. Animals do not have the sense and because of which they do not have any concern on Sex, dresses etc. Once we say that human beings are equal to "animals", then we can talk about "full independence and freedom". NO LIMITS ABSOLUTELY. I see human beings differently.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Freedom by definition has no limitations. If there are limitations, then it is not called freedom, it is called containment. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There has to be a balance. My argument is that it should be a "Contained freedom".
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Raja:
1. Women have the freedom and independence to have sex with everyone in the society ?
 If not, will you define this as a rule (or) how will you define ?
Sunder:
Yes. I honestly believe that any being belonging to the animal kingdom have the freedom to mate with anyone of it's choice. If not, then the process of natural selection would be meaningless.
Just because women have the freedom to mate with anyone of their liking would not mean they would be irresponsible enough to. Sadly, in most cases, women end up in marriages with men they hate to live with and are stuck in marriages that they cannot get out of (and vice versa).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the argument posed by the westerners. You will agree how their life is spoiled now. You can see young school girls morally abused (one out of four school children) and getting pregnant . 60-70% of the families getting seperated ! Tragedic diseases getting spread !! Total "Moral degenerosity".
Can I ask you one simple question :
One day, if your girl child, probably 15 years, comes back to you saying that she is pregnant, how will you feel ?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Raja:
2. Women can walk without dresses in the public ? If not, where is the limit ? How will you define?
Sunder:
Yes, they CAN walk without dress in public (as do some tribes) and as did our ancestors.. Does this mean they are irresponsible enough to? There again comes the difference between freedom and responsibility. By posing this question, you are strengthening my point and not countering it. Hope you follow this.
Honestly, I would be more worried about men walking about undressed in public. They should be the ones restricted from wearing dabba-kkattu.
(I am sure I know your counter questions to my answers above.) and no, none of the women related to me are irresponsible enough to do any of the above.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Honestly, I am not going to debate on going back to the nudist culture.
Probably, you have not seen such lowzy scenes. In major cities in india ( For ex. in Bangalore) you can see girls walking with almost everything seen outside !!! Probably because they are not aware how low and crazy they look when they wear such dresses !!!
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have one question for you. Would you force your wife into submission or have a meaningful discussion when there are family issues..? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a good question. I will see this through the 3 points that I have mentioned earlier :
1.Proper communication -- Try to mutually communicate the issues and have a good understanding
2. Mutual understanding --- Try to close this with the mutual understanding between us
3. Give and take policy --- If it cannot be closed by mutual understanding, See whether one of us can sacrifice their viewpoint and allow the interest of the other without any damage to the underlying fundamentals .
4. Final Call --- If by all these, we are not able to arrive at any solution, I will take the final call as the HEAD of the family. <b>Here comes what I call "submission".</b>
Hope I am clear.
Raja