Slashdot Mirror
Saudi Cleric Pummeled On Twitter For Claiming Driving Damages Women's Ovaries
An anonymous reader writes "CNN reports, "Sheikh Saleh Al-Loheidan's widely derided remarks have gone viral ... 'If a woman drives a car,' Al-Loheidan told Saudi news website sabq.org. 'it could have a negative physiological impact. It would automatically affect a woman's ovaries and that it pushes the pelvis upward.' ... 'We find that for women who continuously drive cars, their children are born with varying degrees of clinical problems.' The controversial comments were widely interpreted throughout Saudi Arabia as an attempt to discourage women in the country from joining a popular online movement urging them to stage a demonstration by driving cars on October 26. 'This is his answer to the campaign,' Saudi women's rights activist Aziza Yousef told CNN. 'He's making a fool of himself. He shouldn't touch this field at all.' Al-Loheidan's words have been ridiculed mercilessly via social media. An Arabic Twitter hashtag called '#WomensDrivingAffectsOvariesAndPelvises' was quickly created to make fun of Al-Loheidan — underscoring just how widely the call for Saudi women to defy the driving ban has resonated thus far. And while numerous conservative voices have supported Al-Loheidan, many Saudis believe this was an extremely clumsy way of trying to counter the popularity of the October 26 campaign.'"
And driving is bad as opposed to sitting when: reading? eating? watching TV? listening to the radio? any of the other myriad of activities done while seated? What an idiot.
..."In other news, a fatwah has been issued against tweeting."
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
What a dipshit. At least if you're going to claim those forces can damage the body, make sure to include being in a car entirely, instead of only driving the car. /facepalm
Fear and Freedom don't mix well. Let's all be a little more brave and learn to tell all the batshit religious crazies to fuck off. I don't care if they do raise hell and blow stuff up - eventually there won't be enough left of them to matter.
Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
AKA Streisand Effect.
Welcome to the Interweb, my friend.
It sounds like Al-Loheidan suffered cranial trauma when he was carried by his mother who spend hours riding a camel.
Have gnu, will travel.
This is news for nerds because of Twitter! Twitter is all technical and stuff, with the computers and the social media buzz.
Seriously, WTF? What's next? Baseball scores?
Would it be acceptable to Saudi powers-that-be for women to drive self-driving cars?
If they crash.
It is true! It is also true that women cannot get pregnant from "legitimate" rape.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Someone should remind this cleric that male fertility is decreasing around the world. That's a fact. There are more men in modern society whose sperm is too weak to fertilize a female egg. Okay, using his "logic," why shouldn't we believe that driving cars is weakening the sperm of males? When I read the headlines on this articles I was just ready to crunch into a Pringle, and I couldn't help it, I spewed most of it on my keyboard. It was just too laughable. Damage the ovaries! LOL! I think he's got it wrong. Women driving in Saudi Arabia may be damaging to the frail machismo of the Muslim male. Next thing you know, the women will want to walk down the streets without a male chaperone from the family. Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile! Hey, Sheikh Saleh, did no one ever tell you that being a suicide bomber is bad for the testicles? I mean, the Saudi brand of Islam has more than its share of guys who like to blow up in a crowd of people. Oh, all those flying sperm going to waste! What good will those 72 virgins in Paradise do them if they have nothing below the waist? (Or above, too!) This is the funniest thing I've heard from Saudi clerics in decades. I think it should be spread all over the net. "Damage the ovaries"....hahaha!
Won't somebody, please, think of the children?!?
As crazy and wrong as this guy is, his claim isn't completely out of left field. One of my physics teachers in high school (who had worked as an engineer at Bell Helicopter) related the story that, apparently, some of the helicopters initially used in the Viet Nam conflict happened to vibrate at the resonant frequency of the human kidney, causing pilots to experience organ damage. They had to add material to the seats to cancel out the vibrations. Here's a page from the Canadian equivalent of the U.S.'s OSHA:
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/vibration/vibration_intro.html
smoking religion on an extreme level causes deficiencies in areas of the brain dealing with logical thought processes and the ability to reason clearly.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Of course, if one cared to invoke physiology here, the real victim is the male genitalia, which need cooler temperatures to produce healthy sperm, a condition undermined by any posture that isn't standing with the legs slightly apart while wearing loose clothing. Oh dear!
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. (Isaac Asimov)
Saudi woman pummeled with stones for driving.
When you actually look at the demographics, the Tea Party crew are actually more educated than the average American. They aren't lacking in logical abilities, but the impression that they do comes from televised news, which in its frenzy for ever-more-senationalist stories to generate ad revenue likes to focus on the fringe that staple tea bags to their foreheads and carry around signs reading "GIT LARNED SUM ANGLISH FUR YALL COME TO DIS COUNTRY" (hint: the more mainstream Tea Party members concern themselves with economic issues like taxation, not so much immigration).
This one Saudi cleric, however, is clearly on the fringe of even Saudi religious authority. So, you're right if you want to compare this guy to the kind of looney fringe of the Tea Party that you'll see on TV, but not if you want to compare him to the average Tea Party member.
Isn't it about time that this guy and Todd Akin just get a room, already, and make out.
I am not a crackpot.
Since like forever, the old men who are afraid of their womens getting loose have used the Korans, Bibles, Talmuds, etc to control their womens.
Also their childrens.
My neighborhood is not exclusive to one cultural group, but there is a sizable muslim community. I have had a few encounters with burka-clad women at intersections that made me fear that my pelvis (or other part of my anatomy) may one day be pushed where I do not want it by the fender of their luxury german cars. To be fair, the burka-clad people might have nothing to do with muslim women, they might have just been impersonating them.
I think you guys are being unnecessarily harsh.
I'm pretty sure that it says in the Holy Quran: "And the Women... shall not drive..." :-)
... your ass will follow???
Ass as in something similar to a donkey or mule?
Bullshit.
Hashtags are getting ridiculous.
"#WomensDrivingAffectsOvariesAndPelvises"
Were they worried about getting confused with the always popular "#WomensDrivingAffectsOvaries"?
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
A culture isn't "valid" or "invalid". That's meaningless. We CAN judge whether a culture has immoral beliefs and practices. This is a very clear case in which we can see immoral beliefs and practices, and the mental gymnastics the cultural leaders have to do to defend them.
You might be able to say that women who drive a car get damaged ovaries, but you missing the intermediate step where the woman is dragged from the car and beaten.
If Sarah Silverman had said it, we would be laughing at her joke because that's a stupid thing to say.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
If Sarah Silverman had said it, people would be calling her a genius.
funny how the moral relativists come out of the wood-work to scream about a sudden universal right and wrong once their pet issue is involved.
also, you are racist for criticizing their culture.
If Sarah Silverman had said it, she wouldn't be serious, much less trying to control lives with the statement. It's called "humor." Also, see "sarcasm." And "entertainment." You may as well consider the movie "Star Wars" to have been a documentary, if you equate her saying this with a Saudi cleric saying it.
Moral relativism is a total non-issue here; this is a Saudi cleric...a religious leader of a famously oppressive culture...with regard to whether or not there should be gender discrimination with regard to something incredibly useful and entirely non-gender-related. Whether women should be allowed to drive is not, in the eyes of pretty much the entire human population, a tough moral issue. I'm not sure whose "pet issue" this is, since out of a world of billions of billions of people there are so few places left where women are prohibited from driving cars. That'd have to be a pet with a LOT of owners...
And this is neither about race (but laws), nor is "Saudi" a racial group. Lern 2 definez, plz. :)
Apparently, women driving causes Barbara Streisand's ovaries and pelvis to malfunction. Effect News Story at 11!
Beliefs and practices aren't 'moral' and 'immoral'. That's meaningless. We CAN judge whether a culture in in line with our beliefs and practices. This is a very clear case in which we can see intolerance between our belief systems, coming from both sides.
Like between his legs.
Show him "physiological consequences".
Fucking religious nutbags.
(Pun unintentional.)
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
A culture isn't "valid" or "invalid". That's meaningless. We CAN judge whether a culture has immoral beliefs and practices. This is a very clear case in which we can see immoral beliefs and practices, and the mental gymnastics the cultural leaders have to do to defend them.
Actually no we can't. Morality is a product of culture, therefore one culture cannot objectively judge the morality of another.
Some cultures are more "successful" than others (as measured by quality of life, and propagation of their cultural identity). But that tells us nothing of "morality", or "validity".
The Pope says stupid shit all the time and is lauded for it.
Actually I would have to say this current Pope is a little more forward thinking, he is choosing to ignore the issues rather than outright dismissing them based on 2000 year old dogma. Given another 2000 years a Pope might finally say something intelligent and original based on current science and facts.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
You mean Fundamentalist in general, they can be religious or not. Point is you are using this as an excuse to bash religion, which may or may not be the issue.
The Jewish and Christian Bible has always said, a woman becomes "one-flesh" with a man at marriage. I.e., a man abusing his spouse is basically abusing himself. In this picture, women are neither inferior nor superior. The Bible does mention different roles they play, but their importance is not downplayed.
Fundamentalist will use anything including the Bible to exploit their view of women. But it isn't religion in itself that caused it. Except for Islam - that religion hates everyone even themselves.
Women driving cars makes his penis feel smaller.
This is the Kardashian model of what makes news worthy. Any idiot saying or doing anything shocking to most of us becomes a media sensation. Just because it was on Twitter doesn't make it relevant to this audience. I'm hoping this trend of dumping crap here skimmed off TMZ headlines doesn't continue.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
This man needs to be on stage in front of a brick wall. I laughed out loud. hahah. ovaries. I hear he has a bit where he points out that cooking damages a man's lungs.
Just another second banana
It's shit like this that makes it hard for me to believe that they could find 15 of their countrymen intelligent enough to learn how to pilot a plane.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
Saudi Cleric is about the same thing as a tea party member. Their logic ability is about exactly the same.
Obvious troll is obvious; here's a novel idea - maybe try judging individuals based on their own actions, and not some arbitrary label.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Todd Akin needs to move to Saudi Arabia. He'd be a huge hit there.
Until not that long ago women were not supposed to run marathons either... because their uterus might fall out (among other stupid assertions).
What is your basis for defining what is moral vs. immoral?
Sitting down for an extended period of time is probably more dangerous for men than women from a harm-to-gonad perspective.
But for most men,* the overall risk of harm gets lost in the noise of random chance and other small risks men's family jewels face every day.
*Not counting those whose wives catch them hopping into a car to visit their mistress: For them the risk of harm to the space between the legs approaches 100%
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
This story remind me that in Egypt some clerics were mocked on the web after a story about cut tomatoes showing a cross.
I hope their next move will give birth to an hilarious meme :) Let see... in which country do we also have good candidates ?
So logically he wouldn't oppose women past child-bearing age from driving? Or has he spouted some other nuttiness to justify keeping them from driving?
A culture isn't "valid" or "invalid".
A culture's "validity" is determined by its might, not by some ethereal "morality".
"Defense" is accomplished through bombs and bullets, not by mental gymnastics.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
So judging individuals with those labels who make horribly stupid comments is ok?
Fine, they're all fuckwits.
Incorrect. All religions may be equally valid... all equally completely invalid.
But some cultures are more valid than others.
Some moral judgments can be based on objective reality and rationality. There can be an objective morality. It is just that it is vastly more limited than what people normally consider morality.
Rape is objectively immoral.
Murder, but not necessarily killing, is objectively immoral.
etc
It appears that ideology and political correctness have taken over the debate, here and elsewhere. This should be a matter of research not emotions. For example it is known that women in heavily male dominated professions, such as math, physics, engineering, programming, hacking,... have more problems conceiving and have more miscarriages. This is due to their hormonal balance which is shifted toward male side. Generally, women who have problems with miscarriages are advised during pregnancy to take it easy, avoid stress (physical and psychological) and in severe cases they can get a medical leave from work for much of the pregnancy. Of course, driving in rush hour can be quite stressful. Most prescription medications have warnings advising against use by pregnant women and infants or children. Similarly pregnant women or those trying to conceive are advised to stop smoking since tobacco smoke upregulates corticosteroids (including stress hormones) and testosterone which suppresses estrogen release. In earlier times they would also be advised to stop riding horses. Even today, pregnant women are instinctively helped by passers by in the street with carrying heavier objects, doing something hazardous or requiring physical exertions.
Hence, the gist of the cleric's comment may not be all that far fetched. In any case emotional attacks are certainly not a productive technique for resolving scientific questions and providing the best scientific advice for the women seeking to conceive and carry the pregnancy through with the lowest risks to themselves and their infants.
Fundamentalism requires a component of arbitrary faith. All fundamentalists are religious, even if the thing they hold sacred and believe empowers them isn't a traditional god as such.
It's my mom's Birthday!
But I'm sure you NSA guys knew that already...
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
When you actually look at the demographics [nytimes.com], the Tea Party crew are actually more educated than the average American
Let's make sure we know what educated means in this context: more degrees than a similar population of average Americans would have. To some extent, this matches my experience: tea partiers - or those who espouse the libertarian aspect of the Tea Party - have more money than average, and have at least a Bachelor Degree, if not a Master. No PhDs among the ones I know though.
However, there's one area where they are spectacularly ignorant, to the point where I'm starting to think that there's some specific cognitive effect at work: they all think that they made it on their own in the world, think that Government should be run like a business and think that the purpose of Society is to make their life better. Keep in mind though that they the vast majority come from wealthy families, have businesses that fail, are full of cronies and family members, experience how shoddy and shady businesses can be, and live in one of the most stable environments in the world.
Even the mainstream Tea Partiers that I know - or at least those who profess no ideological attachment, but pretty much recite Tea Party and Republican political platforms verbatim - indulge in a massive misunderstanding of how society operates, what the role of government is or even what made their own success possible. Top that off with a complete lack of understanding what the debt ceiling is (a badly set up part of the budget process), and even the "moderate" Tea Partiers can come across as complete lunatics. For my friends who are part of this group, I treat them like the crazy uncle - they're always welcome, but certain topics are forbidden, unless everyone consents to "lively" debates until 4 AM.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I have met dozens of Tea Partiers, comes with the territory of being a libertarian (though one with a non-standard economic and social viewpoint), and they do all express the same level of complete idiocy and ignorance. None of them have been remotely rational or competent.
If you can be bothered to look at the demographics, why not also consider the fact that the correlation between education and intelligence is probably significantly less than that between education and social status (pre education).
Perhaps you could enumerate these statements so that they can be chiseled onto stone tablets?
Where is moderation: -1 False?
We are social animals and antisocial behaviour that endangers the society are immoral.
Simple.
But you faithiests get it all mixed up with some batshit old books that prattle a lot of nonsense after a multi-millenia game of "Chinese whispers" and think that there's something in those ridiculous books that gives some "great insight" and therefore forget all the actual realities of our existence: we only survive as a social species. If there weren't so many of us working together, we'd have been lion food 1,000,000 years ago.
Ovaries are internal, and protected from shock.
Testacles are right there on the seat, taking all the shock.
So by that logic, ergo: Men shouldn't drive, it lowers sperm count and virility... let women do the driving.
I think that boy has been driving with his head(s) on the axle a bit too long.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
Since like forever, the old men who are afraid of their womens getting loose have used the Korans, Bibles, Talmuds, etc to control their womens. Fear and Freedom don't mix well. Let's all be a little more brave and learn to tell all the batshit religious crazies to fuck off. I don't care if they do raise hell and blow stuff up - eventually there won't be enough left of them to matter.
I seem to recall various atheist countries that were afraid of their people getting loose used Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, and others to control their people. One of the pioneers in suicide bombing were the Tamil Tigers, an essentially secular movement. Batshit crazy is crazy no matter the source. If Europeans don't get their birthrate up, eventually there won't be enough of them to matter. Guess who has the higher birth rate? Native European are on the self-chosen path to extinction, and they will take their values with them. The immigrants don't share them even though they share the land which may eventually be theirs.
No Babies?
In the 1990s, European demographers began noticing a downward trend in population across the Continent and behind it a sharply falling birthrate. Non-number-crunchers largely ignored the information until a 2002 study by Italian, German and Spanish social scientists focused the data and gave policy makers across the European Union something to ponder. The figure of 2.1 is widely considered to be the “replacement rate” — the average number of births per woman that will maintain a country’s current population level. At various times in modern history — during war or famine — birthrates have fallen below the replacement rate, to “low” or “very low” levels. But Hans-Peter Kohler, José Antonio Ortega and Francesco Billari — the authors of the 2002 report — saw something new in the data. For the first time on record, birthrates in southern and Eastern Europe had dropped below 1.3. For the demographers, this number had a special mathematical portent. At that rate, a country’s population would be cut in half in 45 years, creating a falling-off-a-cliff effect from which it would be nearly impossible to recover.
Fertility statistics
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
He shouldn't touch ANY field, I'm thinking...
"Most generalizations are false, including this one." -- Mark Twain
I get that people organize under particular flags because of a shared ideology, but any time I see someone use a phrase like "they do all express the same level of [blank]," I pretty much ignore what they're saying because it's an obvious generalization, which are essentially always false.
In my experience, the last half of your post applies to pretty much every named group of any particular political ideology.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Every -ism is exploitation by powerful old men of everyone else.
Yes, reader, INCLUDING the one you cling on to.
Who decides what is murder and what is just killing? If it is a judge, they have known to be wrong and sentence people to death for it. Judges can be bribed, not shown all the evidence, and have their own prejudices. If it is your god, then you have the same problems that this cleric in the article has.
First sentence says "Saudi Cleric" claims something is so. Why would anyone with any sense read any further? What are you guys, masochists? Do you intentionally look for things to irritate you? Surely you were aware than nothing beneficial or insightful can follow in anything beginning with "Saudi Cleric claims..."
Stop intentionally finding things to piss yourself off. You'll live a healthier, and probably longer, life.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Like Marxism.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
So you're basically saying, "They didn't build that"?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
[Citation needed]
This is one of those things I see from time to time, but from what I can tell it is completely unsupported by any evidence. It's just something someone thought up to scare people.
I read the internet for the articles.
Listen to this guy talk about a "famously oppressive culture" like it's cool to lable a culture.
The whole idea of moral relativism and multicultuaralism is that every culture is just as valid as the next. Who are you to criticize a culture? You can't be "its all good" only when you agree. Either it's all good or it's not all good.
How about you come out and say it: you think Saudi Arabians have an inferior culture.
BTW Silverman actually says what she thinks then hides behind the badge of commedy so she is beyond reproach. Few white people get such a golden pass to say racial slurs that much.
THL phish sticks
More or less correct, or like the "invisible hand of the free market"
Since like forever, the old men who are afraid of their womens getting loose have used the Korans, Bibles, Talmuds, etc to control their womens.
Fear and Freedom don't mix well. Let's all be a little more brave and learn to tell all the batshit religious crazies to fuck off. I don't care if they do raise hell and blow stuff up - eventually there won't be enough left of them to matter.
Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
Ah yes, that conservative wellspring, the Bible. Proverbs 31, verses 10 and onwards has much to say about the place of women. Typical fundamentalist things, like owning land, buying and selling the produce from her land, having money to spend at her own discretion, being praised by the men of the household, and all these things being a source of pride and esteem for her husband. Or was that not what you were expecting? Sure, it mentions a bunch of other, more traditional things, too, but the roles aren't much different from what you'd find in a farming household of today.
I will grant you that far too many people who profess to follow the Bible happily neglect verses like these and others of equal value. But how is that different from any other ideology out there? One could say that the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution are much shorter documents, and it appears the majority of people who profess to uphold that will happily go against one or more of its tenets on a regular basis. Hell, I can pick just two elements of the constitution and probably get 75% of the population to disagree with at least one.
People like to bash religion, and there is good reason to bash it. But the core issue is people. People will do stupid and evil things, and they will use whatever tools most closely fit their beliefs to achieve the ends they desire. That doesn't necessarily say anything about the tool used.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
One could apply that 80/20 rule and say that any culture that has a happiness less than 80% of the theoretical maximum is immoral. Many studies have tried to measure "happiness" and the most common one that I've seen essentially measures how much someone dislikes stuff in general.
Based on that measurement, happiness seems to get huge diminishing returns shortly after the bear-necessities and starts to degrade as income starts getting past upper-middle class, If you have too little, it's obvious that you're not happy, and if you have too much, people tend to get obsessive and want more, so they get a kind of hollow-victory issue. Almost like being addicted to drugs.
Most people seem to be happiest when they don't have someone telling them what to do, they feel like they're being productive and contributing, they don't have too much wealth, but not too little.
The goal seems pretty simple, we just need a non-extreme society that limits how low or high someone's wealth, while supporting people to be able to do the kind of work that they feel they contribute the most with.
How we get there... no idea.
"Some moral judgments can be based on objective reality and rationality. There can be an objective morality."
Absolutely ridiculous.
No, there is no 'objective' morality any more than there is an 'objective' value to anything and for the exact same reasons.
By the way, for something to be 'objective' means there is evidence/proof of it.
Not a physical pummeling? That would have been entertaining.
Honestly, read about everything that the government says marijuana is going to do to you - then consider that our current, last two, and first two Presidents (at the least) used the substance.
Our government is just as stupid, only in other areas.
Do you have ESP?
I agree with you. But the only way your statement works is with God.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Yes, I know that for something to be objective, it means there is factual evidence/proof.
And such evidence/proof exists for the universal harm caused by rape and murder.
and think that the purpose of Society is to make their life better
To be fair, that is the purpose of society; to make the members' lives better.
The difference is that the Tea Party members seem to think that they should get all the benefits of society without paying any of the costs or taking on any of the responsibilities, which makes it all that much more funnier when they start whining about other people being leeches on society.
Actually, Sid Meyer got it right. The best way to tell if a culture is successful is by it's happiness.
Empathy is not something invented in the past few hundred years, and because of that, other cultures CAN judge the morality of others.
Of course, you have to be specific about who does the judging. It can't honestly be said that cultures where women can't vote or drive cars would take part in that judgement.
Just how is the guy going to fit between the legs with the steering wheel where he needs to be?
I think it is a guy problem not man enough to fit there.
Oh wait, more people here take her seriously than this moron.
To paraphrase... Libertarians like to believe they built the log cabin they were born in.
How about you come out and say it: you think Saudi Arabians have an inferior culture.
I'll say it then: they're inferior. Why are you so determined to use "moral relativism" to defend destructive and repressive people? Why not criticize them anyway and attempt to increase the quality of life of others?
So, what is the role of government? I'll answer that:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men...
There you have it. The purpose of government is to secure your natural, unalienable rights.
I always love this part where tea partiers are lunatics. You know who I think is a lunatic? Well, how about the guys who increase our federal spending by 10 or 20% in a year even though we started out with a huge deficit? That's looney. How about those who insist that giving money to rich campaign donors through "bailouts" or "stimulus" funds is going to help the economy? Yes, LOONEY. Okay? It's just more common.
Looking through the "contract from America", there's little I can dispute:
1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03%).
This should have been part of the original Constitution.
2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%).
Agreed. Although technically C&T should be about economic incentives.
3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)
Obviously.
4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)
Well, I would argue about the word length possibly. But, yes, we should have a simpler tax system.
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)
Again, this should be obvious and should have been done before now. It's time to roll the government back to a legal size.
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%).
Only problem with this is that a WWII kind of screws it up. But putting provisions for that into law simply makes another case for our current endless war strategy.
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%).
How about come up with a replacement and go from there?
8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%).
I think we're doing pretty well on this so far. We also need to remove subsidies and tax breaks to various industries as part of this.
9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%).
How about just outright get rid of earmarks? They're used for nothing but graft.
10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%).
Again, good idea as long as we can keep revenue up.
Sorry, little of that looks like lunacy to me or most people for that matter.
Do you have ESP?
Your idiot logic would have justified the Nazis.
...and they still have a crowd of wonderfully smart followers, some of whom are even smart enough to tie themselves to a bomb and detonate. Who said they don't believe in natural selection?
I seem to recall various atheist countries that were afraid of their people getting loose used Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, and others to control their people.
I seem to recall Marxist Feminism being born as a way to control women, convince them that they were oppressed by men and thus enter the work force, doubling the workers. It did not bring equility, it merely burdened women. It did not bring the choice to the family of which parent would raise the child, but instead normalized the method of human reproduction by having children raised by the state. Radical Feminism was born by adding to Marxist Feminism the idea that oppression was Patriarchal in nature; New-wave / 3rd wave / "mainstream" Feminism adds to these the idea that males can also be harmed by Patriarchy, and extends their narrative to all issues of gender -- All without any unbiased, peer reviewed evidence. All are examples of Marxist us-vs them divisionism applied to gender. Hilariously, a new Feminist theory of Kyriachy says that it is the elite rulers in power which cause the oppression... It is plain-jane Marxism! ha ha... oh, it would be funny if it weren't so sad, that this ideology is in control of nearly every political debate. Few speak out against it because they are labeled as villainous women haters. Womens Rights does not need Feminism, or any other ideology for that matter.
G.P. says, "Fear and Freedom don't mix well." Well, if that's true then why is it that fear of rape, abuse, and oppression of women are prominently used by Feminists in world governments to control the dialog of "gender equality" with no push back from those who would seek freedom from fear? Painting all men as potential rapists is as egregious as painting all blacks as murderous thieves simply due to crime stats. Even more egregious in the case of Feminism since they ignore the troves of evidence that men are over 90% the victims of violent crimes, and that women are as aggressive or more aggressive than men., the Feminists in the CDC have even redefined rape to exclude male victims and female perpetrators, saying that only penetration can be rape so vaginas can't rape (tell that to the guy tied to the bed with a q-tip shoved is his penis) -- Since most rapists and abusers have been victims of such abuse themselves this means the feminists are actually creating more female victims in the next cycle of abuse... Yet, speak out against them in order to fight for equality of both men and women, and reduce abuse, and you find yourself skewered by the ideologists for challenging their world views.
The ideologies care not for freedom, but perpetuating fear to further their fanatical and financial support. Ideologies are primarily the same in that they preach fear of harm coming to our women, and have no evidence to back their claims. From Islamic fundamentalists to Feminists, this holds true. For instance: Feminists harp on about equal pay, but there is no "wage gap", it hasn't existed for a very long time. Never married men make the same money as never married women... (and this has been true since the 70's). As a sexually dimorphic race women and men simply make different life choices, and men don't give birth. Additionally, ideologists cry out for "equal representation", but equal isn't 50% men and women. It's X% women vs men in at the bottom == X% women vs men out at the top. If the jobs are available to all, but 40% of women vs men apply for the bottom rung jobs then women should percolate up to the top jobs at a rate of 40%, eh? Same for 30%, 20%, 10%, even 0%. Women should be allowed to make different life choices, and not shamed for not being a stressed out workaholic CEO, in the same way we don't shame them for not being Coal Miners or Janitors or Game Developers -- the latter is i
There is so much wrong with those numbers. It ignores immigration and the fact that people can choose when to have more children. It is probably just typical European racism and anti-immigration kicking in.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Over the centuries, science has continually reaffirmed that women's health is severely impacted by such stressful activities as reading, writing, voting, driving, owning property, having a job, leaving the kitchen, or thinking.
By "it is happiness"??
When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
At least that's what my Senator said...
Women who drive AND have health insurance are just out of control!
There is no such thing as an objective morality. Morality is what you believe to be good or bad, as dictated by some higher power. Morality does not exist outside of religion, and until you can prove religion to be factual, morality is subjective. Ethics are what you believe to be good or bad, as determined by your own logic and reason, however your reason is still subject to your limited observations, and thus ultimately subjective as well.
Or, and this is just a wild guess, his doctor friend had told him about how a woman's orgasm causes her cervix to dip down into the pool of semen which does improve pregnancy rates.
Maybe his statements were the result of over generalizing that to believe that pregnancy requires the woman orgasm and mixing that with the (unfortunately widespread) belief that women won't experience an orgasm during a rape. Even rape survivors can get their mind scrambled trying to deal with why they might have had an orgasm from something they didn't want, and Akin's misguided kind of thinking is still to blame for many places laws that say a woman can't rape a man ("if he didn't want it then she couldn't have done it").
The man's still a wilfully ignorant fool, but maybe he wasn't all the way "how is babby formed" stupid.
Also, you are racist for thinking all members of the same "race" practice the same culture.
Considering we now have fertility clinics that allow that portion of the population to breed, when that phenotype would have otherwise been rapidly selected against, it makes logical sense, of course it will be centuries before we actually see any measurable effect.
'nuff said.
It's okay for an 11 year old to have sex with an adult male.
It's legit as soon as a girl can bear the weight of a man.
I wonder when the females in these countries will achieve some kind of freedom and equality or just simply leave for elsewhere.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I am not sure about Koran, but both the Hebrew Bible and the Tamuds are ok with prostitution, for example. Women are free to do whatever they want, adultery is a different issue, though.
When you actually look at the demographics [nytimes.com], the Tea Party crew are actually more educated than the average American.
Odd, then, that the ones who proudly post here, a nerd site no less, seem less than fully literate and numerate and seldomly logical, not knowing that "it's" isn't a posessive, thinking "Lose" and "loose" are interchangable, not knowing when to use there, their, or they're; posting that space exploration is a waste of money, etc.
I suspect there are two kinds of tea partiers: The intelligent, rich, and sociopathic ones like the Koch brothers, and the poor working stiffs who have been fooled by the self-serving greedsters.
Societies that have lots of cars have lower fertility rates. What Saudi Arabia needs to be doing is urging women to ride on bicycles or horses. This is know to increase ovulation and fertility. Some women report have orgasms when mouted on a big strapping horse galloping along. A similar affect can be had on a bicycle. The Japanes have invented an ingenious dildo bicyle. The dildo is situated in a hole of the seat and moves in and out as the user pedals. This would undoubtedly increase the hornyness of Saudi women, and would be a win win. Saudi women should have the absolute right to experience pleny of orgasms as they are pedaling to the grocery store.
During the last round of elections in the USA, I heard from some brain surgeons, particularly from the right-wing, claiming similar lunacy, including the idea that women don't get pregnant from rape -- that a woman's body has ways to shut that whole thing down during a legitimate rape.
Then there was the allegation that children develop autism from vaccinations.
And yet, the number of comments from the holier than thou, American number one fuck yeah! crowd completely dismiss that their religious leaders and their politicians say PRECISELY the same stupid crap, and yet, I'm willing to bet that some here swallow it hook line and sinker, as long as it was said on Fox News.....
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
As in many other cases, the thing about the Bible is that it's so long and so full of contradictory statements that you can always cherry-pick some and ignore the other to support pretty much any position on the scale from ultraconservative to ultraliberal. Nevertheless, historical Christianity has always been misogynistic, whether this is inherent in the teachings or due to the religion's cultural background. The prohibition on female priests goes all the way back to earliest days of Christianity, for example, and ditto on the numerous customs that denigrate women.
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy"
"Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God."
Now, you can claim that Paul himself didn't "follow the Bible" or "follow Jesus", but the Christians who agree with him on the point above will make similar claims regarding you - and there are far more of them.
Tea Party stupid is special. It comes with a heaping side of massive, deliberate willful ignorance. It is very different and one reason the Tea Party will vanish in the next two or three cycles, taking the Republicans with them.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Race and culture are two different things, so no, criticizing a culture isn't racist. Also, criticizing a race is ignorant, whereas criticizing a culture is often direct criticism of ignorance, as in this case. The two are very different.
Case in point:
I don't care if you are black, white, brown, or green. I really don't. But if you run around yelling "Yo, what up my Nigga! then you are an ignorant idiot. See the difference?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Some moral judgments can be based on objective reality and rationality.
This is utterly false. You can only reason from "commonly held belief", and history shows just how ugly that can get.
The reason why this is so is sometimes called "the is-ought gap": there is no rule of logic that allows on to reason from an "is" to an "ought". So, you simply can't reason from non-moral first principles to moral conclusions. Of course, you can certainly assert some moral first principles as axioms - after all that's the basis for most religion. But you're firmly in the space of "because I said so" when you do that.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
And lezzing up with the other three wives for the benefit of the husband.
Tea Party stupid is special.
No it's not. You subjectively believe it to be, because for whatever reason you've determined them to be "the enemy" and thus, incapable of things like cogent reasoning or being correct, but objectively speaking the criteria you're using to judge them would render a remarkably similar result if applied to Democrats, Green Party people, Libertarians, et. al.
heaping side of massive, deliberate willful ignorance.
Prevalent in pretty much all political movements - Tea Partiers who claim to want less gov't interference, but vote against those interests; OWS kids with liberal arts degrees, who decry the abuses and excesses of capitalism by tweeting nonsense from their blood-mineral encrusted, high-end luxury electronic devices; Democrats who claim to be "progressive" while supporting regressive measures that roll back and otherwise limit freedoms; Libertarians who proclaim the free market will solve all issues, meanwhile playing ignorance to the fact that there never was and never will be such a thing as a truly free market.
the Tea Party will vanish in the next two or three cycles, taking the Republicans with them.
FWIW, that's almost exactly what Republicans used to say about the KKK and Democrats 40 years ago.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
And its not dangerous at all for testicles.
Even though they're sat on, bounced around on. etc.
What? This sounds intensely painful! Who sits on or bounces around on their testicles?
My suspicion is that you have no testicles and thereby no experience in their proper care, transport and storage. Or, you have a serious problem that I, gladly, have never suffered.
Any culture that advocates treating women as barely-human property sucks and deserves no respect.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
So does beating your wives, but that doesn't stop it from being a widespread Saudi tradition..
Organization? You must be joking..
Context matters.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
There's no context that could possibly matter for a blanket statement that says that women are inferior and should be subordinate. No matter the context, it is misogynistic and wrong, always. Period.
There's only one example of this that we can be 100% sure about: that holding conservative religious values damages one's BRAIN.
Fuck, just lost my entire comment. I'll just summarize the main points now.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men...
There you have it. The purpose of government is to secure your natural, unalienable rights.
The Declaration of Independence is a powerful speech that outlines some fairly new ideas for the role of government. However, it is not a policy document, not a legal document, and not even a philosophical treatise. For one, it does not say what the full list of inalienable rights are, nor what the government can do to secure them. As a result, it is useless in this discussion.
Regarding the platform, it ranges from hoping for change to tarring-and-feathering-worthy.
Points 6-8: I won't argue with your assessment of them. I don't agree 100%, but it's close enough for now.
Point 9: earmarks are at a historic low. Interestingly enough, some political scientists have been arguing for a long time now that it is earmarks that grease the wheel of Congress.
Point 10: your assessment is the fundamental problem of the point. Reducing taxes without a plan of what's important to fund or without regard to general revenue is nothing but pandering to your base.
Points 1-4 are complete fantasies in that will either accomplish exactly, exacerbate the problem they're supposed to solve or are trying to address a point that even a few years ago used to be conservative or free-market solutions. They're utterly laughable, especially since one of them is being implemented in California, and everyone there hates it.
That brings me to the most egregious point in their platform: point 5. The mentioning of a "blue-ribbon panel" is cute, but is nothing short of a fig-leaf for a concept that goes against the core of the US government, the basic principles that the Founding Fathers were working with, and is guaranteed to lead to a complete kleptocracy. Why? It basically removes the authority of the president to execute laws, the authority of the courts to rule on whether laws have been broken, and merges them all under the authority of the Congress. In other words, it does away with the three branches of government, and will lead to the worst excesses of any Banana republic.
It's that point especially that cements my notion that the Tea Party doesn't have a fucking clue about economics, politics, civics, or even the goddamn history of the US.
So excuse me while I give them the benefit of the doubt and label them merely insane, and do not think that they are some very clever sociopaths who are bent on destroying the core foundation of the US government.
Sorry, little of that looks like lunacy to me or most people for that matter.
On Wikipedia, this would be tagged as "weaselwords".
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
To steal the post from someone who responded: No, I'm saying that they all think they built the log-cabin in which they were born.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Seeing how the tea party was manufactured by fox (not any proof, but see this link), I'm kind of curious how long the party can survive. Especially since republicans have been distancing themselves from them lately.
Wall Street Journal 2 months ago, some debate around it:
"Most but not all studies from several European nations with large databases and the ability to track health records have found that over the past 15 years or so, the counts of healthy men ages 18 to 25 have significantly decreased. This comes after a prominent study from the 1990s suggested that sperm count has decreased by half over the last half-century."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323394504578607641775723354.html
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Women quite enjoy being submissive, except those frigid ones who constantly have a stick up their ass.
Just have to take the stick out first.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Yes, BUT...
You're listening to a priest, whose entire authority and stature is based upon knowledge of paranormal things, mystic phenomena that no person has ever seen or measured, but that he happens to know about, thanks to his special lore or insight. IF you've already accepted that (it's a big "if" but actually very common!), then there's nothing unreasonable about the gods or a god choosing to inflict damage upon ovaries upon women who drive, but choosing to abstain from harming women who sit at home.
That is why his statement, as absurd as it is, is totally valid within the FUCKED UP CONTEXT (that people listen to that guy about anything at all).
Why wouldn't Allah mess with some women's organs and not others? Do you know something special about Allah's motives and thoughts and capabilities that I don't? WHO ARE YOU to tell the Flying Spaghetti Monster what kinds of sauces are appropriate for Him to cover Himself in? Are you FSM's controller? It is blaspemous arrogance for you to say His priests are incorrect, as foolish at their statements may seem to you, puny human!
There's nothing crazier about believing this stuff, than believing that Xenu threw aliens into volcanos, or that Jehova parted a Red sea, or that Cthulhu will rise from the depths when the stars are right. Maybe some of it is true and some false (and I can't begin to prove anything about any of them) (and no, actually none of it is true) but from a "what an idiot" perspective they all have exactly equal what-an-idiot-ness. If we assume the statement "1==3" is true, then don't start trying to logically convince me the statement "4==2" is stupid. It's not any stupider than where we started from.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Are you fucking blind, or illiterate?
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet"
"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife ... wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
Yes, some (not all) women quite enjoy being submissive. As a dominant partner, I know that very well. Many men also enjoy being submissive. However, all of this is in the context of SSC sexual relationships, while the quotes above clearly refer to life in general.
What is it with men in dresses that they automatically think they can judge women and gay people? A dress does not turn you into a woman or make you gay.
AndWhat I don't agree is women driving with the face covered, as I have seen many times. Mind you, I don't want to see them anywhere, but if I someone has accident, or I hit by a car, the police and the persons involved ought to know who is responsible. I am not allowed to drive with a mask, and as far as I know in the UK people have already been arrested for that ( for evading fines, I know, but you get the gist ).
This got an error. I don't mind to see them anywhere, butno good writing at 4AM.
Women enjoy being submissive? I guess they don't talk to you, and I have an idea as to why that might be.
He just described all women as submissive or having something wrong with them if not. I don't think there's much to argue with here.
No, there is indeed not much to argue with here - Paul is a misogynist, and Christianity is a misogynistic religion (save for a few modern liberal strands that do away with most of the bullshit in the Scripture).
So that's why Autism!
Some women who are caught driving in Saudi Arabia are later admitted to hospital with pelvis and ovary damage due to receiving a nice islamic beating for disobedience from their husbands. These same women then are at higher risk of giving birth to defective babies.
So it is indeed driving that leads to damaged ovaries... and black eyes... and ruptured spleens... The husband is just a medium for Allah's will, with no fault in all this!
Note: The above is satire, not evidence - not even anecdotal, in case you had any doubts
So how would riding horses affect women? The ladies I know just giggle a lot after a horse ride.
I think if he promised all Saudi women free horse rides every day in lieu of a drivers license he'd have them lined up for miles.
Humans have both a left and right. One is more submissive than the other. Ratio wise, women have more 'submissive' energy than men. Homosexuals, who are usually too traumatised to deal with the opposite sex, explore the side they are missing with the same sex.
I am not illiterate, nor blind. You, however, have a comprehension problem. For some reason you choose to see submission as inferior, that is your choice, not a fact of reality. We need to understand and love the things we lack in others before we can start incorporating them into ourselves to make us complete. One day, you will grow to love your own submissive side and then you will understand their is nothing inferior about one who submits.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Try enjoying sex sometime.
Hell, try putting on some high heels. Unless you suffer from flat butt/nothing going up my ass, then heels puts you automatically into a submissive position. Women think it's a power position, which it sort of is if sex is your weapon, but lordosis is pretty much all about submission.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
has a well-established link to reproductive outcomes.
There's at least two in the New Testament, and according to Bart Ehrmann, perhaps more. The real Paul, and then others ghost-writing as him.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
The cleric missed the real problem. Men who drive cars compress the testicles causing sterility and reduced testosterone production, which in turn, causes homosexuality. That's the reason so many arabs like young boys. Not to mention goats and camels!!
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
I believe the women there aren't usually educated about their bodies (sadly) so hooray for teaching them they *have* ovaries.
Wow... what a fail on your part. Firstly, I'm male. Secondly, a happily married one. Congradulations on not only being a douche, but also for demostrating how specacularly stupid you are. Before you swallow your foot completely, I'm, personally, quite familiar with the dominance vs submission dynamic in a relationship and can only say you have no clue as to what you're talking about nor what it actually is.
Men can have sticks up their ass as well. Since their the ones getting fucked they usually aren't married to women who enjoy being submissive. But yeah, if you were a real man, you would understand, women really enjoy submitting.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
You have an incredibly narrow view, which suggests a complete lack of experience. You seem to know nothing of the real dynamics of dominance and sumission. You are peddling some pretty idiotic assertions. For one, pidgeonholing a diverse animal such as a human being into a single category like this is disingenious to your argument. Furthermore, you seem to be completely lacking any knowledge in regards to research on the topic. Frankly, you're still putting your foot in your mouth with every single word. Please, continue to entertain us with your "knowledge" of women.
*submission
Morality is what you believe to be good or bad, as dictated by some higher power.
It does not have to be a higher power. Morality comes from philosophy, and there is such a thing as non-theistic moral philosophy.
The whole idea of moral relativism and multicultuaralism is that every culture is just as valid as the next.
Multiculturalism just means that different cultures can exist in the same society, nothing more. It doesn't believe that the beliefs of any one culture are inherently moral or not.
How about you come out and say it: you think Saudi Arabians have an inferior culture.
Of course they have an inferior culture. Why would this even a point of discussion?
BTW Silverman actually says what she thinks then hides behind the badge of commedy so she is beyond reproach. Few white people get such a golden pass to say racial slurs that much.
White and black and hispanic comedians get a pretty free pass to make racial humor, I've found. I think white people like it as much (or more) than black people.
And I've found the Daily Show hides behind the "haha, we're just comedy, don't take it seriously" a little too often. I thought it was pretty hypocritical, and I haven't heard them use that defence recently, fortunately.
Are you fucking blind, or illiterate?
I think you're just getting trolled, especially considering his follow-up.