1. "Improve things"? Really? There are loads of women who would love nothing more than to raise their children instead if having babysitters do it while they work and feel guilty no matter what choice they make. And for those women who feel fine about abandoning their children to "trusted strangers," How is that an improvement?! Desensitized, unloving, unnurturing mothers?? Bad families raise bad children who grow into bad adults. And when they have children (and that's happening now) they have NO idea how to raise them.
2. Not men as a category? You can't be serious. And why "certain specific men"? And why do feminists in high government leadership positions care nothing about the very REAL anti-woman things going on in other nations and instead make up nonsense about pay gaps and all of that? Study after study shows that the reasons for many gaps and limits on upper-leadership and lack of women in certain jobs (funny, they never talk about how few women do "grunt work" like mechanics, plumbing, elentrcians, HVAC, garbage collection, truck drivers and all...yes there are some, but it's overwhelmingly male) has more to do with lack of interest and/or having other/conflicting interests in life... say for example, being a mother.
There just aren't fights left to fight for "feminism." And the harm it has done to nearly all areas and aspects they have influenced is amazing. Nothing good has happened since the right to vote has been established. (Please cite examples to the contrary) And please. When have feminists EVER demanded equal responsibility to accompany their equal rights? The draft registration is STILL a sexist law and no one cares and if anyone pushed to require women to register you can bet the feminists would be the first to say "no!"
When, thanks to feminism, women have the legal right to walk away from the responsibility of motherhood. Do men? Even if they never knew or saw the child? Nope. There is a need for equality, but equality of RESPONSIBILITY is elephant of hypocrisy in the room.
Nature gives men and women role assignment by gender. Men can't nurse babies without some serious medical modifications. Any and every time "society" thinks it's smarter than nature, and that a political idealism which challenges reality, bad things result. We live in a society where more children have only one parent and either that parent (invariably a woman) is either living on child support and welfare or is working and not taking care of her children. Neglected children cannot POSSIBLY grow up well.
Is feminism really such a great idea?
1) No one is trying to force women to work who don't wish to. Economic forces are what causes that. Strawman argument of feminism.
2) Why shouldn't elected leaders in our society work to improve our society? Western women should see how bad women in other countries have it and just shut up and be grateful? Try that one out on your girlfriend or wife and see what she thinks.
3) Right, so its preposterous to think that anything could be wrong with our society. We're perfect. Even though I acknowledge women's right to vote as a positive change, the changes should definitely have stopped there. And anti-black racism in the US ended in 1964.
4) Damn society, thinking it can defy nature. We should live as cavemen did! Are you by any chance vaccinated?
5) "Is feminism really such a great idea?" Yes, read my original post if you're curious as to why I think so.
So your problem is that it isn't a scientific theory?
Here's a falsifiable statement: do a small group of elite men dominate society for their own interests? This statement is false if no group dominates society, or if a group of elite women do. Given how subjective many of these concepts are, its not as neatly falsifiable than Newton's laws, for example. Life is complicated. I find it interesting that this theory is basically what people are espousing when talking about inequality and the 1%, its just that the connection to gender isn't as obvious if you are a male. Few would deny that most of the money is in male hands.
As for what feminism actually does, I'll trust my own judgement on that thanks. The fact that you mentioned 'bra burners' is interesting as it is actually a myth. I referenced it as an example in one of my posts but I don't literally think it is something that happened.
I didn't say I have no opinion, I said I didn't care enough to express one, so you didn't think my post was meant as an agreement or disagreement with the rest of your arguments, which I don't feel like getting involved with.
Fair enough, maybe I was feeling a little suspicious of your motives. I'm glad we can keep this civil.
You wouldn't happen to be talking about women when you say "approximately 50% if its members", would you? Careful, someone might take that the wrong way.
Yep, that's exactly what I meant. What is the 'wrong way' to take that statement?
"Shouldn't have to" is a pretty non-informative statement. Children shouldn't have to die of malaria, but they do. I was telling you what approach I think has the largest chance of neutralizing the venomous effect of radical feminism/Islam/atheism/etc.
I take your point about what is vs what should be. I'm not quite as fatalistic about people's attitudes, given that we raise the next generation with our values. Given the huge progress we have made on these social issues, I don't think telling radicals to tone their attitudes down will make progress happen faster. Simply, I disagree with your suggested strategy.
It's a matter of tone, really. There's not a huge difference between what is meant when one says "feminism isn't about hating men" vs. "I am a feminist, but I don't hate men and the things I fight for are good for both genders", but one of them leads down a rabbit hole of accusations of "no true scotsman" and links to tumblr pages, while the other one has a slightly better chance of getting at least one person to think "hey, maybe I shouldn't be afraid of feminists?" Your claim that it's all men's fault that the term feminism has been poisoned isn't helping, either.
I don't get the difference between your two tones here, or which one you think is me. Maybe you could explain this a bit better. Also, I never said it was all men's fault the term has become poisoned. Some women have misogynist attitudes, and even help spread them. I'm a man who is a feminist, I would be a hypocrite if I didn't reject identity politics.
I have, unfortunately, seen enough Internet arguments to know how those things go. Fear and mistrust are too powerful. A single story about someone getting fired over saying "dongle" is worth a thousand people like you arguing what feminism "actually" is and who it's good for. Being a little more proactive about counteracting that effect can't hurt.
Again, looking at what is vs what should be, I think you're probably correct. I wrote my post to try to convince any logical, interested person who read it. I can't do anything about people being fired for whatever.
I don't care enough to express an opinion on the rest of your post and the debate you're in...
I find it pretty weird that such a logical, clear thinker has no opinion on the question of whether society is unfair to approximately 50% if its members, but fair enough, your choice.
... but this part strikes me as very false. A conspiracy theory is completely unnecessary to explain the "poisoning" of the term feminism. It's entirely believable that, as radical elements of feminism naturally arose (and they did arise naturally; there's no way in hell that's a false flag operation), both non-feminists and those with actively anti-feminist inclinations lumped those radical elements with the less extreme versions of feminism. That's a story as old as time, same has happened with Islam, atheism, race relations, LGBT issues, etc. People are really bad at ignoring threatening extremes. It's a natural impulse, no deliberate poisoning necessary. As far as I know, the only viable means of fighting this trend is for the more moderate (but still similarly aligned) elements to actively, loudly disavow the radicalization of their views.
I wouldn't describe it as a conspiracy, but as a group of people attacking an idea they view as immoral or dangerous, in the most effective way possible. This often involves picking isolated sentences out of context to make a different impression that you would get reading the entire book, or blog post or whatever. Its very effective in our soundbite, 'gotcha' culture. I think the exact same thing happens to the other groups of people you mentioned, usually by the same reactionary people.
People are really bad at ignoring threatening extremes. It's a natural impulse, no deliberate poisoning necessary. As far as I know, the only viable means of fighting this trend is for the more moderate (but still similarly aligned) elements to actively, loudly disavow the radicalization of their views.
This shifts the burden from people who over-generalize to the objects of generalization, to police other people. Trying to control free thinkers and individualists is folly, as is trying to protect the ignorant from their own errors. People who are interested will explore ideas for themselves. Gay people shouldn't need to hide the guy bare-ass in chaps and a cowboy hat, and nothing else, to be respected and have equality before the law. Feminists shouldn't have to hide the bra-burners to have the same rights and opportunities as men.
I also think that for all your example there are plenty of moderates putting their ideas out there, and denouncing extremists, and it doesn't work the way you claim it should. You can't argue people out of positions they were never argued into in the first place. The majority of anti-feminists, anti-gay, anti-whatever people who I have run into have these opinions because of cultural and political identity.
Defensiveness won't get you anywhere, it'll just legitimize the suspicion surrounding the issue further.
I wasn't trying to be defensive, but to defend an idea. I didn't see any good posts defending feminism, and plenty of weak ones attacking it.
1} Not everyone's politics are about blame, I'm more interested in what is, and how to improve things.
2) If blame is the issue, then men (not men as a category, but certain specific men) are literally to blame. If this is the truth then why should feminism pull its punches?
... If they continue to use a term as poisoned as "feminist" then you might look to question their actual motive and intent.
This is the problem right here: the term feminist has been poisoned intentionally. Its similar to the right-wing hit job on 'liberal'; the only way to defeat an idea that most people already accept is to reframe and demonize that idea as something objectionable.
You could find me a billion links to nutty, anti-male websites if you like. It doesn't matter. If you think it does matter than I allow me to discredit all right-wing politics by giving you a link to the American Nazi Party, or to discredit any idea of treating animals humanely by linking to PETA.
Feminism is the belief that women are just as capable and deserving of respect as men. Unless you believe women deserve less respect or fewer opportunities, simply for being female, congratulations, you are a feminist. Being anti-male, wanting to feminize men or de-feminize women, denying basic biological differences, or whatever other stupid idea you have been taught feminists believe, these are categorically not feminism.
Feminism is basically a social criticism that in many spheres of our society an elite group of men has taken control for their own benefit, to the exclusion of others. Keep in mind that women only gained the right to vote last century, as late as 1970 in France, and that people are still alive who remember women not being able work after marriage, legalized martial rape, and a whole bunch of other obviously misogynist practices, and its not a huge stretch to imagine that our society might still not be 100% perfect, or that social groups who were severely discriminated against in living memory still are.
Even if you are 100% self-interested, you should recognize that as women have gained more freedom over the last 50 year so have men, particularly in areas of child care and parental leave. Freedom and rights are not zero sum. The fact is that the same 'boys club' attitude that is bad for women is also bad for the vast majority of men.
I'll leave you with a Germaine Greer quote (paraphrasing):
Aspiring to equality with men is a terrible mistake, since men live and work in a frighteningly unfree and tyrannical society, one built on confederacies and conspiracies, on initiation and blooding rituals, on shared antisocial behaviour, on ostracisms and punishments, practical jokes, clannishness and discrimination.
Not to defend the word 'USian', which is horrid, but this issue is not as clear and simple as you make it out to be. The word 'American' has several uses; someone from the USA is only the most common use.
First, what is the adjective (or demonym) for someone from the Americas? These guys decided it was 'American'. Do you have a better answer?
Second, some people disagree on how many continents there are, with some people combining North and South America, or Europe and Asia. I think there's a stronger case for the second pairing, but using 'the Americas' to refer to a single continent is clearly wrong.
Third, what do we call the native people of the Americas? Historically, that word was American, as an analogue to African, Asian, and European. People make do with Native American, Amerindian, and a whole bunch of of other stuff, but its still kind of a mess. I added this one for historical perspective, but to be fair I have never heard anyone use American in this way.
The person you responded too was clearly a chump, but your refusal to aknowledge the ambiguity doesn't make it vanish. Words can carry a variety of meanings, and we depend on the context to make it clear.
When the Americans attacked York it was the capital of Upper Canada (Ontario). US troops set fire to the Parliament buildings, which lead to the British burning the White House in revenge. This attack is the reason Ottawa later became the capital of Canada; it was not as easy for the USA to attack, keeping in mind that a major attack would come by water in the 1800s.
I don't know if shelling was involved or not, but a famous American explorer, Zebulon Pike, was killed when the British troops blew up their own magazine.
Sure, I absolutely am willing to bet that cities bring more economic activity into the province than the rural areas do. The presence of one wealthy exurb does not change that. The fact is that the big cities, Toronto in particular, bring a large benefit to everyone in the province.
Also, the electoral map is misleading for two reasons: one the much larger size of rural, conservative ridings and the winner-takes-all nature of our elections. If you look at the map you sea a mainly blue southern Ontario, large patches of orange in the north, and a few tiny specks of red in certain areas. Remember that its the number of seats that matter in our system, not the surface area of the riding. The cities have many ridings because of their population. The northwest most riding in our province, where Kenora is, is bigger than all of southern Ontario, yet they only elect one MPP. The other thing is that there is a fair number of voters for all parties in every riding, but small tendancies towards Liberal or Convservative have a big impact. Its ridiculous to paint either the cities or the rural areas as politically unified when most winning candidates get less than half the vote.
The cities are vastly more productive than rural areas, so they're already subsidizing the rest of the province. Toronto by itself is responsible for a huge part of the entire country's GDP. Improving public transit for these cities (where an increasingly large number of voters live) seemed like a better use of public money than yet another corporate tax cut, which is why Ontario voted as it did.
I couldn't 't vote Liberal personally, as I felt the party should be punished for its ethical lapses, but I understand why the voters rejected Tim Hudak's glorious right-wing revolution. If the Conservatives remember that this is centrist province and smarten up they will have a chance next time around.
I had not heard of your second site, but I can only imagine in horror. As for small dead animals, yep, they fit my definition to a T. They seem like the kind of folks who would enjoy The Turner Diaries, or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion if their political prejudices were a bit different. These people are always angry because their views are way beyond our mainstream Conservative party, and because there's no younger generation of 'true believers' to replace them. I'm in my 20s so I plan to just wait them out.
I'm sympathetic to the fact self censorship due to accusations of racism, but I don't know what abuses you are referring to.
I don't think its totally impossible, or democracy would never have started anywhere. However, you're right that history is working against the region here.
Do you know any Muslims in real life (ie a first name basis)? I do, and I haven't found them to be any worse or any better than people from other religious groups. The only extreme religious folk I have met and been affected by personally were Christians (I know that's a cliché, but that is my personal experience).
I would like to know where these 'no go' zones are. I live in Ottawa and pretty much feel safe everywhere. I wouldn't believe everything you read in the papers about 'no go' zones, and even if I did it's a stretch to go from 'poor/violent area where social group X live' to 'global conspiracy by everyone in social group X', which is what I meant by Islamophobia. Remember that even in the most crime-ridden or violent areas the majority of people are still law-abiding, and usually are victims of the crime around them.
If you don't believe in a pan-Islamic conspiracy, then fine, I wouldn't call you Islamophobic. Some people do (e.g. see smalldeadanimals.com) which is why we need a word for it.
I actually think that British colonial rule is what set up the US to be a democracy. The revolutionary US population had lived for several generations under a parliamentary democracy, with strong rights and the rule of law. When they declared their independence from Britain they naturally chose to set up a very similar system.
Compare the experiences of former British colonies like the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand with Latin America, Liberia, Algeria, and other former colonies which rebelled against despotic rule.
In modern usage, sure, people say 'the Americas' because it is less ambiguous. Historically 'America' was the continent, and 'American' meant the native peoples from the continent.
At some point the US took these names for themselves, not unlike how the Boers tried to define themselves as 'Afrikaners' (Africans). The US was just more successful.
Individual speech is the thing protected by the Constitution. Organized pressure to fire somebody from their job is not free speech, it's mob rule.
As another poster said, calling this type of scenario mob rule is a gross exaggeration, as long as there's no violence involved. Another way to describe what happened to Mozilla CEO (since it seems that's what we're talking about) would be to say that many people pressured Mozilla to get rid of him (freedom of speech), and that Mozilla decided to cut him loose (freedom of association).
There's no way to stop this from happening without cutting into someone's free speech, either the ability of ordinary people to pressure big companies, or for companies to fire people based on bad publicity. You can argue that people should have not *wanted* to have that man fired because of what he did, but then you're telling other people how and what to think.
I'm interested in hearing who you think acted incorrectly in this case (or a similar hypothetical), and how you would prefer they act.
Your summary of the war of 1812 is good. I am a Canadian, and the only thing I would add is to clarify the whole British vs. Canadian issue.
In 1812, the only people in Canada (then British North America) who would think of themselves as Canadian were the French colonists of Lower Canada (now Quebec). The French Canadians were basically the remnants of New France, and the first people to use the name 'Canada' on a map.
The rest of the country (which like the US of the time had not yet expanded west) was split into separate British colonies such as Upper Canada (Ontario), Lower Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, which would later become Canadian provinces. The people in these colonies would have considered themselves British subjects, and possibly members of these colonies.
At this time there wasn't a strong Canadian identity, and in fact this war helped to define Canada. Its similar to how before 1776 'American' meant Native American, and the people who lived in New England probably considered themselves British.
Well, to be honest there was two things going on here: first was my original complaint, then came the trolling.
Your whole problem in this thread is that you don't read people's posts, or understand what they are saying, and then you post a whole bunch of irrelevant, emotional nonsense. I called your first post flamebait, and somehow you took this as my disagreeing with your definition of flamebait. (actually Urban dictionary's defintion, since for all your blather there's remarkably little content to your posts). Actually, my complaint was that I just didn't like your tone and attitude, but all my attempts at pointing this out went right over your head. Once this got started I just felt like goading you for a response for awhile, and you cooperated admirably. If you really understand flaming or trolling as much as you think you do, you would understand the thrill of seeing someone lose their cool on the internet.
Anyways, after awhile I started to feel bad, which is why I have dropped the insults. If you really want to keep going I'm game, but you've essentially just been calling me illogical, delusional, etc, while I insulted you for being socially retarded. There's not really anything to discuss here, so I'm ready to call it a night if you are.
There were no other people complaining about my post. It's terribly sad that you can not read what people write and invent your own words. That is not illiteracy, that is called delusional. Hint: One person corrected my use of "insight" instead of "incite", which I thanked them for correcting. You are lying about the other example as well, no need to continue down that path.
There were 3 replies to your post: mine, a second post which pointed out the irony of your post, and the one that corrected your spelling. I pointed out that no one specifically agreed with you, and you have gone into an unhinged rant arguing the negative of that, which is a logical leap. Either way it was a bad argument for you to bring up as you're essentially arguing by popularity.
Further, correcting your broken logic and demonstrating your ignorance is not being butthurt. It's an attempt to make you a better person. If you believe you should get stickers and candy for getting wrong answers, you are at the wrong school. If you had a correct answer I would congratulate you, maybe.
I thought this wasn't a school or a lecture. Make up your mind, man.
If I had used all capital letters it would have been considered an internet shout. As it was written it is what we in the English language call an expletive exclamation. It is not written "at" anyone because there is absolutely no direction to the statement. If you take a statement and invent your own words (as you have repeatedly done here) to assign a direction then the exclamation becomes an attack "at" someone. By your irrational position, a person posting "Damn!" is also directing that at someone. Note that your position is "irrational". No, I won't provide further word definitions because you have a tendency to not comprehend them when definitions are provided. In fact I'm skeptical that you read anything that may harm your irrational opinion.
Clearly you see nothing wrong with your behaviour, so I'm going to stop trying to explain it to you. Manners are neither rational nor irrational, they are a matter of social custom.
You feel the need to keep replying, meaning that either you're enjoying this or you're neurotic. At first I was sort of hoping it was the second one, but now I realize that I've gone too far with this. This will be my last post.
The crazy thing is that you still bit after I admitted I was trolling you...
So you give people these lectures for free? That's even more pathetic.
It was not a lecture, and barely even a piece of a lesson. I have zero confidence that you have adequate eduction to understand the difference between lecture and 'basic information and instruction". It's not the only example you have provided showing you completely lack fundamental knowledge of the language you are using.
Well, you're clearly butthurt to be still so worked up about this.
Most reasonable people who read the above would conclude you are an obnoxious person who lacks insight.
Actually the post was moderated "insightful" and there is no chorus of people claiming I'm anything other than beneficial with my post. You are not a chorus, you are one person who has repeatedly shown a vast amount of ignorance.
Three people replied to your post and none of them agreed with you. I'm still not clear on how your definition of flamebait differs so greatly from the original post that you had to shout "Holy fuck!" at them. The OP was a disgusting right-wing rant, clearly meant as flamebait.
I made it clear in my posts that you seem like a dumb asshole to me, so your again your passive insults are given zero weight. Don't worry, you can probably reuse them in another post.
Pardon me if I don't give any weight to your opinion of me. Heaven forbid I should be offended by someone that focuses on 5 words out of 276 to make such an opinion, confuses ad hominem with exclamation, and equates "lecture" with "basic information".
The rest of your post was also crap.
Honestly, its not even the language so much as the hyperbole and rampant emotionalism in your post which offends me. You don't have to end every sentence with a bang (!), you know. In fact, I've sworn at you several times, but only in a measured way. Also, it kinda irks me that you called someone out for being wrong when its you who is wrong, as I already explained.
Your satisfaction and content with your own ignorance should offend you much more than I ever could. Ignorance leads to an irrational opinion. Focusing on 5 out of 276 words exemplifies both your ignorance and irrational perspective. I'm not offended or swayed by your irrational responses which demonstrate your ignorance of written English language.
Wholly Fuck! You seem to be simply trolling.
Ding, ding, ding! You finally get it! The irony of trolling someone who was arrogantly trying to lecture others on the definition of trolling was just too delicious to pass up. I'm laughing at your superior intellect, professor.
If you wish to debate the remaining 271 words of the post feel free to critique them fairly. I will warn you that you should understand other concepts of the English language, such as paragraphs and quotation marks, before doing so.
Well consider me fairly warned, then, professor.
OK, enough trolling then, if you can seriously explain the following to me I'll promise to be impressed: a) Why is an ad hominem necessary for a post to be flamebait? You asserted this at one point, but its not in your original point or your links. Its quite possible to incite a response via flaming without specifically attacking someone. This seems to be original point you had, before your posts descended into incoherent blather. b) Why do you feel it isn't rude to shout 'Wholly fuck!' at people? Is this just the way you were raised? (Also, its 'holy fuck', dumbass.)
Wow, based on the exclamation points I must have really gotten your goat. Let's pick this apart, shall we.
You can not tell a difference between an expletive/exclamation and an ad homimem. Here is some basic language information and instruction. This relates directly to the language you are using, and claim to be offended by. I'd suggest that you attempt to educate yourself on the English language because this is not a University and I am not paid to teach you.
So you give people these lectures for free? That's even more pathetic.
You claim falsely that my "Wholly fuck" and "Absolutely Wrong" are rude/rudeness/Flamebait by lumping them repeatedly into a single statement. Those are 2 separate statements, and nowhere is there a personal attack or "rudeness" in either statement.
Most reasonable people who read the above would conclude you are an obnoxious person who lacks insight.
I provide examples and references, so the only way you can claim "flamebait" is to ignore the majority of the post and redefine words.
The statements "Wrong!" and "Absolutely Wrong" are statements of fact. Facts which were provided in the post and you claimed to read. If you are offended by someone being corrected you have severe psychological problems. Not that uncommon unfortunately. We have schools that reward children for being wrong because they rewarded a child for being adept and intelligent, but that is not healthy. (Yes, that is a fact based opinion and no further discussion should be had here.)
The statement "Wholly fuck" is called an expletive which is intended to emphasize that the person is (therefor you are) "Absolutely Wrong!" by a large degree.
I made it clear in my posts that you seem like a dumb asshole to me, so your again your passive insults are given zero weight. Don't worry, you can probably reuse them in another post.
I stand by my call. If I had mod points, and I seem to get them quite often, your post would have deservedly gotten a flamebait.
Thankfully people that can read and comprehend English have mod points instead of you today!
As stated previously, if you have to redefine words to make a claim then your claim is wrong! When you have to ignore more than 90% of a post to make your claim, that's even worse!
Honestly, its not even the language so much as the hyperbole and rampant emotionalism in your post which offends me. You don't have to end every sentence with a bang (!), you know. In fact, I've sworn at you several times, but only in a measured way. Also, it kinda irks me that you called someone out for being wrong when its you who is wrong, as I already explained.
Next time calm yourself down and think before you reply.
(Oh, and you'll be pleased to know I did get mod points after writing that, but obviously I will use those in another thread.)
Why did you bother to reply when you clearly did not read my post?
I read your definitions, and your post. Flamebait: An email, usually to a message board, written with intent to offend\anger\enrage other persons, so that they will send a flaming email in reply. The post your replied to said flamebait is, "saying things to get people pissed off". The second statement lacks precision, but I don't see a huge disagreement here. You chose to respond with, "Wrong! Wholly fuck! Absolutely wrong!".
I honestly thought your rudeness was deliberate, but perhaps you're just a dumb asshole who doesn't know how to talk to other people. If you wrote your post that way and didn't see anything wrong with it then that is pretty sad.
I stand by my call. If I had mod points, and I seem to get them quite often, your post would have deservedly gotten a flamebait. You also clearly failed to read the post you originally answered, as I don't see any wide gulf between your definitions and theirs. Bad, bad, posting all around.
Well, judging by your post (an excellent example of flamebait) you yourself have trouble distinguishing between opinions that are merely unpopular and may piss people off, and those those written to be as insulting and crude as possible.
If I had mod points I would give you and grandparent flamebait. The content of your post is a quibble over definitions, but you start off with "Wrong! Wholly fuck! Absolutely wrong!", and end with passive-aggressively suggesting that parent needs or cares about your posting advice. Jesus, have the balls to insult people openly if you are going to spread your bitchiness over the internet.
So in conclusion, I realize that people who like to mouth off tend to be slow, so here is some far-from-friendly advice: think before you post and if you're having a bad day just keep it to yourself.
If I run a business and pay for health care for my employees, can I choose not to pay for blood transfusions for employees? What if I think blood transfusions are wrong?
I agree with parent's last paragraph. Health insurance is a form of payment, employers should have no say whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
1. "Improve things"? Really? There are loads of women who would love nothing more than to raise their children instead if having babysitters do it while they work and feel guilty no matter what choice they make. And for those women who feel fine about abandoning their children to "trusted strangers," How is that an improvement?! Desensitized, unloving, unnurturing mothers?? Bad families raise bad children who grow into bad adults. And when they have children (and that's happening now) they have NO idea how to raise them.
2. Not men as a category? You can't be serious. And why "certain specific men"? And why do feminists in high government leadership positions care nothing about the very REAL anti-woman things going on in other nations and instead make up nonsense about pay gaps and all of that? Study after study shows that the reasons for many gaps and limits on upper-leadership and lack of women in certain jobs (funny, they never talk about how few women do "grunt work" like mechanics, plumbing, elentrcians, HVAC, garbage collection, truck drivers and all...yes there are some, but it's overwhelmingly male) has more to do with lack of interest and/or having other/conflicting interests in life... say for example, being a mother.
There just aren't fights left to fight for "feminism." And the harm it has done to nearly all areas and aspects they have influenced is amazing. Nothing good has happened since the right to vote has been established. (Please cite examples to the contrary) And please. When have feminists EVER demanded equal responsibility to accompany their equal rights? The draft registration is STILL a sexist law and no one cares and if anyone pushed to require women to register you can bet the feminists would be the first to say "no!"
When, thanks to feminism, women have the legal right to walk away from the responsibility of motherhood. Do men? Even if they never knew or saw the child? Nope. There is a need for equality, but equality of RESPONSIBILITY is elephant of hypocrisy in the room.
Nature gives men and women role assignment by gender. Men can't nurse babies without some serious medical modifications. Any and every time "society" thinks it's smarter than nature, and that a political idealism which challenges reality, bad things result. We live in a society where more children have only one parent and either that parent (invariably a woman) is either living on child support and welfare or is working and not taking care of her children. Neglected children cannot POSSIBLY grow up well.
Is feminism really such a great idea?
1) No one is trying to force women to work who don't wish to. Economic forces are what causes that. Strawman argument of feminism.
2) Why shouldn't elected leaders in our society work to improve our society? Western women should see how bad women in other countries have it and just shut up and be grateful? Try that one out on your girlfriend or wife and see what she thinks.
3) Right, so its preposterous to think that anything could be wrong with our society. We're perfect. Even though I acknowledge women's right to vote as a positive change, the changes should definitely have stopped there. And anti-black racism in the US ended in 1964.
4) Damn society, thinking it can defy nature. We should live as cavemen did! Are you by any chance vaccinated?
5) "Is feminism really such a great idea?" Yes, read my original post if you're curious as to why I think so.
So your problem is that it isn't a scientific theory?
Here's a falsifiable statement: do a small group of elite men dominate society for their own interests? This statement is false if no group dominates society, or if a group of elite women do. Given how subjective many of these concepts are, its not as neatly falsifiable than Newton's laws, for example. Life is complicated. I find it interesting that this theory is basically what people are espousing when talking about inequality and the 1%, its just that the connection to gender isn't as obvious if you are a male. Few would deny that most of the money is in male hands.
As for what feminism actually does, I'll trust my own judgement on that thanks. The fact that you mentioned 'bra burners' is interesting as it is actually a myth. I referenced it as an example in one of my posts but I don't literally think it is something that happened.
I didn't say I have no opinion, I said I didn't care enough to express one, so you didn't think my post was meant as an agreement or disagreement with the rest of your arguments, which I don't feel like getting involved with.
Fair enough, maybe I was feeling a little suspicious of your motives. I'm glad we can keep this civil.
You wouldn't happen to be talking about women when you say "approximately 50% if its members", would you? Careful, someone might take that the wrong way.
Yep, that's exactly what I meant. What is the 'wrong way' to take that statement?
"Shouldn't have to" is a pretty non-informative statement. Children shouldn't have to die of malaria, but they do. I was telling you what approach I think has the largest chance of neutralizing the venomous effect of radical feminism/Islam/atheism/etc.
I take your point about what is vs what should be. I'm not quite as fatalistic about people's attitudes, given that we raise the next generation with our values. Given the huge progress we have made on these social issues, I don't think telling radicals to tone their attitudes down will make progress happen faster. Simply, I disagree with your suggested strategy.
It's a matter of tone, really. There's not a huge difference between what is meant when one says "feminism isn't about hating men" vs. "I am a feminist, but I don't hate men and the things I fight for are good for both genders", but one of them leads down a rabbit hole of accusations of "no true scotsman" and links to tumblr pages, while the other one has a slightly better chance of getting at least one person to think "hey, maybe I shouldn't be afraid of feminists?" Your claim that it's all men's fault that the term feminism has been poisoned isn't helping, either.
I don't get the difference between your two tones here, or which one you think is me. Maybe you could explain this a bit better. Also, I never said it was all men's fault the term has become poisoned. Some women have misogynist attitudes, and even help spread them. I'm a man who is a feminist, I would be a hypocrite if I didn't reject identity politics.
I have, unfortunately, seen enough Internet arguments to know how those things go. Fear and mistrust are too powerful. A single story about someone getting fired over saying "dongle" is worth a thousand people like you arguing what feminism "actually" is and who it's good for. Being a little more proactive about counteracting that effect can't hurt.
Again, looking at what is vs what should be, I think you're probably correct. I wrote my post to try to convince any logical, interested person who read it. I can't do anything about people being fired for whatever.
I don't care enough to express an opinion on the rest of your post and the debate you're in...
I find it pretty weird that such a logical, clear thinker has no opinion on the question of whether society is unfair to approximately 50% if its members, but fair enough, your choice.
... but this part strikes me as very false. A conspiracy theory is completely unnecessary to explain the "poisoning" of the term feminism. It's entirely believable that, as radical elements of feminism naturally arose (and they did arise naturally; there's no way in hell that's a false flag operation), both non-feminists and those with actively anti-feminist inclinations lumped those radical elements with the less extreme versions of feminism. That's a story as old as time, same has happened with Islam, atheism, race relations, LGBT issues, etc. People are really bad at ignoring threatening extremes. It's a natural impulse, no deliberate poisoning necessary. As far as I know, the only viable means of fighting this trend is for the more moderate (but still similarly aligned) elements to actively, loudly disavow the radicalization of their views.
I wouldn't describe it as a conspiracy, but as a group of people attacking an idea they view as immoral or dangerous, in the most effective way possible. This often involves picking isolated sentences out of context to make a different impression that you would get reading the entire book, or blog post or whatever. Its very effective in our soundbite, 'gotcha' culture. I think the exact same thing happens to the other groups of people you mentioned, usually by the same reactionary people.
People are really bad at ignoring threatening extremes. It's a natural impulse, no deliberate poisoning necessary. As far as I know, the only viable means of fighting this trend is for the more moderate (but still similarly aligned) elements to actively, loudly disavow the radicalization of their views.
This shifts the burden from people who over-generalize to the objects of generalization, to police other people. Trying to control free thinkers and individualists is folly, as is trying to protect the ignorant from their own errors. People who are interested will explore ideas for themselves. Gay people shouldn't need to hide the guy bare-ass in chaps and a cowboy hat, and nothing else, to be respected and have equality before the law. Feminists shouldn't have to hide the bra-burners to have the same rights and opportunities as men.
I also think that for all your example there are plenty of moderates putting their ideas out there, and denouncing extremists, and it doesn't work the way you claim it should. You can't argue people out of positions they were never argued into in the first place. The majority of anti-feminists, anti-gay, anti-whatever people who I have run into have these opinions because of cultural and political identity.
Defensiveness won't get you anywhere, it'll just legitimize the suspicion surrounding the issue further.
I wasn't trying to be defensive, but to defend an idea. I didn't see any good posts defending feminism, and plenty of weak ones attacking it.
1} Not everyone's politics are about blame, I'm more interested in what is, and how to improve things.
2) If blame is the issue, then men (not men as a category, but certain specific men) are literally to blame. If this is the truth then why should feminism pull its punches?
... If they continue to use a term as poisoned as "feminist" then you might look to question their actual motive and intent.
This is the problem right here: the term feminist has been poisoned intentionally. Its similar to the right-wing hit job on 'liberal'; the only way to defeat an idea that most people already accept is to reframe and demonize that idea as something objectionable.
You could find me a billion links to nutty, anti-male websites if you like. It doesn't matter. If you think it does matter than I allow me to discredit all right-wing politics by giving you a link to the American Nazi Party, or to discredit any idea of treating animals humanely by linking to PETA.
Feminism is the belief that women are just as capable and deserving of respect as men. Unless you believe women deserve less respect or fewer opportunities, simply for being female, congratulations, you are a feminist. Being anti-male, wanting to feminize men or de-feminize women, denying basic biological differences, or whatever other stupid idea you have been taught feminists believe, these are categorically not feminism.
Feminism is basically a social criticism that in many spheres of our society an elite group of men has taken control for their own benefit, to the exclusion of others. Keep in mind that women only gained the right to vote last century, as late as 1970 in France, and that people are still alive who remember women not being able work after marriage, legalized martial rape, and a whole bunch of other obviously misogynist practices, and its not a huge stretch to imagine that our society might still not be 100% perfect, or that social groups who were severely discriminated against in living memory still are.
Even if you are 100% self-interested, you should recognize that as women have gained more freedom over the last 50 year so have men, particularly in areas of child care and parental leave. Freedom and rights are not zero sum. The fact is that the same 'boys club' attitude that is bad for women is also bad for the vast majority of men.
I'll leave you with a Germaine Greer quote (paraphrasing):
Aspiring to equality with men is a terrible mistake, since men live and work in a frighteningly unfree and tyrannical society, one built on confederacies and conspiracies, on initiation and blooding rituals, on shared antisocial behaviour, on ostracisms and punishments, practical jokes, clannishness and discrimination.
Not to defend the word 'USian', which is horrid, but this issue is not as clear and simple as you make it out to be. The word 'American' has several uses; someone from the USA is only the most common use.
First, what is the adjective (or demonym) for someone from the Americas? These guys decided it was 'American'. Do you have a better answer?
Second, some people disagree on how many continents there are, with some people combining North and South America, or Europe and Asia. I think there's a stronger case for the second pairing, but using 'the Americas' to refer to a single continent is clearly wrong.
Third, what do we call the native people of the Americas? Historically, that word was American, as an analogue to African, Asian, and European. People make do with Native American, Amerindian, and a whole bunch of of other stuff, but its still kind of a mess. I added this one for historical perspective, but to be fair I have never heard anyone use American in this way.
The person you responded too was clearly a chump, but your refusal to aknowledge the ambiguity doesn't make it vanish. Words can carry a variety of meanings, and we depend on the context to make it clear.
When the Americans attacked York it was the capital of Upper Canada (Ontario). US troops set fire to the Parliament buildings, which lead to the British burning the White House in revenge. This attack is the reason Ottawa later became the capital of Canada; it was not as easy for the USA to attack, keeping in mind that a major attack would come by water in the 1800s.
I don't know if shelling was involved or not, but a famous American explorer, Zebulon Pike, was killed when the British troops blew up their own magazine.
Sure, I absolutely am willing to bet that cities bring more economic activity into the province than the rural areas do. The presence of one wealthy exurb does not change that. The fact is that the big cities, Toronto in particular, bring a large benefit to everyone in the province.
Also, the electoral map is misleading for two reasons: one the much larger size of rural, conservative ridings and the winner-takes-all nature of our elections. If you look at the map you sea a mainly blue southern Ontario, large patches of orange in the north, and a few tiny specks of red in certain areas. Remember that its the number of seats that matter in our system, not the surface area of the riding. The cities have many ridings because of their population. The northwest most riding in our province, where Kenora is, is bigger than all of southern Ontario, yet they only elect one MPP. The other thing is that there is a fair number of voters for all parties in every riding, but small tendancies towards Liberal or Convservative have a big impact. Its ridiculous to paint either the cities or the rural areas as politically unified when most winning candidates get less than half the vote.
The cities are vastly more productive than rural areas, so they're already subsidizing the rest of the province. Toronto by itself is responsible for a huge part of the entire country's GDP. Improving public transit for these cities (where an increasingly large number of voters live) seemed like a better use of public money than yet another corporate tax cut, which is why Ontario voted as it did.
I couldn't 't vote Liberal personally, as I felt the party should be punished for its ethical lapses, but I understand why the voters rejected Tim Hudak's glorious right-wing revolution. If the Conservatives remember that this is centrist province and smarten up they will have a chance next time around.
I had not heard of your second site, but I can only imagine in horror. As for small dead animals, yep, they fit my definition to a T. They seem like the kind of folks who would enjoy The Turner Diaries, or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion if their political prejudices were a bit different. These people are always angry because their views are way beyond our mainstream Conservative party, and because there's no younger generation of 'true believers' to replace them. I'm in my 20s so I plan to just wait them out.
I'm sympathetic to the fact self censorship due to accusations of racism, but I don't know what abuses you are referring to.
I don't think its totally impossible, or democracy would never have started anywhere. However, you're right that history is working against the region here.
Do you know any Muslims in real life (ie a first name basis)? I do, and I haven't found them to be any worse or any better than people from other religious groups. The only extreme religious folk I have met and been affected by personally were Christians (I know that's a cliché, but that is my personal experience).
I would like to know where these 'no go' zones are. I live in Ottawa and pretty much feel safe everywhere. I wouldn't believe everything you read in the papers about 'no go' zones, and even if I did it's a stretch to go from 'poor/violent area where social group X live' to 'global conspiracy by everyone in social group X', which is what I meant by Islamophobia. Remember that even in the most crime-ridden or violent areas the majority of people are still law-abiding, and usually are victims of the crime around them.
If you don't believe in a pan-Islamic conspiracy, then fine, I wouldn't call you Islamophobic. Some people do (e.g. see smalldeadanimals.com) which is why we need a word for it.
I actually think that British colonial rule is what set up the US to be a democracy. The revolutionary US population had lived for several generations under a parliamentary democracy, with strong rights and the rule of law. When they declared their independence from Britain they naturally chose to set up a very similar system.
Compare the experiences of former British colonies like the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand with Latin America, Liberia, Algeria, and other former colonies which rebelled against despotic rule.
Actually, its the right word to describe the paranoid world view of cowards who see Muslim invaders in their soup.
In modern usage, sure, people say 'the Americas' because it is less ambiguous. Historically 'America' was the continent, and 'American' meant the native peoples from the continent.
At some point the US took these names for themselves, not unlike how the Boers tried to define themselves as 'Afrikaners' (Africans). The US was just more successful.
Individual speech is the thing protected by the Constitution. Organized pressure to fire somebody from their job is not free speech, it's mob rule.
As another poster said, calling this type of scenario mob rule is a gross exaggeration, as long as there's no violence involved. Another way to describe what happened to Mozilla CEO (since it seems that's what we're talking about) would be to say that many people pressured Mozilla to get rid of him (freedom of speech), and that Mozilla decided to cut him loose (freedom of association).
There's no way to stop this from happening without cutting into someone's free speech, either the ability of ordinary people to pressure big companies, or for companies to fire people based on bad publicity. You can argue that people should have not *wanted* to have that man fired because of what he did, but then you're telling other people how and what to think.
I'm interested in hearing who you think acted incorrectly in this case (or a similar hypothetical), and how you would prefer they act.
Your summary of the war of 1812 is good. I am a Canadian, and the only thing I would add is to clarify the whole British vs. Canadian issue.
In 1812, the only people in Canada (then British North America) who would think of themselves as Canadian were the French colonists of Lower Canada (now Quebec). The French Canadians were basically the remnants of New France, and the first people to use the name 'Canada' on a map.
The rest of the country (which like the US of the time had not yet expanded west) was split into separate British colonies such as Upper Canada (Ontario), Lower Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, which would later become Canadian provinces. The people in these colonies would have considered themselves British subjects, and possibly members of these colonies.
At this time there wasn't a strong Canadian identity, and in fact this war helped to define Canada. Its similar to how before 1776 'American' meant Native American, and the people who lived in New England probably considered themselves British.
Well, to be honest there was two things going on here: first was my original complaint, then came the trolling.
Your whole problem in this thread is that you don't read people's posts, or understand what they are saying, and then you post a whole bunch of irrelevant, emotional nonsense. I called your first post flamebait, and somehow you took this as my disagreeing with your definition of flamebait. (actually Urban dictionary's defintion, since for all your blather there's remarkably little content to your posts). Actually, my complaint was that I just didn't like your tone and attitude, but all my attempts at pointing this out went right over your head. Once this got started I just felt like goading you for a response for awhile, and you cooperated admirably. If you really understand flaming or trolling as much as you think you do, you would understand the thrill of seeing someone lose their cool on the internet.
Anyways, after awhile I started to feel bad, which is why I have dropped the insults. If you really want to keep going I'm game, but you've essentially just been calling me illogical, delusional, etc, while I insulted you for being socially retarded. There's not really anything to discuss here, so I'm ready to call it a night if you are.
There were no other people complaining about my post. It's terribly sad that you can not read what people write and invent your own words. That is not illiteracy, that is called delusional. Hint: One person corrected my use of "insight" instead of "incite", which I thanked them for correcting. You are lying about the other example as well, no need to continue down that path.
There were 3 replies to your post: mine, a second post which pointed out the irony of your post, and the one that corrected your spelling. I pointed out that no one specifically agreed with you, and you have gone into an unhinged rant arguing the negative of that, which is a logical leap. Either way it was a bad argument for you to bring up as you're essentially arguing by popularity.
Further, correcting your broken logic and demonstrating your ignorance is not being butthurt. It's an attempt to make you a better person. If you believe you should get stickers and candy for getting wrong answers, you are at the wrong school. If you had a correct answer I would congratulate you, maybe.
I thought this wasn't a school or a lecture. Make up your mind, man.
If I had used all capital letters it would have been considered an internet shout. As it was written it is what we in the English language call an expletive exclamation. It is not written "at" anyone because there is absolutely no direction to the statement. If you take a statement and invent your own words (as you have repeatedly done here) to assign a direction then the exclamation becomes an attack "at" someone. By your irrational position, a person posting "Damn!" is also directing that at someone. Note that your position is "irrational". No, I won't provide further word definitions because you have a tendency to not comprehend them when definitions are provided. In fact I'm skeptical that you read anything that may harm your irrational opinion.
Clearly you see nothing wrong with your behaviour, so I'm going to stop trying to explain it to you. Manners are neither rational nor irrational, they are a matter of social custom.
You feel the need to keep replying, meaning that either you're enjoying this or you're neurotic. At first I was sort of hoping it was the second one, but now I realize that I've gone too far with this. This will be my last post.
The crazy thing is that you still bit after I admitted I was trolling you...
So you give people these lectures for free? That's even more pathetic.
It was not a lecture, and barely even a piece of a lesson. I have zero confidence that you have adequate eduction to understand the difference between lecture and 'basic information and instruction". It's not the only example you have provided showing you completely lack fundamental knowledge of the language you are using.
Well, you're clearly butthurt to be still so worked up about this.
Most reasonable people who read the above would conclude you are an obnoxious person who lacks insight.
Actually the post was moderated "insightful" and there is no chorus of people claiming I'm anything other than beneficial with my post. You are not a chorus, you are one person who has repeatedly shown a vast amount of ignorance.
Three people replied to your post and none of them agreed with you. I'm still not clear on how your definition of flamebait differs so greatly from the original post that you had to shout "Holy fuck!" at them. The OP was a disgusting right-wing rant, clearly meant as flamebait.
I made it clear in my posts that you seem like a dumb asshole to me, so your again your passive insults are given zero weight. Don't worry, you can probably reuse them in another post.
Pardon me if I don't give any weight to your opinion of me. Heaven forbid I should be offended by someone that focuses on 5 words out of 276 to make such an opinion, confuses ad hominem with exclamation, and equates "lecture" with "basic information".
The rest of your post was also crap.
Honestly, its not even the language so much as the hyperbole and rampant emotionalism in your post which offends me. You don't have to end every sentence with a bang (!), you know. In fact, I've sworn at you several times, but only in a measured way. Also, it kinda irks me that you called someone out for being wrong when its you who is wrong, as I already explained.
Your satisfaction and content with your own ignorance should offend you much more than I ever could. Ignorance leads to an irrational opinion. Focusing on 5 out of 276 words exemplifies both your ignorance and irrational perspective. I'm not offended or swayed by your irrational responses which demonstrate your ignorance of written English language.
Wholly Fuck! You seem to be simply trolling.
Ding, ding, ding! You finally get it! The irony of trolling someone who was arrogantly trying to lecture others on the definition of trolling was just too delicious to pass up. I'm laughing at your superior intellect, professor.
If you wish to debate the remaining 271 words of the post feel free to critique them fairly. I will warn you that you should understand other concepts of the English language, such as paragraphs and quotation marks, before doing so.
Well consider me fairly warned, then, professor.
OK, enough trolling then, if you can seriously explain the following to me I'll promise to be impressed:
a) Why is an ad hominem necessary for a post to be flamebait? You asserted this at one point, but its not in your original point or your links. Its quite possible to incite a response via flaming without specifically attacking someone. This seems to be original point you had, before your posts descended into incoherent blather.
b) Why do you feel it isn't rude to shout 'Wholly fuck!' at people? Is this just the way you were raised? (Also, its 'holy fuck', dumbass.)
Wow, based on the exclamation points I must have really gotten your goat. Let's pick this apart, shall we.
You can not tell a difference between an expletive/exclamation and an ad homimem. Here is some basic language information and instruction. This relates directly to the language you are using, and claim to be offended by. I'd suggest that you attempt to educate yourself on the English language because this is not a University and I am not paid to teach you.
So you give people these lectures for free? That's even more pathetic.
You claim falsely that my "Wholly fuck" and "Absolutely Wrong" are rude/rudeness/Flamebait by lumping them repeatedly into a single statement. Those are 2 separate statements, and nowhere is there a personal attack or "rudeness" in either statement.
Most reasonable people who read the above would conclude you are an obnoxious person who lacks insight.
I provide examples and references, so the only way you can claim "flamebait" is to ignore the majority of the post and redefine words.
The statements "Wrong!" and "Absolutely Wrong" are statements of fact. Facts which were provided in the post and you claimed to read. If you are offended by someone being corrected you have severe psychological problems. Not that uncommon unfortunately. We have schools that reward children for being wrong because they rewarded a child for being adept and intelligent, but that is not healthy. (Yes, that is a fact based opinion and no further discussion should be had here.)
The statement "Wholly fuck" is called an expletive which is intended to emphasize that the person is (therefor you are) "Absolutely Wrong!" by a large degree.
I made it clear in my posts that you seem like a dumb asshole to me, so your again your passive insults are given zero weight. Don't worry, you can probably reuse them in another post.
I stand by my call. If I had mod points, and I seem to get them quite often, your post would have deservedly gotten a flamebait.
Thankfully people that can read and comprehend English have mod points instead of you today!
As stated previously, if you have to redefine words to make a claim then your claim is wrong! When you have to ignore more than 90% of a post to make your claim, that's even worse!
Honestly, its not even the language so much as the hyperbole and rampant emotionalism in your post which offends me. You don't have to end every sentence with a bang (!), you know. In fact, I've sworn at you several times, but only in a measured way. Also, it kinda irks me that you called someone out for being wrong when its you who is wrong, as I already explained.
Next time calm yourself down and think before you reply.
(Oh, and you'll be pleased to know I did get mod points after writing that, but obviously I will use those in another thread.)
Why did you bother to reply when you clearly did not read my post?
I read your definitions, and your post. Flamebait: An email, usually to a message board, written with intent to offend\anger\enrage other persons, so that they will send a flaming email in reply. The post your replied to said flamebait is, "saying things to get people pissed off". The second statement lacks precision, but I don't see a huge disagreement here. You chose to respond with, "Wrong! Wholly fuck! Absolutely wrong!".
I honestly thought your rudeness was deliberate, but perhaps you're just a dumb asshole who doesn't know how to talk to other people. If you wrote your post that way and didn't see anything wrong with it then that is pretty sad.
I stand by my call. If I had mod points, and I seem to get them quite often, your post would have deservedly gotten a flamebait. You also clearly failed to read the post you originally answered, as I don't see any wide gulf between your definitions and theirs. Bad, bad, posting all around.
Well, judging by your post (an excellent example of flamebait) you yourself have trouble distinguishing between opinions that are merely unpopular and may piss people off, and those those written to be as insulting and crude as possible.
If I had mod points I would give you and grandparent flamebait. The content of your post is a quibble over definitions, but you start off with "Wrong! Wholly fuck! Absolutely wrong!", and end with passive-aggressively suggesting that parent needs or cares about your posting advice. Jesus, have the balls to insult people openly if you are going to spread your bitchiness over the internet.
So in conclusion, I realize that people who like to mouth off tend to be slow, so here is some far-from-friendly advice: think before you post and if you're having a bad day just keep it to yourself.
If I run a business and pay for health care for my employees, can I choose not to pay for blood transfusions for employees? What if I think blood transfusions are wrong?
I agree with parent's last paragraph. Health insurance is a form of payment, employers should have no say whatsoever.