any day now she'll be arrested over the Clinton foundation's corruption
I highly doubt that. The pattern of corruption is clear, but the Clintons tend to avoid smoking guns.
even though there's basically 0 evidence of that
Bullshit. Bill Clinton Inc. Chelsea's wedding. Swiss bank UBS. The dual roles Clinton cronies played in managing the foundation while being aides to the Clintons. The pay-for-play access to the Secretary of the State.
(and its consistently one of the most highly rated charities in the world....to which the reply is "that just shows they bought off the watchdogs
The ratings have nothing to say on the corruption I just mentioned.
Don't want to admit some tabloid crap has deep social meaning? You're talking about a celebrity's hair for the love of god.
It's an anecdotal example of the current zeitgeist. You're just too snobbish to acknowledge it and choose instead to dismiss it out of hand.
If I remember correctly I didn't acknowledge it because I wasn't familiar enough with what you were talking about and you didn't really provide a link or anything
I provided a link. It's still there.
I also talked about the mythical rape culture and the real rape culture being imported via mass migration.
meanwhile with your celebrity gossip I felt I had enough content to comment on
Yes, you chose the easiest one to dismiss as being frivolous and ignored the others.
As for your examples, by Tim Hunts own words he wasn't "taken out of context", he says it was a joke.
He was taken out of context in several writeups. Read the Wikipedia section on it. The full context isn't nearly as bad as the shortened context makes it out to be.
Wearing a shirt like that during a business interview is massively unprofessional in any context.
I agree, but so what? I also think "mohawk guy" has an unprofessional hairdo, but he became a minor celebrity over it.
Who gave him the shirt is irrelevant.
It was claimed to be sexist and misogynistic. It was claimed this kind of thing held back women in science. It's fucking ridiculous.
It's not that he insulted a woman in a neutral way. He didn't call any women a shit head or anything. It's that he sought to undermine them based on things like them supposedly being on their period rather then address what they were saying. If that's not sexist then nothing is.
Trump insults everybody who challenges him. Who fucking cares if he alluded to her being on her period.
He also commented on Fiorina's face, and supposedly that's an insult against all women too. Give me a break. How many comments has Trump gotten over his own appearance?
It's feminism with a hair trigger, willing to cry sexism and misogyny over the slightest things.
By "not real news" I mean it's stupid twitter crap of no real societal importance.
It did not occur in a vacuum. It's a reflection of society at large. It was even clear when she was answering the question that she knew it was "bad" to say it, and she felt pressure to backtrack, even though she felt fine giving her fans a figurative finger when she cut her hair. It says something about the politically correct dogma around feminism, but you don't want to admit it.
And that was only one of the examples I gave. Funny how you ignore the much more serious example of a man having his life turned upside down for a year because of a ridiculous accusation that should have been dismissed early on, let alone brought to trial.
You're at the same dumb outrage party that the people who complained about her are. Just because they do so in the name of feminism doesnt make it mainstream.
The mainstream is the dumb outraged feminist/"progressive" party. That's why Nobel Laureate Tim Hunt was forced to resign over some silly comments taken out of context. That's why the project lead for the team that landed a probe on a comment gave a crying apology over all the mainstream outrage because he wore a "sexist" shirt his female friend made for him. That's why there was all this mainstream outrage over any time Trump insulted a woman, as if he was insulting all woman.
Like women-only elections. Totally my imagination.
Nope! I'm telling you that refugees deserve a chance to get out of it, so they aren't suffering from it.
Bullshit. This is what you said: "the whole point is to get the refugees into a position where they can be influenced for the better"
That's you talking about influence in response to importing an actual rape culture. The majority of the "refugees" are men in their sexual prime and economic migrants. You want to "influence" them.
Sadly, they are not alone
So where were the mass sexual assault at public celebrations before the immigrants arrived? This is an entirely new problem. Where were the press and police covering up the sexual scandals you mentioned? This also seems to be a new problem.
Lots of childishness to go around.
You're comparing a shitposting board on the Internet and a random shooter to university students playing with coloring books because the bad man got elected? That infantile attitude, crying for "safe spaces", and throwing temper tantrums until their demands are met is rife in the "social justice" movement.
You can link one story, I can link another.
Yes, but that doesn't mean the comparisons are equal.
Or maybe she just didn't like how people were trying to use her to advance their own arguments. Can't read her mind, sorry.
Uh huh. Either way, it's a complete reversal.
I wouldn't try to account for it with sitcom performers. They are very much not in the common paradigm.
Good news. Studies have already shown this example holds to the wider work force, as I mentioned in my last post. The wage gap is a myth, and Obama can stop worrying about his daughter not getting equal pay for equal work.
Except that observation actually had nothing to do with feminism, it's a reflection of the nature of television.
I don't give a fuck what your perspective is, it had nothing to do with anything. You brought up the content of the show, not me. You claimed it was important, not me. I have no interest in analyzing it just because I talked about a real-life event concerning one of the stars.
You went from, "I'm done" to replying to another post 6 minutes later.
Again, I feel like you're getting too much news from alt right sources (and tabloids apperently too). I have zero awareness of those events because they're just not real news.
Just because you didn't personally hear a story doesn't mean it was news. It happened, news sites picked up on it, and she felt the need to backpedal. That didn't happen in a vacuum.
And as for the guy who had his life turned upside down over a ludicrous sexual assault claim, that's the kind of thing that should be reported more widely instead of buried by a feminist press.
But go on, keep on ignoring the ctl-left and avoid answering questions on whether equality of outcome is desired, in and of itself.
You really don't have to think of them as having poles.
They are a fairly direct correspondence to free markets versus communism. We see equal opportunity being quashed in the name of equal outcomes.
Numerous studies reveal the existence of a multitude of factors that influence life choices, even irrespective of gender.
And numerous studies also reveal the inherent differences between the sexes, so force-fitting equality of outcome is an active step in sexism instead of letting people make their own choices.
Really, no matter how many times you rant about it as if it were some intent to foster those attitudes, the whole point is to get the refugees into a position where they can be influenced for the better.
You've got to be fucking kidding me. You're seriously claiming that Western societies should import rape culture to teach them not to commit sexual assaults and rape? I guess those 1,400 girls in Rotherham and the 1,200 women in Cologne can console themselves in doing their part. The amount of liberal stupidity here is through the roof.
I just don't know if it's a joke.
Trump's childishness doesn't excuse the childishness coming out of feminists, and more broadly, to the diaper-wearing "social justice" movement.
Yes, yes, and we have a world where a father complains that his son was punished excessively for 20 minutes of action
So a father is defending his son. And? Do you think there's a murder culture every time a mother defends her murdering son?
where a man got a suspended sentence for raping his 12-year old daughter, well, we could trade dueling stories for a long while.
It could be it was consensual and hence statutory rape. Yeah, it's still sick, but I don't see this as any evidence for "rape culture" of the hysterical nature demonstrated so profoundly by the Rolling Stones gang rape hoax that gained nationwide attention.
A celebrity comment's is considered meaningful?
It's meaningful that she was willing to give a figurative "fuck off" to her fans, but couldn't take the heat from some mild comments about not being a feminist.
I don't know what she is really thinking, but a person getting a million dollars an episode? Not sure I'd consider that anything but an outlier.
It's almost as if she gets paid according to her stardom and ability to draw in audiences. Funny how that works. Funny how the "wage gap" also disappears once you account for factors that would naturally affect pay regardless of sex.
And an important thing to remember is that the show itself handwaves a lot of issues and considerations. It's a comedy. Problems, conflicts, interactions and relationships exist for the purpose of comedy, not legitimacy.
Oh yes, this is really important. Because I really give a fuck about a feminist analysis of the show.
The Guardian 'one of the most extreme left news outlets in the UK'? Ha!
What else would you call a paper that tried to pass off a crying middle-aged adult as 16 years old in a story about "children" not being accept by the UK when they finally closed down Calais? How stupid do they think people are?
You're picking quotes to make it sound like I'm pushing an agenda
No, I'm just trying to peg down where you stand on what you insist is a "noble goal" when what I see is the opposite in modern feminism. I don't consider equality of outcome, in and of itself, to be a "noble goal". Do you?
You've got a real victim's mentality going here.
That's feminism in a nutshell.
Maybe stop reading alt-right news sources that tell you, you are and live in the real world.
Maybe you should look at the ctl-left without your rose-colored glasses on.
Only if you perceive it that way. If the "world" is a toroid, there are no poles.
Blah blah. There's a clear distinction between equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.
And this is where your presumption comes in, as you are asserting in your argument that their interests do not lie there, a claim of a nature that has a long history of being invalid, with a variety of manifestations.
It's not a presumption, it's a reflection of reality. The arrogantly presumptuous are the ones who want to deny reality and force-fit the world into their presumed idea of what should be.
What if the goal is to remove the impediments that create the false impression that their interests do not lie there?
You presume the impression is false. Women can make up their own mind. Gender studies reveal that differences between interests in the sexes are innate that go beyond any kind of social construct.
Npoe, modern feminism has a bad name because of the aforementioned desire to get it conceptualized as harmful.
It has a bad name because of the actions and words of feminists. They beat up Western society over a mythical rape culture while condemning those who speak out against importing Muslims from societies with actual rape culture problems. They cry for safe spaces and preferential treatment.
They've created a culture where a man can be tried for sexually assaulting a woman while video evidence shows what was claimed was clearly impossible.
They've created a culture where the female star of The Big Bang Theory felt fine figuratively giving her fans the finger when they complained after she cut her hair, but fell over herself backpedaling after the media made a big ruckus when she said didn't identify as a feminist, because, you know, she didn't really face inequality, and that, *gasp*, she likes cooking for her husband.
I know, how terrible. Thank god the feministas set her straight.
Wow, you completely glossed over my "the world is shades of grey not black and white" comment didn't you?
Because it's a dodge. Yes, the world is shades of gray, but there are poles too.
Do we want more role models in a given category of person in order to inspire more participation by that category? Maybe we need to fudge the numbers a bit then in the name of a good goal.
And this is where you have to define the "goal". Are you not going to stop until you see equality of outcome? Why is it a "good goal" to have more women in STEM if that's not where their interests lie? There are differences between the sexes, statistically, when it comes to interests and abilities.
Debate over what compromises need to be made is right and proper but demonizing a term like "feminism" because you want to eliminate the language of the opposition is Orwellian in the worst way.
What's Orwellian is politically clubbing people over the head with the noble idea of equal rights and then using it to excuse all kinds of abominations of unequal treatment. That's why modern feminism has such a bad name.
You didn't answer the question. Do you want equality of opportunity or of outcomes? Because it not noble or worth pursuing if you end up being sexist in order to overcome sexism. And that's why there's a big discrepancy between people who are for equal rights versus what actually occurs under the label of "feminism".
Fuck off. If you want to make an ass out of yourself, again, I'll reply pointing it out as it pleases me.
But since you did me the courtesy of telling me to shut the fuck up
I didn't directly, but yes, it's better to say nothing than something stupid. Not that such simple principles will stop you.
It's possibly a little tricky
In other words, you're going to use pretzel logic to twist and stretch the truth.
To which I replied, in agreement with him : "So he'd rather face reality."
And you then followed that with a "realistic" argument that he did not make, and that we were not discussing. We were discussing his stated "realistic" reasons, which were rather dumb when given in comparison to the alternative of being dead.
Selective reading, are you? You tried to equate Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. You denied Islam was a political ideology. But the evidence is right there in front of you, and you ignore it and keep playing semantic word games instead:
"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest.
If Islamist ideology were inherent in Islam, the devout Muslims I've known would have supported it, and they didn't. That follows from the definition of "inherent". Love of liberty is one of the general principles of the founding of the United States (if you were a free male landowner, anyway), but it isn't inherent to the United States.
By the same logic I could argue that because there are Muslims who don't act religiously, that religion isn't "inherent" in Islam. It's a bullshit argument and playing word games. I'm talking about the basis for Islam, its history, and its practice in the world today. All you do is keep repeating a version of "Not all Muslims" while refusing to look beyond that.
Drop back a few centuries and you'll find that Christianity had been militant, expansionist, and authoritarian for the vast majority of its history, but those traits are not inherent in Christianity.
And this is where it's helpful to actually look at the basis of the religion. Jesus, as described in the gospels, was basically a hippie who preached virtue, love, and peace. Muhammad, as described in the Quran, hadith, and Sunna, was a conquering warlord.
If you actually looked at the sources I gave you, you could stop arguing from ignorance and trying to equate Islam with Buddhism and Christianity. It's ridiculous.
"Generally speaking, conflicts become more violent if they are legitimated in religious terms. No religious tradition, even the most pacific one (think Buddhism), is immune against serving this kind of legitimation. All the same, superimposing a religious world map over a similar map delineating violent conflicts, the borders of Islam stand out. And mostly Muslims are the initiators of the violence (though Christians may have tried hard to provoke them).
This is not to deny that most Muslims in the contemporary world desire to live in peace with their neighbors of other faith, nor to deny that there have been Muslim states that presided over such peaceful relations for long periods of time (for example, intermittently under the caliphate of Cordoba in Spain, in Moghul India and in the Ottoman empire). Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."
If you are claiming that posting something that was similar to what someone else might have posted, that's a mighty low bar, and a real conversation stopper.
You weren't interested in a conversation. You wanted to be a pedantic dick while scoring cheap political points.
Consider that rather than just contradict you, I offered a link to the machinery that is used to pick cotton. Anyone else try to helpfully educate you?
You could have offered that without being a pedantic dick and ignoring the fact that I already replied to somebody who made the same point, minus the link. I admitted my ignorance on the matter and spoke about the larger point around illegal immigration, the poor, and labor.
Chillax my good man, and accept it for what it was, instead of getting your bowels in an uproar.
I did accept it for what it was. It's not my fault you can dish it out but can't take it.
Slashdot Mirror
(^^^case in point of the delusion at work.)
Right back at you. Notice how you completely ignored the evidence of corruption.
any day now she'll be arrested over the Clinton foundation's corruption
I highly doubt that. The pattern of corruption is clear, but the Clintons tend to avoid smoking guns.
even though there's basically 0 evidence of that
Bullshit. Bill Clinton Inc. Chelsea's wedding. Swiss bank UBS. The dual roles Clinton cronies played in managing the foundation while being aides to the Clintons. The pay-for-play access to the Secretary of the State.
(and its consistently one of the most highly rated charities in the world....to which the reply is "that just shows they bought off the watchdogs
The ratings have nothing to say on the corruption I just mentioned.
Don't want to admit some tabloid crap has deep social meaning? You're talking about a celebrity's hair for the love of god.
It's an anecdotal example of the current zeitgeist. You're just too snobbish to acknowledge it and choose instead to dismiss it out of hand.
If I remember correctly I didn't acknowledge it because I wasn't familiar enough with what you were talking about and you didn't really provide a link or anything
I provided a link. It's still there.
I also talked about the mythical rape culture and the real rape culture being imported via mass migration.
meanwhile with your celebrity gossip I felt I had enough content to comment on
Yes, you chose the easiest one to dismiss as being frivolous and ignored the others.
As for your examples, by Tim Hunts own words he wasn't "taken out of context", he says it was a joke.
He was taken out of context in several writeups. Read the Wikipedia section on it. The full context isn't nearly as bad as the shortened context makes it out to be.
Wearing a shirt like that during a business interview is massively unprofessional in any context.
I agree, but so what? I also think "mohawk guy" has an unprofessional hairdo, but he became a minor celebrity over it.
Who gave him the shirt is irrelevant.
It was claimed to be sexist and misogynistic. It was claimed this kind of thing held back women in science. It's fucking ridiculous.
It's not that he insulted a woman in a neutral way. He didn't call any women a shit head or anything. It's that he sought to undermine them based on things like them supposedly being on their period rather then address what they were saying. If that's not sexist then nothing is.
Trump insults everybody who challenges him. Who fucking cares if he alluded to her being on her period.
He also commented on Fiorina's face, and supposedly that's an insult against all women too. Give me a break. How many comments has Trump gotten over his own appearance?
It's feminism with a hair trigger, willing to cry sexism and misogyny over the slightest things.
By "not real news" I mean it's stupid twitter crap of no real societal importance.
It did not occur in a vacuum. It's a reflection of society at large. It was even clear when she was answering the question that she knew it was "bad" to say it, and she felt pressure to backtrack, even though she felt fine giving her fans a figurative finger when she cut her hair. It says something about the politically correct dogma around feminism, but you don't want to admit it.
And that was only one of the examples I gave. Funny how you ignore the much more serious example of a man having his life turned upside down for a year because of a ridiculous accusation that should have been dismissed early on, let alone brought to trial.
You're at the same dumb outrage party that the people who complained about her are. Just because they do so in the name of feminism doesnt make it mainstream.
The mainstream is the dumb outraged feminist/"progressive" party. That's why Nobel Laureate Tim Hunt was forced to resign over some silly comments taken out of context. That's why the project lead for the team that landed a probe on a comment gave a crying apology over all the mainstream outrage because he wore a "sexist" shirt his female friend made for him. That's why there was all this mainstream outrage over any time Trump insulted a woman, as if he was insulting all woman.
So you see things that aren't there
Like women-only elections. Totally my imagination.
Nope! I'm telling you that refugees deserve a chance to get out of it, so they aren't suffering from it.
Bullshit. This is what you said: "the whole point is to get the refugees into a position where they can be influenced for the better"
That's you talking about influence in response to importing an actual rape culture. The majority of the "refugees" are men in their sexual prime and economic migrants. You want to "influence" them.
Sadly, they are not alone
So where were the mass sexual assault at public celebrations before the immigrants arrived? This is an entirely new problem. Where were the press and police covering up the sexual scandals you mentioned? This also seems to be a new problem.
Lots of childishness to go around.
You're comparing a shitposting board on the Internet and a random shooter to university students playing with coloring books because the bad man got elected? That infantile attitude, crying for "safe spaces", and throwing temper tantrums until their demands are met is rife in the "social justice" movement.
You can link one story, I can link another.
Yes, but that doesn't mean the comparisons are equal.
Or maybe she just didn't like how people were trying to use her to advance their own arguments. Can't read her mind, sorry.
Uh huh. Either way, it's a complete reversal.
I wouldn't try to account for it with sitcom performers. They are very much not in the common paradigm.
Good news. Studies have already shown this example holds to the wider work force, as I mentioned in my last post. The wage gap is a myth, and Obama can stop worrying about his daughter not getting equal pay for equal work.
Except that observation actually had nothing to do with feminism, it's a reflection of the nature of television.
I don't give a fuck what your perspective is, it had nothing to do with anything. You brought up the content of the show, not me. You claimed it was important, not me. I have no interest in analyzing it just because I talked about a real-life event concerning one of the stars.
You went from, "I'm done" to replying to another post 6 minutes later.
Again, I feel like you're getting too much news from alt right sources (and tabloids apperently too). I have zero awareness of those events because they're just not real news.
Just because you didn't personally hear a story doesn't mean it was news. It happened, news sites picked up on it, and she felt the need to backpedal. That didn't happen in a vacuum.
And as for the guy who had his life turned upside down over a ludicrous sexual assault claim, that's the kind of thing that should be reported more widely instead of buried by a feminist press.
But go on, keep on ignoring the ctl-left and avoid answering questions on whether equality of outcome is desired, in and of itself.
You really don't have to think of them as having poles.
They are a fairly direct correspondence to free markets versus communism. We see equal opportunity being quashed in the name of equal outcomes.
Numerous studies reveal the existence of a multitude of factors that influence life choices, even irrespective of gender.
And numerous studies also reveal the inherent differences between the sexes, so force-fitting equality of outcome is an active step in sexism instead of letting people make their own choices.
Really, no matter how many times you rant about it as if it were some intent to foster those attitudes, the whole point is to get the refugees into a position where they can be influenced for the better.
You've got to be fucking kidding me. You're seriously claiming that Western societies should import rape culture to teach them not to commit sexual assaults and rape? I guess those 1,400 girls in Rotherham and the 1,200 women in Cologne can console themselves in doing their part. The amount of liberal stupidity here is through the roof.
I just don't know if it's a joke.
Trump's childishness doesn't excuse the childishness coming out of feminists, and more broadly, to the diaper-wearing "social justice" movement.
Yes, yes, and we have a world where a father complains that his son was punished excessively for 20 minutes of action
So a father is defending his son. And? Do you think there's a murder culture every time a mother defends her murdering son?
where a man got a suspended sentence for raping his 12-year old daughter, well, we could trade dueling stories for a long while.
It could be it was consensual and hence statutory rape. Yeah, it's still sick, but I don't see this as any evidence for "rape culture" of the hysterical nature demonstrated so profoundly by the Rolling Stones gang rape hoax that gained nationwide attention.
A celebrity comment's is considered meaningful?
It's meaningful that she was willing to give a figurative "fuck off" to her fans, but couldn't take the heat from some mild comments about not being a feminist.
I don't know what she is really thinking, but a person getting a million dollars an episode? Not sure I'd consider that anything but an outlier.
It's almost as if she gets paid according to her stardom and ability to draw in audiences. Funny how that works. Funny how the "wage gap" also disappears once you account for factors that would naturally affect pay regardless of sex.
And an important thing to remember is that the show itself handwaves a lot of issues and considerations. It's a comedy. Problems, conflicts, interactions and relationships exist for the purpose of comedy, not legitimacy.
Oh yes, this is really important. Because I really give a fuck about a feminist analysis of the show.
The Guardian 'one of the most extreme left news outlets in the UK'? Ha!
What else would you call a paper that tried to pass off a crying middle-aged adult as 16 years old in a story about "children" not being accept by the UK when they finally closed down Calais? How stupid do they think people are?
You're picking quotes to make it sound like I'm pushing an agenda
No, I'm just trying to peg down where you stand on what you insist is a "noble goal" when what I see is the opposite in modern feminism. I don't consider equality of outcome, in and of itself, to be a "noble goal". Do you?
You've got a real victim's mentality going here.
That's feminism in a nutshell.
Maybe stop reading alt-right news sources that tell you, you are and live in the real world.
Maybe you should look at the ctl-left without your rose-colored glasses on.
Only if you perceive it that way. If the "world" is a toroid, there are no poles.
Blah blah. There's a clear distinction between equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.
And this is where your presumption comes in, as you are asserting in your argument that their interests do not lie there, a claim of a nature that has a long history of being invalid, with a variety of manifestations.
It's not a presumption, it's a reflection of reality. The arrogantly presumptuous are the ones who want to deny reality and force-fit the world into their presumed idea of what should be.
What if the goal is to remove the impediments that create the false impression that their interests do not lie there?
You presume the impression is false. Women can make up their own mind. Gender studies reveal that differences between interests in the sexes are innate that go beyond any kind of social construct.
Npoe, modern feminism has a bad name because of the aforementioned desire to get it conceptualized as harmful.
It has a bad name because of the actions and words of feminists. They beat up Western society over a mythical rape culture while condemning those who speak out against importing Muslims from societies with actual rape culture problems. They cry for safe spaces and preferential treatment.
They've created a culture where a man can be tried for sexually assaulting a woman while video evidence shows what was claimed was clearly impossible.
They've created a culture where the female star of The Big Bang Theory felt fine figuratively giving her fans the finger when they complained after she cut her hair, but fell over herself backpedaling after the media made a big ruckus when she said didn't identify as a feminist, because, you know, she didn't really face inequality, and that, *gasp*, she likes cooking for her husband.
I know, how terrible. Thank god the feministas set her straight.
The Guardian seems to be non-partisan and unbiased.
You've got to be kidding me. They're one of the most extreme left news outlets in the UK.
Wow, you completely glossed over my "the world is shades of grey not black and white" comment didn't you?
Because it's a dodge. Yes, the world is shades of gray, but there are poles too.
Do we want more role models in a given category of person in order to inspire more participation by that category? Maybe we need to fudge the numbers a bit then in the name of a good goal.
And this is where you have to define the "goal". Are you not going to stop until you see equality of outcome? Why is it a "good goal" to have more women in STEM if that's not where their interests lie? There are differences between the sexes, statistically, when it comes to interests and abilities.
Debate over what compromises need to be made is right and proper but demonizing a term like "feminism" because you want to eliminate the language of the opposition is Orwellian in the worst way.
What's Orwellian is politically clubbing people over the head with the noble idea of equal rights and then using it to excuse all kinds of abominations of unequal treatment. That's why modern feminism has such a bad name.
Your sarcasm meter. It's broken.
You didn't answer the question. Do you want equality of opportunity or of outcomes? Because it not noble or worth pursuing if you end up being sexist in order to overcome sexism. And that's why there's a big discrepancy between people who are for equal rights versus what actually occurs under the label of "feminism".
The crows will mess with a raptor, especially since they are more numerous.
I once had a flock of crows settle on my lawn, like hundreds (I had a big front yard). It was like something out of a Stephen King novel.
If you don't care for my comments, don't reply.
Fuck off. If you want to make an ass out of yourself, again, I'll reply pointing it out as it pleases me.
But since you did me the courtesy of telling me to shut the fuck up
I didn't directly, but yes, it's better to say nothing than something stupid. Not that such simple principles will stop you.
It's possibly a little tricky
In other words, you're going to use pretzel logic to twist and stretch the truth.
To which I replied, in agreement with him : "So he'd rather face reality."
And you then followed that with a "realistic" argument that he did not make, and that we were not discussing. We were discussing his stated "realistic" reasons, which were rather dumb when given in comparison to the alternative of being dead.
So he'd rather face reality.
That's not the argument he gave and that we're discussing in this particular thread.
I'd rather be dead than alive with no relatives AND in the US.
That's because you're an idiot. This 14-year old girl has more sense than you.
Judging by the number of people at immigration these days, there's a handful of similar folks out there at the very least.
Funny how all those celebrities who said they'd move to Canada if Trump got elected are still here and have no plans for leaving.
Umm, you're comparing being dead, at age 14, to being in America. "Sorry, you'd be better off dead! Trust us, we know what's best for you."
I'm not religious and I believe a fertilized human egg is a life. That's in line with basic biology.
So he'd rather she'd be dead than alive with no relatives, and, *gasp*, in the United States of America? Yeah, that's some quality thinking.
Selective reading, are you? You tried to equate Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. You denied Islam was a political ideology. But the evidence is right there in front of you, and you ignore it and keep playing semantic word games instead:
"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest.
He's still around and still peddling the same bullshit, just not as often as he used to. "apk"
If Islamist ideology were inherent in Islam, the devout Muslims I've known would have supported it, and they didn't. That follows from the definition of "inherent". Love of liberty is one of the general principles of the founding of the United States (if you were a free male landowner, anyway), but it isn't inherent to the United States.
By the same logic I could argue that because there are Muslims who don't act religiously, that religion isn't "inherent" in Islam. It's a bullshit argument and playing word games. I'm talking about the basis for Islam, its history, and its practice in the world today. All you do is keep repeating a version of "Not all Muslims" while refusing to look beyond that.
Drop back a few centuries and you'll find that Christianity had been militant, expansionist, and authoritarian for the vast majority of its history, but those traits are not inherent in Christianity.
And this is where it's helpful to actually look at the basis of the religion. Jesus, as described in the gospels, was basically a hippie who preached virtue, love, and peace. Muhammad, as described in the Quran, hadith, and Sunna, was a conquering warlord.
If you actually looked at the sources I gave you, you could stop arguing from ignorance and trying to equate Islam with Buddhism and Christianity. It's ridiculous.
Here, let me make it easier:
"Generally speaking, conflicts become more violent if they are legitimated in religious terms. No religious tradition, even the most pacific one (think Buddhism), is immune against serving this kind of legitimation. All the same, superimposing a religious world map over a similar map delineating violent conflicts, the borders of Islam stand out. And mostly Muslims are the initiators of the violence (though Christians may have tried hard to provoke them).
This is not to deny that most Muslims in the contemporary world desire to live in peace with their neighbors of other faith, nor to deny that there have been Muslim states that presided over such peaceful relations for long periods of time (for example, intermittently under the caliphate of Cordoba in Spain, in Moghul India and in the Ottoman empire). Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."
If you are claiming that posting something that was similar to what someone else might have posted, that's a mighty low bar, and a real conversation stopper.
You weren't interested in a conversation. You wanted to be a pedantic dick while scoring cheap political points.
Consider that rather than just contradict you, I offered a link to the machinery that is used to pick cotton. Anyone else try to helpfully educate you?
You could have offered that without being a pedantic dick and ignoring the fact that I already replied to somebody who made the same point, minus the link. I admitted my ignorance on the matter and spoke about the larger point around illegal immigration, the poor, and labor.
Chillax my good man, and accept it for what it was, instead of getting your bowels in an uproar.
I did accept it for what it was. It's not my fault you can dish it out but can't take it.