|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:42 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:37 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That's 1.5 billion people. Liberals are all about nuance and maybe like condemning specific nations or regions. Condemning all of Islam just make you sound uneducated. Not really ignorant, its realistic. Sure not all muslims are terrorists. But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly. You can't argue that. Most religions are fundamentally horrible, Islam being one of the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there has been little reform in comparison to other judiac religions, actually its probably gotten worse. Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands. It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well. Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers. Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement? I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world".
We have our own problems with the treatment of women in the western world -- many of which are a function of the freedoms granted to them. But I don't think anyone can argue with a straight face that Muslims treat women better than the western world does.
|
On March 16 2016 12:07 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 11:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Oh god, so now Bernie is just going down with the ship? Blame media bias? Sure Bernie, that'll help. That will transfer delegates from Clinton. The math doesn't add up. Bernie can't win anymore.
edit: Pretty fucking close in Missouri O_O To be fair the remaining states are all polled to be a lot better for Sanders, but obviously not enough to close the gap. Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:06 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:55 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:46 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 11:36 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:32 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 11:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 16 2016 11:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 11:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Fun fact (or at least I'm pretty sure it's a fact based on the states I can remember): Bernie has won a higher share of the popular vote than Trump. And no, barring immigration from a nation is not the same as impossibly blocking immigration of an entire religion.
He wouldn't if there were more candidates running. Naturally Trump's numbers will go up now that there are fewer candidates. Also blocking a religion is not as extreme or uncommon as you'd think. USSR did just fine for a long time by eliminating religion, and many if not most countries in the world take a strong stance in ensuring things stay the way that they are desired. Its only the liberal movement in western countries that has created the present situation. They won't go up by very much-and will definitely go up less than his competitors. It's hard to win a two-person race when you have higher unfavorables than your opponents. Explain to me our Muslim blocking procedure. Go ahead. I'm all ears and have been since Trump announced the utterly stupid idea. According to who people's second choice was, Trump was up there, so I disagree that his numbers will go up less than his competitors, and if they will, it'll be by very small amounts. And think about how any nation has phased out a religion in the past. Don't encourage it, don't allow universities to provide funding the mosques, screen for immigrants, have higher qualifications for muslim immigrants to enter the country. It's not like Trump will load however many million people on a boat once he becomes president and ship them away lol. Are you willing to condemn Trump if he doesn't propose cutting funding and tax breaks for churches as well? I don't support Trump, I don't live in the US, I think you guys have a messy situation. My main goal is trying to help people look at Trump without preconceived notions. I suppose that having been doing this for so long has given me some empathy for Trump, and maybe it makes me hope that he does well, because I think he has been treated unfairly in the mind of the voters, even though he might be an awful president. You said the USSR did well banning religion. Explain that shit. Short-term it has negative consequences, I was actually born in Slovakia and my grandpa was in prison (or whatever it was called back then) for 3-5 years for refusing to denounce being Catholic during the USSR era. I'd attribute a distinguishable portion of the growth in the USSR due to removing religion and focusing on science to solve their problems. Anyway, I think its arguable whether the USSR came out worse or better for it, since its difficult to predict what would have happened without those campaigns, but I certainly don't think it's a black and white answer as the people are making it here. Making a radical change in policy like this could be beneficial in the long term. I've read on the topic quite far back in the past, and it was far from being all negative. It seems like you're quite close to the issue personally, so I apologize if I was offensive, but if you haven't done any readings, maybe some of the wikipedia articles on the topic might make you see my viewpoint a bit. I have done a lot of research on it. You're making a proposal which the vast majority of the GOP is vehemently against, except in the case against Islam. If you want to defend Trump's anti-Islamic rants, you should also be willing to take an anti-Christian view, which would nullify most of Trump/Cruz's supporters. Beyond that, the USSR banning religion was part of a political war with the orthodox church, and actually carried pretty terrible consequences with it - it was only somewhat doable because the KGB was able to absolutely crush certain groups. It also led to blowback later on. Difference is one is a group that are already United States Citizens, another is not. IMO Trump's imprecise language really hurt him here. He should have just straight up listed countries that he was going to ban travel from.
It's not imprecise language. He was given the opportunity at a debate to agree with banning countries instead of the religion.
He didn't.
|
On March 16 2016 12:14 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:42 SolaR- wrote:
[quote]
Not really ignorant, its realistic. Sure not all muslims are terrorists. But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly. You can't argue that. Most religions are fundamentally horrible, Islam being one of the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there has been little reform in comparison to other judiac religions, actually its probably gotten worse.
Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands. It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well. Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers. Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement? I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world". I'm wondering how it's both oppressive to force women to wear certain clothes to make them be modest and oppressive to let women wear and do what they want.
I don't see the correlation between objectified and oppressive.
We have our own problems with the treatment of women in the western world -- many of which are a function of the freedoms granted to them. But I don't think anyone can argue with a straight face that Muslims treat women better than the western world does.
I never did.
|
Also, legit terrifying. Not confirmed if it's real, but Bernie people on Reddit doing some crazy manipulation
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 16 2016 12:06 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 11:55 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:46 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 11:36 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:32 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 11:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 16 2016 11:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 11:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 16 2016 11:17 SK.Testie wrote:
[quote]
Ok, first off. Calling people who disagree with you users from stormfront despite showing no allegiance to said thing is retarded. It's literally, "Our argument has no legs to stand on. Must be super horrible racists".
I just posted a pretty civil german father with genuine worries for his daughter. "lol stormfront".
Jimmy Carter did something not entirely similar but similar during the Iranian crisis with Iranians.
I think you have real people who dislike higher rates of crime in their area. That's all it is. They think, "this is my country, I should have a say on who is allowed in and who isn't". 66% of Americans apparently think they have that say. Stop attempting to take a moral high ground you do not have, and have no right of claim to.
I don't have an immigration policy, because I'm not running a country. But off the top of my head if I had one and I was a rich nation, I'd take mostly those whom want to work. And those whom are rich and educated. Much like Japans immigration policy.
Also, despite every Republican attempt to thwart Trump they really should just STFU and give him the nomination already. Unlike Bernie, he's winning the popular vote by a landslide. So if the Republicans try to screw him over they're going to be legitimately angry and that will just further diminish the Republican party.
He's truly crashing it with no survivors. Fun fact (or at least I'm pretty sure it's a fact based on the states I can remember): Bernie has won a higher share of the popular vote than Trump. And no, barring immigration from a nation is not the same as impossibly blocking immigration of an entire religion. He wouldn't if there were more candidates running. Naturally Trump's numbers will go up now that there are fewer candidates. Also blocking a religion is not as extreme or uncommon as you'd think. USSR did just fine for a long time by eliminating religion, and many if not most countries in the world take a strong stance in ensuring things stay the way that they are desired. Its only the liberal movement in western countries that has created the present situation. They won't go up by very much-and will definitely go up less than his competitors. It's hard to win a two-person race when you have higher unfavorables than your opponents. Explain to me our Muslim blocking procedure. Go ahead. I'm all ears and have been since Trump announced the utterly stupid idea. According to who people's second choice was, Trump was up there, so I disagree that his numbers will go up less than his competitors, and if they will, it'll be by very small amounts. And think about how any nation has phased out a religion in the past. Don't encourage it, don't allow universities to provide funding the mosques, screen for immigrants, have higher qualifications for muslim immigrants to enter the country. It's not like Trump will load however many million people on a boat once he becomes president and ship them away lol. Are you willing to condemn Trump if he doesn't propose cutting funding and tax breaks for churches as well? I don't support Trump, I don't live in the US, I think you guys have a messy situation. My main goal is trying to help people look at Trump without preconceived notions. I suppose that having been doing this for so long has given me some empathy for Trump, and maybe it makes me hope that he does well, because I think he has been treated unfairly in the mind of the voters, even though he might be an awful president. You said the USSR did well banning religion. Explain that shit. Short-term it has negative consequences, I was actually born in Slovakia and my grandpa was in prison (or whatever it was called back then) for 3-5 years for refusing to denounce being Catholic during the USSR era. I'd attribute a distinguishable portion of the growth in the USSR due to removing religion and focusing on science to solve their problems. Anyway, I think its arguable whether the USSR came out worse or better for it, since its difficult to predict what would have happened without those campaigns, but I certainly don't think it's a black and white answer as the people are making it here. Making a radical change in policy like this could be beneficial in the long term. I've read on the topic quite far back in the past, and it was far from being all negative. It seems like you're quite close to the issue personally, so I apologize if I was offensive, but if you haven't done any readings, maybe some of the wikipedia articles on the topic might make you see my viewpoint a bit. I have done a lot of research on it. You're making a proposal which the vast majority of the GOP is vehemently against, except in the case against Islam. If you want to defend Trump's anti-Islamic rants, you should also be willing to take an anti-Christian view, which would nullify most of Trump/Cruz's supporters. Beyond that, the USSR banning religion was part of a political war with the orthodox church, and actually carried pretty terrible consequences with it - it was only somewhat doable because the KGB was able to absolutely crush certain groups. It also led to blowback later on.
Like I said, I'm not proposing or condemning the policy.
My intention with this (apologies if I accidently used slightly misleading wording before), is that policy is not impossible to execute. Any policy this significant will have massive negative effects, but also potentially positive effects (which generally are more difficult to quantify).
My argument is that as someone mentioned, a policy like this should be looked at in closer detail before people vote with their heart. Just as the US had policies for the segregation of church and state in the past, policies to remove a religion altogether are possible as well.
Christianity (I'm an agnostic btw) is generally more compatible with western civilization, mainly due to it's the religion that shaped western civilization the most. Maybe in the same way that the Bolsheviks saw religion in having a long term negative effect on the well being of people, the contemporary citizens of USA will see that having a religion without Islam is easier and leads to higher happiness in the future. Again, this is a theory, not my perspective.
Were mostly past the point where "I think I'm better than you because I have X colored skin and you have Y colored skin", I thought that is what racism really is, and in that sense, I think very few people are racist. But when it comes to "I think my beliefs are better than yours when it comes to having a functioning society", I think that's a very real thing, and in my viewpoint its a reasonable thing to say.
I can say that the belief system of the Roma in Europe is awful, and they provide a negative effect on people living in those Eastern European countries, I think a lot of people who lived in these areas would agree with me. The same kind of argument could potentially be provided for Islam, even though, of course not every single Muslim person is bad.
|
Well if Super delegates do what they are supposed to and flip toward the winner of the majority of voted delegates then its not that bad.
|
I love how evil rhetoric and doctrine receives a blanket of immunity when it is covered with the bile veil of religion.
|
OK, so now it is Cruz and Trump, right? A year ago no centrist Republican would have even considereed voting for them. Will they tow the line in the general?
|
On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:42 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:37 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 11:32 SolaR- wrote:
Lol i love how liberalism turns on itself. They support feminism and LBGT rights, but at the same time won't condemn Islam. Islam and Islamic culture is the chief enemy of feminism and gay rights. But Trump is a terrible person because he makes an inapproiate joke That's 1.5 billion people. Liberals are all about nuance and maybe like condemning specific nations or regions. Condemning all of Islam just make you sound uneducated. Not really ignorant, its realistic. Sure not all muslims are terrorists. But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly. You can't argue that. Most religions are fundamentally horrible, Islam being one of the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there has been little reform in comparison to other judiac religions, actually its probably gotten worse. Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands. It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well. Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women?
Sure... the way that the media, advertisements, movies, television, jobs, and other sources present women as objects to be looked at, dehumanizes them (photoshop/ airbrush), treats them unequally/ unfairly to men (e.g., salaries, glass ceilings), creates unrealistic images that they're expected to obtain, focuses primarily on looks over brains or other redeeming qualities, and has done so since long before women's suffrage. I think women are definitely better off now than they were 50 years ago, but the sincere fight for feminism is still definitely justified and needed.
|
On March 16 2016 12:16 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:14 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:
[quote]
Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands. It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well. Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers. Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement? I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world". I'm wondering how it's both oppressive to force women to wear certain clothes to make them be modest and oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. I don't see the correlation between objectified and oppressive.
Do you not think it's an issue then? I think DPB believes it is.
|
On March 16 2016 12:19 SolaR- wrote:
I love how evil rhetoric and doctrine receives a blanket of immunity when it is covered with the bile veil of religion.
The problem with Trump's choice of words, has a lot to do with targetting the people, and not the religion, but, that's a lot to do with it's harder to stop ideas/religion from spreading, without talking about the carriers (people).
|
On March 16 2016 12:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:42 SolaR- wrote:
[quote]
Not really ignorant, its realistic. Sure not all muslims are terrorists. But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly. You can't argue that. Most religions are fundamentally horrible, Islam being one of the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there has been little reform in comparison to other judiac religions, actually its probably gotten worse.
Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands. It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well. Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers. Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement? I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world". We have our own problems with the treatment of women in the western world -- many of which are a function of the freedoms granted to them
--xDaunt, brave critic of Islam. You really do say this shit with a straight face do you
|
On March 16 2016 12:08 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:42 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:37 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 11:32 SolaR- wrote:
Lol i love how liberalism turns on itself. They support feminism and LBGT rights, but at the same time won't condemn Islam. Islam and Islamic culture is the chief enemy of feminism and gay rights. But Trump is a terrible person because he makes an inapproiate joke That's 1.5 billion people. Liberals are all about nuance and maybe like condemning specific nations or regions. Condemning all of Islam just make you sound uneducated. Not really ignorant, its realistic. Sure not all muslims are terrorists. But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly. You can't argue that. Most religions are fundamentally horrible, Islam being one of the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there has been little reform in comparison to other judiac religions, actually its probably gotten worse. Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands. It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well. Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Your cultural relativism is ridiculous. In large rural muslim areas, convincing the head of the house that woman should vote, made as much sense to them, than if I told you your cat should vote. Women are considered no different than cattle. If you ask a father about his sons, he will answer two; if you ask him about his property, he will say 3 goats, 1 camel and 2 daughters.
And that's why I said "Muslim extremists are particularly shitty", but that doesn't mean that America isn't automatically treating women fairly. There's a large gap in the spectrum of sexual equality between "men and women are treated fairly" and "goats and women are treated equally", and America is somewhere in that gap.
|
On March 16 2016 12:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:42 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:37 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 11:32 SolaR- wrote:
Lol i love how liberalism turns on itself. They support feminism and LBGT rights, but at the same time won't condemn Islam. Islam and Islamic culture is the chief enemy of feminism and gay rights. But Trump is a terrible person because he makes an inapproiate joke That's 1.5 billion people. Liberals are all about nuance and maybe like condemning specific nations or regions. Condemning all of Islam just make you sound uneducated. Not really ignorant, its realistic. Sure not all muslims are terrorists. But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly. You can't argue that. Most religions are fundamentally horrible, Islam being one of the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there has been little reform in comparison to other judiac religions, actually its probably gotten worse. Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands. It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well. Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Sure... the way that the media, advertisements, movies, television, jobs, and other sources present women as objects to be looked at, dehumanizes them (photoshop/ airbrush), treats them unequally/ unfairly to men (e.g., salaries, glass ceilings), creates unrealistic images that they're expected to obtain, focuses primarily on looks over brains or other redeeming qualities, and has done so since long before women's suffrage. I think women are definitely better off now than they were 50 years ago, but the sincere fight for feminism is still definitely justified and needed.
The salary myth has been busted. Women receive equal pay for the same job. If they didn't, companies would hire only women. They don't make 30 cents less than men. They usually do different jobs than men. And men ask for raises more, among other things. Women have many opportunities to be just as equal as men, and are outperforming them in many Universities. (Thank you based Asian girls). Don't believe everything feminism tells you. Men and women have their own subset of challenges in society. This can get way out of hand on this topic. But long story short: If women could do the same job for less, every company would hire the ever living shit out of them.
Feminism is a good thing, but not this third wave feminism crap.
|
On March 16 2016 12:08 kwizach wrote:For the Bernie supporters who didn't see my post: Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 11:39 kwizach wrote:
Serious question: how do the left-leaning posters who were supporting Sanders over Hillary in this thread feel about him (1) continuing his campaign and (2) continuing his attacks against Hillary?
I mean, anyone with a grasp of reality surely knows Hillary will be the nominee of the Democratic party, and will be the only left-leaning/progressive/liberal candidate fighting in the general election with a shot at winning. Even if you support Sanders getting his message across, do you not agree that it is counter-productive to keep attacking the Democratic nominee and to fend off attacks on two fronts (Trump & Sanders) instead of focusing on the Republicans? Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2016 11:39 kwizach wrote:
Serious question: how do the left-leaning posters who were supporting Sanders over Hillary in this thread feel about him (1) continuing his campaign and (2) continuing his attacks against Hillary?
I mean, anyone with a grasp of reality surely knows Hillary will be the nominee of the Democratic party, and will be the only left-leaning/progressive/liberal candidate fighting in the general election with a shot at winning. Even if you support Sanders getting his message across, do you not agree that it is counter-productive to keep attacking the Democratic nominee and to fend off attacks on two fronts (Trump & Sanders) instead of focusing on the Republicans? He should keep doing both, have some huge wins in upcoming states and either win or force it to the convention. Hillary v Trump she and America lose. I wish Bernie could win the primary, but the math doesn't work out in his favor unfortunately  Fortunately (to respond to kwizach's question), Bernie has already said repeatedly that even though he wants to win, Hillary would be a far better president than Trump or Cruz or any other Republican running... so I hope that after Bernie eventually concedes, he'll try his best to convince his supporters to vote for Hillary. That's me too: voting for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general election. I think that the shots Bernie is taking at Hillary are tactful and professional enough to not be seen as character assassination or scandal-related, and I don't really think that Bernie is instrumental in wrecking Hillary's chances in the general election. I think Hillary will be mostly to blame if she screws up the general election, and then secondarily Trump's effectiveness at dodging substance and just focusing on Hillary's weak spots. The thing is -- he is attacking her character. He was still making the same attacks tonight as he's been making the last few weeks: she is funded by Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies and therefore she can't be trusted (he simply remains just shy of connecting the dots, to be able to claim he's not running a negative campaign). I was hoping that even if he did continue campaigning to keep pushing his message, he would at least stop the negativity towards Clinton and focus on an uplifting message to contrast progressive ideas and policies with what's going on on the Republican side. Unfortunately, right now he's being a sore loser and he's started to hurt the chances of Democrats instead of helping them. Hopefully he doesn't continue on this path, and it was just the result of being bitter tonight or part of a calculus to get a good deal with Clinton/the DNC for a speaking spot at the convention.
oh fuck off man. I'm tired of hearing Clinton supporters whine about "character assassination" when he's literally just stating facts about Wall St, etc. If she didn't want people to call her out on it, she shouldn't have done it in the first place. If she's such a strong general election candidate, then it shouldn't matter and she will still destroy Trump by a landslide!!!
|
On March 16 2016 12:19 Slaughter wrote:
Well if Super delegates do what they are supposed to and flip toward the winner of the majority of voted delegates then its not that bad.
If we assume that, the margin is 65%.
Only states which have had such blowouts so far are South Carolina, Alabama, Texas and Vermont. Even Florida was only 64%.
|
On March 16 2016 12:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:42 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:37 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 11:32 SolaR- wrote:
Lol i love how liberalism turns on itself. They support feminism and LBGT rights, but at the same time won't condemn Islam. Islam and Islamic culture is the chief enemy of feminism and gay rights. But Trump is a terrible person because he makes an inapproiate joke That's 1.5 billion people. Liberals are all about nuance and maybe like condemning specific nations or regions. Condemning all of Islam just make you sound uneducated. Not really ignorant, its realistic. Sure not all muslims are terrorists. But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly. You can't argue that. Most religions are fundamentally horrible, Islam being one of the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there has been little reform in comparison to other judiac religions, actually its probably gotten worse. Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands. It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well. Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Sure... the way that the media, advertisements, movies, television, jobs, and other sources present women as objects to be looked at, dehumanizes them (photoshop/ airbrush), treats them unequally/ unfairly to men (e.g., salaries, glass ceilings), creates unrealistic images that they're expected to obtain, focuses primarily on looks over brains or other redeeming qualities, and has done so since long before women's suffrage. I think women are definitely better off now than they were 50 years ago, but the sincere fight for feminism is still definitely justified and needed.
We so close to a female prez tho :3
|
On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:16 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:14 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:[quote] First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands. It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well. Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers. Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement? I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world". I'm wondering how it's both oppressive to force women to wear certain clothes to make them be modest and oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. I don't see the correlation between objectified and oppressive. Do you not think it's an issue then? I think DPB believes it is.
I was under the impression that i asked wei2coolman for his opinion, rather than engaging in a conversation with DarkPlasmaBall.
|
And now the wage gap is a myth and feminism is lying to people. I was not aware that a broad social movement had agency, but apparently it does. We have arrived at peek internet
|
89% reporting, 0.4% lead in a WTA state. Intense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Gr8ErBO.png)
