|
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 12:09 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:05 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 12:01 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:America has one of the most complicated immigration vetting processes in the world. It can take years. https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/immigrant-process.htmlin regards to Islamic views on women who cares. If their willing to come here and follow our laws isn't that the only important thing? and compared to some of the traditionalist Christian views in America I don't see how its any worse than what we already have Following laws is never enough. What I mean is that there is a big difference between working to make the nation a better place because your truly believe that the country is doing the right thing, making the world a better place, etc. Versus not liking this country, but following the laws only to the extent to prevent you from getting in trouble, taking advantage of the system when you can, having little moral regard for what the country stands for, etc. Laws cannot be made in a way that makes people behave exactly how we want them to. It's up to the people to align their minds with what the country stands up for, and that's why back in the day nationalism was such an important thing, and why having a unified country is way better than having a divided nation, just like the USA is now, even though more or less everyone is following the laws. that's an incredibly dangerous way of looking at it. You do realise what extreme nationalism does right? plus your assuming that a country is already as good as it can because in your scenario there's no chance for ethical progress.
I think that rallying behind a set of ideas is very powerful. When traits of hard work, honesty, pride, and loyalty and the traits that are admired (instead of say being white), then I think that "extreme nationalism" can be a good thing, if its still called that.
When I hear Trump, it feels like he tries to get people to rally behind this idea that people have been screwed over, we're being too nice about everything, and we should be more realistic, say things how they are, and not live this political truth, but the actual truth. I don't know whether the execution is right, but I think these set of ideas are important.
Personally I would have liked his platform if he never brought the Muslim stuff into it (though I agree with the illegal immigration stuff), but I think that its a topic worthy of discussion. Imagine how smoothly the world would run if everyone had the same belief system, and yes, we have to cater to other beliefs to an extent, since people will naturally be slightly different, and some people like rebelling against the current ideas of the time, but to what extent do we cater to these different belief systems?
The UN Universal Declaration of Rights and Freedoms is not a script prescribed by nature, it is a social construct, and nothing binds us to believe that everything written there is absolutely true. The world can potentially be better off if we break some of the "rules" as laid out in that document. Anyway, it's another topic I find very interesting, I attribute a lot of the growth of the united states post WW2 due to the nationalism and unity in fighting off the communist threat.
|
On March 16 2016 12:25 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:08 kwizach wrote:For the Bernie supporters who didn't see my post: 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? 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!!!
Except he's not just stating facts. He's dishonestly arguing that she's in the pocket of Wall Street and "Big Pharma" executives, and it's just not true. And if you look at their respective plans for the financial sector, hers is actually tougher and more serious. In any case, the point is that attacking the person who is now undoubtedly going to be the Democratic nominee is utterly counter-productive if your objective is to support progressive goals and policies and avoid Republican victories in November.
|
On March 16 2016 12:27 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
You replied to me and I'm asking you if you think it's an issue.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 16 2016 12:16 ticklishmusic wrote:Also, legit terrifying. Not confirmed if it's real, but Bernie people on Reddit doing some crazy manipulation + Show Spoiler +
lol i know where you got this from
|
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 don't follow the second part of that claim- that it's oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. Who said that? It sounds like someone took someone else's (my?) words out of context.
I'm pretty sure that "earning as much as a man makes for the same work" and "having autonomy and control of her own body" would be two things that women would love to be able to do, but still can't.
|
On March 16 2016 12:27 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I mean anyone can be objectified, but in America, you can at least get paid a fuck ton if you choose to be objectified.
|
On March 16 2016 12:30 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:27 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You replied to me and I'm asking you if you think it's an issue.
Do you not see the systemic objectification of women as an issue?
|
A lot of the wage gap is due to women choosing jobs that pay less and then you add in non-monetary benefits like maternal leave-- the actual wage gap is 90-something cents per dollar when you adjust for those factors. It's there, but not as large as most people quote.
|
On March 16 2016 12:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:09 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On March 16 2016 12:05 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 12:01 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:America has one of the most complicated immigration vetting processes in the world. It can take years. https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/immigrant-process.htmlin regards to Islamic views on women who cares. If their willing to come here and follow our laws isn't that the only important thing? and compared to some of the traditionalist Christian views in America I don't see how its any worse than what we already have Following laws is never enough. What I mean is that there is a big difference between working to make the nation a better place because your truly believe that the country is doing the right thing, making the world a better place, etc. Versus not liking this country, but following the laws only to the extent to prevent you from getting in trouble, taking advantage of the system when you can, having little moral regard for what the country stands for, etc. Laws cannot be made in a way that makes people behave exactly how we want them to. It's up to the people to align their minds with what the country stands up for, and that's why back in the day nationalism was such an important thing, and why having a unified country is way better than having a divided nation, just like the USA is now, even though more or less everyone is following the laws. that's an incredibly dangerous way of looking at it. You do realise what extreme nationalism does right? plus your assuming that a country is already as good as it can because in your scenario there's no chance for ethical progress. I think that rallying behind a set of ideas is very powerful. When traits of hard work, honesty, pride, and loyalty and the traits that are admired (instead of say being white), then I think that "extreme nationalism" can be a good thing, if its still called that. When I hear Trump, it feels like he tries to get people to rally behind this idea that people have been screwed over, we're being too nice about everything, and we should be more realistic, say things how they are, and not live this political truth, but the actual truth. I don't know whether the execution is right, but I think these set of ideas are important. Personally I would have liked his platform if he never brought the Muslim stuff into it (though I agree with the illegal immigration stuff), but I think that its a topic worthy of discussion. Imagine how smoothly the world would run if everyone had the same belief system, and yes, we have to cater to other beliefs to an extent, since people will naturally be slightly different, and some people like rebelling against the current ideas of the time, but to what extent do we cater to these different belief systems? The UN Universal Declaration of Rights and Freedoms is not a script prescribed by nature, it is a social construct, and nothing binds us to believe that everything written there is absolutely true. The world can potentially be better off if we break some of the "rules" as laid out in that document. Anyway, it's another topic I find very interesting, I attribute a lot of the growth of the united states post WW2 due to the nationalism and unity in fighting off the communist threat.
you're assuming of course that your views are the actual objective truth and everyone else is wrong.
I get where your coming from though I just feel that you can't get a unified system without some sort of coercion which creates problems. certainly if we could come up with something that everyone instantly loves and agrees to follow that would solve a lot of problems
|
On March 16 2016 12:26 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:21 DarkPlasmaBall 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? 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
That would be a pretty awesome milestone for us, although of course that won't mean that prejudice against women will evaporate (just like how Obama is president and blacks still get regularly screwed).
|
On March 16 2016 12:30 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:27 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You replied to me and I'm asking you if you think it's an issue.
What exactly would be an issue? As i said, you correlate objectifying a woman to oppressive, i don't see that. How can i have an opinion on that?
|
|
|
On March 16 2016 12:31 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:27 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I mean anyone can be objectified, but in America, you can at least get paid a fuck ton if you choose to be objectified.
Except for the other 99% of women who are involuntarily objectified and not successful actresses or models or porn stars. They don't even make a fuck ounce more, let alone a fuck ton.
|
On March 16 2016 12:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:31 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:27 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I mean anyone can be objectified, but in America, you can at least get paid a fuck ton if you choose to be objectified. Except for the other 99% of women who are involuntarily objectified and not successful actresses or models or porn stars. They don't even make a fuck ounce more, let alone a fuck ton.
As opposed to the men who are involuntarily objectified?
|
On March 16 2016 12:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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 don't follow the second part of that claim- that it's oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. Who said that? It sounds like someone took someone else's (my?) words out of context. I'm pretty sure that "earning as much as a man makes for the same work" and "having autonomy and control of her own body" would be two things that women would love to be able to do, but still can't.
I'm suggesting that your notion of "objectifies" might actually be based on misconstruing women's choices in a free society as that society oppressing them. I don't believe the other two points qualify as objectification.
On March 16 2016 12:33 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:30 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:27 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You replied to me and I'm asking you if you think it's an issue. What exactly would be an issue? As i said, you correlate objectifying a woman to oppressive, i don't see that. How can i have an opinion on that?
I don't think objectification (if it existed) is oppressive. I saw you agreed, but I was wondering whether you thought it was a problem at all - there are problems in the world that don't fall under oppression. That's all I was trying to verify about what you thought. It's not a big deal though.
|
On March 16 2016 12:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:31 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:27 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I mean anyone can be objectified, but in America, you can at least get paid a fuck ton if you choose to be objectified. Except for the other 99% of women who are involuntarily objectified and not successful actresses or models or porn stars. They don't even make a fuck ounce more, let alone a fuck ton.
You'd have to rewire the entire straight male population to fix that problem. Good luck.
|
On March 16 2016 12:24 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:21 DarkPlasmaBall 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? 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.
I would think the unequal pay argument involves management falsely assuming the male can do the job better. Male attitudes towards females are a key factor. So the logic that they would just hire only women doesn't hold, because it assumes there's no sexism in attitudes.
|
It'll be time for a woman president when a woman happens to be the best candidate for president. I see no reason to vote for someone just because of shitty identity politics and Hillary really burned a lot of bridges by playing that game. I'll still vote for her, but I can see that a lot of people won't.
|
On March 16 2016 12:33 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 12:09 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On March 16 2016 12:05 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 12:01 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:America has one of the most complicated immigration vetting processes in the world. It can take years. https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/immigrant-process.htmlin regards to Islamic views on women who cares. If their willing to come here and follow our laws isn't that the only important thing? and compared to some of the traditionalist Christian views in America I don't see how its any worse than what we already have Following laws is never enough. What I mean is that there is a big difference between working to make the nation a better place because your truly believe that the country is doing the right thing, making the world a better place, etc. Versus not liking this country, but following the laws only to the extent to prevent you from getting in trouble, taking advantage of the system when you can, having little moral regard for what the country stands for, etc. Laws cannot be made in a way that makes people behave exactly how we want them to. It's up to the people to align their minds with what the country stands up for, and that's why back in the day nationalism was such an important thing, and why having a unified country is way better than having a divided nation, just like the USA is now, even though more or less everyone is following the laws. that's an incredibly dangerous way of looking at it. You do realise what extreme nationalism does right? plus your assuming that a country is already as good as it can because in your scenario there's no chance for ethical progress. I think that rallying behind a set of ideas is very powerful. When traits of hard work, honesty, pride, and loyalty and the traits that are admired (instead of say being white), then I think that "extreme nationalism" can be a good thing, if its still called that. When I hear Trump, it feels like he tries to get people to rally behind this idea that people have been screwed over, we're being too nice about everything, and we should be more realistic, say things how they are, and not live this political truth, but the actual truth. I don't know whether the execution is right, but I think these set of ideas are important. Personally I would have liked his platform if he never brought the Muslim stuff into it (though I agree with the illegal immigration stuff), but I think that its a topic worthy of discussion. Imagine how smoothly the world would run if everyone had the same belief system, and yes, we have to cater to other beliefs to an extent, since people will naturally be slightly different, and some people like rebelling against the current ideas of the time, but to what extent do we cater to these different belief systems? The UN Universal Declaration of Rights and Freedoms is not a script prescribed by nature, it is a social construct, and nothing binds us to believe that everything written there is absolutely true. The world can potentially be better off if we break some of the "rules" as laid out in that document. Anyway, it's another topic I find very interesting, I attribute a lot of the growth of the united states post WW2 due to the nationalism and unity in fighting off the communist threat. you're assuming of course that you're views are the actual objective truth and everyone else is wrong
I believe there is no such thing as absolute truth and everything is a construct (I'm sure many of the religious guys will heavily disagree with me here).
And as such, the closest thing we can get to absolute truth is a unanimous agreement in society that something is true, and as far as I can tell, that's enough for something to be true. Pretty much everything in the world we observe, we see trends, and then since there are no contradictions, this must be true, and as such, absolute truths like Laws of Thermodynamics, or statements like "Killing is bad", is formed.
So yeah, for argument purposes, everyone sharing the same viewpoint is as about as close as you'll get to any absolute truth, and you really don't need any more than that.
edit: I just saw your second edit, as as such:
I appreciate you seeing my viewpoint. I agree with you that its difficult to do, but I'm just looking at it from the Utopian point of view, and how it'd be nice to get there one day. I mean with the current trends of world government, once there are no borders, extreme nationalism would be wonderful (well technically not, because by definition extreme is bad), because there would be nobody with conflicting views.
Anyway, I think this concept of unity is very important, and I'd like us to achieve it in some way at some point, so maybe just some food for thought by having a different perspective to think about.
|
On March 16 2016 12:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:31 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:27 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I mean anyone can be objectified, but in America, you can at least get paid a fuck ton if you choose to be objectified. Except for the other 99% of women who are involuntarily objectified and not successful actresses or models or porn stars. They don't even make a fuck ounce more, let alone a fuck ton.
The fact people still deny this blows my mind. All you need to do is talk to women about the subject and they will all tell you about being cat calling and unsolicited objectification. I have never spoken to a woman in real that they denies it or says it isn't a problem for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Gr8ErBO.png)
