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 12:08 oBlade wrote: [quote] 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.
Apparently the human species is no longer a sexually dimorphic species in the Biology books in the social studies circles.
On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote: [quote] 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?
Do you believe that both sexes have it just as bad when it comes to sexual objectification and being treated equally and fairly? I think there's a pretty strong double standard that men have historically been treated a lot better and less superficially than women.
On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote: [quote] 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?
Do you believe that both sexes have it just as bad when it comes to sexual objectification and being treated equally and fairly? I think there's a pretty strong double standard that men have historically been treated a lot better and less superficially than women.
On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote: [quote] 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?
Do you believe that both sexes have it just as bad when it comes to sexual objectification and being treated equally and fairly? I think there's a pretty strong double standard that men have historically been treated a lot better and less superficially than women.
Yeah because having a higher death rate, die younger, more homeless, higher suicide rate.
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
lol. That people think that's remotely serious, but the video taped breaking of rules is some sort of a conspiracy, is this campaign in a nutshell.
On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote: [quote] 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.
I think there's a difference between recognizing that a female job applicant is hot and recognizing that a female job applicant is qualified, and I think that men have the capacity to make a serious, substantial decision with their heads and not just with their dicks. At least, I hope so
On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote: [quote] 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.
Apparently the human species is no longer a sexually dimorphic species in the Biology books in the social studies circles.
Yep, this is one of the areas where the militant feminists go off the rails.
On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote: [quote] 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.
I think there's a difference between recognizing that a female job applicant is hot and recognizing that a female job applicant is qualified, and I think that men have the capacity to make a serious, substantial decision with their heads and not just with their dicks. At least, I hope so
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.
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.
"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"."
You brought it up as if the situation is somewhat similar, just different degree.
It is not; it is a different kind. Woman are basically slaves in the muslim world.
On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote: [quote] 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?
Do you believe that both sexes have it just as bad when it comes to sexual objectification and being treated equally and fairly? I think there's a pretty strong double standard that men have historically been treated a lot better and less superficially than women.
While that is true, it's not as easy as you make it sound.
For one, not every woman shares that opinion. I assume, you know that and that being the reason why you said "99% of women who are involuntarily objectified" instead of "99% of women".
And no, it's not a double standard actually. It's what makes feminism (or the "fighters for it") so obnoxious. Men had it better, yes. That doesn't mean that they need to have it worse. Or that, only because it's "a smaller portion", it's not noteworthy.
Do i think things need to improve? Definitely. Do i think that everything feminists claim need to be done?
Hell no. In fact, my soon to be wife disagrees with quite a lot of feministic notions.
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?
Do you believe that both sexes have it just as bad when it comes to sexual objectification and being treated equally and fairly? I think there's a pretty strong double standard that men have historically been treated a lot better and less superficially than women.
Yeah because having a higher death rate, die younger, more homeless, higher suicide rate.
Yeah because those statistics don't matter.
Way to sell out your own kind.
What exactly does sexual objectification have to do with discrepancies in death rate and homelessness and why can't we fix both of these problems exactly
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.
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.
"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"."
You brought it up as if the situation is somewhat similar, just different degree.
It is not; it is a different kind. Woman are basically slaves in the muslim world.
Apparently staring at secondary sex characteristics is as bad as treating half the population like 2nd class citizens.
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
lol. That people think that's remotely serious, but the video taped breaking of rules is some sort of a conspiracy, is this campaign in a nutshell.
Deflection is all ya got left it seems.
It's okay, message me for actual factual Hillary chat if you're ever interested.
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.
Yea, he's lying that she's taken millions of dollars from special interest groups, including wall street, and then she refuses to release the transcripts. Right, forgot about that I was literally watching CNBC today, full of wall street people talking about how Clinton will be "best for the markets" because she's going to end up being a centrist "pro growth" democrat. He's also lying that she is wishy washy and doesn't support reinstating Glass-Steagall. Spare me.
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.
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.
"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"."
You brought it up as if the situation is somewhat similar, just different degree.
It is not; it is a different kind. Woman are basically slaves in the muslim world.
Apparently staring at secondary sex characteristics is as bad as treating half the population like 2nd class citizens.
Primaries are more interesting anyway. As a sidenote. Obviously i mean politics.
One last thought about the upcoming months. If Sanders doesn't concede but stops all personal attacks, that might still not be sufficient. If there are indeed a large number of Sanders victories coming up (even if mostly in small states so, they still probably don't add up to a nomination), but they can create what's called a negative media cycle, where bad news about a candidate leads to worse election results, which leads to even more worse election results, etc. If this continues until the end of June, while Trump is everywhere on media shown winning state after state, it can actually give Trump the boost he needs in the general.
On March 16 2016 12:41 LegalLord wrote: 91% reporting, Trump leads with 0.2%.
it's really just jackson county missing which Cruz leads 39% to 37%, so it's going to get closer as we get to 100% reporting... wether it's close enough is another question
Actually Trump is ahead 2.5k votes total and it's currently 25.2k vs 23.8k. Shouldn't be enough (for Cruz)
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.
Do you not see the systemic objectification of women as an issue?
No.Not when the national debt is 19 trillion dollars. I urge you to focus on serious issues as opposed to this divisive stuff.
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.
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.
"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"."
You brought it up as if the situation is somewhat similar, just different degree.
It is not; it is a different kind. Woman are basically slaves in the muslim world.
The thread went from border control to Islam to identity politics, in this case Women's issues. This is correct, what we were talking about is not remotely the same as objectification of women. This is something that isn't really nearly as evident as it was in yesterdays world. Because women can choose what they want to do with their life, very very freely. Many prostitutes in Canada don't become prostitutes because they are having a hard life, it's because it's very easy, fast, untaxable money.
Many women in Canada use this objectification to their advantage as well. And many of them have an army of betas around that they can pick and choose from. I know a girl who literally uses tinder as a free meal finder. She's a model and has (by her words) used a hundred+ men for free meals. I was like.. "wtf over a hundred?" and she was like "Yeah man it's easy".
Women don't need you to fight for them, they're doing fine in the western world. They're doing much worse off in literally every other part of the world though.
Oh, and some people are back on Sanders again. Whether he attacks Clinton or not is completely irrelevant at this point.
I was literally watching CNBC today, full of wall street people talking about how Clinton will be "best for the markets" because she's going to end up being a centrist "pro growth" democrat. He's also lying that she is wishy washy and doesn't support reinstating Glass-Steagall. Spare me.
803
357
226
158
95
32885
2296
170
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Gr8ErBO.png)
