|
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. |
United States43604 Posts
On December 23 2013 10:05 MoltkeWarding wrote:You will forgive me if I claim the advantage of realism vis-a-vis someone with over 20k posts on this forum.
In the reality you live in is posting frequency inversely proportionate to awareness? I guess that's less silly than thinking feminists are just acting out in the hope of attracting a strong male to tame them. I'd pay good money to see you try to interact with women.
|
In the reality you live in is posting frequency inversely proportionate to awareness?
I think we all understand Kwark's debating methods by now: KwarK is essentially a rationalist, but when he is out-gunned on that front, he claims the high ground in empirical wisdoms.
How else do you explain his attention to such a silly argument as the obsolescence of gender, yet dismiss my anecdotally-based claims as a deficit of "reality"?
Of course, it would be silly to claim that he has more raw experience than me, or anyone else, since he obviously does not. Whence then his divine wisdoms? He is simply more "aware" than the rest of us. What that actually means, I do not know, but it is obviously some telepathic phenomenon which transfers experiential reality directly from the streets and bars, into his bedroom.
KwarK's criteria of what is "real" is here revealed to be immaculately simple: the real is that which supports his personal dogma.
I guess that's less silly than thinking feminists are just acting out in the hope of attracting a strong male to tame them.
Nope, hope is not a necessary ingredient to a damsel in distress, however an unfulfilled longing usually is.
|
On December 23 2013 09:44 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2013 09:34 Boblion wrote:Gender is stats yo. Even math majors are more romantic...  Feminists often have quite luxurious personalities, not because of their bland philosophical postulates, but because their feminism is frequently a facade, behind which there stalks a longing for a natural self, which they attempt to provide via constructed ideological identity. Can you not see the inherent romance? Feminists are damsels in distress, and they need a strong male to rescue them....from the doctrine of feminism. Although I agree with sam; male feminists are kind of useless. Like many others, many of my most agreeable companions have espoused some form of feminism. Most male feminists however bore intellectual women; free-thinking women like counterparts, they dislike men being their own subdued echoes.
Feminism is not a black and white issue, and is subject to interpretation from person to person.
It is insulting, which is probably your goal, to claim that all feminists are women waiting to be tamed by men.
Male feminists are about as useless as being white and for racial equality in the 60's.
Also, if you're going to make fun of somebody for having 20k posts, you should have less than 5k yourself.
User was banned for this post.
|
On December 23 2013 11:02 stuhowell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2013 09:44 MoltkeWarding wrote:On December 23 2013 09:34 Boblion wrote:Gender is stats yo. Even math majors are more romantic... Feminists often have quite luxurious personalities, not because of their bland philosophical postulates, but because their feminism is frequently a facade, behind which there stalks a longing for a natural self, which they attempt to provide via constructed ideological identity. Can you not see the inherent romance? Feminists are damsels in distress, and they need a strong male to rescue them....from the doctrine of feminism. Although I agree with sam; male feminists are kind of useless. Like many others, many of my most agreeable companions have espoused some form of feminism. Most male feminists however bore intellectual women; free-thinking women like counterparts, they dislike men being their own subdued echoes. Feminists are not black and white objects. It's a collection of ideas,opinions, and attitudes that differs from person to person. It is insulting, which is probably your point, to claim that all feminists are waiting to be tamed. Male feminists are about as useless as being white and for racial equality in the 60's.
I never claimed that all feminists are waiting to be tamed. Actually, by reading my qualified statement in a totalising manner, you are really showing that it is you who are seeing feminism as a binary black and white issue. Even if your reading of my statement were correct, why should it necessarily be insulting? Don't you know that adversarial situations create bonds of affection as well as enmity?
|
On December 23 2013 11:13 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2013 11:02 stuhowell wrote:On December 23 2013 09:44 MoltkeWarding wrote:On December 23 2013 09:34 Boblion wrote:Gender is stats yo. Even math majors are more romantic... Feminists often have quite luxurious personalities, not because of their bland philosophical postulates, but because their feminism is frequently a facade, behind which there stalks a longing for a natural self, which they attempt to provide via constructed ideological identity. Can you not see the inherent romance? Feminists are damsels in distress, and they need a strong male to rescue them....from the doctrine of feminism. Although I agree with sam; male feminists are kind of useless. Like many others, many of my most agreeable companions have espoused some form of feminism. Most male feminists however bore intellectual women; free-thinking women like counterparts, they dislike men being their own subdued echoes. Feminists are not black and white objects. It's a collection of ideas,opinions, and attitudes that differs from person to person. It is insulting, which is probably your point, to claim that all feminists are waiting to be tamed. Male feminists are about as useless as being white and for racial equality in the 60's. I never claimed that all feminists are waiting to be tamed. Actually, by reading my qualified statement in a totalising manner, you are really showing that it is you who are seeing feminism as a binary black and white issue. Even if your reading of my statement were correct, why should it necessarily be insulting? Don't you know that adversarial situations create bonds of affection as well as enmity?
Should I requote your post? Your exact words were, "Feminists are damsels in distress, and they need a strong male to rescue them....from the doctrine of feminism."
For my part, I explicitly said that feminism is not a black and white issue. If you can turn that around 180 degrees, I am impressed.
It is insulting because you generalize an entire ideology as essentially being the exact opposite of what they claim. I'm sure your sweeping statement is true for some, but it is debasing and insulting to the majority.
|
Just ran into this in a comment section and lol'ed
"That was the real problem with the healthcare website: Chuck Norris was the first person to sign up and the servers collapsed as a result. Obama took the blame out of respect for Mr. Norris."
|
Although the user is banned, he makes a point which is necessary to address, if for no other reason than to prevent similar transgressions of presumption and quote-spinning in the future.
Should I requote your post? Your exact words were, "Feminists are damsels in distress, and they need a strong male to rescue them....from the doctrine of feminism."
The context of my statement was as follows:
Can you not see the inherent romance? Feminists are damsels in distress, and they need a strong male to rescue them....from the doctrine of feminism. For my part, I explicitly said that feminism is not a black and white issue. If you can turn that around 180 degrees, I am impressed.
This was made in reply to Boblion, who casually depicted feminism in a ogreish light. Therefore when I say feminists in this context, there is an implied conditional: Can't you see it this way? Feminists are actually damsels in distress.
It was an appeal to Boblion's personal sentiments. What I was doing was precisely what you say should be done: I was saying that feminists can be seen in a flatteringly romantic light, and there is some reason for doing so. It it not necessary to see them as a school of Snow Queens.
Also, being the social realist that I am, I do not consider irreverence toward a group identity to be disrespectful. My everyday business is with people and not personified propositions. While I have no use for feminist doctrines, I like many people who consider themselves feminists. I have yet to meet a woman who took offense because I took a mischievous habit of drawing out their beliefs and challenging them. Apparently though, the seminary of tl.net teaches us to be more sensitive, more "aware," more polished than the merely pedestrian thinkers.
|
On Sunday, the United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Utah officials' emergency request to stop same-sex couples from marrying.
The state had filed an emergency motion for temporary stay on Friday, following a Thursday federal court ruling that overturned the state's ban on gay marriage. In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby said the state's constitution failed to show that same-sex marriages would impede opposite-sex marriages in any way.
"In the absence of such evidence, the State's unsupported fears and speculations are insufficient to justify the State's refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens," Shelby wrote.
Immediately following the ruling, same-sex couples fled to the county clerk's office to receive marriage licenses. But Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) denounced the decision, threatening to take action to appeal it.
"I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," Herbert said of the Thursday ruling. "I am working with my legal counsel and the acting attorney general to determine the best course to defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah."
The 10th Circuit Appeals Court denied the governor's emergency request "without prejudice."
Source
|
The court ruling makes sense, but it's hard to tell without going even farther into links to read up about what those rules of procedure though.
Personally, I feel it should be the other way; that it would be reasonable to grant a temporary stay pending the hearing which will determine whether there will be a stay while the appeal is done. Marriage is a major thing, and i'm sure a lot of databases and records are involved; having to potentially nullify all of them, or reenable them as stays get added and removed and rulings go this way and that is bad for vital bookkeeping, so it should be avoided where it is not too onerous to do so. I think a stay until the hearing in question would thus be reasonable.
|
On December 23 2013 13:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On Sunday, the United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Utah officials' emergency request to stop same-sex couples from marrying.
The state had filed an emergency motion for temporary stay on Friday, following a Thursday federal court ruling that overturned the state's ban on gay marriage. In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby said the state's constitution failed to show that same-sex marriages would impede opposite-sex marriages in any way.
"In the absence of such evidence, the State's unsupported fears and speculations are insufficient to justify the State's refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens," Shelby wrote.
Immediately following the ruling, same-sex couples fled to the county clerk's office to receive marriage licenses. But Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) denounced the decision, threatening to take action to appeal it.
"I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," Herbert said of the Thursday ruling. "I am working with my legal counsel and the acting attorney general to determine the best course to defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah."
The 10th Circuit Appeals Court denied the governor's emergency request "without prejudice." Source
Direct from the ruling,
In his dissenting opinion, the Honorable Antonin Scalia recognized that this result was the logical outcome of the Court’s ruling in Windsor:
In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion . . . is that DOMA is motivated by “bare . . . desire to harm” couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.
It is rather poetic for Judge Shelby to cite Scalia's dissent in his ruling. Scalia well knew that the Windsor ruling would not be confined by the majority's disclaimer that it should only affect "same-sex marriages made lawful by the State." It was written purposefully to "[arm] well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition." Instead of deciding this issue state by state (e.g. North Carolina no same-sex marriage 61% to 39%, Maryland yes 52% to 48%, Maine disapproving 2009 and approving 2012), we're still deciding it by unelected justices. Just another sad day.
|
Unelected justices? There's a reason they aren't done by direct election.
One of the foremost purposes of the judicial branch is to protect the rights of the minority, who are by definition, a MINORITY, and thus have a hard time prevailing in a popular vote.
There is nothing sad about judges doing their duty to protect minorities. That is a core part of our constitution and working as intended.
|
On December 23 2013 14:45 Danglars wrote:
we're still deciding it by unelected justices. Just another sad day.
I think you are confusing democracy with dictatorship of the masses.
|
The Constitution was also created to prevent Pennsylvanians from discriminating the Quakers as well.
|
On December 23 2013 14:50 zlefin wrote:
Unelected justices? There's a reason they aren't done by direct election.
One of the foremost purposes of the judicial branch is to protect the rights of the minority, who are by definition, a MINORITY, and thus have a hard time prevailing in a popular vote.
There is nothing sad about judges doing their duty to protect minorities. That is a core part of our constitution and working as intended.
There's a reason justices interpret laws to the case at hand instead of writing laws out of whole cloth. You're surrendering the principle of self-government to appointed men by a handful or by a single person, removing representation. They also cannot be removed by the population they govern, and in this case, write laws for. The government has long been in the business of subverting or reinforcing traditional norms ... look no further than no-fault divorce, polygamy, or drinking alcohol. The citizens of Utah have a right to decide what is and is not a marriage in their state, and that aim has been thwarted without a vote. Some states have already voted in gay marriage, and that vote needs to be protected also from justices that happen to be opposed to it. Or, perhaps the honorable poster would not disagree with a justice striking down a gay marriage law in a state with a majority supporting gay marriage?
On December 23 2013 14:51 Nyxisto wrote:
I think you are confusing democracy with dictatorship of the masses.
Dictatorship of the Judicial, or small groups in general, is the more real fear here. My opposition is fond of throwing around the word "rights" as if everybody knows their extent, where polygamy and group marriages (indeed age of consent issues) are apparently being denied their rights too (but well advised to shut up about it in the long line of special interests).
|
On December 23 2013 17:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2013 14:50 zlefin wrote:
Unelected justices? There's a reason they aren't done by direct election.
One of the foremost purposes of the judicial branch is to protect the rights of the minority, who are by definition, a MINORITY, and thus have a hard time prevailing in a popular vote.
There is nothing sad about judges doing their duty to protect minorities. That is a core part of our constitution and working as intended. There's a reason justices interpret laws to the case at hand instead of writing laws out of whole cloth. You're surrendering the principle of self-government to appointed men by a handful or by a single person, removing representation. They also cannot be removed by the population they govern, and in this case, write laws for. The government has long been in the business of subverting or reinforcing traditional norms ... look no further than no-fault divorce, polygamy, or drinking alcohol. The citizens of Utah have a right to decide what is and is not a marriage in their state, and that aim has been thwarted without a vote. Some states have already voted in gay marriage, and that vote needs to be protected also from justices that happen to be opposed to it. Or, perhaps the honorable poster would not disagree with a justice striking down a gay marriage law in a state with a majority supporting gay marriage? Show nested quote +On December 23 2013 14:51 Nyxisto wrote:
I think you are confusing democracy with dictatorship of the masses.
Dictatorship of the Judicial, or small groups in general, is the more real fear here. My opposition is fond of throwing around the word "rights" as if everybody knows their extent, where polygamy and group marriages (indeed age of consent issues) are apparently being denied their rights too (but well advised to shut up about it in the long line of special interests).
In: Gay marriage. Out: Polygamy and age of consent.
In... Out...
In... Out...
|
On December 23 2013 17:03 Shiragaku wrote:
The Constitution was also created to prevent Pennsylvanians from discriminating the Quakers as well.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
The U.S. Constitution could not protect Pennsylvanian Quakers from their own state until the Bill of Rights began to be incorporated after the ratification of the 14th amendment. Pennsylvania's own Declaration of Rights, which preceded the U.S. Constitution, did protect Quakers.
|
|
|
DEB, I was just saying that you can't lock a group of people out of all power and then ask them to thank you for what a good job you've done on their behalf with all the power you wouldn't let them have. It's just indecent.
If that patronizing argument was being made then it would be indecent, but the issue at hand is can gender relations or any group relations be improved if we need a conversion table to see precisely to which degree each group should be grateful or contrite and can they be improved if there is this gap of understanding between the (alleged) oppressed and oppressor classes? Empathy is supposed to be a universal human characteristic, if a member of the so-called oppressor class cannot empathize with the so-called oppressed class (although this contention is seemingly only made when a disagreement arises with the orthodoxy regarding the oppressed class) then it begs the question: how was any advancement on gender or racial equality achieved at all? Women didn't liberate themselves and force men to bend to their will. Blacks didn't free themselves and force whites to bend to their will. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the equality movements of the 20th century. The end result was the majority using force to end various discriminatory practices, but before that, there was a long period of struggle for persuasion. The majority had to be persuaded first.
This does not work:
1. Injustice
2. Stamp it out
This does:
1. Injustice
2. Persuasion
3. Stamp it out
You can't short-circuit the process through bluster and rage but that is the way things are handled these days...
An oppressed class will remain oppressed until and unless it can get significant numbers of the oppressor class to side with it, and most of those who do are not former active oppressors, they just happen to be white, or rich, or male, or whatever, and without them women and non-whites would have gotten nowhere in modern Western society.
|
United States43604 Posts
Paglia's argument was that women should be grateful to men for creating the world they live in. That was the argument being made.
The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role—but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!
Men created it all, women were not the authors. Modern women should be grateful that men created it. You agreed with me that that argument was indecent, you just don't seem to have read the quote I was referring to because it makes exactly that argument.
|
Her argument was that men are not obsolete. The last bit about what men created was just a pejorative for effect.
On December 23 2013 17:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2013 14:50 zlefin wrote:
Unelected justices? There's a reason they aren't done by direct election.
One of the foremost purposes of the judicial branch is to protect the rights of the minority, who are by definition, a MINORITY, and thus have a hard time prevailing in a popular vote.
There is nothing sad about judges doing their duty to protect minorities. That is a core part of our constitution and working as intended. There's a reason justices interpret laws to the case at hand instead of writing laws out of whole cloth. You're surrendering the principle of self-government to appointed men by a handful or by a single person, removing representation. They also cannot be removed by the population they govern, and in this case, write laws for. The government has long been in the business of subverting or reinforcing traditional norms ... look no further than no-fault divorce, polygamy, or drinking alcohol. The citizens of Utah have a right to decide what is and is not a marriage in their state, and that aim has been thwarted without a vote. Some states have already voted in gay marriage, and that vote needs to be protected also from justices that happen to be opposed to it. Or, perhaps the honorable poster would not disagree with a justice striking down a gay marriage law in a state with a majority supporting gay marriage?
The legislature doesn't write the laws, they interpret them, and they are appointed by elected officials so representation is there. The only legitimate argument about what the legislature is doing to strike the law down is that this is a States Rights issue- the judge struck down a voter approved amendment. The only argument to be made is that federal judges should not be allowed to do this, implying that judges not being elected makes their rulings illegitimate is pretty far out there.
-----
On a lighter note, this is pretty amusing if you've got a dark sense of humor.
Bags of Heroin branded "OBAMA CARE" seized by MA police
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
