Against ALL women - Infanticide, Slavery, Rape, Trafficking... (#3)

Message boards : Politics : Against ALL women - Infanticide, Slavery, Rape, Trafficking... (#3)
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 . . . 53 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1688937 - Posted: 7 Jun 2015, 15:13:12 UTC - in response to Message 1688718.  

Punishment? Like atone for your sins? Make a special donation? Confess and say a few special prayers? Or assault and battery?

OBW since apparently allowing your children to walk anywhere is prohibited, it would force the dads to drive.

Again. Please read the article. At least pretend to be somewhat engaged in this discussion.

Children who are droppped off at school in a car by their mothers will be turned away.

It is obvious to me that you have never been a parent as you would understand that no, the fathers would not necessarily be forced the drive. If they have arranged the childcare such that the wife is taking care of the children, he probably has other commitments. The mothers would be forced to walk or take the bus. Especially if the "culture" is as sexist as it appears to be.

So they can "choose" to leave. So you are then suggesting that in a religion that has already shown to be sexist, the father would allow the children to be moved to another school?

So what should the mother do? I suppose she can "choose" to leave her husband, break up her family, fight an expensive custody battle over the children, end up in poverty, be cast out from her family, or she can not drive anywhere. I wonder which one she will "choose".

Its funny how complacent you are when its not your gender. How would you feel about people passing a rule that men aren't allowed to drive? Wouldn't a part of you feel very uncomfortable at the thought? I am getting the very strong impression from you that its only women and you don't know what the fuss is about.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1688937 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1688960 - Posted: 7 Jun 2015, 16:06:59 UTC

Why the patriarchy is bad for men: (warning, there is strong language, but the article is definitely a must read for all the fellas here)

Masculinity Is Killing Men: The Roots of Men and Trauma
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1688960 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 25509
Credit: 49,374,403
RAC: 21,186
United States
Message 1688970 - Posted: 7 Jun 2015, 16:42:41 UTC - in response to Message 1688937.  

Punishment? Like atone for your sins? Make a special donation? Confess and say a few special prayers? Or assault and battery?

OBW since apparently allowing your children to walk anywhere is prohibited, it would force the dads to drive.

Again. Please read the article. At least pretend to be somewhat engaged in this discussion.

Children who are droppped off at school in a car by their mothers will be turned away.

It is obvious to me that you have never been a parent as you would understand that no, the fathers would not necessarily be forced the drive. If they have arranged the childcare such that the wife is taking care of the children, he probably has other commitments. The mothers would be forced to walk or take the bus. Especially if the "culture" is as sexist as it appears to be.

So they can "choose" to leave. So you are then suggesting that in a religion that has already shown to be sexist, the father would allow the children to be moved to another school?

So what should the mother do? I suppose she can "choose" to leave her husband, break up her family, fight an expensive custody battle over the children, end up in poverty, be cast out from her family, or she can not drive anywhere. I wonder which one she will "choose".

Its funny how complacent you are when its not your gender. How would you feel about people passing a rule that men aren't allowed to drive? Wouldn't a part of you feel very uncomfortable at the thought? I am getting the very strong impression from you that its only women and you don't know what the fuss is about.

Scream and moan, because your religion of mommy drive isn't being enforced upon all. [I'm rather sure you will be reincarnated under sharia law, if there is balance in the universe.]

What makes you think she would even want to drive? Remember she has been indoctrinated into this religion since birth. I'm sure it is a mortal sin to oppose the rabbi.

You seem to want to pick and choose what religious practice you will allow others to engage in. Do you want to ban any religion except your own? Are you so sure that your own thinking is superior that you will force it upon others? Isn't that a two way street, that others should be able to enforce their thinking upon you?

You don't get freedom, do you? Or is it principals you don't get? Or both?

Also you might just go back to my first post on this and find the word repugnant in it and then look that word up in a dictionary.
ID: 1688970 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1688976 - Posted: 7 Jun 2015, 17:21:14 UTC - in response to Message 1688970.  

Scream and moan, because your religion of mommy drive isn't being enforced upon all. [I'm rather sure you will be reincarnated under sharia law, if there is balance in the universe.]

So, we finally see the truth of who Gary is.

I think you are being disingenious because you know full well the difference between forcing someone to drive (which is not happening) and forcing them not to drive (which is happening). For a libertarian you really like to pick and choose what you think freedom is.

What makes you think she would even want to drive? Remember she has been indoctrinated into this religion since birth. I'm sure it is a mortal sin to oppose the rabbi.

If she doesn't, why would the school feel the need to impost sanctions?

You seem to want to pick and choose what religious practice you will allow others to engage in. Do you want to ban any religion except your own? Are you so sure that your own thinking is superior that you will force it upon others? Isn't that a two way street, that others should be able to enforce their thinking upon you?

The fact that you think equal rights is a religion says so much about you, Gary. That you would even think to frame protection for women who are not equal and therefore not free to choose as a religion is really quite disturbing.

You don't get freedom, do you? Or is it principals you don't get? Or both?

Freedom for who Gary? For the men in charge? Because you are doing your damnedest to protect them. I don't think you understand the concept of freedom and that it just doesn't magically appear when you leave things alone.

Also you might just go back to my first post on this and find the word repugnant in it and then look that word up in a dictionary.

Oh, I don't need to. You've given me quite the example with your post.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1688976 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 25509
Credit: 49,374,403
RAC: 21,186
United States
Message 1689001 - Posted: 7 Jun 2015, 18:58:39 UTC - in response to Message 1688976.  

Scream and moan, because your religion of mommy drive isn't being enforced upon all. [I'm rather sure you will be reincarnated under sharia law, if there is balance in the universe.]

So, we finally see the truth of who Gary is.

I think you are being disingenious because you know full well the difference between forcing someone to drive (which is not happening) and forcing them not to drive (which is happening). For a libertarian you really like to pick and choose what you think freedom is.

What makes you think she would even want to drive? Remember she has been indoctrinated into this religion since birth. I'm sure it is a mortal sin to oppose the rabbi.

If she doesn't, why would the school feel the need to impost sanctions?

You seem to want to pick and choose what religious practice you will allow others to engage in. Do you want to ban any religion except your own? Are you so sure that your own thinking is superior that you will force it upon others? Isn't that a two way street, that others should be able to enforce their thinking upon you?

The fact that you think equal rights is a religion says so much about you, Gary. That you would even think to frame protection for women who are not equal and therefore not free to choose as a religion is really quite disturbing.

You don't get freedom, do you? Or is it principals you don't get? Or both?

Freedom for who Gary? For the men in charge? Because you are doing your damnedest to protect them. I don't think you understand the concept of freedom and that it just doesn't magically appear when you leave things alone.

Also you might just go back to my first post on this and find the word repugnant in it and then look that word up in a dictionary.

Oh, I don't need to. You've given me quite the example with your post.

ES, you have no idea how to allow others to be free, or what doing so entails.
ID: 1689001 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1689029 - Posted: 7 Jun 2015, 21:22:41 UTC - in response to Message 1689001.  

...
ES, you have no idea how to allow others to be free, or what doing so entails.

So you are saying that you want to give people the freedom to be oppressed?

I'm sorry, Gary. You are just not making sense.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1689029 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6703
Credit: 21,399,768
RAC: 299
Australia
Message 1689052 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 1:53:49 UTC

Here here Es .

Gary it's you Americans that don't get what freedom is mate

So here is what it is .

It's a set of rules all in the country abide buy and agree to live by .

Freedom in a nutshell got it !

Americans are so free you need a licence to drive or you can end up in jail .

American are so free you have no choice but to pay taxes or the I.R.S come after you and you go to jail

It's a set of rules you all agree to live buy full stop .
ID: 1689052 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 25509
Credit: 49,374,403
RAC: 21,186
United States
Message 1689056 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 2:19:17 UTC - in response to Message 1689029.  

...
ES, you have no idea how to allow others to be free, or what doing so entails.

So you are saying that you want to give people the freedom to be oppressed?

I'm sorry, Gary. You are just not making sense.

You can't step back from your microscope can you? You grant your government the right to dictate how a religion shall be practiced. English hegemony. All shall follow or else. What an incredibly oppressive state you seek. Totally repugnant. In actuality no different than what ISIL seeks.

You don't know freedom, nor can you allow others to have it. Freedom is not telling others how to run their life. Freedom isn't making moral judgements for others. Freedom isn't imposing your morals on others. But you insist on doing all of these and more.

Try and step back, open your hermetic seal, and see what you argue for.

Or is your position that it is impossible to consent to live by the rules of a religion? If so, you haven't been saying anything like that. Nor have you been saying that if you violate rules that there should not be consequences. Nor have you been saying that Orthodox Jewish women have been kidnapped and forced into the life. Nor have you been saying it is impossible to leave, hard maybe, impossible no.

ES, it is their religion. They get to decide their rules. You can't seem to accept that.
ID: 1689056 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 25509
Credit: 49,374,403
RAC: 21,186
United States
Message 1689057 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 2:20:53 UTC - in response to Message 1689052.  

Here here Es .

Gary it's you Americans that don't get what freedom is mate

So here is what it is .

It's a set of rules all in the country abide buy and agree to live by .

Freedom in a nutshell got it !

Americans are so free you need a licence to drive or you can end up in jail .

American are so free you have no choice but to pay taxes or the I.R.S come after you and you go to jail

It's a set of rules you all agree to live buy full stop .

Yes Glenn, rule agreed to, we don't tell you haw to practice your religion.
ID: 1689057 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1689058 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 2:29:46 UTC - in response to Message 1689056.  

...
ES, you have no idea how to allow others to be free, or what doing so entails.

So you are saying that you want to give people the freedom to be oppressed?

I'm sorry, Gary. You are just not making sense.

You can't step back from your microscope can you? You grant your government the right to dictate how a religion shall be practiced. English hegemony. All shall follow or else. What an incredibly oppressive state you seek. Totally repugnant. In actuality no different than what ISIL seeks.

I think you are losing the plot Gary. To compare asking for protection for women to setting up an ISIL state is a little bit out there, even from you.

You don't know freedom, nor can you allow others to have it. Freedom is not telling others how to run their life. Freedom isn't making moral judgements for others. Freedom isn't imposing your morals on others. But you insist on doing all of these and more.

What are you not understanding about the idea of needing to protect those freedoms?

People try to force women not to drive by imposing sanctions against them. This is not freedom.
Protecting the right for women to chose whether to driver or not to drive. That is freedom.
The freedom you are trying to protect is the freedom of men to oppress women, which really makes me wonder who you think is entitled to freedom.

Try and step back, open your hermetic seal, and see what you argue for.

I am really not the zealot here, Gary, you've already expressed the wish that I be reincarnated in Saudi Arabia, which to be honest is a rather vile and horrible thing to say to a woman. It is certainly a reflection of your "libertarian" zeal...of course your libetarian ideals seem to only apply to those who can enforce their wishes by money or strength. Ick.

Or is your position that it is impossible to consent to live by the rules of a religion? If so, you haven't been saying anything like that. Nor have you been saying that if you violate rules that there should not be consequences. Nor have you been saying that Orthodox Jewish women have been kidnapped and forced into the life. Nor have you been saying it is impossible to leave, hard maybe, impossible no.

Oh Gary, you are so ignorant as to why women stay in abusive situations and how they end up there. So ignorant.

ES, it is their religion. They get to decide their rules. You can't seem to accept that.

They can decide what rules they want, and people should be allowed to decide whether to follow them. Rabbi says "women shouldn't drive" women can chose to listen or not to listen. The minute you start to enforce those rules with sanctions that have real and quite negative consequences for those affected you are not protecting freedoms, you are protecting someone's freedom to abuse.

It sounds to me like you are the one who wants to see Saudi Arabia style law in the UK in the name of "freedom" and you are the one who can't see how insane that is.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1689058 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1689059 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 2:30:24 UTC - in response to Message 1689057.  


Yes Glenn, rule agreed to, we don't tell you haw to practice your religion.

So you support beheadings by ISIL then?
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1689059 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6703
Credit: 21,399,768
RAC: 299
Australia
Message 1689060 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 2:50:32 UTC - in response to Message 1689059.  

So you support beheadings by ISIL then?


No .

I'm agreeing with you .

In England there is no law that i know of that says a woman should not be allowed to drive so you are correct a Rabbi that makes up there own rules outside of what the whole country has agreed to is wrong

In the case of Isil they do have the right to agree to any laws they wish and still call it freedom , however there may be very bad consequences for having the wrong rules if those rules are at odds with the rest of the world .
ID: 1689060 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1689061 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 3:05:09 UTC - in response to Message 1689060.  

So you support beheadings by ISIL then?


No .

I'm agreeing with you .

In England there is no law that i know of that says a woman should not be allowed to drive so you are correct a Rabbi that makes up there own rules outside of what the whole country has agreed to is wrong

In the case of Isil they do have the right to agree to any laws they wish and still call it freedom , however there may be very bad consequences for having the wrong rules if those rules are at odds with the rest of the world .

My reply was to Gary who seems to think religious freedom trumps all other freedoms.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1689061 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6703
Credit: 21,399,768
RAC: 299
Australia
Message 1689062 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 3:06:33 UTC - in response to Message 1689061.  

oh ok i wasn't shore no worry's
ID: 1689062 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1689104 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 6:56:55 UTC - in response to Message 1688960.  

Why the patriarchy is bad for men: (warning, there is strong language, but the article is definitely a must read for all the fellas here)

Masculinity Is Killing Men: The Roots of Men and Trauma

A good read indeed, thanks for sharing.

And yeah, the very concept of masculinity is toxic. The problem is that, even in later stages of life when you are able to recognize how dumb the whole thing is, you'll get in trouble if you don't conform to this horrible gender norm. Why do people think 'gay' is often such an effective swear word? Because its linked with feminine behavior in the minds of most people, and it has essentially a way to say that someone isn't a 'real man'.
ID: 1689104 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1689109 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 7:13:57 UTC - in response to Message 1689056.  
Last modified: 8 Jun 2015, 7:14:36 UTC

You can't step back from your microscope can you? You grant your government the right to dictate how a religion shall be practiced. English hegemony. All shall follow or else. What an incredibly oppressive state you seek. Totally repugnant. In actuality no different than what ISIL seeks.

So you would let ISIS come to America, behead other people, and say that such practices are protected because the state has no business in telling other people how to practice their religion. Riiiiight.

The State has every right and even an obligation to step in and tell how religion should or shouldn't be practiced when said practice conflicts with public policy. A religion can't molest children as part of some religious ritual (though in most countries mutilation of boys is just fine). You can't kill people as part of some religious ritual. You can't destroy property as a ritual. You can't call upon your followers to attack and kill followers of a different religion. And now the UK says a religion can't allow schools to ban women from driving. That is by the way, not the state dictating how a religion should be practiced as you claimed, but the state setting limits to how a religion should be practiced. As long as they stay within these limits a religion is free to do whatever it wants.

Now you might say that this seems a lot more innocent than murder or child molestation. But lets look at what it does here. First of all, no religion and no school has the legal right to actually ban women from driving. Driving is a freedom, a privilege that is granted to anyone who has a drivers license and the only entity that may revoke such a license is the state. And the retention of that privilege is in no way dependent on any kind of religious affiliation or gender. Now technically the school wants to enforce their ban by banning the entry of children who were brought by their mother. Given that they are a public school and that children enrolled in such a school have certain rights and the school has an obligation to educate them, banning entry of children is again illegal. That isn't telling people how to practice their faith, that is simply upholding the existing laws.
ID: 1689109 · Report as offensive
Profile The Simonator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Nov 04
Posts: 5698
Credit: 3,471,084
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1689131 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 9:35:41 UTC - in response to Message 1689104.  

Why do people think 'gay' is often such an effective swear word? Because its linked with feminine behavior in the minds of most people, and it has essentially a way to say that someone isn't a 'real man'.

It isn't particularly effective any more, at least not round here, just comes across as childish.
Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.
ID: 1689131 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9882
Credit: 7,395,941
RAC: 91
United Kingdom
Message 1689163 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 12:54:57 UTC - in response to Message 1689131.  

Why do people think 'gay' is often such an effective swear word? Because its linked with feminine behavior in the minds of most people, and it has essentially a way to say that someone isn't a 'real man'.

It isn't particularly effective any more, at least not round here, just comes across as childish.

Indeed so. Culture and attitudes move on.

Just recently, we've had the positive vote in Eire (Southern Ireland) to accept same-sex marriage (despite the medieval attitudes of the church there). We've had only a minor upset from a very few about a lesbian kiss shown on the Dr Who TV series. And that all contrasts starkly with the near rekindling of the American civil war by USA southern states when an interracial kiss was to be broadcast on the old Star Trek series...


Times greatly and quickly move on, hopefully for the better for everyone, including women.

All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1689163 · Report as offensive
Profile The Simonator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Nov 04
Posts: 5698
Credit: 3,471,084
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1689166 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 13:16:32 UTC - in response to Message 1689163.  
Last modified: 8 Jun 2015, 13:17:00 UTC

And that all contrasts starkly with the near rekindling of the American civil war by USA southern states when an interracial kiss was to be broadcast on the old Star Trek series...

I heard a great story about that. A couple of tv executives were present when that scene was being filmed. There had been a few takes of Jim kissing Uhura, and they insisted on one take where he merely hugs her. (Guess which was likely to end up in the final cut.)
Shatner, who as it happens was facing away from where the executives were stood, looked straight at the camera during the hug and crossed his eyes, thus rendering the shot unusable and forcing them to include the kiss.
Crafty devil!
Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.
ID: 1689166 · Report as offensive
Profile Clyde "Liberal" Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 15267
Credit: 45,319,901
RAC: 802
United States
Message 1689174 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 13:55:51 UTC - in response to Message 1689166.  

And that all contrasts starkly with the near rekindling of the American civil war by USA southern states when an interracial kiss was to be broadcast on the old Star Trek series...

I heard a great story about that. A couple of tv executives were present when that scene was being filmed. There had been a few takes of Jim kissing Uhura, and they insisted on one take where he merely hugs her. (Guess which was likely to end up in the final cut.)
Shatner, who as it happens was facing away from where the executives were stood, looked straight at the camera during the hug and crossed his eyes, thus rendering the shot unusable and forcing them to include the kiss.
Crafty devil!

Would they have released a Black Man kissing a White Women?

Not in those times!
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--- George Santayana

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
--- Lord Acton
ID: 1689174 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 . . . 53 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Against ALL women - Infanticide, Slavery, Rape, Trafficking... (#3)


 
©2019 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.