|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Amb
Amb the Hitched.
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:39 am Post subject: 1 |
|
|
If Romnesia is a clever witticism: Are there any retorts he could have used
eg: Alzbamas
Anyone got any better. (Surely someone must) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Great Crep'er
2% Spambot
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:53 am Post subject: 2 |
|
|
| Clearly, Amb is a Republican. Fauxbama 2012 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:10 am Post subject: 3 |
|
|
Considering "Obamnesia" works just as well?
Really, it's a stupid little catch-word that one of his marketers came up with hoping it would excite his base. I'm sure it is, but really, anything mocking republicans would excite his base. He could call Romney a pedonazi and it would excite his base. But he's already got the base's votes. And given the direction the polls have been moving lately, I have to wonder if he pissed off the people who's votes he needs to earn with that statement. _________________ * These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:36 am Post subject: 4 |
|
|
Deep Vein Thrombama?
Oh wait. You want something which refers to a mental lapse, not something which suggests voting Obama will lead to a sudden and unexpected death. My bad.
I actually think "Romnesia" is stupid. Let the election be over, and we can deal with the aftermath. _________________ Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
borschevsky
Chessnut
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:40 pm Post subject: 5 |
|
|
| Mementobama |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Quailman
His Postmajesty
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:59 pm Post subject: 6 |
|
|
Borchevsky!!!!
What's it been? Like four years??
Welcome back! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Courk
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:09 am Post subject: 7 |
|
|
1. When I first heard it, my initial thought was that "Romnesia" sounds like a country.
2. I couldn't figure out how borchevsky was a pun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Amb
Amb the Hitched.
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:21 am Post subject: 8 |
|
|
| Quote: |
Clearly, Amb is a Republican. Fauxbama 2012
|
Actually, not being American - without looking it up, I have no idea whether Republican is left or right wing (or neither) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:23 am Post subject: 9 |
|
|
It's easy to remember.
Republican. R. Right.
Democrat. D. Dumb.
 _________________ * These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Trojan Horse
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:13 am Post subject: 10 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
It's easy to remember.
Republican. R. Right.
Democrat. D. Dumb.
 |
This is where a Democrat usually comes in and uses the gear shift on a car as an analogy.
Democrat. D. Drive.
Republican. R. Reverse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Potter
Feat of Clay
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:39 am Post subject: 11 |
|
|
[this looks like a fun game. How about a spiritual turn?]
Democrat D. Doom
Republican R, Revival! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:32 am Post subject: 12 |
|
|
| Courk wrote: |
| 2. I couldn't figure out how borchevsky was a pun. |
I was too ashamed to admit that I had the same trouble. _________________ Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Buzzsaw
Newbie Guidance Counselor
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:33 pm Post subject: 13 |
|
|
I don't have anything clever to add, just hope Romney wins. Take that, Mackay!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Undercover Monk
Professor Chaos
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:08 pm Post subject: 14 |
|
|
Is it sad that I am a staunch Indiana republican who now is refusing to vote for Murdock and Donnely both. Im going to be stuck with the Libetarian (and not the one from Survivor).
It makes me angry to hear someone say God meant rape to happen. And it make me even angrier to hear some leftist pro-women talking head on the news channel tell me I hate women because Im pro-life. Would everyone be ok if we abolished both parties and let people just submit youtube clips to win elections. Like best cat montage wins the president. Most creative Rick Roll is Govenor and Sente seats are determined by best acoustic guitar cover. _________________ The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:42 pm Post subject: 15 |
|
|
| a Euro wrote: |
Democrat: Dumbed-down socialism
Republican: Right-wing theocracy
Liberal: Lame Duck |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
referee
June 21st, 2004 Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:48 pm Post subject: 16 |
|
|
I hope Obama wins, I don't want the USA to become Iraq. If I could vote, I'd vote for BionicDance, though. _________________ Jan 21st, 2008: The pillaging continues.
Mar 4th, 2008: Rest in Peace, Gary Gygax. May your dice always roll a natural 20 wherever you are.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lepton*
Guest
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:40 pm Post subject: 18 |
|
|
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| It makes me angry to hear someone say God meant rape to happen. And it make me even angrier to hear some leftist pro-women talking head on the news channel tell me I hate women because Im pro-life. |
A. The Republican nominee says "God meant rape to happen" (and has since stood by his claims)
B. A 'leftist ... talking-head' points out that laws against abortion disproportionately impact women
How are these two things equal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
borschevsky
Chessnut
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:35 pm Post subject: 19 |
|
|
| Quailman wrote: |
Borchevsky!!!!
What's it been? Like four years??
Welcome back! |
'Sup?
Nothing ever changes around here; people still leave out the s . |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:01 pm Post subject: 20 |
|
|
| Lepton* wrote: |
| B. A 'leftist ... talking-head' points out that laws against abortion disproportionately impact women |
As I understand it, the proponents of these laws are also generally (I am sure it varies on a state-by-state basis) trying to restrict access to sex education and birth control.
If reducing the number of abortions was a social issue they actually cared about, you would expect them to be trying to reduce the need for them by providing lower-income women in particular with better education and resources to try to prevent unwanted/accidental pregnancies.
If they actually cared about embryos growing up and reaching their full potential, they wouldn't abandon them the second they exit the womb because OH NO MY TAX DOLLARS - this poor woman clearly only had the baby because she is such a welfare queen, nothing to do with the fact that I threatened to rape her with an ultrasound wand if she tried to have an abortion.
The cynic in me suggests that this is not unrelated to the fact that women as a demographic lean Democratic. It certainly doesn't strike me as "Christian".
UM, there is an entire societal system working against women having the same freedoms and opportunities as men. Republican legislators have been trying to move backward in the area of women's rights. That is not 'conservative', that is actively regressive. I understand that it is offensive to you to have it suggested that you hate women (I'm guessing in a general "Republicans hate women" sort of way?) but it is probably offensive to many women that you are supporting a party that believes it should have a say over what individual women do with their bodies. I, personally, would be offended if you told me that you knew what better than I did what was "right" for me to do with my body and actively worked to remove my freedom to do otherwise. And if you succeeded, as the Republicans have been succeeding, I would wonder what I did to make you hate me so much, or at least to make you view me with such contempt.
Another small thing I want to bring up, UM, is that you used "pro-women" in your sentence, as though that is a bad thing. Life is not a zero-sum game of men vs women, or poor vs rich even. What do men lose if women are granted the same privileges they have? Pro-women does not mean anti-men. It means pro-women. If you are opposed to "pro-women", what does that make you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:28 pm Post subject: 21 |
|
|
I believe abortion is not morally good regardless of the situation (excepting certain life-threatening situations for the mother), but I do think our government is established in such a way that it should allow women to make the choice. As long as our government operates the way it does, I think this is the only way it can be consistent. (Though I do think partial-birth abortions should probably be illegal from a consistency standpoint.)
Here are some quotes by Mother Teresa on the subject. While I don't agree with everything in them, I do think they provide good avenues of thought on the matter.
"The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters...And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign."
"If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts...By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion."
"Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child." _________________ Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:15 am Post subject: 22 |
|
|
While I am not one for using the Old Testament as a moral guide, I think it is germane here to point out that Exodus 21 states that if you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and cause her to miscarry, the penalty is a fine. The penalty for murder (iterated over and over throughout various books) is death. This is mostly tongue-in-cheek, of course, but I couldn't help but counter the religious appeal to authority.
With regard to Mother Teresa's quotes specifically, they are full of very noble-sounding sentiments, but some of her premises are inaccurate or debatable. The idea that a woman who has a child she does not want will automatically become a good/loving mother is pervasive and kind of sexist, as though every woman is just a mother waiting to happen. (I'm touchy about this one; I get it all the time. "Just have one, as soon as you hold it in your arms you'll love it." Or, I could spiral into depression and self-destruction the way I usually do when hormonal swings and drastic life changes happen to me. So worth it.) A lot of the time, people DO step up and become great mums. A lot of the time they don't, and the results are neglected and abused children. At least Mother Teresa tried to look after those too. Republicans, not so much.
I also have trouble buying the idea that there are enough married couples out there that want to adopt. Tying back into the patriarchy discussion, men are conditioned to want to 'continue the line' - fathering children is seen as a hallmark of masculinity. Were the idea of fatherhood based more upon the raising of the child and less upon the making of it, I think there would probably be less of a discrepancy between couples who are willing to adopt and numbers of unwanted children. Until then, people will continue to spend their life savings on IVF and fertility treatments before even considering adopting. I also doubt that Republicans would provide the resources for an adoption industry to be created, because TAXES again. I can hear it now. "Why should my hard work pay for women to get away with the consequences of being sluts?" So... pretty much the same as the abortion argument, really. (The fact that taxpayers do not, in fact, fund abortions is a discussion for another time.)
The reason I have tried to reference these back to the Republican party is that the difference between a major religious figure and a major political party should be obvious. I am absolutely guilty of my religious beliefs informing my political beliefs so I cannot judge on that front, but I don't think Mother Teresa's motives translate well to the actual discussion at hand.
Edit: Jedo and UM, how do the both of you feel about giving women access to birth control - on a contraceptive basis only (ignoring the health benefits hormonal birth control brings to many women)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:51 pm Post subject: 23 |
|
|
Why does a foetus have to wait to be born to get American citizenship?
If a foetus is a fully recognised human, then shouldn't the location of conception be the deciding factor? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:19 pm Post subject: 24 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| Edit: Jedo and UM, how do the both of you feel about giving women access to birth control - on a contraceptive basis only (ignoring the health benefits hormonal birth control brings to many women)? |
I'm not sure I understand. I agree with this statement by you:
| Quote: |
| If reducing the number of abortions was a social issue they actually cared about, you would expect them to be trying to reduce the need for them by providing lower-income women in particular with better education and resources to try to prevent unwanted/accidental pregnancies. |
Which women do not have access to birth control? I'm not aware of any restrictions, so you'll have to inform me. And I also don't know about health benefits from hormonal birth control. My wife and I actually avoided the hormone option because we thought it would be more detrimental than helpful, but that doesn't mean that I have told her sister that she should get off the pill.
Is there something in my post with which you disagree? I stated my personal beliefs on abortion (which doesn't mean I go around picketing abortion clinics), but my political beliefs about abortion are actually the opposite. In fact, I think Planned Parenthood provides a lot of great services, and it's certainly been a blessing for my uninsured wife. So...? _________________ Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:13 pm Post subject: 25 |
|
|
Apologies, I got a little distracted by the Mother Teresa stuff - it seemed conciliatory/deferential toward the opposite political position to that which you stated. I don't really feel that an anti-choice political stance is justifiable so I argued. =) I did acknowledge your pragmatism upon reading but I think I blurred your and Monk's posts in my mind as I was writing my response.
Given your reply to me, though, I'm not really sure what the Mother Teresa quotes were intended to achieve, given that we basically agree politically. On a personal level I'm not sure anyone thinks abortion is a good thing.
The birth control question was an afterthought, and it really shows in the execution, huh? I was thinking of Sandra Fluke specifically when I was writing. I guess the question should be, how do you feel about Obamacare mandating contraceptive coverage? [Edit: missed a question. Women have access to birth control, but promises of cuts to Planned Parenthood and cries of religious oppression in an attempt to remove contraceptives from being covered by insurance are both threats to that access.]
"Health benefits" was probably a bad phrasing as well, due to the potential side effects, but the pill is an effective treatment for endometriosis and ovarian cysts, and I'm pretty sure it has been linked with a decreased risk of ovarian cancer, but that is off the top of my head so I could be wrong about that last one. The pill also tends to reduce bleeding and cramps during menstruation (and also reduces acne).
I hope this post makes sense. It's late here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:37 am Post subject: 26 |
|
|
Just had this Clay Bennett editorial cartoon show up on my facebook feed:
It seriously made me go " HOLY SHIT".
It's a little heavier than I wanted my tone to get in this thread, but it is so scathing and succinct and so relevant to the current discussion that I wanted to share it.
fake-edit: I just previewed my post and went again. Hot damn that is cold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
referee
June 21st, 2004 Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:04 am Post subject: 27 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| If a foetus is a fully recognised human, then shouldn't the location of conception be the deciding factor? |
Key word: If. I don't think a fetus should be considered a person until like the third trimestre. Doesn't have a brain before that, therefore, not alive. Therefore, can't be murdered. _________________ Jan 21st, 2008: The pillaging continues.
Mar 4th, 2008: Rest in Peace, Gary Gygax. May your dice always roll a natural 20 wherever you are.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:12 am Post subject: 28 |
|
|
| referee wrote: |
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| If a foetus is a fully recognised human, then shouldn't the location of conception be the deciding factor? |
Key word: If. I don't think a fetus should be considered a person until like the third trimestre. Doesn't have a brain before that, therefore, not alive. Therefore, can't be murdered. |
I'm hoping for a response from a pro-life Republican.
I find it an interesting juxtaposition that the party that thinks a clump of cells is sacred also believes in condemning real people (who happen to be illegal immigrants or born into poverty) to a life of hardship.
Don't people who are born also deserve a right to live? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
referee
June 21st, 2004 Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:34 pm Post subject: 29 |
|
|
Ah, I understand now. Never mind, then. That's a good question. _________________ Jan 21st, 2008: The pillaging continues.
Mar 4th, 2008: Rest in Peace, Gary Gygax. May your dice always roll a natural 20 wherever you are.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DejMar
(Possibly a robot)
|
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:02 pm Post subject: 30 |
|
|
| referee wrote: |
Jack_Ian wrote:
If a foetus is a fully recognised human, then shouldn't the location of conception be the deciding factor?
Key word: If. I don't think a fetus should be considered a person until like the third trimestre. Doesn't have a brain before that, therefore, not alive. Therefore, can't be murdered. |
The information referee provided didn't seem correct, so I looked it up.
The foetus' nervous system begins to noticeably develop around the fifth week, and the brain is developed (not fully, of course, referee is proof of that) BEFORE the end of the FIRST trimester. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DejMar
(Possibly a robot)
|
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:28 pm Post subject: 31 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| UM, there is an entire societal system working against women having the same freedoms and opportunities as men. Republican legislators have been trying to move backward in the area of women's rights. That is not 'conservative', that is actively regressive. I understand that it is offensive to you to have it suggested that you hate women (I'm guessing in a general "Republicans hate women" sort of way?) but it is probably offensive to many women that you are supporting a party that believes it should have a say over what individual women do with their bodies. I, personally, would be offended if you told me that you knew what better than I did what was "right" for me to do with my body and actively worked to remove my freedom to do otherwise. And if you succeeded, as the Republicans have been succeeding, I would wonder what I did to make you hate me so much, or at least to make you view me with such contempt. |
It seems this false belief is constantly being preached. I have observed and experienced the opposite. That in many areas of employment women, not men, are granted the freedoms and opportunities and men are denied them. I am not claiming that this is a general fact, as I won't deny the possibility that in certain areas the opposite is true. Yet, as a blanket statement that women are not given the same rights and opportunities as men, it is false.
It is also false to claim that the Republican party hates women. I will also be okay in offending you in telling you that you do not have either the "right" or "freedom" to do whatever with your body. Many people are given the false notion of what are rights and what are freedoms. It is more correct to say you have "legal rights" and "freedoms permitted through law". Yet, laws are not always right, nor do they always provide for our freedoms. As to what is right, only God is. As to freedom, no law or absence of law can provide.
Is it murder to intentionally kill an unborn child? The answer is yes. Is the it wrong to create laws to protech the unborn? No. Just because an unborn have not achieved a "legal" status in someone's eyes, does not mean they do not have a right to life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:36 pm Post subject: 32 |
|
|
As a republican/conservative I would rather have abortions performed in a clinic by a licensed professional than in a back alley with a wire hanger. (Though I do believe minors should be required to have parental consent - they are required to for everything else, this is no different.) _________________ * These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:00 pm Post subject: 33 |
|
|
| DejMar wrote: |
| It is also false to claim that the Republican party hates women. |
I'm sure the Republican party is quite fond of what they think the Platonic ideal of a woman is (the Republican party in practice has a much less restrictive view on the expected role of a man); but "The Republican party hates any woman who dares to disagree with its idealized view of a woman" isn't quite as snappy.
Last edited by Thok on Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
WomenRule*
Guest
|
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:05 pm Post subject: 34 |
|
|
| DejMar wrote: |
It seems this false belief is constantly being preached. I have observed and experienced the opposite. That in many areas of employment women, not men, are granted the freedoms and opportunities and men are denied them. |
Then what are your comments on unequal pay? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:33 pm Post subject: 35 |
|
|
If we show stats where women are treated favorably compared to men, will that nullify your argument? Like, oh, deadbeat parents?
Que inevitable bitching about the source while ignoring the content
Or all the scholarship programs designed for women?
How about Selective Service, which only men have to sign up for under penalty of up to a $250,000 fine and five years in prison? _________________ * These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DejMar
(Possibly a robot)
|
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:33 pm Post subject: 36 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
If we show stats where women are treated favorably compared to men, will that nullify your argument? Like, oh, deadbeat parents?
Que inevitable bitching about the source while ignoring the content
Or all the scholarship programs designed for women?
How about Selective Service, which only men have to sign up for under penalty of up to a $250,000 fine and five years in prison? |
None of these support your point.
First, about deadbeat parents. Discard all candidates where the parent/former-parent has separated or been separted from the other. Including such would cloud the statistics as they do not truly demostrate if the parent is a deadbeat or not. Discard all candidates where the parent is unfortunately diseased by drugs or alcohol. Society itself is the deadbeat there. Discard all candidates where they were raised with the immorals of libertarians. Again, society is to blame, and thus does not provide any statistical proof of a deadbeat.
As to scholarship programs, except for some of the entertainment supported sports programs like football, how are they directed toward men? Are you voicing an objection to football, in general?
Selective Service. Yes, why is it only men have to sign-up? Are women being treated more favorably?.
These are not exactly issues regarding how women are treated favorably or not, as each are debatable. I can see arguments where women are seen to be treated more favorably than men. I can see the opposite as true, as well. Men and Women are different. I don't think statitics will prove otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:02 pm Post subject: 37 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
| How about Selective Service, which only men have to sign up for under penalty of up to a $250,000 fine and five years in prison? |
If there was a draft in the last 30 years, you'd might have a point. And it would be cancelled out by the relative lack of opportunities for women in the military: the reason Selective Service is limited to men is because significant portion of the country is unwilling to let women risk their lives in front-line combat, which limits potential military roles for women.
(Also, the government has only indicted 20 people for failure to register, of which 19 were people who basically asked to be indicted for protest Selective Service.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:46 pm Post subject: 38 |
|
|
| DejMar wrote: |
| It seems this false belief is constantly being preached. |
Hi DejMar. I've gotta tell you, I feel like such an idiot right now. I didn't realise that what the evil feminists were telling me was false. Thanks for citing some studies that showed those nutbags the tr
| Quote: |
| I have observed and experienced the opposite. |
Ah.
Given that you are intelligent enough to have signed up for the Grey Labyrinth, I assume that you are familiar with concepts like self-serving and confirmation bias. Might I suggest that you could potentially be suffering from those a little bit here? Sometimes it is hard to see the inherent privileges to which one is subject, especially when historically and socially underprivileged people are being given visible, substantial benefits in an effort to counteract the inherent societal privilege in play - such as female-specific scholarships, or, for that matter, scholarships for people of particular ethnicities or people of a particular social background.
Please tell me if you think I am being dismissive of your experiences - I do not want to come across that way (I like to argue, and I do so passionately and scare people off sometimes). However, the implication of your post is that your experience and your observations invalidate the experiences and observations of women everywhere. That attitude is probably going to hurt your case going into an argument about feminism.
| Quote: |
| That in many areas of employment women, not men, are granted the freedoms and opportunities and men are denied them. I am not claiming that this is a general fact, as I won't deny the possibility that in certain areas the opposite is true. Yet, as a blanket statement that women are not given the same rights and opportunities as men, it is false. |
I am not really sure what you are claiming here. The last sentence is clear, but you've left me with no idea how you got to it. Could you either clarify or cite examples of what you are talking about? For instance, the pay gap, the difference in male and female representation and pay at executive levels, and the higher likelihood of a man to be hired for a job than a woman with identical experience, education, and qualifications are all things I was pretty sure were widely known. In what cases are men denied access to opportunities that women do have?
| Quote: |
| It is also false to claim that the Republican party hates women. I will also be okay in offending you in telling you that you do not have either the "right" or "freedom" to do whatever with your body. [word salad snipped] |
Why? What is it that makes you think that you know better than I do what is good or right for me to do? I am a Christian too, trying to live a life that reflects that. I have been successfully not having abortions for my entire life without you telling me to not have abortions. Why do you get a say over my body and my actions? Aren't you removing some of my agency to live a Christlike life as I see fit? Do you believe that all people should be coerced to obey the will of the religious majority in a country, or just your religious will in your country?
Do you feel that unhygienic, back-alley abortions are an acceptable alternative to legalising? Because that is unmistakably what will happen. Does your endorsement of imposing laws that lead to endangerment of the life of the mother make you a moral paragon somehow?
| Quote: |
| Is it murder to intentionally kill an unborn child? The answer is yes. |
[citation needed]
| Quote: |
| Is the it wrong to create laws to protech the unborn? No. Just because an unborn have not achieved a "legal" status in someone's eyes, does not mean they do not have a right to life. |
Do you support mandating contraceptive coverage under all health insurance programs in the USA?
Here is a list on male privilege, so you know where I am coming from when I say that men have societal advantages. I don't deny that women sometimes receive legal allowances to try to counteract some of this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:15 am Post subject: 39 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
| How about Selective Service, which only men have to sign up for under penalty of up to a $250,000 fine and five years in prison? |
For me, this is a feminist issue as well. The patriarchal structure of society doesn't just tell women that they have to be demure and submissive and that men should be in charge, etc, it also tells men that they have to be 'brave' and stoic and unemotional and aggressive, and then things like this happen where women who want to serve in combat aren't allowed*, and men who don't want to are forced against their will, due to the imposed gender roles placed on them by society.
The deadbeat parenting thing is the same. Because women are forced into a parenting role by the greater community, fathers can and do get screwed by societal biases of how men and women should be.
I find that we're in a surprising amount of agreement in this thread in general, DM. =) Usually the patriarchy works in mens' favour - but not always.
I appreciate your having posted. I'm super pleased to have the opportunity to bring up that feminism isn't just a bunch of women complaining about how hard they have it, but a struggle against a societal system that affects everyone.
*is this correct? I feel like there was discussion about it in the US recently and they said no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:25 am Post subject: 40 |
|
|
Sorry for the triple post, but after I wrote the last one I went back to read the thread from the start, and it occurred to me that Romney quipping about:
might not have gone down so well with the Reagan-loving base.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|