Feminism?

[Johnnypenso]

Which really just proves my point - when you see progressives, you see the enemy. You consciously disregard the merits of whatever point is being argued because you're allowing yourself to be blinded by the assumption that progressives are trying to inflict their view of the world on you.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. In a not so subtle way you are demonizing me because I disagree with you. I couldn't possibly have just considered your positions and disagreed with them. No! I'm not that smart I consciously disregard the merits of the point being argued because I'm blinded...blah blah blah.

Like I said, many so called progressives think they have the one and only answer and if you disagree with them it can't simply be because you have thought about their position and don't agree with it and choose to have an alternate viewpoint. No, there must be some other nefarious force at work that prevents you from seeing the light. Maybe you're racist, maybe you're a xenophobe, maybe you're a homophobe, or, like me, maybe you're willfully ignorant.

What's with the ad hominems lately?

Ad hominems you say?

Careful, your persecution complex is showing...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

In a not so subtle way you are demonizing me because I disagree with you. I couldn't possibly have just considered your positions and disagreed with them. No! I'm not that smart

If that's what you want to read into it, then that's what you want to read into it. But I think it says more about your character then mine, since I never implied that you were stupid - but it's the first place you went.

 

[squadops]

I thought you implied everyone was stupid because you are an english teacher and such

 

[Johnnypenso]

If that's what you want to read into it, then that's what you want to read into it. But I think it says more about your character then mine, since I never implied that you were stupid - but it's the first place you went.

You said I willfully disregard the merits of whatever point is being argued. How many smart people do you know that willfully disregard the merits of an argument? Of course, it's all about my character now. Again, same thing and back to my original point. Some so called progressives like to label and demonize those that disagree with them.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Some so called progressives like to label and demonize those that disagree with them.

And it's this point, it's fairly obvious that the only way for progressives to win your respect is to immediately, unquestioningly and unequivocally accept your ideas as being the most productive and valid. To do so otherwise is to "label and demonise them".

 

[squadops]

And it's this point, it's fairly obvious that the only way for progressives to win your respect is to immediately, unquestioningly and unequivocally accept your ideas as being the most productive and valid. To do so otherwise is to "label and demonise them".

I don't think that is true, I'll speak for myself however and not for Johnny. The idea of needing laws to correct past mistakes is not something I favor, neither are laws designed to prevent crimes before they happen, and most of all, laws designed to protect me from myself are just plain stupid.

I believe all of those are championed by progressives and they stink. You asked me about taking away freedom? Well there you go.

 

[Dotini]

I don't think that is true, I'll speak for myself however and not for Johnny. The idea of needing laws to correct past mistakes is not something I favor, neither are laws designed to prevent crimes before they happen, and most of all, laws designed to protect me from myself are just plain stupid.

I believe all of those are championed by progressives and they stink. You asked me about taking away freedom? Well there you go.

Clearly contrasting the libertarian mind with the progressive mind.

The scary thought is that progressives (liberals) believe that although they may occasionally be wrong, their wrongs are justified because their motives are to "do good" and better society. Mistakes by conservatives and libertarians can never be so justified, as their motives are merely to maintain or restore what is best and truest of the past.

 

[Danoff]

Clearly contrasting the libertarian mind with the progressive mind.

The scary thought is that progressives (liberals) believe that although they may occasionally be wrong, their wrongs are justified because their motives are to "do good" and better society. Mistakes by conservatives and liberals can never be so justified, as their motives are merely to maintain or restore what is best and truest of the past.

The ends never justify the means. The beginning justifies the means.

 

[Dotini]

The ends never justify the means. The beginning justifies the means.

Please see my revision to post #307.

 

[squadops]

Please see my revision to post #307.

I read it the right way even though you had a small error 👍

 

[20832]

And it's this point, it's fairly obvious that the only way for progressives to win your respect is to immediately, unquestioningly and unequivocally accept your ideas as being the most productive and valid. To do so otherwise is to "label and demonise them".

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the progressives doing the exact same thing? Thinking their ideas are the most valid and the "only" way to do it? And if you don't agree with their ideas you're labeling them, not taking them serious? Some of them are even then taking it further and label people that oppose their ideas.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the progressives doing the exact same thing?

Some are, but it's no more useful to generalise about them than it is about "conservatives".

Real progress is made by looking at the past, present and future and trying to decide if there's a better way that brings genuine benefits. By definition that makes the relevant actor a progressive but that's as general as you can get.

 

[20832]

Some are, but it's no more useful to generalise about them than it is about "conservatives".

Real progress is made by looking at the past, present and future and trying to decide if there's a better way that brings genuine benefits. By definition that makes the relevant actor a progressive but that's as general as you can get.

Yeah, I can certainly see your point in saying I generalized a little too much, or rather reduced it to the "tumblr crowd".

 

[squadops]

Real progress is made by looking at the past, present and future and trying to decide if there's a better way that brings genuine benefits.

If by writing a bunch of new laws you mean, then that would be progressive, an approach that doesn't amount to much.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And it's this point, it's fairly obvious that the only way for progressives to win your respect is to immediately, unquestioningly and unequivocally accept your ideas as being the most productive and valid. To do so otherwise is to "label and demonise them".

Yup, that's exactly what I said.

/s

 

[Biggles]

Progressives, by definition, believe in the possibility of continuing progress: "looking at the past, present and future and trying to decide if there's a better way that brings genuine benefits".

Conservatives, by definition, believe that the traditional ways of doing things are inherently better & considering new ways of doing things is "an approach that doesn't amount to much".

Constitutional conservatives believe there was a special moment in time ca 1776 when the perfect degree of progress was realized & any subsequent progress is undesirable.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Progressives, by definition, believe in the possibility of continuing progress: "looking at the past, present and future and trying to decide if there's a better way that brings genuine benefits".

Conservatives, by definition, believe that the traditional ways of doing things are inherently better & considering new ways of doing things is "an approach that doesn't amount to much".

Constitutional conservatives believe there was a special moment in time ca 1776 when the perfect degree of progress was realized & any subsequent progress is undesirable.

I don't know of a single person in my life that conforms to a simple definition of their beliefs. In my experience, neither so called progressives, conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Neocons or anyone else strictly conforms to any single definition. People tend to be a mixture of a wide variety of values and philosophies depending on the issue at hand.

 

[squadops]

@Biggles Well what I said was writing a bunch of laws doesn't amount to much, so there is that. How many laws do we need?

 

[TenEightyOne]

If by writing a bunch of new laws you mean, then that would be progressive, an approach that doesn't amount to much.

So all judges are progressives?

 

[squadops]

So all judges are progressives?

Judges are not supposed to write law, that would be up to the congress.(in the u.s.)

 

[TenEightyOne]

Judges are not supposed to write law, that would be up to the congress.(in the u.s.)

As far as adding to the statute goes, yes, but case law is handed down by judges. So are the judges who are employed in handing down case law progressives?

 

[squadops]

As far as adding to the statute goes, yes, but case law is handed down by judges. So are the judges who are employed in handing down case law progressives?

It's one of the worst misuses of our government yes. They do their best to bypass our checks and balances. Are they progressive? some of them are. Look at all the stink over the supreme court of late...

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's one of the worst misuses of our government yes.

Judicial review and the right to a fair trial is a misuse of government?

They do their best to bypass our checks and balances.

So who provides the checks and balances otherwise?

Are they progressive? some of them are. Look at all the stink over the supreme court of late...

That's interesting, by your definition they should all be progressives, no?

 

[squadops]

You are being silly, here read this.
http://www.constitution.org/abus/discretion/judicial/judicial_discretion.htm

You are always seeming to take what someone says and pretend they said the exact opposite for some reason, I'm not sure why but we only need to look back at the immigration thread to see it clearly.

If you don't know what our check and balance system is all about I'm not going to help you, we have a sound government in theory if it was only followed.

Not all judges are progressive, I clearly stated that already. Are you simply trolling? I have to ask at this point.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You are being silly, here read this.
http://www.constitution.org/abus/discretion/judicial/judicial_discretion.htm

You are always seeming to take what someone says and pretend they said the exact opposite for some reason, I'm not sure why but we only need to look back at the immigration thread to see it clearly.

My own view differs; I find it hard to see the point you're making sometimes. Those are the occasions when I question you on your point.

In terms of judicial review I believe that every time a law is framed, interpreted or clarified that progress has literally been made. It's interesting that your link calls for more laws to further frame judicial discretion. Anyway, we've wandered way off-topic in some senses.

In other news; an interesting short entitled "Why Feminism is still relevant and very much needed today".

 

[squadops]

I think you posted too soon to even have read the article I posted for you.

In any event I'm not calling for more laws period, as you know. And I'm further stating that law should not be written from the bench as that goes against our constitution.

Feminism is only needed for those with an axe to grind imo, women have all the true power of the world already(childbirth, rearing and such) and if they don't choose that route our equality in the workplace needs a bit of work but that can be said for anyone, not just ladies.

I am very much against laws written specifically for one group rather than the whole, it just makes sense to me.

.....

Just some random thoughts 👍

On this forum in general it's quite common for someone to take a post the wrong way or purposely twist it in order to find a reason to pick a fight, it's quite sad tbh. I say what I mean, I back it up and I always let everyone know what I consider opinion for myself or a matter of fact due to you know, facts. Why things seem to need ugliness is beyond me.

I'm not the enemy, I might be a devil but I'm not the enemy.

My mother taught me very well to respect and love not only women but all people equally, she did that for me and I thank her everyday for it. Guess what? My religion also dictates that, ooooh noooos.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think you posted too soon to even have read the article I posted for you.

I double-checked, I could only find about 2.5k words in there. I do read quite quickly but the average human should still manage that quantity in fewer than 6 minutes, plenty of time to post a reply

Feminism is only needed for those with an axe to grind imo, women have all the true power of the world already(childbirth, rearing and such) and if they don't choose that route our equality in the workplace needs a bit of work but that can be said for anyone, not just ladies.

What kinds of axes, would you say?

My mother taught me very well to respect and love not only women but all people equally, she did that for me and I thank her everyday for it. Guess what? My religion also dictates that, ooooh noooos.

I have no problem with your beliefs or how you come by them, in fact I'm not aware of any atheist posters here who are "anti-religion".

Which parts of your religion tell you to to love all people equally? Are there parts which actually discriminate against women and, if so, how did you choose to discard those?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Well, I guess this is as good a place as any for this:

http://screenrant.com/x-men-apocalypse-banner-fox-apology/

McGowan's thoughts on a big, blue, immortal guy strangling a blue shapeshifting woman:

“There is a major problem when the men and women at 20th Century Fox think casual violence against women is the way to market a film. There is no context in the ad, just a woman getting strangled. The fact that no one flagged this is offensive and frankly, stupid. The geniuses behind this, and I use that term lightly, need to to take a long hard look at the mirror and see how they are contributing to society. Imagine if it were a black man being strangled by a white man, or a gay male being strangled by a hetero? The outcry would be enormous. So let’s right this wrong. 20th Century Fox, since you can’t manage to put any women directors on your slate for the next two years, how about you at least replace your ad?”

 

[Danoff]

Well, I guess this is as good a place as any for this:

http://screenrant.com/x-men-apocalypse-banner-fox-apology/

McGowan's thoughts on a big, blue, immortal guy strangling a blue shapeshifting woman:

Imagine the outcry if a woman were strangling a guy... oh wait... there'd be none. So let's move on shall we? Why must everything be about victimhood status.

 

[polysmut]

Imagine the outcry if a woman were strangling a guy... oh wait... there'd be none. So let's move on shall we? Why must everything be about victimhood status.

Yes.
If I saw a trailer where a person was strangling another person, my reaction wouldn't be based on gender, not even a little bit.
Isn't that a success for the idea that one gender shouldn't be suppressed by another?

I haven't seen the trailer in question, I'm just speaking to the principle.