Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[BORK]

Well once you revealed yourself as someone who believes in the 'objective truth' of the old testament, you've essentially eliminated your views from serious consideration. You rely on a book where women had consequences for having periods, slavery was allowed and a being created the world in 7 days. If you believe in the literal truth of this, you are intellectually immature. When you refer to tampon tunnels and utensil carosuels, you are intellectually immature.

Your views will soon be neutralised once the last vestiges of this belief are wiped from serious discussion. It's dying out, those who subscribe to it are dying out. You like to think its a totalitarian threat because of the christian delusion of persecution. I refer to neutralised as natural attrition. Your views are dying out. And the time they finally do cannot come soon enough.

Can you give some more information?


Post the quote?
Post number?

 

[cartwright]

Ni

To tesseract? LOL. Nah. He just reaps what he sows.

 

[CM86]

Oh I see.

I thought that's what Slippery Pete was talking about as well.

Thanks for replying.

 

[BORK]

To tesseract? LOL. Nah. He just reaps what he sows.

The post vilified a wide group of people. It is not about tesseract. interesting it seemed to slip under other people's radars because of who it was directed at rather than the content.

 

[cartwright]

The post vilified a wide group of people. It is not about tesseract. interesting it seemed to slip under other people's radars because of who it was directed at rather than the content.

Tesseract posts on the extremist side. He has reaped what he has sowed, with comments such as women who are raped and do not scream aren't really raped and that the bible doesn't deal with womens "fweeelings".... and the only person who is bringing his religion under such scrutiny is himself with his extremist viewpoints. Take it up with him.

 

[CM86]

The post vilified a wide group of people. It is not about tesseract. interesting it seemed to slip under other people's radars because of who it was directed at rather than the content.

Has there been any other vilification of a wide group of people, in this thread, that you think you might have missed?

 

[BORK]

Has there been any other vilification of a wide group of people, in this thread, that you think you might have missed?

Anything on that level would have already been deleted or called out. I personally prefer that a poster who disgraces themselves like that have their comments remain so the wider community can see them for what they are.

Tesseract posts on the extremist side. He has reaped what he has sowed, with comments such as women who are raped and do not scream aren't really raped and that the bible doesn't deal with womens "fweeelings".... and the only person who is bringing his religion under such scrutiny is himself with his extremist viewpoints. Take it up with him.

Simple. Attack that poster and the content of their post rather than a religion. Interesting but not surprising that some here would see nothing wrong with and even defend that post.

 

[romeohwho]

The post vilified a wide group of people. It is not about tesseract. interesting it seemed to slip under other people's radars because of who it was directed at rather than the content.

Pretty sure referring to 'utensil carousels' and 'tampon tunnels' and so forth, and so forth and... is vilifying a wide group of people.

 

[Chief]

On the previous page there was one of the more aggressive examples of religious bigotry in a personal attack that I have seen on this site without a peep from anyone else about it.

Ignores page after page of horribly sexist opinions, gets upset about someone arcing up over a religious extremist.

Thread delivers

 

[Bardo State]

The post vilified a wide group of people. It is not about tesseract. interesting it seemed to slip under other people's radars because of who it was directed at rather than the content.

He didn't attack a group of people. He attacked a set of ideas.

 

[Qsaint]

He didn't attack a group of people. He attacked a set of ideas.

Debating Marxism v capitalism is attacking ideas, selectively quoting the bible whilst ignoring the context of the bible and its core message to (being polite) to put women in there place is attacking people

 

[Bardo State]

Debating Marxism v capitalism is attacking ideas, selectively quoting the bible whilst ignoring the context of the bible and its core message to (being polite) to put women in there place is attacking people

Whether it suits your position or not, there are many parts of the bible that deny women their agency, treat them as property or are outright misogynistic in other ways. This has obviously manifested itself into the views of various people including the poster in question.

You can be a Christian and not a misogynist. I know plenty. You can't be a Christian, not a misogynist and intellectually honest.

Christians do not oppress women as such. Christianity sure does.

 

[Qsaint]

Whether it suits your position or not, there are many parts of the bible that deny women their agency, treat them as property or are outright misogynistic in other ways. This has obviously manifested itself into the views of various people including the poster in question.

You can be a Christian and not a misogynist. I know plenty. You can't be a Christian, not a misogynist and intellectually honest.

Christians do not oppress women as such. Christianity sure does.

Some Christians and some Christianity, the smug athiest Dawkinest view is hardly any better, especially the intellectually honest jibe.

 

[CM86]

The God Question

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

BORK , before white knighting tesseract , and further feeding his persecution complex, you may wish to acquaint yourself with some of his views. They are representative of the most obscene example of someone using the cover of religion to legitimise hatred and bigotry. Ask him for his views on rape. Ask him if he thinks Obama is an agent of Satan. Ask him if the old testament is to be taken literally.

His views arent representative of a positive faith. They are representative of a paranoid, hateful and bigoted distortion of reality.

 

[tesseract]

Interesting that on last night's Q&A that ethicist Peter Singer and Amanda Vanstone agreed with my view in post #3678 that warning/advising/telling folks not to walk alone at night in risky areas/neighbourhoods doesn't amount to victim blaming. Rather they said it was common sense. Pity some of the feminists/SJWs here don't seem to have common sense, at least in this regard.

 

[ydraw]

Interesting that on last night's Q&A that ethicist Peter Singer and Amanda Vanstone agreed with my view in post #3678 that warning/advising/telling folks not to walk alone at night in risky areas/neighbourhoods doesn't amount to victim blaming. Rather they said it was common sense. Pity some of the feminists/SJWs here don't seem to have common sense, at least in this regard.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that SJW's lack common sense.

 

[Maggie5]

Interesting that on last night's Q&A that ethicist Peter Singer and Amanda Vanstone agreed with my view in post #3678 that warning/advising/telling folks not to walk alone at night in risky areas/neighbourhoods doesn't amount to victim blaming. Rather they said it was common sense. Pity some of the feminists/SJWs here don't seem to have common sense, at least in this regard.

What about walking alone at 2 PM or 6 PM? Should one expect to feel safe?

 

[tesseract]

What about walking alone at 2 PM or 6 PM? Should one expect to feel safe?

It's not a matter of feelings, so your question is irrelevant.

 

[Maggie5]

It's not a matter of feelings, so your question is irrelevant.

Should one expect to be safe at those times?

 

[tesseract]

Should one expect to be safe at those times?

No. "Expect" implies a form of entitlement. Given that one can't control the actions of another in such a situation, safety is hoped for rather than expected.

 

[telsor]

What about walking alone at 2 PM or 6 PM? Should one expect to feel safe?

Should, yes.

But this isn't a perfect world, and advising people on how best to take precautions against those imperfections and thus reduce the risks to themselves is hardly blaming those you're warning.

 

[Maggie5]

Should, yes.

But this isn't a perfect world, and advising people on how best to take precautions against those imperfections and thus reduce the risks to themselves is hardly blaming those you're warning.

So if a female gets off a train at 2 PM and has to walk three streets to her home, what precautions do you suggest she takes?

 

[Maggie5]

No. "Expect" implies a form of entitlement. Given that one can't control the actions of another in such a situation, safety is hoped for rather than expected.

If a female walks home or out to the shop provokes violence in a person, they should be locked up, castrated and the key thrown away.
Sometimes if the action of others can't be controlled then neither can the consequences.

 

[telsor]

So if a female gets off a train at 2 PM and has to walk three streets to her home, what precautions do you suggest she takes?

I'm not saying there are always precautions that can be taken, just that, where possible, it is wise to take what precautions are available.