Feminist Fantasy

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Feminist Fantasy

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:10 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: I definitely wasn't going in the direction you are suggesting and I think that is because you haven't read the thread and seen the direction it has been travelling in. Please at least stop to get the gist of the discussion before taking snippets out of context.
I gave the entire context, actually. Look back, and you'll see. You have the entire paragraph there from which it came. Then you defended it in the next message, saying you didn't think it would even be controversial.

And the veggie guy bought into it too; for just above this message, he wrote:
Not to mention all the kristians murdering muslims and their families in the ME.
So clearly, if I was misled on the point, then so was he. And quite frankly, I don't think you misspoke so badly that anyone misunderstood your intention. But if you did, let's clear it up now: what, exactly, did you mean by that paragraph? Here's your chance to set the record straight.

Nick_A
Posts: 2143
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Feminist Fantasy

Post by Nick_A » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:17 am

I C, I have to give you credit for trying. You won't get anywhere IMO but I admire your effort. These people in the middle of a genocide that interfered with their agenda would condemn people for opposing it if it didn't include opposing killing in China at the same time. Opposing an agenda mind requires an emotional understanding of an agenda or cult mind. Reason opposed to the agenda is wrong by definition so being reasonable is fruitless.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10666
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Feminist Fantasy

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:55 am

You are a hypocrite and have a religious and political agenda to promote which you are doing on this thread. That's why you are getting short-shrift and if you think otherwise then you are deluded. See this 'these people' stuff, the words of the cult speaking.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Feminist Fantasy

Post by FlashDangerpants » Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:49 am

Immanuel Can wrote: I gave the entire context, actually. Look back, and you'll see. You have the entire paragraph there from which it came
Ok, you are obviously going to not read the thread to discover the actual contents of the conversation so I must now recap it for you. no problem...

Nick has a theory, he believes that Sharia Law is a real thing in America. He believes that the state of Michigan is on the brink of enshrining it as a legal code, and he briefly believed that the city of Dearborn Michigan already has. He also believes that American feminists are complicit in the Sharia takeover of the USA. Are you with me so far?

His basic point is an artless little dilemma which he presents in the following form. Either...
A. All the feminists (including presumably the lesbian ones) are silent on the issue of Sharia taking over the USA because they are harbouring fantasies about being brutally raped by arabs or...
B. They are silent about the impending takeover of the USA because they a heartless crones with an "agenda" (something he is convinced he himself lacks) and how could anyone be so cruel?

My response has been that Sharia law is not a real thing in America, that it is contrary to the constitution of that land, and that American feminists are not being especially lenient to this non-threat. I have made the point that feminists object to all household violence of men against women and don't need to make any special deal about whatever subset of that vast quantity of violence which occurs over there is carried out by adherents of any particular religion (I am in Britain, "over there" in context means the USA not Syria - which you would know if you had read this odious thread).

Nick's response to that (in another thread - he blatantly ignored it all the way through this one) is that the US constitution doesn't get applied when it contradicts one of these agendas. I would suggest that this is unlikely to be true in the case of somebody trying to enact an explicitly religious legal code that runs contrary to the body of US law.

I therefore submit that Nick is a moronic conspiracy theorist and his dilemma is false. Nick - as always - is of the opinion that anyone who disagrees with him about anything is one of those "blind deniers". he is blissfully unaware that he has previously given this term a very specific but worthless definition based on being the wrong type of atheist, so how that applies to disagreeing with him on this subject I cannot be bothered to guess.
If you wish to confirm any of these details for yourself, read the thread for the context, not just a single paragraph.

Now Nick thinks you are a fan of his. So you should probably address that problem.

Incidentally, VT seldom misses an opportunity to mention America and Krsitianity in the most pejorative terms available, and seldom goes more than 3 sentences without exercising one of these itches. I don't think VT doing a thing that VT always does should be taken as indicative of what I am doing at any given time.

Nick_A
Posts: 2143
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Feminist Fantasy

Post by Nick_A » Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:25 am

HDP wrote
Nick has a theory, he believes that Sharia Law is a real thing in America. He believes that the state of Michigan is on the brink of enshrining it as a legal code, and he briefly believed that the city of Dearborn Michigan already has. He also believes that American feminists are complicit in the Sharia takeover of the USA. Are you with me so far?
This just silly. Sharia is practiced in America within households. Who will oppose it? Illegals are crossing American borders at will. Forget about U.S. Law. Women are afraid and know it won't protect them. Dearborn Michigan has already looked the other way on unconstitutional attacks on Christians promoting their freedom of religion. Michigan is not on the verge of a takeover. There will be more instances of abuse simply because of the greater Arab population. It isn’t that American feminists are part of an imagined takeover. They are denying through their silence the reality of abuse of women by Sharia law. These American feminists are speaking strongly about women’s rights but are silent on the abuse of women by Sharia in American households. This is blatant selective hypocrisy. Why?
His basic point is an artless little dilemma which he presents in the following form. Either...
A. All the feminists (including presumably the lesbian ones) are silent on the issue of Sharia taking over the USA because they are harbouring fantasies about being brutally raped by arabs or...
We know that rape fantasies exist and may be one reason for closing their eyes to obvious abuse
B. They are silent about the impending takeover of the USA because they a heartless crones with an "agenda" (something he is convinced he himself lacks) and how could anyone be so cruel?
If you wrote: B. They are silent about the abuse of women by Sharia in the USA because they a heartless crones with an "agenda" (something he is convinced he himself lacks) and how could anyone be so cruel? It would be closer to the truth

The sad fact remains: The abuse of women in America by Sharia law is condoned by feminists through their silence just as they are loudly condemning the abuse of women by others in America. A very inconvenient truth and an expression of ugly hypocrisy.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Feminist Fantasy

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:33 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:Now Nick thinks you are a fan of his. So you should probably address that problem.
Not my problem, really.
Incidentally, VT seldom misses an opportunity to mention America and Krsitianity in the most pejorative terms available, and seldom goes more than 3 sentences without exercising one of these itches. I don't think VT doing a thing that VT always does should be taken as indicative of what I am doing at any given time.
No, you're right...he's got an adolescent conversational style, for sure. And he's a bigot. He's proud of announcing it, it seems. You're not in his category, and I'm not implying you are.

Still, it was a strange claim for you to have made. Christians do not kill their children. If anyone who calls themselves a "Christian" ever does, you can plainly see that person has not done so as a Christian, for Christianity gives absolutely no warrant for that, and in fact affirms the sacredness of life. However, for Muslims, what you say is true: they kill with impunity, and even their own children. I could name you three highly-public cases in short order.

I don't mind you taking objection with Christians for something they do. Accuse them as you wish, if you can find the evidence to back your case. And we'll talk about it. But we don't need to make up things they don't do...especially things like that, and especially when they are being kidnapped, raped and massacred for their faith.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Feminist Fantasy

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:37 am

Immanuel Can wrote: No, you're right...he's got an adolescent conversational style, for sure. And he's a bigot. He's proud of announcing it, it seems. You're not in his category, and I'm not implying you are.
I should hope not. He's a snake. And I don't say anything that isn't true. The truth can't be 'bigoted'. You still haven't answered any questions put to you.

And I'm hardly the only one who can see that the US is destroying the world, even American intellectuals can see it.

http://blog.milesfranklin.com/how-ameri ... n-a-decade

http://www.alternet.org/world/10-things ... ning-world

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/10 ... g-roberts/

America sets itself up as that moral standard-bearer for the planet, and taken the role of 'planetary policman'. I'm sure it's 'big and tough' enough to take criticism, and accept that much of the rest of the world doesn't think the same way but feels only disgust at the blatant hypocrisy and double-standards.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Feminist Fantasy

Post by FlashDangerpants » Thu Jun 30, 2016 8:18 am

Immanuel Can wrote: Still, it was a strange claim for you to have made. Christians do not kill their children. If anyone who calls themselves a "Christian" ever does, you can plainly see that person has not done so as a Christian
Does everybody who does any unchristian thing stop being a Christian for the duration of that thing or forever?
Are there any Christians left in the world at all?

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Feminist Fantasy

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Thu Jun 30, 2016 8:24 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote: Still, it was a strange claim for you to have made. Christians do not kill their children. If anyone who calls themselves a "Christian" ever does, you can plainly see that person has not done so as a Christian
Does everybody who does any unchristian thing stop being a Christian for the duration of that thing or forever?
Are there any Christians left in the world at all?
It's just the old 'no real Scotsman' story. Kristians are idiots. They are always saying 'oh, those people aren't REAL kristians'. I've never seen a kristian yet who's actually a christian. Christianity has been violent, bloody, and controlling for as long as it's existed.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Feminist Fantasy

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:05 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:Does everybody who does any unchristian thing stop being a Christian for the duration of that thing or forever?
Are there any Christians left in the world at all?
There's a difference between claiming a title and performing the role required of one by virtue of the title. This is common knowledge. If a Prime Minister embezzles, he was acting as an embezzler -- not as a Prime Minister -- for his job mandates he does not do that. He may remain possessed of the title (for a time, at least, before he's impeached) but we can safely say "He has not acted as a Prime Minister." There's nothing odd about such a determination.

Judge a belief system based on what those who follow it do; don't judge it base on what those who disobey it do. That's only fair.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Feminist Fantasy

Post by FlashDangerpants » Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:19 am

Fine. This is a throwaway for atheist little me. Where I used the term "Christian" let's assume I meant people who call themselves believers, and go to church and believe in Jesus, and baptise their children, and think praying and stuff will save their souls. But without assuming that I refer specifically to whichever are the few people who meet your entry requirements.

It isn't relevant to my actual point which was that murdered wives are equally tragic and equally mourned by feminists as well as everyone else irrespective of the professed faith of their murderers. I really couldn't care less whether those murderers qualify or not for derisive #YouAintNoChristianBruv or #YouAintNoMuslimBruv hashtags.

Nick_A
Posts: 2143
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Feminist Fantasy

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:05 am

Some here remind me of this well known encounter between the two talented Simones:
Simone Weil's fellow student, the feminist writer Simone de Beauvoir, wrote of Weil in her book Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter:

She intrigued me because of her great reputation for intelligence and her bizarre get-up; "A great famine had broken out in China, and I was told that when she heard the news she had wept: these tears compelled my respect much more than her gifts as a philosopher. I envied her having a heart that could beat right across the world. I managed to get near her one day. I don't know how the conversation got started; she declared in no uncertain tones that only one thing mattered in the world: the revolution which would feed all the starving people of the earth. I retorted, no less peremptorily, that the problem was not to make men happy, but to find the reason for their existence. She looked me up and down: 'It's easy to see you've never been hungry,' she snapped.
For some reason I become aware of obvious abuse of women by Sharia which is ignored by feminists loudly proclaiming women's rights. Some how I'm wrong for pointing out the hypocrisy and not referring to a list of other problems.

Simone de Beauvoir tried to pull the same nonsense with Simone Weil but Simone Weil retorted that maybe she was too fat to feel for starving people. A lot of truth to that. First things first

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Feminist Fantasy

Post by FlashDangerpants » Fri Jul 01, 2016 8:28 am

Nick_A wrote:For some reason I become aware of obvious abuse of women by Sharia ...
Nick_A wrote:Sharia is big in Michigan so if it hasn't acquired government power from Sharia supporters being voted in, it will probably happen soon. Majority rules and women will suffer.
That is you becoming aware of American Sharia in the same way Bob became aware that he is god's messenger on Earth.
And with the same degree of sanity.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Feminist Fantasy

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:00 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:Fine. This is a throwaway for atheist little me.
Well, maybe you should ask yourself if it should be. Why would someone who was a confident Atheist be afraid of a little knowledge about a belief system he assumes is purely imaginary? That is, unless he suspects in his darkest (or better, "lightest" :D ) moments that it may actually have some kind of power... :shock:
Where I used the term "Christian" let's assume I meant people who call themselves believers, and go to church and believe in Jesus, and baptise their children, and think praying and stuff will save their souls.
I'm not sure what group this describes, actually. Maybe Catholics? I'll let them say.
But without assuming that I refer specifically to whichever are the few people who meet your entry requirements.
So...wait a minute...you're saying you don't know what I believe, but whatever I believe, you want to say bad things about those horrible people? :lol:
murdered wives are equally tragic and equally mourned by feminists as well as everyone else irrespective of the professed faith of their murderers.
You're missing the point. You've been caught for alleging falsehoods about Christians being implicated in murdering their wives. But then you had nothing at all by way of evidence. You assumed it. Why you assumed, it...well, anyone can guess that...

That's the point. You slandered a whole group of victims. So whomever mourns the Christians slaughtered in Syria, or the "dhimmies" all over the Muslim world who find their wives and daughters routinely kidnapped and raped in the name of Allah, it clearly isn't you. Wherever your compassion and humanity may flow, it seems you can turn it off like a tap when it comes to Christian women.

If that thought isn't troubling to you, maybe it should be.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Feminist Fantasy

Post by FlashDangerpants » Fri Jul 01, 2016 7:16 pm

No, you are misrepresenting me in every way you can think of. When I use the term christian to describe a person I am doing so in the standard way.

If I say a policeman beats a suspect to death, I would say the suspect was beaten to death by a policeman. I wouldn't say, he beat a person to death, therefore he is no policeman. I call the object a policeman if it wears the hat and carries the badge and arrests criminals etc.

Likewise, if I say a christian beat his wife to death, I am referring to a person who describes themselves as a christian and who does things that christians do, which I imagine includes praying and so on.

When I say a muslim beat his wife to death, I am using these phrases in the same way I am for those other two categories.

I am not playing silly word games, I am just using common words to describe common objects in a perfectly common way.

The act of beating your wife to death is very bad. I don't consider any motive sufficient to justify it, by any person, in any part of the world. If you think you have made an argument which represents me not holding that view, you have got it wrong and ought to retrace your steps in search of your error.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests