(May 2, 2013 at 11:59 am)Darkstar Wrote: Just like there are no racists because it is illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of ethnicity. Oh...wait
Hey there,
Sorry for the delay getting back to you.
In your post above you are confusing attitudes with actual practice.
We as citizens can only influence our Governments as regards laws, not what people think.
Negative discrimination in practice is manifested by one person or group be treated differently account of their identity. For example:
- a law prohibiting black people using a bus service
- a company which paid women less than men for doing the same job
- a convention which prevented Catholics joining a trade union
These are all examples of negative discrimination. Governments can prevent this kind of discrimination via law. Western governments have completed this process to a very comprehensive extent.
Racist attitudes are different. They are to do with thought, not practice. (Law prevents racist thought becoming practice).
There is no doubt that racist thoughts are wrong and unacceptable, but no Government can reliably police the thoughts of its citizens.
The policing of thought should naturally be abhorrent to any free thinker, given it strips personal sovereignty from the individual.
Governments can try to educate citizens, yes, but as the existing list of racist groups you mention shows, this is only of limited effectiveness as people can choose not to engage with the attempt.
In Western societies today, there is no discrimination against women.
It is illegal to refuse them jobs because they are women, it is illegal to pay them less wages because they are women. It is wrong to prevent them having the same opportunities and rights as men - eg to vote, or drive a car.
In Western societies today, in law, men and women are treated exactly equally and no tangible negative discrimination exists against women whatsoever.
(May 2, 2013 at 12:38 pm)Shell B Wrote: against women, just not so much in the lives of these nutty feminists.
Hi Shell B,
So (above) you admit these are attention seekers, more than anything?
(May 2, 2013 at 12:38 pm)Shell B Wrote: Go to the Middle East for a bit.
Oh, how desperate is that?
For starters, who are you to say how middle easterners should live their lives?
If the women there do not like their lot, would they not change it (as women did in previous generations in the west)?
Are they not working to change it right now? (they are).
Do you think middle eastern women are less powerful or intelligent then western women?
Arrogantly selecting aspects of other cultures to use as a platform for attention is what most feminists seem to be about nowadays.
Its like me saying I don't like the fact there is ice in Iceland and then "look at me, look at me, I don't like the ice in Iceland".
By western standards, yes, women in middle eastern countries have a poor lot. But then, so do the poor, so do non-muslims, so do foreigners............in act, if you are anyone other than the favoured son of the ruling dynasty, you are likely to have problems.
Wouldn't it be much better if we confronted (eg) human rights abused collectively, as opposed to in a cluster of self-interested groups?
Quote:That is called a generalization or a blanket statement.
Yes indeed and I stand by it
(May 2, 2013 at 12:38 pm)Shell B Wrote: Here's another example: Catholics, such as yourself, do nothing but fuck small children and enable other Catholics to do the same. Shame on you, rapist.
You could at least make your efforts at being offensive accurate, you are more likely to have success that way.
The Catholic abuse scandals concerned not "small children", but mainly, (80-90% depending on region), sexually mature teenage boys, up to the age of 17.
This is clearly spelled out in the John Jay Report, and others. (Read it, if you don't believe me). Heres what the John Jay report found:
Gender of victims: 81% male (a very clear bias towards males, which is indicative).
Age range of victims: 22% younger than 10, 51% aged 11 - 14, 27% aged 15 - 17.
There was a clear preference for young, sexually mature males.
I.e. the majority of the Catholic abuse scandal was caused by predatory homosexual men who could not keep their hands off younger men who trusted them, or whom they had power / authority over.
Such men are well know in the wider gay community and have long been celebrated as "chicken hawks".
"
A chickenhawk or chicken hawk is slang used in American and British gay culture to denote older males who prefer younger males for partners"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(gay_slang)
(proper refs within article).
These men were ephebophiles, (attraction to teenagers, usually boys) not paedophiles (attraction to children). The media tend to use these terms interchangeably to confuse and deceive the generally ignorant public.
The Vatican was criticised for trying to "blame the gays" for the abuse, but that's clearly what the data demonstrates.
So, get your abuse right next time and I might deign to be offended.
Though I am sure our interactions would be far more mutually satisfying if you could construct logical, mature arguments to confront me with, instead of resorting to inaccurate name calling (just sayin).
Good day to you
