| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Ivan_Melgar_M 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
 Posted: July 17 2010 at 23:26 |
 Epignosis wrote:
Not this weekend T.  
Funny how we have such different "worldviews" (T, the Bald madams, me), and yet we're agreeing on something this fundamental! 
Kinda cool. 
|
You know what's amazing Epignosis?
That we religious people are called intolerant. 
Iván
|
|
|
 |
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: July 17 2010 at 23:27 |
|
I'm not going to make any personal attacks, but I have a hard time believing that anyone could hold the views Sean is professing. I am in total agreement with the Bald Angels, Rob, Ivan and T (which is extremely rare.) Sean seems to think that dominant and submissive personality traits are only found in BDSM communities or something like that. There are natural leaders and there are natural followers. Just watch an episode of Survivor and it's plain as day. This does not mean that the followers are stupid, or lazy, or brainwashed, or traumatized. It's just the way we are as human beings, and it's what makes societies work. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
Edited by thellama73 - July 17 2010 at 23:27
|
|
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: July 17 2010 at 23:27 |
Sean, are you capable of having a civil conversation with people about anything?
I'll admit the full burqas make me uncomfortable, going to England was weird because I'd only ever seen one person in real life before with the full veil, but there are quite a few of them around England. And I certainly harbor what some people would consider prejudices against Islam, in that I don't think Islam is essentially the same as Christianity or Judaism, but I think banning them is stupid. However, without the ban, places like banks usually don't let you cover your face in any way, do they just refuse service to them? Do women who wear full veils not go to the bank on their own?
Edited by Henry Plainview - July 17 2010 at 23:28
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: July 17 2010 at 23:45 |
Oi......so anything involving religion in the slightest way is apparently a button for chaos  One of the few times I'm actually a bit shocked at something said on here,  Is this debate going on for the sake of it? Why should burqa's be banned? May sound funny coming from me but talk about infringement on rights. Yeah, the idea of wearing a burqa is a unsettling for me, but a ban on it? It just seems ridiculous. To Quote God...er President Obama the West needs "to avoid dictating what clothes a Muslim women should wear" and it involves hostility towards Muslims "the pretense of Liberalism" I think that has a stubtle, maybe not, attack saying Liberalism is being used to discriminate against Muslisms. I do know several European countries, France being one of the biggest...see to have issues with their Muslim minorities. Eh, why do I ramble so much? No one should be forced to wear it, and no one can be forced not to...
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: July 17 2010 at 23:50 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
Sean, are you capable of having a civil conversation with people about anything?
I'll admit the full burqas make me uncomfortable, going to England was weird because I'd only ever seen one person in real life before with the full veil, but there are quite a few of them around England. And I certainly harbor what some people would consider prejudices against Islam, in that I don't think Islam is essentially the same as Christianity or Judaism, but I think banning them is stupid. However, without the ban, places like banks usually don't let you cover your face in any way, do they just refuse service to them? Do women who wear full veils not go to the bank on their own? |
I believe they use a card and go to an automatic cashier.
But that's a diferent issue Henry, a bank or an airport would probably not accept a burqa, but neither a guy with a black helmet or a sky mask, so that's not discrimination, it works for everybody.
Iván
|
|
|
|
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Posted: July 18 2010 at 00:35 |
Honestly, at this point, I think Sean is just trolling. I know no one who could make that much of an idiot of himself and still be sincere. Oh wait, this is the internet. I forgot. My bad. But seriously, you should be ashamed of your behavior. People who behave like you honestly don't deserve the title of collaborator on this site IMO.
Edited by horsewithteeth11 - July 18 2010 at 00:36
|
|
|
|
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Posted: July 18 2010 at 00:39 |
JJLehto wrote:
Oi......so anything involving religion in the slightest way is apparently a button for chaos
One of the few times I'm actually a bit shocked at something said on here,
Is this debate going on for the sake of it? Why should burqa's be banned? May sound funny coming from me but talk about infringement on rights. Yeah, the idea of wearing a burqa is a unsettling for me, but a ban on it? It just seems ridiculous.
To Quote God...er President Obama the West needs "to avoid dictating what clothes a Muslim women should wear" and it involves hostility towards Muslims "the pretense of Liberalism"
I think that has a stubtle, maybe not, attack saying Liberalism is being used to discriminate against Muslisms. I do know several European countries, France being one of the biggest...see to have issues with their Muslim minorities.
Eh, why do I ramble so much? No one should be forced to wear it, and no one can be forced not to...
|
I think one of the reasons a lot of Western European countries are cracking down on many Muslims is because large portions of those people arrive in those countries uneducated, poor, and unwilling to adapt to a new culture in any way whatsoever. Not all of them of course, but enough do it that it scares some Europeans. At least that's my theory. Speaking of which, don't we have something like that over here in the U.S. too?
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: July 18 2010 at 01:27 |
By the way, and though as I have said my opinion is not fully prejudice-free and therefore I'll try to abstain, here's an article where they mention the surveys I talked about in the beginning, with high support for the measure in Europe and very low here in the US...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/07/muslim-world-sweeping-support-for-banning-full-islamic-veil-in-western-europe-report-says.html
Could it be that in the US there's hardly any support for said measure because we rarely ever see a burka here?  
Edited by The T - July 18 2010 at 01:34
|
|
|
|
BaldFriede
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10266
|
Posted: July 18 2010 at 01:27 |
BaldJean wrote:
all this talk about suppression is quite interesting and amusing. I think almost everyone will agree that women had been suppressed in the Western world too and that only through years of fighting women finally god rid of this suppression. but actually all of this is complete nonsense, which can quite easily be proven. let me suggest the following scenario:
at the beginning of the industrial age a law was made in Germany that all profits from big companies down to the single craftsman had to be shared equally with the whole population. other countries soon followed that example. as the result of that the work of men suddenly lost its importance as income source, but of course they still had to work tto keep the factories going. hence their status deteriorated, and they tried to regain it by taking over territory that had so far completely been reserved to women. they wanted to cook, they wanted to do the washing, they wanted to clean the house and so on. the women felt their domain crumble and did all they could to hold the men back, but they finally had to succumb to their struggle for freedom. soon some men started complaining about the double strain they were under and demanded that women should take care in political
affairs too and should vote and pick up duties in parliament. need I continue?
no, the real problem was not that women had been suppressed but that with the upcoming capitalistic system only money started to count and all of what they did lost its value. women had not been suppressed, and neither had men be suppressed, they just had their own gender roles, and that was fine. as long as it worked out.
today gender roles become less and less important, and both sexes behave and are being treated more or less equally. and that is considered to be "right", though why this is right no-one can tell. I prophecy that in a thousand years men and women will almost look alike, and the only real difference will be in their sexual organs. but they will no longer be used for proliferation; women would not want to undergo the discriminating pregnancy, so children will be bred in test-tubes, and we will have a real better world. I am grateful I will not be alive then.
nothing is wrong with having different roles at all; it only becomes wrong when one role is deemed to be more important than the other. and this is what happened at the beginning of the industrial age, and this is why we had the so-called "emancipation of women".
"but women were suppressed then" some may answer. "it was for example impossible for them to enter a university". right, and it was equally impossible that a man would have interfered with the cooking, for example.
the deterioration of the female domain actually started before the industrial age, when men suddenly discovered an interest in children in the romantic age. this was the beginning of the landslide which finally started the so-called "female emancipation".
and before someone calls me completely outdated: hey, I am a successful business woman myself. but I use my brain, and it always pays to question values that are being taken for granted. it is a good and healthy mental exercise. it also a good mental exercise to take the side of the opponent in an argument for a change and defend their case with all you can; it helps you understand the opposite side a lot. and it certainly cures you of taking your position as granted and the right one. in the case of the burka this means: put yourself into the mind of someone who is pro-burka and defend your position as best as you can. it is the best way to get rid of misconceptions and prejudices. Friede and I often take the "wrong" position in discussions where everyone else is of the same opinion and play advocatus diaboli for some case. it makes people furious at you for your stupidity and is great fun, and it definitely expands your mind
|
I wonder why this quite brilliant post by Jean did not get any reaction. Did she hit the nail on the head too hard?
|
 BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: July 18 2010 at 02:40 |
|
^ EDIT: Maybe that really was too harsh - so please let me clarify: I know that the text is not really about feminism - I just think that it's a too roundabout way to look at the issue. IMO the most meaningful argument against burqas is that people should not walk around in disguise in public places. The burqa happens to be about the only disguise that people would want to use for religious or traditional reasons. So of course people will broaden the subject to religious issues, or issues of sexual oppression ... but it's really just about the disguise part. Muslim men can oppress their wives all they want ... the women are adults, and if they are willing to let themselves be treated that way, I would never want to make any law that interferes with that.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - July 18 2010 at 03:28
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: July 18 2010 at 03:03 |
horsewithteeth11 wrote:
Honestly, at this point, I think Sean is just trolling. I know no one who could make that much of an idiot of himself and still be sincere.
Oh wait, this is the internet. I forgot. My bad.
But seriously, you should be ashamed of your behavior. People who behave like you honestly don't deserve the title of collaborator on this site IMO.
|
Yeah, I make NO subtlety about my trolling, but who am I? Just some bored a****le on the site, but someone in such a position though? Jeez
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: July 18 2010 at 03:07 |
horsewithteeth11 wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
Oi......so anything involving religion in the slightest way is apparently a button for chaos
One of the few times I'm actually a bit shocked at something said on here,
Is this debate going on for the sake of it? Why should burqa's be banned? May sound funny coming from me but talk about infringement on rights. Yeah, the idea of wearing a burqa is a unsettling for me, but a ban on it? It just seems ridiculous.
To Quote God...er President Obama the West needs "to avoid dictating what clothes a Muslim women should wear" and it involves hostility towards Muslims "the pretense of Liberalism"
I think that has a stubtle, maybe not, attack saying Liberalism is being used to discriminate against Muslisms. I do know several European countries, France being one of the biggest...see to have issues with their Muslim minorities.
Eh, why do I ramble so much? No one should be forced to wear it, and no one can be forced not to...
|
I think one of the reasons a lot of Western European countries are cracking down on many Muslims is because large portions of those people arrive in those countries uneducated, poor, and unwilling to adapt to a new culture in any way whatsoever. Not all of them of course, but enough do it that it scares some Europeans. At least that's my theory.
Speaking of which, don't we have something like that over here in the U.S. too?
|
Yeah, these europeans are such scaredy cats! For some reason what you said reminded me of the "Eurabia" er...."theory". I suppose it is in our nature though to fear that which is different. I do hear ya though. Its like I said, IMHO banning it is insane, BUT no one should be forced to wear one either, which of course happens. Until I become benevolent dictator of the world problems like this will exist!
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: July 18 2010 at 03:08 |
BaldFriede wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
all this talk about suppression is quite interesting and amusing. I think almost everyone will agree that women had been suppressed in the Western world too and that only through years of fighting women finally god rid of this suppression. but actually all of this is complete nonsense, which can quite easily be proven. let me suggest the following scenario:
at the beginning of the industrial age a law was made in Germany that all profits from big companies down to the single craftsman had to be shared equally with the whole population. other countries soon followed that example. as the result of that the work of men suddenly lost its importance as income source, but of course they still had to work tto keep the factories going. hence their status deteriorated, and they tried to regain it by taking over territory that had so far completely been reserved to women. they wanted to cook, they wanted to do the washing, they wanted to clean the house and so on. the women felt their domain crumble and did all they could to hold the men back, but they finally had to succumb to their struggle for freedom. soon some men started complaining about the double strain they were under and demanded that women should take care in political
affairs too and should vote and pick up duties in parliament. need I continue?
no, the real problem was not that women had been suppressed but that with the upcoming capitalistic system only money started to count and all of what they did lost its value. women had not been suppressed, and neither had men be suppressed, they just had their own gender roles, and that was fine. as long as it worked out.
today gender roles become less and less important, and both sexes behave and are being treated more or less equally. and that is considered to be "right", though why this is right no-one can tell. I prophecy that in a thousand years men and women will almost look alike, and the only real difference will be in their sexual organs. but they will no longer be used for proliferation; women would not want to undergo the discriminating pregnancy, so children will be bred in test-tubes, and we will have a real better world. I am grateful I will not be alive then.
nothing is wrong with having different roles at all; it only becomes wrong when one role is deemed to be more important than the other. and this is what happened at the beginning of the industrial age, and this is why we had the so-called "emancipation of women".
"but women were suppressed then" some may answer. "it was for example impossible for them to enter a university". right, and it was equally impossible that a man would have interfered with the cooking, for example.
the deterioration of the female domain actually started before the industrial age, when men suddenly discovered an interest in children in the romantic age. this was the beginning of the landslide which finally started the so-called "female emancipation".
and before someone calls me completely outdated: hey, I am a successful business woman myself. but I use my brain, and it always pays to question values that are being taken for granted. it is a good and healthy mental exercise. it also a good mental exercise to take the side of the opponent in an argument for a change and defend their case with all you can; it helps you understand the opposite side a lot. and it certainly cures you of taking your position as granted and the right one. in the case of the burka this means: put yourself into the mind of someone who is pro-burka and defend your position as best as you can. it is the best way to get rid of misconceptions and prejudices. Friede and I often take the "wrong" position in discussions where everyone else is of the same opinion and play advocatus diaboli for some case. it makes people furious at you for your stupidity and is great fun, and it definitely expands your mind
|
I wonder why this quite brilliant post by Jean did not get any reaction. Did she hit the nail on the head too hard?
|
Nah, just buried in the wall of pretentiousness and arguing for the sake of it and radical point making...sadly good posts often get lost/ignored by that
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20414
|
Posted: July 18 2010 at 04:40 |
BaldFriede wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
all this talk about suppression is quite interesting and amusing. I think almost everyone will agree that women had been suppressed in the Western world too and that only through years of fighting women finally god rid of this suppression
. ..... bla-bla bla bla.....
. Friede and I often take the "wrong" position in discussions where everyone else is of the same opinion and play advocatus diaboli for some case. it makes people furious at you for your stupidity and is great fun, and it definitely expands your mind
|
I wonder why this quite brilliant post by Jean did not get any reaction. Did she hit the nail on the head too hard?
|
I'm generally for women's right and equality/equivalence and you two know that.
But reacting to this unreadable mumbo-jumbo ( mostly in the form rather than the content... it's just too dense and not aerated enough>> she often complained about this herself) would've gratified her credibility I just denied her in the previous page. 
CinemaZebra wrote:
That statement is so ridiculous I have to get involved now. Because someone thought that your "theory" was rubbish you decide to get personal and judge them based on their actions which simply aren't your business. Jean got onto you (justifiably) because you stated a theory you thought to be fact that simply isn't true. She didn't say it "offensively" either, unless you're VERY sensitive, and judging by your post, you seem a lot more offensive and uncaring than anything she said, practically condemning her for things that have nothing to do with you or the discussion. Your theory is rubbish because it can be proven not true. What you accuse her of is not something that can be proven wrong or right, especially by you. In other words, she accused of mistaking fact and in response you accused her of something that is defined by opinion. I don't think I even have to say that that's complete bullsh*t. "Take a good look in the mirror"? "Twist your tongue in your mouth seven times"? You have NO OBLIGATION to tell someone to do either of those things based on opinion. It's rubbish.
|
You don't understand much about anything. It's not my theory but most psychanalists.
ever heard of Freud, Nietzsche and the rest of the pack??? When I say that most comportamental traits are coming from childhood memories (I won't even say traumas, because this is not necessarily negative of course), I doubt most of them would tell me this is rubbish.... they came up with it.....
I'm not that sensitive, but when obvious issues and answers (like equal rights) are twisted to fit personal needs (the skidding into submission) just avoid losing the argument, then it stops being an honest debate.
.
Edited by Sean Trane - July 18 2010 at 05:17
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
Icarium
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 34083
|
Posted: July 18 2010 at 04:53 |
a debate is like a game of chess it is about how you open, move youre players (bricks), and how to plan yore final blow.
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20414
|
Posted: July 18 2010 at 04:58 |
thellama73 wrote:
I'm not going to make any personal attacks, but I have a hard time believing that anyone could hold the views Sean is professing. I am in total agreement with the Bald Angels, Rob, Ivan and T (which is extremely rare.) Sean seems to think that dominant and submissive personality traits are only found in BDSM communities or something like that. There are natural leaders and there are natural followers. Just watch an episode of Survivor and it's plain as day. This does not mean that the followers are stupid, or lazy, or brainwashed, or traumatized. It's just the way we are as human beings, and it's what makes societies work. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. |
I said that was one aspect of submission, and I don't even mind that (it's your body, whether you S or M, i don't give a hoot. What I was saying is the Jean's perception on the dominant and submissive issues are completely deformed by that very practice of SM.
I never even for a second suggested that the burqa issue has anything to do with BDSM (as you call it), neither did I even hint at submissive people being stupid or lazy. That's your typical interpretation/reading about anything that makes you jump to conclusions by deforming the texts.
Sure watching some reality show made for audiencewill solve this debate.
Leadership is not dominance or authoritarianism. Just thought I'd signal this simple feat to you.
Henry Plainview wrote:
Sean, are you capable of having a civil conversation with people about anything?
|
Lest you forget this thread was already nasty when I joined (although y arrival did not calm things, I'll give you that much), mostly because a certain fanaticism was calling its rivals' opinions rubbish and accused them of being intolerant, just because we don't agree with them.
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20414
|
Posted: July 18 2010 at 05:24 |
horsewithteeth11 wrote:
Honestly, at this point, I think Sean is just trolling. I know no one who could make that much of an idiot of himself and still be sincere.
Oh wait, this is the internet. I forgot. My bad.
But seriously, you should be ashamed of your behavior. People who behave like you honestly don't deserve the title of collaborator on this site IMO.
|
completely serious and no trolling.
and I didn't have to be asked to become collabs, like most collabs did, I was asked by the site itself
Now sorry, but I have to go, coz I've got a life besides the web and PA.
Not your case since you posted nearly 20 000 in a little over 2 years (not counting the other places you participate, but that's not my bnusiness..
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: July 18 2010 at 06:41 |
|
Poll in the UK shows 60% vote in support of ban on burqas while in my own backyard of New Zealand, it was a whopping 80% in vote of the ban. I personally voted in support of it myself.
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: July 18 2010 at 08:25 |
Sean Trane wrote:
Leadership is not dominance
|
Yes it is.
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: July 18 2010 at 09:00 |
thellama73 wrote:
Sean Trane wrote:
Leadership is not dominance
|
Yes it is.
|
I'm with you on that one.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
French approve ban on burqas...
