Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Why does this male Hillary's "Men are like dogs" quote somehow accurate in retrospect... (well ignoring the male aspect)

[Hanslanda]

Why does this male Hillary's "Men are like dogs" quote somehow accurate in retrospect... (well ignoring the male aspect)

Rephrase that question to make sense please.

Are you saying, "Why does Hillary's male-related "Men are like dogs" quote seem accurate?"

Or... Something else that I can't parse because you cannot into English?

[Neonivek]

replace the first male with make.

[Trekkin]

oh and i should mention that humans are in fact biologically monogamous although that does not imply sexual monogamy

Good catch. The writing on the wall SEEEEEEEEMS to suggest humans are not naturally sexually monogamous.

There is even strong suggestion that humans aren't monogamous species.

But the creepy thing? In the future they might have a drug that makes you monogamous.

Fun fact, 50% of the offspring of socialy monogamous species are not with the partner. Lession, nature sleeps around alot but still works togheather.

I'd love a source for this and the bit where we're biologically but not sexually monogamous.

[Hanslanda]

... I have no idea what quote is being referred, or how to appropriately respond in any case.

Men are like, well. Humans. And maybe Chimpanzees mixed with Bonobos. We're violent, sexual creatures. Whereas women are like, slightly less violent per capita, but still violent, sexual creatures. Cuz we're the same species, with ever so slightly different biochemistry.

Politicians are not a good source for accurate quotes.

[Neonivek]

Her quote was more: "Men are like dogs, they will sleep around, but they will always come home" or something along those lines.

[Sheb]

Somehow I new it was a mistake to click "show me the post", but still I was curious, and... it seems to be more unsourced BS? Like, I google the quote, I google part of the quote, and I can't find crap.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Why does this male Hillary's "Men are like dogs" quote somehow accurate in retrospect... (well ignoring the male aspect)

Rephrase that question to make sense please.

Are you saying, "Why does Hillary's male-related "Men are like dogs" quote seem accurate?"

Or... Something else that I can't parse because you cannot into English?

Ya, what is that sentence?

the statue controversy:
Statues are and have always been primary a tool of propaganda and are used to shape peoples fictionalized views of history know as cultural imaginarys. as such the systematic destruction of the imaginary requires the removal of all propaganda related to it by a moment that seeks to destroy it. followed by the education of children in the academic history of the civil war in great detail and depth. no perpetuating propaganda, no fantasy narrative, no imaginary, no nostalgia, no power in its symbols. that is how you destroy a cultural imaginary and kill a history. remove the romanticism and you kill the source of histories power. boring history, the great killer of interest.

Well first of all, the history of the Civil War is anything but boring. It's actually pretty fucking daredevil.

Secondly, that's some revisionist bullshit. While I agree with you on thoroughly educating children, a lot of the statues being torn down are of great generals. I for one, don't give a fuck whether the Civil War was fought for "States Rights" or for slavery or just for power, those men were a.) Americans, and b.) Pretty fucking awesome at being generals. I mean. They are statues. they are not on their own proliferating the (highly fucked up) ideology of the Lost Cause.

Slavery is despicable, and the fact that people could get behind it at one point in our nation's history is shameful, but to say that all these people were were just misguided racists is equal to saying Hitler wasn't a person and no real human is capable of doing what he did. WE could never do that. WE would never do that. We're BETTER than they were. That could never happen again, let's forget about the time when people subscribed to slavery and built statues of people whom they admired whom we no longer admire--THAT'S fucking propaganda. I mean, how can you tear down a soldier's monument? A women's monument? People--a lot of people, most of them poor--lost their lives fighting in a war they didn't want to fight in, got nothing from, and were conscripted into!

Ya, there were a lot of fucked up honkies back then, but the solution to changing (too many) people's racy opinions of them is definitely not to tear down their statues and forget them.

*Some statues, however, SHOULD be moved to museums.

[Sheb]

Slavery is despicable, and the fact that people could get behind it at one point in our nation's history is shameful, but to say that all these people were were just misguided racists is equal to saying Hitler wasn't a person and no real human is capable of doing what he did. WE could never do that. WE would never do that. We're BETTER than they were.

That makes no sense. We're not saying they weren't people, we're saying they're people who did bad things and shouldn't be celebrated for that.

[Trekkin]

I for one, don't give a fuck whether the Civil War was fought for "States Rights" or for slavery or just for power, those men were a.) Americans, and b.) Pretty fucking awesome at being generals.

If they were Americans, it follows that they managed to lose 620,000 of their own men while killing zero enemy troops.

So either they're traitors, or they're the most colossal military failures in American history.

So which one justifies the statues?

[TheDarkStar]

...? Hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers died. It was a civil war, hence both sides being American while still trying to kill each other.

[Trekkin]

...? Hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers died. It was a civil war, hence both sides being American while still trying to kill each other.

That 620,000 includes them.

My point was that if we're going to say they were Americans (despite fighting against America for a nation explicitly formed to not be America) then the results of the war look even worse than if we just acknowledge that they were traitors in the eyes of the USA and no longer American citizens according to themselves. There's no way to look at the Civil War and say the guys leading the losing side need to be remembered by the country they tried to leave for their military skill. They could, perhaps, have statues put up in the country they fought for, had they not lost so badly it no longer exists.

I'm perhaps being too snarky to get my point across, which is this: there is no metric I can see whereby bloodily failing to leave the US should qualify someone for a statue in the US. Britain didn't put up the statue of Washington in London of their own accord; America gave it to them 148 years after the fact. When the CSA sends us a Robert E. Lee statue, then it might be worth pondering where to put it.

[Egan_BW]

It would be kinda funny if all those militia types really did get together to commision a Lee statue, and gifted it to DC.

[NullForceOmega]

...? Hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers died. It was a civil war, hence both sides being American while still trying to kill each other.

That 620,000 includes them.

My point was that if we're going to say they were Americans (despite fighting against America for a nation explicitly formed to not be America) then the results of the war look even worse than if we just acknowledge that they were traitors in the eyes of the USA and no longer American citizens according to themselves. There's no way to look at the Civil War and say the guys leading the losing side need to be remembered by the country they tried to leave for their military skill. They could, perhaps, have statues put up in the country they fought for, had they not lost so badly it no longer exists.

I'm perhaps being too snarky to get my point across, which is this: there is no metric I can see whereby bloodily failing to leave the US should qualify someone for a statue in the US. Britain didn't put up the statue of Washington in London of their own accord; America gave it to them 148 years after the fact. When the CSA sends us a Robert E. Lee statue, then it might be worth pondering where to put it.

Let's get something straight right this damn second, by congressional act ALL soldiers who fought in the civil war are U.S. veterans, not open to debate.

So just to be absolutely factual, yes 620,000 U.S. soldiers died in a war that amounted to nothing but a radical idealogical shift for an entire nation, and ended slavery as well as finally proving that Federal authority has higher priority than State authority.  And none of that changes the fact that those men fought for their nation and deserve to be respected for giving their lives for those nations, be it U.S.A. or C.S.A.

The war happened, and people on both sides died, it doesn't matter that one side held an ideal that was repugnant to the other, it matters that they felt strongly enough about it that they were willing to die for it.

[Trekkin]

Let's get something straight right this damn second, by congressional act ALL soldiers who fought in the civil war are U.S. veterans, not open to debate.

So just to be absolutely factual, yes 620,000 U.S. soldiers died in a war that amounted to nothing but a radical idealogical shift for an entire nation, and ended slavery as well as finally proving that Federal authority has higher priority than State authority.

No one is arguing either of these points as far as I can see. That the subjects of the Confederate statues are veterans is beside the point; it's their being traitors and losers that kind of undermines Urist McScoopbeard's point that they deserve statues in America on the basis of their military acumen.

...if every one of those soldiers fought for their nation, and they were all Americans, how on Earth did we have a war in the first place?