Print

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

[Angle]

those aren't things that I would blame the government for, those are things I would blame society for.

The groping is something people will do when they get power. It doesn't matter if that power comes from the government or some other place, like a business. Managers are especially well known for this.

The security stuff comes because we, as a society, told our government to be very paranoid and that we would kick and scream if they weren't. and so they are.

the stupid lending comes because we, as a people, are unwilling to buckle down and do what needs to be done. "raise my taxes? never!"

I'll take a look at your list, though.

[Andir]

As for the rest, you stated an opinion. people stated differing opinions. this is how things work, and personally, I rather like it. If you don't want to argue, don't state an opinion.

Sure, I understand the whole point of a conversation, but I was told explicitly that my opinion would not "be abided"

You can't dismiss it all by saying its so rare it doesn't matter or by blaming the victims by saying that it is their choice and that they have options. And that is exactly what you have done, and I will not abide that.

IE:  I will not be tolerated... this usually shows intent to further the pressure until one is bent to comply.
And again... I'm being called vile and evil for my opinion?

If your religion really is threatened by my "hate speech", you are a vile and evil person, utterly beneath my contempt.

All for upholding the idea that people can have choice in religion and their actions?  There's vitriol hate being portrayed toward me for asking the question: "What do you intend to do about it?"  Really, that's all there is to it.  As I stated earlier:

Nobody has offered up a solution besides time.  Sure, you can make people aware, but what do you expect them to do?

Edit:  I also wasn't defending any religion in itself.  Only the choice of the person who takes part.

[Aqizzar]

See, that would a credible complaint and counterpoint, if you hadn't asked it, couched in calling him a Nazi.

So I present the question that I've been alluding to all along.  Is your solution to go all Hitler on these religious people and lock them in concentration camps until they change their way... because they don't follow your way of life?  This is the impression I get from all this ranting.  You want change and you want it to happen so fast that people change their ways (to match yours) overnight.  Hopefully you've seen historically that can never happen.  You cement some people's opinions on their ideas (like the KKK) and you push away others (Dawkins.) (edit... I seem to be having issues with the edit field right now... sorry about the content change...)

You cannot possibly not understand why someone would be offended by opening with this characterization.

[Nadaka]

Where have I ever advocated taking away your religion? Do I need to go find the post in this thread where I was arguing against someone who did want to take it away?

My vitriol is entirely justified by your defense of religion endorsing rape and child abuse. And no, I will not tolerate it.

[Angle]

Her's a solution. We need to tell them, loudly and clearly, that what they are doing is wrong. That is shameful, and disgusting, and borders on Evil(tm). That's all. It will still take time, but it will make things go much faster. Oh, and we need to make sure that there are places for those that want help, and that they know about them.

[Vector]

Dear Angle: thank you for saying what I would be saying to Andir if I could think straight.

Dear Andir: what Angle said.  I will add that I don't think the implication was that no one could escape; the implication is that it is needlessly hard to escape from such a situation, should one want to.  There is no intrinsic problem with women who have long hair, long skirts, no makeup, etc.  It is kind of frightening that such women would be ordered to with the putative backup of God.  But when they cannot get out, even when they want to... no, that is just no good.  So I don't think we're suggesting some sort of governmental smackdown at all.  We're trying to think of ideas for citizens to engage in, or governmental help that doesn't directly infringe on the people in question--only helps those who want to change their minds.  And, of course, the citizens would not be required to help.  This is why it's called grassroots action--no one is ordering you to help.

Please feel free to say that you feel uncomfortable, because in general, as previously stated, I am trying really hard to keep this place from becoming an echochamber.  Just don't appropriate other people's experiences in that way.

You guys realize the context here is when men are making advances and trying to get laid, right? This thing started because somebody made a horrible attempt at hitting on somebody when they shouldn't have.

I believe what she's saying is that she's trying to create a situation where women and men can flirt with each other and both create and accept advances with neither party feeling threatened in the least.

So yes, her actions would be helping men to get laid, if their problem is coming off creepy to an otherwise receptive target.  I don't believe she was at all trying to say all men want to have sex with women, and that's all they want.

She was, so far as I can tell, appealing to the segment of the population that is frustrated by navigating boundaries.

Im also kinda itching to join in on the rleigious aspect of this discussion without looking too far back into the discussions here as it is incredibly painful to slog through this thread. I want to present my view on how deprogramming has really hurt people who believe in my faith and that while I understand its use in preventing junk like the Jonestown cult suicides and abusive cults, there would need to be strict guidelines that major religions would have to agree with. That last bit provides a good deal of strife over the issue and will prevent anything from being done I know, but the summary of my argument is that the extreme end of the control spectrum is far scarier than than the far end of the freedom spectrum.
 Im terrible at debating though, and I feel any attempt at arguent on he web over this will quickly move away from a discussion on how much freedom of speech we should allow to the evils of my faith and ideals. Discussing stuff like this is very close to various lines that are easily crossed because of a shale piles worth of chips on peoples shoulders. I know Vector is trying her best to maintain a nice free atmosphere of discussion and I wish her more power, but this is indeed quite intimidating to walk into.

I would really like to hear what you have to say.

[The Maestro]

those aren't things that I would blame the government for, those are things I would blame society for. The groping is something people will do when they get power. It doesn't matter if that power comes from the government or some other place, like a business. Managers are especially well known for this.

The security stuff comes because we, as a society, told our government to be very paranoid and that we would kick and scream if they weren't. and so they are.

the stupid lending comes because we, as a people, are unwilling to buckle down and do what needs to be done. "raise my taxes? never!"

I'll take a look at your list, though.

These are all rationalizations that all boil down to the same basic premise: when given the opportunity to exercise influence over others, it is abused by those to which that power is given.  Giving power to 'regulate' religious institutions (returning to the fold, here) would be tantamount to creating a government-run religion.  Freedom is, as a matter of fact, a zero sum game.  The more power someone or something else has over you, the less you have over yourself.  In this case the issue is that we must find a way to remove the power of religious groups without resorting to even more power (which carries even greater potential for abuse) being used to prevent that initial abuse.  We see spread before us a vicious cycle which may only be broken by not responding to force with more force, but instead persuasion.

We've all seen the clusterfuck that came out of Waco with the Branch Davidians, or the FLDS out in Utah when the government gets heavily involved.  The government is run by people, and whether intentional or not (though almost always intentional with the best intentions) those people will use their power in ways that are harmful in the extreme.

Her's a solution. We need to tell them, loudly and clearly, that what they a re doing is wrong. That is shameful, and disgusting, and borders on Evil(tm). That's all. It will still take time, but it will make things go much faster. Oh, and we need to make sure that there are places for those that want help, and that they know about them.

We're saying the same thing: fund organizations which seek to persuade, rather than force, change through peaceful means.  The challenge we face, that may be remedied, is there are not many organizations dedicated to this outreach with the widespread support and funding necessary to really start eradicating those tiny little sects.  The smaller the group, the more exponentially difficult it becomes to eradicate.  The best way to kill it, though, is not with a spear but with spoken word.

[Andir]

See, that would a credible complaint and counterpoint, if you hadn't asked it, couched in calling him a Nazi.

So I present the question that I've been alluding to all along.  Is your solution to go all Hitler on these religious people and lock them in concentration camps until they change their way... because they don't follow your way of life?  This is the impression I get from all this ranting.  You want change and you want it to happen so fast that people change their ways (to match yours) overnight.  Hopefully you've seen historically that can never happen.  You cement some people's opinions on their ideas (like the KKK) and you push away others (Dawkins.) (edit... I seem to be having issues with the edit field right now... sorry about the content change...)

You cannot possibly not understand why someone would be offended by opening with this characterization.

IMHO, Godwin's law is a ridiculous idea and hiding behind a censorship method so you don't feel associated with such actions is pathetic.  I simply gave one method (used in the past) to "prevent" the spread of religious ideas that do not "abide" your morals.  It happens to be one of the most recent and outstanding examples.

I do not care if someone is offended by an example of someone who previously did what they are asking for today (enforce massive change in someones religion)

Where have I ever advocated taking away your religion? Do I need to go find the post in this thread where I was arguing against someone who did want to take it away?

My vitriol is entirely justified by your defense of religion endorsing rape and child abuse. And no, I will not tolerate it.

It's not my religion.
Not everyone in that religion endorses rape and child abuse.
You are categorizing everyone in a particular sect as evil and desire that they be "re-educated" simply because they belong to a particular group of people.

Her's a solution. We need to tell them, loudly and clearly, that what they are doing is wrong. That is shameful, and disgusting, and borders on Evil(tm). That's all. It will still take time, but it will make things go much faster. Oh, and we need to make sure that there are places for those that want help, and that they know about them.

Those places exist.  People are informed.  I'm not sure how much more we're expected to do... Go door to door telling people that they are wrong?  (Assuming you know what doors to knock on...)  The number of doors is extremely small and identifying the exact doors to know on would require the door to door polling of everyone to find out what their thoughts are.  You could erect some billboards, but the women involved in those organizations will likely ignore them or never see them... again.  I'm at a loss as to what is being proposed to resolve the issue.

We've all seen the clusterfuck that came out of Waco with the Branch Davidians, or the FLDS out in Utah when the government gets heavily involved.  The government is run by people, and whether intentional or not (though almost always intentional with the best intentions) those people will use their power in ways that are harmful in the extreme.

Thanks, this was an example I was going to bring up given the right moment... beat me to it.

I will add that I don't think the implication was that no one could escape; the implication is that it is needlessly hard to escape from such a situation, should one want to.

Difficulty to escape is purely in the power of the escapee.  Personally, I think anyone that wants to break free has total freedom to do so in today's world... but they have to make the decision on their own.  (good luck informing them)  Attacking their base ideology could push them further in (as I've said before.)

[Angle]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

those aren't things that I would blame the government for, those are things I would blame society for. The groping is something people will do when they get power. It doesn't matter if that power comes from the government or some other place, like a business. Managers are especially well known for this.

The security stuff comes because we, as a society, told our government to be very paranoid and that we would kick and scream if they weren't. and so they are.

the stupid lending comes because we, as a people, are unwilling to buckle down and do what needs to be done. "raise my taxes? never!"

I'll take a look at your list, though.

These are all rationalizations that all boil down to the same basic premise: when given the opportunity to exercise influence over others, it is abused by those to which that power is given.  Giving power to 'regulate' religious institutions (returning to the fold, here) would be tantamount to creating a government-run religion.  Freedom is, as a matter of fact, a zero sum game.  The more power someone or something else has over you, the less you have over yourself.  In this case the issue is that we must find a way to remove the power of religious groups without resorting to even more power (which carries even greater potential for abuse) being used to prevent that initial abuse.  We see spread before us a vicious cycle which may only be broken by not responding to force with more force, but instead persuasion.

We've all seen the clusterfuck that came out of Waco with the Branch Davidians, or the FLDS out in Utah when the government gets heavily involved.  The government is run by people, and whether intentional or not (though almost always intentional with the best intentions) those people will use their power in ways that are harmful in the extreme.

Her's a solution. We need to tell them, loudly and clearly, that what they a re doing is wrong. That is shameful, and disgusting, and borders on Evil(tm). That's all. It will still take time, but it will make things go much faster. Oh, and we need to make sure that there are places for those that want help, and that they know about them.

We're saying the same thing: fund organizations which seek to persuade, rather than force, change through peaceful means.  The challenge we face, that may be remedied, is there are not many organizations dedicated to this outreach with the widespread support and funding necessary to really start eradicating those tiny little sects.  The smaller the group, the more exponentially difficult it becomes to eradicate.  The best way to kill it, though, is not with a spear but with spoken word.

Tantamount to creating a state religion? What? That's nonsense. Having the government regulate religion is very much like having it regulate any other entity. There might be minor abuses, such as an official of one religion trying to be a dick to churches of another religion, but that can be dealt with in turn. and is still vastly preferable to violence like this.

And regulation =/= violence.

and having the government fund such groups? waste of money. You'd be better off organizing them from the bottom up, because trying to make that kind of thing from the top down is an exercise in futility.

[Bauglir]

@The Maestro

I feel the need to point out that I don't believe freedom is a zero-sum game. That implies that all freedoms are of equal magnitude, but I'd argue that if one man has a mini-gun in a room with 100 people, forbidding this man to fire indiscriminately creates a net gain in freedom. I know that's a detail that isn't relevant to your overall point, but I feel like it's a point worth noting early on in a philosophical discussion, which seems to be where you're going.

[Willfor]

and having the government fund such groups? waste of money. You'd be better off organizing them from the bottom up, because trying to make that kind of thing from the top down is an exercise in futility.

He didn't say government funding. It was building off his previous statement of personal funding of organizations in the vain of Planned Parenthood and the like, and how people's funding of organizations dedicated to awareness is a good, nonviolent step.

[Angle]

@The Maestro

I feel the need to point out that I don't believe freedom is a zero-sum game. That implies that all freedoms are of equal magnitude, but I'd argue that if one man has a mini-gun in a room with 100 people, forbidding this man to fire indiscriminately creates a net gain in freedom. I know that's a detail that isn't relevant to your overall point, but I feel like it's a point worth noting early on in a philosophical discussion, which seems to be where you're going.

very nice. I agree completely.

[Andir]

@The Maestro

I feel the need to point out that I don't believe freedom is a zero-sum game. That implies that all freedoms are of equal magnitude, but I'd argue that if one man has a mini-gun in a room with 100 people, forbidding this man to fire indiscriminately creates a net gain in freedom. I know that's a detail that isn't relevant to your overall point, but I feel like it's a point worth noting early on in a philosophical discussion, which seems to be where you're going.

There's no net gain.  All the people are still stuck in the room.  If you took away the room, all the people would have freedom to walk away.  You are forgetting a few of the freedoms.  The person with the gun would be exercising a freedom to kill someone if they fired into the crowd granting him greater freedom and less freedom for the victims.

I'm not getting into that though... I really should have gone to bed an hour ago...

[Nadaka]

See, that would a credible complaint and counterpoint, if you hadn't asked it, couched in calling him a Nazi.

So I present the question that I've been alluding to all along.  Is your solution to go all Hitler on these religious people and lock them in concentration camps until they change their way... because they don't follow your way of life?  This is the impression I get from all this ranting.  You want change and you want it to happen so fast that people change their ways (to match yours) overnight.  Hopefully you've seen historically that can never happen.  You cement some people's opinions on their ideas (like the KKK) and you push away others (Dawkins.) (edit... I seem to be having issues with the edit field right now... sorry about the content change...)

You cannot possibly not understand why someone would be offended by opening with this characterization.

IMHO, Godwin's law is a ridiculous idea and hiding behind a censorship method so you don't feel associated with such actions is pathetic.  I simply gave one method (used in the past) to "prevent" the spread of religious ideas that do not "abide" your morals.  It happens to be one of the most recent and outstanding examples.

I do not care if someone is offended by an example of someone who previously did what they are asking for today (enforce massive change in someones religion)

Where have I ever advocated taking away your religion? Do I need to go find the post in this thread where I was arguing against someone who did want to take it away?

My vitriol is entirely justified by your defense of religion endorsing rape and child abuse. And no, I will not tolerate it.

It's not my religion.
Not everyone in that religion endorses rape and child abuse.
You are categorizing everyone in a particular sect as evil and desire that they be "re-educated" simply because they belong to a particular group of people.

Why do you defend it? Why do you defend the rape and abuse of children?

Damn right I am categorizing everyone in a sect that actively endorses rape and child abuse as evil. WHAT THE FUCK IS EVIL IF THAT IS NOT EVIL?

Again you are putting your own words in my mouth. I have never said you need to be "re-educated" because you have religion.

Every single post you do makes it more clear exactly what you are.

Virex: you explicitly DID bring up the Muslims in Spain and the Cathars. The reason they were not present is that they were exterminated as vermin.

I did, to show that it is indeed possible. I also immediately added that we should not employ the same means.

And the early soviet union also forbid religion, pushing it underground for decades, murdered many, and the Russian orthodox faith still exists. Now look at the war on drugs and see how well that has gone. Banning religion is fundamentally wrong and pointless unless you plan on exterminating everyone. With reading and books common, even that becomes incredibly difficult. In the internet age of invisible cryptographic partitions and global instantaneous communication it is utterly impossible.

I really can't believe I am actually defending religion.

On the other hand, slavery has effectively been removed from most of the western world and marginalized in a large part of the rest of the world. What it took for that to happen was a turnover in the way people think, along with legislation to mop up the remainders. That is exactly what I'm aiming at. Society has to first and foremost be changed fundamentally and in this progress legislation is only a small step, but I believe it's an important one to seal the fate of the old ways for once and for all. I'm dreaming of a world where the people who believe religion gives them the freedom to confine their wife to the kitchen are treated for the slave drivers they are. It's not an easy path, but I believe it is possible.

Also, forcing misogynism underground in the same way that slavery or drug trade has been forced underground will be a great victory, almost on par with actual exterminating it. Because if it's forced underground, then calling people out on it will actually become effective. In such a case it would finally be not done to talk to friends or relatives about your wife in the same way one would talk about a couch. It would finally be so that insulting all females would cost a politician votes instead of gaining them. I yearn for a world where people who think this way are treated as pariah's instead of the center of popular culture and politics.

I have much MUCH MUCH larger and more personal issues against religion than men using it to justify misogyny. None of you have have any idea what "Fundamentalist Christians" really are. I do, first hand. I survived and I got out. You really do not want to go there with me.

I would do anything ethical to rid the world of religion, but it is both impossible and wrong to force everyone to see things your way even if your way is better.

edit:fixing quote pyramid

[Angle]

As for that list - every one of those except the last falls under "we want the government to be tough on terrorism", while the last falls under "Usual Rethuglican Scumbaggery"

@The Maestro

I feel the need to point out that I don't believe freedom is a zero-sum game. That implies that all freedoms are of equal magnitude, but I'd argue that if one man has a mini-gun in a room with 100 people, forbidding this man to fire indiscriminately creates a net gain in freedom. I know that's a detail that isn't relevant to your overall point, but I feel like it's a point worth noting early on in a philosophical discussion, which seems to be where you're going.

There's no net gain.  All the people are still stuck in the room.  If you took away the room, all the people would have freedom to walk away.  You are forgetting a few of the freedoms.  The person with the gun would be exercising a freedom to kill someone if they fired into the crowd granting him greater freedom and less freedom for the victims.

I'm not getting into that though... I really should have gone to bed an hour ago...

Wait, you're saying that he has a right to kill people? What is this i don't even...