RE: Eradicating women.

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Eradicating women.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Eradicating women.

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 8:25:57 PM

Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline

Aswad: I like you and think you are a very intelligent guy - I just don't see this as a political issue, or even a "cultural freedom" issue - I see it as purely a human rights violation.

- Susan

_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to Aswad)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 8:45:29 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

While I think it's a free forum and all of that, and I think you are very intelligent - I am talking about charity, not politics. So we are discussing two very different things. You just think we're not.

Where do I come across as not discussing both of these?

quote:

If you and OriontheWolf don't appreciate this topic, then why are you positing on a thread about it?

I won't answer for Orion, but I'm posting because I think it's an interesting topic, one I do appreciate.

quote:

This thread has to do with the way females in some nations are treated as almost less than human in some cultures.

Partially. There are three sides of it: (a) whether there's anything wrong with the practice, what and why, and (b) how females are viewed in certain cultures, and whether there is anything wrong with that, what and why, and (c) what, if anything, to do about the other two issues that this thread is concerned with.

So far, meatcleaver has touched significantly on a, while I've not quite gotten to that yet, while you have covered b extensively, which I've also not quite gotten around to, and I have so far focused on c in my replies. I have also been working on an opinion piece post on a, but I haven't posted that yet. For me, b is partially subsumed under c, and my views on that may be too complicated for me to make a coherent opinion piece post about it, and it is certainly something that would take a lot of time. I also think it is quite a derailment from the OP, which I feel relates more closely to a and c.

quote:

If you can't appreciate that is the real topic here, and not bring politics into it - then I have no idea why you are posting on this thread - if you cannot simply agree that the basic idea of eradicating one sex, in favor of another is just wrong. That is what the entire thread is about. In fact, it is the title of this thread.

Eradicating one sex is never in favor of the other. It kills them both off in one generation. That pretty much covers the title of the thread. What has been discussed in the course of the thread, however, is different from the title. It deals with preferentially aborting female foetuses due to cultural factors. It's not something I approve of.

But there are several sides to this, and I'm trying to cover a few of them.

quote:

If you disagree, please don't keep coming back trying to say it's just fine -over and over and over.

If my posts are not welcome, I'm fine with leaving the thread alone.

I have not said it's just fine, however.

quote:

I've made my opinion clear, and I don't want to debate my "right to debate it" any more.

I have not disputed your right to debate it. I have simply debated it with you.

quote:

I am not trying to be rude, but I find it slightly insulting, being a female myself.

I also find it slightly insulting, being a human that cares about life and equal rights. If you want to confine it to whether people like the idea of aborting female foetuses because they are female, it just breaks down to a majority opinion of "no" (which would include me), and possibly a minority opinion of "yes". That isn't much of a debate, is it?

And, no, I can't say that you've been rude at any point so far.

quote:

Can anyone really just not get how might feel offended by the idea that eradicating females is just somehting that is "par for the course"?

I quite get it.

quote:

The reason this thread was started is because there are some of us who think this idea really just suck,s and makes no logiocal sense. Is this really that hard to understand?

Not at all. And if this was just an opinion piece, not open to debate, that's fine.
I just happen to agree slightly with meatcleaver that the issue is broader than that.
It may be an inherent weakness in the pro-choice position, among various other things.

If you would like to hear my opinions on what I think are extended implications of the issue, that's one thing. Seeing as we are the two current participants in the thread, I'll put the opinion piece on hold until I know whether it's worth my time, i.e. whether anyone is interested. But so far, I've just been dealing with what was already in the thread, outside the scope of the obvious "well, this sucks" aspect. I've always found debates to be more interesting if they either convey new information, or new points of view. Someone saying "X sucks" or "X rocks", and everyone else saying "I agree" has limited entertainment value for me, and no intellectual value.

I quite agree that the idea sucks, and doesn't make much sense.

If that is really all that you want to hear from me, you have now heard just that: I agree.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to SusanofO)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 8:50:19 PM

Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline

Aswad: Your posts are indeed welcome. I take back what I said. I was misunderstanding you.

However, I stand by my comments when it cmers to OriontheWolf. He really appears to believe that saying:

"That's just the way things are, deal with it" is making a bona-fide point for intellectual discussion.
I guess we just differ there, hehe (no comment necessary, just making a point).

In any case, I don't want to turn this into a bitch-fest. I misunderstood you. Sorry.

- Susan

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 8/22/2007 8:51:59 PM >

_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to Aswad)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 9:09:40 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

Susan,

There is no need to apologize, and I did not see it as a "bitch-fest." Don't worry about it.

I rarely post my own opinions by themselves, except where I think the issue is clear-cut, instead preferring to reply to the opinions of others with counterpoints to their views, either in the interest of playing a sort of constructive devil's advocate (i.e. fostering exploration of a topic, as opposed to just stirring up drama), or because I disagree or think a point was missed.

In this particular instance, I agree with the popular sentiment, but think there are other issues that merit debate along the same lines. Again, though, despite agreeing with the popular opinion, I have- as you said- an isolationist stance on the matter. However, I have some bits I haven't worked out myself yet, thus I haven't commented on some things that might have rounded out the impression of my opinions on the subject, such as the issue of human rights violations, etc., while other things require too much context to go into in a thread that is not titled "The World According to al-Aswad", a thread I'm not planning to start any time soon.

I'll be getting back to this with a comment directed at the OP and the topic in general.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to SusanofO)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 9:14:01 PM

Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline

Aswad: Well, you're probably right. It would probably be boring if there was no debate at all. HUGs!

- Susan

_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to Aswad)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 10:36:06 PM

Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Many of the conservatives in these cultures are the women and not just the men.

Not just in these cultures, meacleaver: look at Mother Theresa, that insane catholic fanatic fraud! She oeuvred against women's rights all of her life. And she was beatified! People still look up to the old crone.

quote:

MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?

Christopher Hitchens - 2003

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmAEPrALVjM&mode=related&search=

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/23/2007 5:16:46 AM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

Thanks for that, Owner59. It makes my blood boil still, even after knowing the facts.

_____________________________

(in reply to Owner59)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/23/2007 5:32:38 AM

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

You can't have it both ways, when the goals of the Church are so often mutually exclusive to the needs of humanity.

I am not trying to have it any way, Alumbrado.

I am not a big fan of the Catholic Church.

I am talking about a woman who was called to do something bigger than herself, and answered the call.

Trash the Church and their policies all you want and I will help toilet paper the Vatican, but I will not
presume to render judgement on or trash a woman like Mother Theresa. She has nothing but my utmost
respect for what she did with her time here.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to Alumbrado)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/23/2007 5:35:51 AM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

Hmmmm... surely you're not against doing a little bit of investigation :-) ?

http://www.meteorbooks.com/introduction.html

< Message edited by kittinSol -- 8/23/2007 5:53:34 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Sinergy)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/23/2007 5:53:42 AM

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Hmmmm... surely you're not against doing a little bit of investigation :-) ?

Not at all, kittinSol.

People contain multitudes and layers, like onions.

Well, or parfait.

I am sure when I am pushing up the daisies, if anybody gives a damn one way or the other, that I was a misogynist, self-centered, narcissistic, jack-ass who spent most of his time either objectifying and abusing women (submissives), teaching people how to say "No" and getting kicked in the head, or arguing about silly things like global warming on message boards.

I can work with that.

I do stand by my statements about Mother Theresa. She was called. She answered the call.

Perhaps I am taking it too personally. I was called to do what I do. I answered the call. 4 years later I had a medical condition which forced me to retire too young, which broke my heart. I fought tooth and nail to get my health back. When I watched my eldest child graduate from the program 6 years ago, I was called again.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/23/2007 5:57:09 AM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

quote:

Many people tell me that Mother Teresa should be left alone because she did 'something' for the underprivileged. I do not deny that she did. However her reputation, which was to a good extent carefully built up by herself, was not on a 'something' scale. More importantly, that 'something', at least in Calcutta, was quite little, as my book will show. Even more importantly, she had turned away many many more than she had helped - although she had claimed throughout her life that she was doing everything for everybody. My brief against her is not that she did not address the root or causes of suffering and I am not for a moment suggesting that she ought to have done so, as I understand the particular religious tradition she came from - I am saying that there was a stupendous discrepancy between her image and her work, between her words and her deeds; that she, helped by others of course, engaged in a culture of deception.

(The Final Verdict - Aroup Chatterjee )

_____________________________

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/23/2007 6:02:04 AM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

Did you seek fame and publicity? Are you collecting millions of dollars on behalf of an organisation? Did you go to Haiti, the poorest country in the world, grabbed a cheque (of undisclosed value) from Duvallier, thus floundering the money from the very people - the Haitians - it was stolen from, and used the money for your own purpose? How would you handle the deaths of hundreds of destitute people? If they were dying in pain, would you give them morphine, or would you let them suffer, arguing the suffering ensures their eternal salvation?

Etcetera etcetera etcetera... I think it's healthy to question Theresa's reputation. You may, of course, disagree :-p .

_____________________________

(in reply to Sinergy)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/23/2007 6:03:15 AM

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

quote:

I do stand by my statements about Mother Theresa. She was called. She answered the call.

And I've already agreed with you on that... she answered the call to be one of the Pope's minions.
Dressing missionary work up as 'helping' is one of the oldest dodges in the Vatican playbook.

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/23/2007 6:31:31 AM

Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

I also think it's healthy to question her reputation, as well as the reputation and facts as presented by Christopher Hitchens, who does have a bit of a reputation of assembling only the facts that support his work, at the exclusion of facts that don't.

Hypothetical Facts:
Man A broke in to a car and hotwired it. Man A drove to the local ATM and rammed it with the car. After damaging the ATM, he jacked the door open, and took two-thousand dollars in cash. The crowd and local cop were held off with a gun.

Hypothetical Conclusion:
Man A is guilty of grand theft auto, and armed robbery. He should go to prison.

Ignored Facts:
The car was owned by Man A. There was a Man B that had the gun ... as a matter of fact, Man B was holding the gun to Man A's head the entire time.

_____________________________

I wish I could buy back ...
the woman you stole.

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/23/2007 6:38:36 AM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

Such bollocks

!!!

Hitchens isn't alone. Check out the other sources, since you are so interested. Anyhow, nobody will convince me otherwise: the woman was a monster. If you like her as your poster girl, all the more to you, darling: one doesn't discuss taste, in polite society.

_____________________________

(in reply to caitlyn)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/23/2007 7:18:03 AM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

First define appreciation.

We agree to disagree then. You have been engaging in your discussion, so I offered the same back when addressing you. I do believe that what many call "human rights issues", is meddling in the affairs of other countries. Are these things horrid? Yes. Do I support these things? No. Am I going to do something about them in another culture? No. Would I do something about them in my own culture? Yes, or at least try.

The OP is about Eradicating women, and I tried to show one poster that blaming Male society for it, was not facing the real issues. The issues are not gender based, they are power based. I actually tried to engage that poster with a question that turned it around, so it could be examined, and the poster just went on an "evil Man" rant, which supports the point I was making.

These issues are socialogical and cultural, supported by politics and religion, and very complicated issues to address in a society. Many try to make them simple, but the underlying causes have been going on for a long time. If the extreme starts to occur, nature will cause a balancing, meaning those in charge will stop the practice, or the culture will dwindle and possibly fade away.

Those were pretty much my statements. Are the harsh? Some may say so, but I am not going to get morally outraged because that culture does not have the same virtues\morals\ethics as myself. There are too many things here in my local area, state, and country that I can focus my energies on, and make things better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

Aswad: Your posts are indeed welcome. I take back what I said. I was misunderstanding you.

However, I stand by my comments when it cmers to OriontheWolf. He really appears to believe that saying:

"That's just the way things are, deal with it" is making a bona-fide point for intellectual discussion.
I guess we just differ there, hehe (no comment necessary, just making a point).

In any case, I don't want to turn this into a bitch-fest. I misunderstood you. Sorry.

- Susan

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to SusanofO)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/23/2007 7:26:24 AM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

Slanderous, Orion: when did I blame all men for the sorry state of women's rights in the world today? It's a universal problem that concerns everyone.

I hope that chip on your shoulder's lighter than it looks.

_____________________________

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/23/2007 7:29:44 AM

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

Sickening!

the only reason we dont have total anarcky is due to the ladies. that every bad boy has a mom who raised the guy to be a gentleman.

im ready for a femail presindent!

enuff of this misile[penis] envy!

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/23/2007 8:43:42 AM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

I love it when people offer examples in the words they believe are turning things around.

I was not the one that used "patriarchal ". I also never used the qualifier of the word "all". once "patriarchal " was used, I asked a question about it in reverse, to see if the same ethics and morals would apply, because I do not see it as a gender based problem. Do you need those things put in bold and capitalized, to actually understand that?

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to pahunkboy)

RE: Eradicating women. - 8/23/2007 11:58:04 AM

Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline

OriontheWolf: Then go ahead and do that. Focus your energies wherever you want to focus them, pal. Just don't try to tell me which charities I should donate my own time or money to - that's my decison. If the situation was reveresed - of course the same reasoning would apply - this isn't particularly a gender-based issue within its nature - it is a human rights issue. Not a political one, or simply a cultural-tradition one, IMO. I believe that.

If you'd bothered yourself to read the thread, you'd have already known that - there were several posts I'd already written on sex-selection not being limited to men or women if that were to become a scientific reality as some country's solution to a problem. I am not in favor of that. I'd already stated (several times), that eradicating either sex in favor of another was a rotten idea, IMO.

But just the same - Sorry if I misunderstood your oh-so obviously noble intent.

Btw - Love your tag lines. Is "Stop whining" your solution to all of life's "little" problems? How simple. What courage, what tenacity it must take - to simply ignore situations that might actually benefit from some charitable (or simply just human) attention.

Pretty much lets you off the hook, and insists on no caring and-or acting on any idea anyone might have any personal responsibiltiy to give back to the world - and in just about any situation, I'd imagine, too.

How very clever of you. What an attractive attitude -not to mention very Domly (not), I might add.

- Susan

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 8/23/2007 12:58:19 PM >

_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Eradicating women.

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.278