ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
I heard the UN provides a service monitoring elections and such for fairness.
So does OECD. I think we have some people from OECD watching every second election or so in Norway. They don't really find much to complain about - it's Norway after all - but it's still nice to know that they're there and watching.I heard the UN provides a service monitoring elections and such for fairness.
Real men don't hit people period.No. Not at all. Just because they want to be treated like men, doesn't mean a man should hit them. Ever. Even when being attacked by a woman (even one who "insists on acting like men!), a man should only act to restrain, and go at all no further.
That is wrong. If you think back at history or use your imagination, I'm sure you can find at least a few cases were violence was a necessity.Real men don't use hit people period.
But we do not live in "more primitive societies", so it is not at all a pertinent dichotomy. It may be found in certain individual cases, I'll grant you, but that's not an argument for it's retention as a social institution.To Karalysia and Traitorfish: There are such things as misogynistic men. Of course there are also non-misogynistic men, and boys should be educated to be the latter sort. However, if someone must be misogynistic (and too many people have been brought up like that, and will doubtless continue to be brought up like that in many families and many cultures for many generations to come) it is clearly preferable that they also be chivalric and not just a misogynistic thug.
Chivalry is basically a necessary, and therefore appropriate, intermediate stage between utterly barbaric treatment of women, as was, or even is, found in more primitive societies, and more not having to "treat" women at all in any way as such, because it is not considered the social responsibility of a man to engage in this sort of treatment and for the woman just to sit there and be treated.
Therefore, it is a necessary dichtonomy when applied to more primitive societies, viz. tea-party society. How are these people to even contemplate behaving with true respect to women if they are perfectly willing to beat them to the ground and stamp on their head? These people must not be encouraged to act with true respect, because this is a lost cause, but rather with chivalry, because such a concept is probably not so utterly alien to their bigoted mindset.
"Real men" is a pretty iffy concept. It attaches too much virtue to the essentialising of cultural constructs, which is... Questionable.Real men don't hit people period.
"Good men, women, and others only hit the right people, and only when necessary". There, now everybody's happy!That is wrong. If you think back at history or use your imagination, I'm sure you can find at least a few cases were violence was a necessity.
Really, man? That's who you meant when you said the Black Panthers? Those guys aren't Black Panthers.Wow. Perhaps we are not referring to the same event. I am talking about the two guys with nightsticks intimidating voters during the 2008 election in Chicago. That the Justice Department declined to press charges on, allegedly by pressure to not do so from the White House.
The difference between Fox and MSNBC is that Fox's main pundits are intellectually dishonest, whereas MSNBC's are merely biased. Additionally, MSNBC doesn't try to hide its bias, whereas Fox still considers itself Fair & Balanced when it is anything but. Rachel Maddow is especially reliable in presenting honest news.1.
Kara called the Tea party white, right-wing extremists (an untrue and politically-motivated labeling) and so yes there is a comparison there to the black extremist group.
2. I love to use the two MSNBC idiots in derogatory ways the same way other people here love to use FOX, Beck and O'Reilly. When people use the same kind of terms I hear on those shows, I suspect them of watching those shows like they agree with what they say.
What reason is there for me to post on a forum where I guess 90% of the posters are on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum for me, if not to argue and make fun of MSNBC and their talking heads the way they do with FOX, Beck and O'Reilly?
You want something productive? That curbstomping was terrible, not reflective of the Tea Party at all, but will be used to further the image of the Tea Party as extremists by those who disapprove (IE democrats, liberals, progressives and the trifecta of idiocy that is Olbermann, Maddow and Shultz).
Yes politics is gang warfare now, and that started with all the anti-Bush rhetoric years ago (funny how Obama and the dems love to point out how divisive FOX is but nobody used to say a word about MSNBC). The Tea Party now are being called extremists, racists, you name it, because they represent a large part of the population that does not approve of Obama, the democrats, or really anything the government has done. The country is headed in bad direction and it's about damned time people are doing something about it, and that's voting these incumbents out of office and wanting to repeal Obamacare until a proper bill is introduced that won't stomp all over our basic freedoms.
You will always get a few bad apples in a party.
1.
Kara called the Tea party white, right-wing extremists (an untrue and politically-motivated labeling) and so yes there is a comparison there to the black extremist group.
2. I love to use the two MSNBC idiots in derogatory ways the same way other people here love to use FOX, Beck and O'Reilly. When people use the same kind of terms I hear on those shows, I suspect them of watching those shows like they agree with what they say.
What reason is there for me to post on a forum where I guess 90% of the posters are on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum for me, if not to argue and make fun of MSNBC and their talking heads the way they do with FOX, Beck and O'Reilly?
You want something productive? That curbstomping was terrible, not reflective of the Tea Party at all, but will be used to further the image of the Tea Party as extremists by those who disapprove (IE democrats, liberals, progressives and the trifecta of idiocy that is Olbermann, Maddow and Shultz).
Yes politics is gang warfare now, and that started with all the anti-Bush rhetoric years ago (funny how Obama and the dems love to point out how divisive FOX is but nobody used to say a word about MSNBC). The Tea Party now are being called extremists, racists, you name it, because they represent a large part of the population that does not approve of Obama, the democrats, or really anything the government has done. The country is headed in bad direction and it's about damned time people are doing something about it, and that's voting these incumbents out of office and wanting to repeal Obamacare until a proper bill is introduced that won't stomp all over our basic freedoms.
You will always get a few bad apples in a party.
Politics wasn't gang-warfare like it is now in the Bush days.
Well, firstly, I would contest that the head-stomper was simply a sociopath. The fact that he was willing to engage in the public head-stomping of political opponents seems to prove that beyond all reasonable doubt.Traitorfish, that's a very large and dominant collection of awful people who comprise a very large proportion of the world's population, and are sometimes very prevalent. Really, this person who kicked the woman in the head in the example could have done with a good grasp of chivalry. It would have done him and the woman both a lot of good in the circumstances. Would he or any like-minded people have taken, "Don't hit anyone," on board? I think not. People like him just aren't non-violent like that, by nature. Even if people can understand the statement, they don't necessarily agree with it, and there are perfectly good reasons to hit people. In some people's minds, "good reasons" might include "you got in my way." Such people need chivalry.
A more regressive message is sometimes necessary for more regressive people, and there are a lot of them.
I never justified it, but you seem to be preoccupied with the BLACK panthers
whilst ignoring the longer, and lets be honest, much more serious problems of denial, intimidation, cheating and other forms of fiddling with the minority vote, something which you seem reluctant to touch. I wonder why.
Well, firstly, I would contest that the head-stomper was simply a sociopath. The fact that he was willing to engage in the public head-stomping of political opponents seems to prove that beyond all reasonable doubt.
Secondly, I'm honestly not sure at what point we disagree. Are you suggesting that we can only begin arguing against chivalry when the entire world has fully and entirely absorbed it? When will that be? As you yourself suggest, a performance of chivalry doesn't necessary suggest it's internalisation.
I, at least, feel capable of not hitting women without any code of honour dictating it, and I don't need to hold doors and pay for dinners to demonstrate that. Not true of everyone, but true of enough to be worth saying so, and I would give our fellow posters enough of the benefit of the doubt to include them in this category.
Preston Brooks would like a word with you if you'd like to engage in hysterics about the incivility of politics today.3. Politics wasn't gang-warfare like it is now in the Bush days.
To double down on Useless's point, they aren't even the Black Panthers. They're a couple of crackpots trying to steal the name while the real Black Panthers denounced them. I tried to bring this up earlier but you must have not known what I was alluding to.Seriously...of course BLACK Panthers....it is the label they use isnt it? Negro Panthers or African-American Panthers just doesnt sound as cool, imho.