|
Post by HStorm on Aug 11, 2005 17:42:06 GMT
Another Orwell-inspired thread, more for a laugh than anything else, but with some serious meaning behind it.
One of George Orwell's most famous and clever articles was one he wrote in 1945, discussing a subject that, today, we would probably refer to as 'political tribalism'. In his own words; -
"there is a habit of mind which is now so widespread that it affects our thinking on nearly every subject, but which has not yet been given a name. As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense"
As I say, the term that's been invented in the last twenty years or so to cover the meaning is tribalism. It's a kind of fanatical loyalty that anyone is capable of succumbing to at some point, which makes people edgy, stubborn, and quite capable of arguing with physical reality.
As examples, Orwell listed certain political affiliations, and gave examples of very obvious facts that the affiliates in question would not be able to accept. Here they are; -
BRITISH TORY: Britain will come out of this war with reduced power and prestige. (Remember, he was writing in 1945.) COMMUNIST: If she had not been aided by Britain and America, Russia would have been defeated by Germany. IRISH NATIONALIST: Eire can only remain independent because of British protection. TROTSKYIST: The Stalin régime is accepted and supported by the Russian masses. PACIFIST: Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.
But there were countless other groups that could be analysed in the same way e.g. Zionists, Antisemites, Scottish Nationalists and on and on.
The recent 'shouting-down' of the press by Blair has had me wondering what would be in such a list if written for today. And so I decided to try. There follows a list of what I've come up with, but please join in if you can think of any more!
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Aug 11, 2005 17:51:54 GMT
BNP ACTIVIST: With the native public unwilling to take some essential jobs, the influx of foreign workers into the UK is good for the British economy.
AMERICAN NEOCONSERVATIVE: The pre-declared objectives of the invasion of Iraq have not been achieved.
BRITISH PATRIOT: The UK is insignificant in the field of Nuclear arms as its defence is entirely run by the USA.
ISLAMIC ACTIVIST: The majority of Islamic/Arab Governments are repressive regimes.
FEMINIST: Modern women are at least as prone to sexist prejudices as men, and are generally more likely to be aggressive about them.
MARXIST: The revolutionary theoretical programs of Marx and Engels, in every instance that they have been employed, have failed to bring about anything resembling a genuine Socialist society.
WESTERN PRO-MILITARIST: The invasion of Iraq was against International Law, and in the wider 'War Against Terrorism' - such as it is - it has made matters substantially worse.
FRENCH NATIONALIST: Nuclear testing on islands in the Pacific Ocean was done by the French Government with a total disregard for the rights of the local populace.
MALE CHAUVINIST: While it is true that women are ill-suited to certain tasks, very few of them are in the workplace, and none are in the area of administration.
THATCHERITE: Margaret Thatcher's demolition of native British manufacturing has led to enormous trade deficits and an economy largely controlled by other countries.
WESTERN ISLAMAPHOBE: There is no evidence for a worldwide Militant Islamic network, nor for a Militant organisation called al-Qaeda, and the capture of Osama bin-Laden will do nothing to bring Militancy to an end.
SCOTTISH NATIONALIST: The most prosperous era in Scottish history would not have come about were it not for the Union with England.
ISRAELI IMPERIALIST: Arabs living in Israeli-held lands are treated like animals by the Israeli populace.
AMERICAN PATRIOT: The USA has destroyed far more democratic Governments in other parts of the world than it has helped to build.
BRITISH SOCIALIST: The USA is a preferable society to the type that was built in the Soviet Union.
WESTERNISER: Governments in the Middle East that are allied to the USA and Europe treat their civilians and neighbouring countries no better than those Middle-Eastern Governments that oppose the USA and Europe.
OLD LABOUR ACTIVIST: By changing its methods in the 1990's, the Labour Party did not violate its principles.
BLAIRITE: By abandoning its core aims after coming to power, the Labour Party violated its principles.
BUSINESS LEADERS: It is out of pure greed that Fat Cats frequently award themselves 'windfall' bonuses of hundreds of thousands of pounds, while awarding their employees the barest fraction of that, or no bonus at all.
PACIFIST: The surest way of having an effective Foreign Policy is to have effective armed forces.
AMERICAN MILITARIST: A military invasion of a foreign country will do nothing to deal with the problems of paramilitary terrorism.
CHRISTIAN ACTIVIST: Modern science proves that it is physically impossible for the contents of the Bible to be literally true.
US LIBERAL: The content of the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 includes many details that have been twisted and distorted by the maker.
OLD-STYLE BRITISH LIBERAL: Patriotism is a more powerful motivator for people than the prospect of human unity or economic equality.
ANARCHIST: Destroying a Government for its own sake is a waste of time and blood.
INDUSTRIALIST: Red tape is a necessary evil to combat corruption.
PAN-ARABIST: Suicide bombings create martyrs and escalate opposition, making them impractical.
WELSH NATIONALIST: The Welsh language is a completely unusable form of communication outside Wales, and even in some areas within the country as well.
ZANU PF SOLDIER: The present famine crisis in Zimbabwe has been caused by the incumbent Goverment, and not by past British colonialism.
CHINESE COMMUNIST: The rights of the individual are not respected by the Government of China.
EUROPEAN INTEGRATIONIST: The European Union's bureaucratic machinery and law-making bodies are in desperate need of reform.
FRENCH FARMER: The EU's Common Agricultural Policy encourages preposterous wastages of food and money.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Aug 12, 2005 12:36:19 GMT
^^^ Very well done. I take my hat off to you sir.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Aug 12, 2005 17:26:00 GMT
Thanks, but join in!!!! EUROSKEPTIC: If Britain were to withdraw from the EU it would harm her economy. ANTI-SEMITIST: The wars between Israel and its Arab neighbours were started by a Pan-Arab invasion of Israel. FUEL TAX PROTESTOR: With congestion so severe, measures need to be put in place to discourage motorists from making unnecessary car journeys.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Aug 17, 2005 11:39:47 GMT
ANTI-SEMITIST: The wars between Israel and its Arab neighbours were started by a Pan-Arab invasion of Israel. Or by the West arbitrarily carving off a large lump of Arab territory and handing it over to the Jewish community without asking. Only Israel labels people objecting to that ati-semitism. ISRAELI POLITICIAN: Anti-semitism is not defined as 'Any form of disagreement with anyone of Jewish disent'. BRITISH EU DELEGATE: The French EU delegates sometimes have good ideas. FRENCH EU DELEGATE: Increased integration at any cost is not always wise. FRENCH FARMER: Setting fire to anything you disagree with is also not always wise. SCOTSMAN: Bannockburn was so long ago that you should really stop harping on about it. Oh, and also, Robert Burns' poetry was shite. CREATIONIST: The theory of Evolution is far more capable of holding up to critical analysis than Creationism ever will be. Also, Creationism contains logical fallacies at it's very heart. Also, the 'gaps' in the fossil record creationists often claim to exist... don't. Also, the bible is clearly wrong on numerous counts. Also... just any truthful statement that contradicts religion. CATHOLIC DOGMATIST: It is impossible for two popes to answer the same question differently and yet still also both be right, i.e. the whole 'world flatness' thing. ATHEIST: Religion has a valid and useful purpose in society. JOHNATHON ROSS: Some suits were just never meant to be worn. ISLAMIC MILITANT: Islam discourages and abhors violence in it's scriptures and teachings. AMERICAN IDEALIST: The USA's social model has created a state with roughly the same equality, liberty and tolerance as the Soviet Union had. Racism and right-wing political ideals means that the supposed 'American Dream' is impossible for as much as 95% of the population. IDIOT: You can't wash a window with a spade. CRITIQUE: Quibbling endlessly over definitions doesn't mean you've won the argument. MODESKI: Marriage is an outdated and needless institution designed to protect females before they had rights of their own, and now creates a contract with excessive favour to the female partner. WOMEN: Men could handle periods easily. MEN: We couldn't, really. Be honest. ITALIAN MAFIA: The Mafia is no more honourable or beneviolent than any other criminal organization, and often far worse. COLOMBIAN GOVERNMENT: The cocaine cartels have done more to feed and house the poor of Colombia than any other organisation in the world. COLOMBIAN DRUGS LORD: Merely because you've done more to feed and house the poor than anyone else in the world, you do not have a licence to shoot people for being suspected of once having seen a policeman from several miles away. BRITISH POLICEMAN: Merely because you've been given a gun and you're excited, you do not have a licence to shoot people for being suspected of once having seen a bomb from several miles away. CIA DIRECTOR: The CIA does not run the USA, it is supposed to be the other way round. Also, ends do not always justify means, particularly not the ends that the CIA eventually comes out with. ANTI-AMERICAN: Saddam Hussain was not a nice man, and really shouldn't have been in power. PRO-AMERICAN: Alawi was not a nice man, and really shouldn't have been put in power. NORTH KOREA: Kim Il Jong is utterly off his nut, and shouldn't be given nuclear weapons to play with. REPUBLICAN: George W Bush is an idiot. George W H Bush is a genocidal idiot. Ronald Regan was an idiot, and is probably the only man in history to score higher on his IQ test posthumously. DEMOCRAT: The democratic party has been so mired in corruption and sleaze for so long that it's no suprise the Republicans control congress. CONSERVATIVE: The conseravtive party is fast becoming such a joke it may as well hire Robert Kilroy-Silk as their new leader. VERITAS: There aren't any other people in Veritas apart from you, Kilroy, so stop pretending there are. And you probably STILL can't remain leader for long. LIBERAL DEMOCRAT: Many of the tax reforms suggested by the Lib Dems in the last election would be unaffordable within five years. CHAVS: Double-barreled christian names are stupid. Burberry tartan looks shite. HIPPIE: Drugs are actually really really bad for you, you know. ANTI-SMOKER: People have the right to choose to smoke, and the 'facts' of how bad smoking is have been enormously distorted by anti-smoking campaigners. PRO-SMOKER: the 'facts' of how badly distorted anti-smoking 'facts' have become are somewhat distorted. Smoking IS bad for you, even though passive smoking has never been shown to be within reasonable doubt. HSTORM: This thread is not as exciting or popular as you believed it would be.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Aug 20, 2005 8:55:46 GMT
Or by the West arbitrarily carving off a large lump of Arab territory and handing it over to the Jewish community without asking. Only Israel labels people objecting to that ati-semitism. Agreed, but that's not what I'm talking about. The point is that the wars began with an invasion of Israel by its Arab neighbours, and whether the invasion was justified or not, or even what its motivations were, are neither here nor there. What I'm saying is, the physical fact that the Arabs attacked Israel first and not the other way around is something that anti-semitic factions (especially in the south of the USA) won't tolerate. I know that, as usual, you're not taking things seriously, but some of the entries you've put in here don't quite meet the rules of the game. For a start, you frequently name things individuals won't agree with, when you're supposed to examine the attitudes of affiliations. Secondly, some of the statements you put down aren't necessarily facts but opinions e.g. "Double-barreled christian names are stupid". (I agree that they are, but it's a matter of personal taste rather than a solid fact.) Oh and, er, I never said that I believed it would be exciting or popular, I just hoped it would.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Aug 31, 2005 21:15:00 GMT
The 'facts' listed under "feminist" and "atheist" are bollocks and I question the validity of those under "pacifist" and "US Liberal" , and very few anti-Americans British socialists would hold their listed facts to be false. Labour did a lot more than change its methods from 1994 to 1997. Suicide bombing works.
Times-reader: "My newspaper has gone tabloid, to some extent, in more ways than one."
Mail-reader: "This is not a quality newspaper."
Sun-reader: "Only an idiot would take any of this seriously."
Guardian-reader: "There is no good reason to vote Labour."
Guardian-reader: "Araucaria is a twisted bastard."
Independent-reader: "Except in a few limited respects, the Liberal Democrats are not a left-wing or progressive party."
Most people: "George Galloway is one of the most slandered people in Britain, has among the cleanest records of all British politicians and hates and is hated by Saddam Hussein."
British left-winger: "Robin Cook has the blood of countless thousands on his decomposing hands, was perfectly happy to let Blair get away with Thatcherism and was no more than a fairly good speaker."
Labour member: "City academies, foundation hospitals and PFI are not a good thing as long as they deliver the results, which in any case they don't."
Free market economist: "Introducing market forces is often catastrophic."
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 1, 2005 12:15:27 GMT
The 'facts' listed under "feminist" and "atheist" are bollocks Care to back this up? Religion DOES have a valid purpose in sociological terms. Just because it's often used for other reasons doesn't mean it's purely malignant. And hardline atheists, in general, refuse to accept that. Also, feminists are usually far more sexest than men. That fact that they label themselves 'feminists', and there is no corresponding 'minist' group on the other side, should give a vague hint in that direction. There are consistent arguments that women should recieve preferential treatment in many things (child custody for starters, but there is a list if you want me to drag it all up), where no corresponding argument can possibly exist on the other side for fear of sexism. Add to this the generally non-sexist nature of the modern male, and you'll find HStorm's statement is entirely fair. I question the validity of those under "pacifist" and "US Liberal" Well, complain to George Orwell's cold dead ears about your issue with 'pacifist' since he came up with it. During the Second World War. When, to be fair, it was probably unarguably accurate. As for 'US Liberal', I quite agree. There's no such thing. Depends on your definition. If you mean you die in the explosion, you are right. If, on the other hand, you mean that it furthers your political ideals, your hopelessly deluded. Let's chalk it up, shall we? Osama bin Laden wants the middle east to be free of Israel and western infulence. His 'ultimate suicide bomb' of 9/11 has resulted in the fall of Afghanistan (one of the only contries that follow this idea), and the implementation of a Western puppet regime. Iraq, also, though Saddam could hardly be thought of as a pro-islamic jihadi. Saudi Arabia and Lebanon have been drawn closer to the west. Israel is still around, and it's withdrawl from Gaza can hardly be regarded as a great victory for suicide bombing as much as the result of 20 years of significant international pressure and talks.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Sept 1, 2005 12:41:21 GMT
I apologise for sounding stupid, but why is Sharon pulling out from Gaza? How does it benefit him?
Is it no more than he wants to appear to be committed to peace?
Sorry for the digression.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 1, 2005 18:41:50 GMT
I'd guess it's so he can still claim to be working toward the peace process while setting up more illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and building his Berlin Wall-esque barrier fence.
Anyway, the Gaza Strip is too densely populated already for any real attempt at colonization (it's one of the top 4 population points on Earth, I believe), and it's not exactly like he's pulling everything out anyway. The Israelis still control all the crossing points and highways, and every means of entering or leaving the area. So magnanamous of him.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Sept 1, 2005 19:12:37 GMT
The 'facts' listed under "feminist" and "atheist" are bollocks No they're not. I suggest you find a copy of Orwell's article (you can find it here and there online) and read it and then you'll get a clearer idea of what the game is. Suffice to say, it refers to people whose affiliation is the dominant role in their life, not just people who could be placed in the categories mentioned. In the cases here, over the years I have met women beyond counting who say the wildest, most presumptious and patronising codswallop about men as a whole, usually because of the behaviour of just one or two men they've met in their time, and when I take offence and try to make a fair objection, they have always shouted me down and accused me of being a chauvinist just for disagreeing with them. (Even the women in my own family have resorted to that on many occasions, including my own mother!) Many modern women frequently make aggressive sexist remarks against men, whom they expect to smile about it and take it in their stride, yet seem horror-struck and feel victimised when on the receiving end. If you don't believe it, I'd love to know only the women you've ever met. And the fact the atheists would argue with partly refers back to the opium/opiate of the masses business we discussed a few months ago, and other matters besides. Do you? Well I don't, and I'm not going to until you back your position up a bit. The simple fact is, any country with inadequate armed forces tends to have less effective foreign policy than those who have strong ones. And Fahrenheit 9/11 has a lot of instances of distorted information in it. That's a fact, measurably proven and demonstrated by numerous impartial observers, and not just by jumped-up little Republican huffer-puffers. Most of the distortion is merely the exaggeration of relatively unimportant details, I know, but it's still distorted. I'm not discussing the degree or significance of what Michael Moore has twisted, I'm simply stating that it's there. One of the prime examples is your beloved, can-say-and-do-no-wrong, sun-shines-out-of-his-rectum, George Galloway, who among other things still mourns the demise of the USSR. Others who have shown a similar tendancy over the years (usually in unguarded moments, to be fair) include Diane Abbot and even, it saddens me to say, Tony Benn. They've never actually gone as far as to side with the Soviets, but their attitude has usually boiled down to a belief that the USA and the USSR were each just as bad as the other. It's no ringing endorsement of course, but the USA is rather better than that. At the moment. So? I never said it didn't. I just said that changing its methods did not violate its principles, and whether we like it or not, it was necessary that they did find a new program for achieving a fairer society, as their old methods had proven unworkable and even made them unelectable. What I'm saying is, I believe there is more than one strategy by which Democratic Socialism can be achieved, and the Old Labour method has not proven to be one of them, so a change of thinking on Labour's part was perfectly acceptable. Sometime afterwards, it became clear that they'd abandoned their aims as well, possibly before the election, I suppose that's open to debate. But the actual change of vision didn't become an 'open secret' until a little while after Blair took office. As a method of killing people, yes. As a political tool, no, it's counter-productive. Oh I dunno though, perhaps you're right... Maybe it was just a massive ongoing coincidence that all the escalations of Israeli violence against Palestinians over the last five years would develop within a couple of days of suicide attacks? Perhaps Britain has withdrawn its troops from Iraq since 7th of July, and it's just nobody told me. I suppose fundamentalist Islam has actually become the dominant religious doctrine in, say, Uzbekistan, because of the suicide bombing campaigns of the militant groups in the 1980's. Last I heard, fundamentalism was still loathed by over 80% of the moderate Islamic population there, but it's only hearsay. No, Thanatos, suicide bombings do not work, not in the way I'm referring to here. It hardens opposition when it is intended to intimidate it. Your reaction to these points, incidentally, kind of underlines the overall nature of what this thread is talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Sept 1, 2005 20:58:09 GMT
Religion DOES have a valid purpose in sociological terms.
No, it doesn't. Some of its moral precepts (e.g. thou shalt not steal or kill) and some of its social effects (e.g. uniting communities) do or can have a valid purpose, but people are capable of such things without religion. That much of what is concomitant with religion has a valid purpose does not mean that religion itself does.
And hardline atheists, in general, refuse to accept that.
What on Earth is a "hardline atheist"? Either you are convinced of deities' nonexistence or you aren't, so unless you refer to people who want religion banned (and I don't see many of those about, at least in this country) I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Also, feminists are usually far more sexest than men.
Only if you misuse the term "feminist" to mean "one who wants a society of female superiority and downtrodden men", of whom, again, there are very few (albeit slightly more than there are in the religion-banning lobby).
That fact that they label themselves 'feminists', and there is no corresponding 'minist' group on the other side, should give a vague hint in that direction.
There's a simple reason for that: in our society male superiority was for centuries, nay, millennia, the status quo and it will take many, many years for the misogynistic norm to cease to be recent and relevant history. For this reason, men remain better-off - the vast majority of top people in virtually any British institution, from the National Theatre through academia to the Civil Service, is male and women earn on average less than men in every trade and profession - and the idea of a masculist movement is absurd: if such a thing did exist it could only be as a reactionary campaign for a return to pre-feminist misogynistic values.
There are consistent arguments that women should recieve preferential treatment in many things (child custody for starters, but there is a list if you want me to drag it all up), where no corresponding argument can possibly exist on the other side for fear of sexism.
I'm sceptical about the claims of the likes of Fathers for Justice, and even if they're right then child custody is very much the exception.
Add to this the generally non-sexist nature of the modern male
You are either exceptionally unobservant, moving in phenomenally enlightened male social circles or joking.
Well, complain to George Orwell's cold dead ears about your issue with 'pacifist' since he came up with it.
I referred to HStorm's, not Orwell's.
As for suicide bombing, cf. the Tamil Tigers.
I apologise for sounding stupid, but why is Sharon pulling out from Gaza?
So he doesn't have to pull out of the West Bank.
Suffice to say, it refers to people whose affiliation is the dominant role in their life, not just people who could be placed in the categories mentioned.
Fair enough, but such people in the case of atheism are as rare as hen's teeth and feminists-above-all-else are far from common.
In the cases here, over the years I have met women beyond counting who say the wildest, most presumptious and patronising codswallop about men as a whole, usually because of the behaviour of just one or two men they've met in their time, and when I take offence and try to make a fair objection, they have always shouted me down and accused me of being a chauvinist just for disagreeing with them.
For my part I have never met a single woman like that.
The simple fact is, any country with inadequate armed forces tends to have less effective foreign policy than those who have strong ones.
My complaint is that you (like many others) seem too ready to equate "foreign policy" with "military policy".
And Fahrenheit 9/11 has a lot of instances of distorted information in it. That's a fact, measurably proven and demonstrated by numerous impartial observers, and not just by jumped-up little Republican huffer-puffers. Most of the distortion is merely the exaggeration of relatively unimportant details, I know, but it's still distorted. I'm not discussing the degree or significance of what Michael Moore has twisted, I'm simply stating that it's there.
I'm not aware of any such criticisms that Mr. Moore and others haven't been able easily to explain away (with corroboration), but it's possible I've only seen the daft attacks. I won't ask you to type out a long list, but a URL explaining what the distortions are would be nice.
One of the prime examples is your beloved, can-say-and-do-no-wrong, sun-shines-out-of-his-rectum, George Galloway
As I grow tired of saying, I do not worship him in such a manner and if I appear to you to think he can do no wrong it is because your perspective is distorted by the sheer number of those who think he can do no right.
who among other things still mourns the demise of the USSR.
He's got a point: no ex-Soviet country's people are on the whole anything other than worse off as a result of the USSR's fall (though the former satellite states are another matter). That is not the same as saying that the people of the USSR had it better than those of the USA (though in the case of the USA's very poorest - certainly not the working class as a whole - that may be true). And yes, for the record I think Galloway goes too far in his mourning of the USSR.
Others who have shown a similar tendancy over the years (usually in unguarded moments, to be fair) include Diane Abbot and even, it saddens me to say, Tony Benn. They've never actually gone as far as to side with the Soviets, but their attitude has usually boiled down to a belief that the USA and the USSR were each just as bad as the other.
In terms of domestic policy, no one other than the most brainwashed of card-carrying Communists makes any such claim. In terms of foreign (and military) policy, the USA, after Stalin's death, was far worse, destroying and preventing democratic socialism left, right and centre and killing many people. The USSR was far from guiltless, but such events as the invasion of Afghanistan (whose time of Soviet control is widely regarded by that country's people as being as close as they got in recent history to a golden age) pale in comparison.
So? I never said it didn't.
All right, sorry, I mistakenly inferred from the distinction in your phrasing ("in the 1990s" first and "after coming to power" second) that you considered 'New' Labour while in opposition to represent a change only in methods.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Sept 1, 2005 22:09:35 GMT
Some of its moral precepts (e.g. thou shalt not steal or kill) and some of its social effects (e.g. uniting communities) do or can have a valid purpose, but people are capable of such things without religion. That much of what is concomitant with religion has a valid purpose does not mean that religion itself does. Yes it does. These things can be achieved other ways, true, and it can be argued - it's probably even true - that these other ways are better. But that doesn't suddenly make religion invalid, merely obsolete. Indeed you yourself used the words "do or can have a valid purpose". Whether it's better or worse than other methods is beside the point, the point is, religion does have a valid role to play. A 'hardline atheist' to my mind is the sort who doesn't just want religion banned but actually wants violent reprisals for people who worship. I agree that they aren't very common, and I suspect Ruzl was using the wrong term. But there is such a thing as anti-religious bigotry, and it is just as serious a problem as pro-religious bigotry. Once again, this is drifting from the point. The reason why so many women these days are aggressive and make unfair reproaches against men may be a good one, but it doesn't suddenly mean it doesn't happen, or that many good men don't end up getting caught up in it. By your own words, you've admitted it does happen, the reasons why are a separate issue. Yes, women had a hideously rotten deal for thousands of years, and in some areas they still haven't 'caught up', but that does not justify sweeping, patronising, aggressive insults aimed at all men without equivocation or impartiality, nor does it in some way mean it 'doesn't count' when women resort to that. Actually no. The great majority of men I know are not wrapped up in delusions of male superiority at all, and have even developed an inferiority complex, partly because, as I say, they are scared to voice an objection when they are being, in effect, told off for being male. Yes, there are always exceptions, especially the products of the 90's 'lad' culture, but they are not that commonplace. Er. No. They're not. Where d'you live, man?!?!?!? I'm putting in a bid for your house tomorrow, name your price! I don't, but I'm realistic enough to recognise that the two are closely intertwined. When countries are weak militarily, other nations are inclined to pay them far less mind than they pay to nations that are militarily strong. Look how much influence the UK had a century ago when it had the mightiest and most feared navy on Earth, and look at how we've become a puppet of the USA now that we've been so thoroughly superceded. I'm not saying I like it, I'm not saying it's a good thing, and in no sense am I suggesting that we should militarise further than we already have, but it's a sad fact we have to acknowledge that influence increases the greater the threat you pose. I'll look around and try to refresh my memory. What I can say is, having studied the F9/11 Reader, there are a few accusations of dishonesty that don't appear to have been addressed, and some of the answers he has given have since been discredited. I apologise, but at the same time, don't you imagine for a moment that I'm one to get swayed by public opinion very easily! I'd take a million years of Galloway at Number 10 before I'd take another month of Tony Blair. But at the same time, GG and others are examples of Lefties who see the USSR as, not actually a good thing of course, but no worse than what was on the other side of the Pacific. For all the USA's shortcomings, it was still preferable to the repression of the USSR, and some, especially on the Loony Left refuse to recognise that. (I'm not saying Galloway is a Loony Leftie by the way.) Oh I agree wholeheartedly that the death of the USSR was not exclusively good news. In the wider world it had the added complication of giving the USA a free hand to bully the rest of the world any way it liked, and practically the whole of the former Union is now in a shambolic condition. But that is a reason to mourn the collapse of the country as a self-sustaining power. It is not a reason to mourn the death of the Soviet Union itself, which was a terribly repressive regime. The end of that was a good thing, the shame was that it collapsed entirely instead of evolving into something more honourable and humanitarian, something that might have used its enormous power for good purposes. And sadly, there are some of them still around, including in the left wing of the Labour Party. It's not so much brainwashing as blinkered-ness; being so intent on seeing the faults in what they hate that they fail to recognise similar (or worse) shortcomings on 'their own side'. Oh beyond doubt, but it's not so much policy as society that I was talking about. There were other changes, mainly relating to image and semantics e.g. a sudden revulsion towards being identified with socialism. Whether or not Labour's braintrust had actually gone as far as deciding "Ah, to hell with a fair society!" before 1997 is actually unclear. (Even after the election they did bring about a minimum wage, to be fair to them.) The danger signs were there for all to see though. What I would say in defence of New Labour in its Opposition years - the only such thing I'd say - is that I believe Neil Kinnock and John Smith both retained genuine socialist ideals all the way through, even as they started the job of strategy overhaul. It was Blair who was responsible for perverting this process. The exact timeframe involved is what's in doubt. But because the New Labour project didn't start with Blair - even if the name was invented under his leadership - I had to phrase things carefully to reflect this.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 2, 2005 12:04:24 GMT
Religion DOES have a valid purpose in sociological terms.No, it doesn't. Some of its moral precepts (e.g. thou shalt not steal or kill) and some of its social effects (e.g. uniting communities) do or can have a valid purpose, You do realise that you've just defined 'valid purpose in sociological terms', don't you? Some of it's social effects have a valid purpose. Hence, it has a valid purpose in sociological terms. It's a means to an end, and there are other ways it could be done, but my statement stands. You're simply re-wording it in an effort to disprove it. This kind of thing I would expect from Mekanik, but not you Thanatos. To put it in simpler terms, religion is an organizing principal, and any organizing principal is sociologically valid. Regardless of if the principal is based on magic, lies or sheer might, it still serves it's purpose and therefore it is of use. Scientifically religious belief is not merely invalid but is actually detrimental, but that's not the point, really, is it? What on Earth is a "hardline atheist"? One who, despite recognising that some of religion's social effects are beneficial, is unable to accept the statement 'Religion has a valid purpose in sociological terms' as true. There's a simple reason for that: in our society male superiority was for centuries, nay, millennia, the status quo and it will take many, many years for the misogynistic norm to cease to be recent and relevant history. For this reason, men remain better-off - the vast majority of top people in virtually any British institution, from the National Theatre through academia to the Civil Service, is male and women earn on average less than men in every trade and profession - and the idea of a masculist movement is absurd: if such a thing did exist it could only be as a reactionary campaign for a return to pre-feminist misogynistic values. Ah, but the very concept of feminism, and indeed the root of the word itself, is inherently sexist. It's the promotion of one gender without the equivilent promotion of the other. That's practically the definition (again). Also, the basis for your assumption is the top people in any institution, where I think you'll find it's agism that is the main discrimination rather than sexism. Find me a company director under 30, and I'll find you a female one. The boss of HP, for example. The simple fact is, Thanatos, that during the many centuries of male dominance certain structures where created to protect women (marriage, for example, or chivalry, or the 'women and children first' mentality). When women achieved equal rights, they should, in all fairness, no long be protected by these things, as it creates an inequality that, apparently, women have been trying to fight against from the start. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be how they see it. Odd, that. But it is an inherent, underlying sexism, harmless enough, admittedly, which the vast majority of men born after about 1965 do not possess an equivilent for. Even the 1990's 'lad' culture was more an ironic self-depricating sexism rather than the male-elitist cultures before, in that ladism only took that stance to be a bit naughty, rather than assuming it was the natural order of the universe. I'm sceptical about the claims of the likes of Fathers for Justice, and even if they're right then child custody is very much the exception. Car insurance, anyone? Or is that very much the exception, too? How about the expected rules of chivalry? My (woman) boss at work had a go at me only yesterday because, as I threw my back out at Leeds, I didn't help a female workmate lift a trolley (which I usually drag round on my own) up onto a curb. Never mind my injury. Never mind the apparent equality between men and women. Never mind the fact that it was a cocking trolley, and (given certain aspects such as 'the laws of physics', and 'wheels') could have been moved up onto the curb easily by any one person. I was supposed to lift it up onto the curb because I was the man. I know it doesn't cause any harm, and I know it doesn't compare to the male attitudes of 100 years ago, but it shows a fundamental subconcious sexist expectation. You seem to think a woman can't be sexist due to being a woman, and a man can't avoid it because he's a man. You are either exceptionally unobservant, moving in phenomenally enlightened male social circles or joking. And you're either living in 1956, deeply ashamed of your own gender, or hoping to be seen as a feminist. As for suicide bombing, cf. the Tamil Tigers. As for it not working, cf. all the examples we've cited above. ncluding Israel's current consolidating of it's grip on the West Bank. For my part I have never met a single woman like that. Have you ever met a woman at all? ;-) My complaint is that you (like many others) seem too ready to equate "foreign policy" with "military policy". The two are very closely linked, and only a fool wouldn't notice how countries with a strong military have a powerful voice to their foreign policy.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Sept 3, 2005 22:49:47 GMT
Yes it does. These things can be achieved other ways, true, and it can be argued - it's probably even true - that these other ways are better. But that doesn't suddenly make religion invalid, merely obsolete. Indeed you yourself used the words "do or can have a valid purpose".I used them - I made this clear and am much surprised that someone of your with would so either misinterpret or misrepresent - of certain aspects of certain religions. Those aspects, though, are not what define religion as being such, it is the spiritual side that does so, and the former therefore cannot be taken as a yardstick for determining whether religion has a valid purpose. The reason why so many women these days are aggressive and make unfair reproaches against men may be a good one, but it doesn't suddenly mean it doesn't happen, or that many good men don't end up getting caught up in it.Of course, but you much exaggerate the instance of this phenomenon. Yes, women had a hideously rotten deal for thousands of years, and in some areas they still haven't 'caught up'"Some"? but that does not justify sweeping, patronising, aggressive insults...without equivocation or impartialityLike, er, "modern women are at least as prone to sexist prejudices as men, and are generally more likely to be aggressive about them"? The great majority of men I know are not wrapped up in delusions of male superiority at allThese days it's not so much a specific idea of male superiority - say, wanting to bar women from certain jobs or even saying they're not as good at them as men - as a general attitude towards the female sex. Men, particularly young men, often speak or think of women (or 'girls') almost as a uniform group or another species, and manifestations of sexism are increasingly inseparable from the usual connotation of the word's first syllable. Then again, there is 'unconscious' sexism: if, say, you were about to meet for the first time an academic whom you knew only by surname and someone indicated a couple with the words, "There's Dr. Thomas," most men (and probably many women) would at least be mildly surprised if this turned out to be the woman. Doubtless most would internally chastise themselves and wonder why they harboured an unconscious assumption that the Ph. D. belonged to the man, but such attitudes, to which the best of us can fall victim (though I'm sure there are better hypothetical [or real] examples than the one I've contrived), betray a residual sexism which indicates if nothing else our failure to divest ourselves of the unpleasant legacy of earlier days. I deny your alleged inferiority complex because I have never in my life seen the slightest evidence for it. What probably does occur is men's convincing themselves (wrongly) that institutions and society in general have become skewed in favour of women rather than men (in the way ignorant Americans decry 'affirmative action'). Er. No. They're not.Name six. And don't say, "Germaine Greer." I don't, but I'm realistic enough to recognise that the two are closely intertwined.The USA have long been the greatest military power, but I don't think anyone would cite the Bay of Pigs invasion or the Vietnam, Afghan and Second Gulf Wars as examples of effective foreign policy. It is not a reason to mourn the death of the Soviet Union itself, which was a terribly repressive regime.To call it "terribly repressive" at certain periods of its history (certainly the glasnost era and arguably Khrushchev's time) is an enormous exaggeration. Certainly after Stalin's (or, more specifically, Beria's) death it was less repressive than it is now (though that may be less true of Brezhnev's rule, I'm not familiar with it). You do realise that you've just defined 'valid purpose in sociological terms', don't you?But, as I have explained, not ascribed it to religion. Some of it's social effects have a valid purpose. Hence, it has a valid purpose in sociological terms.Only if said effects are taken to be the defining characteristic of religion, which they aren't. Ah, but the very concept of feminism, and indeed the root of the word itself, is inherently sexist.No, it isn't. Feminism is a belief in female equality, not superiority, no matter how hard a tiny number of man-haters may strive to hijack the term. It's the promotion of one gender without the equivilent promotion of the other.When the other is in the first place in a position of superiority, such promotion is a move towards equality. If equality had been achieved - which it most certainly has not - then your claim would be valid. Also, the basis for your assumption is the top people in any institution, where I think you'll find it's agism that is the main discrimination rather than sexism.A basis (nonetheless a telling one - the "boss of HP" remains in a small minority). Your cited ageism begs a non-comparison, as people's suitability for senior positions is judged in large part on the basis of their qualifications and experience, with which younger people are less well endowed by virtue of not having had as long to acquire them. The simple fact is, Thanatos, that during the many centuries of male dominance certain structures where created to protect women (marriage, for example, or chivalry, or the 'women and children first' mentality).So that's all right, then. The sense in which we generally think of "chivalry", by the way, is largely a Victorian myth. And how does marriage protect women any more than men? When women achieved equal rights, they should, in all fairness, no long be protected by these things, as it creates an inequality that, apparently, women have been trying to fight against from the start.As such attitudes towards women are the product of aeons of firm conviction of their inferiority (and therefore their need of protection), the two will wane (and are waning) together. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be how they see it.Those who don't are generally those who on some level and to some degree accept traditional misogynistic values; my mother, for instance, has very little time for female politicians. But it is an inherent, underlying sexism, harmless enough, admittedly, which the vast majority of men born after about 1965 do not possess an equivilent for.That is simply not true; there may be no campaign to take the vote back from women but misogyny, as I said above, endures. Car insurance, anyone?It's sexist to admit the fact (and a fact it is) that women are less prone to motoring accidents? My (woman) boss at work had a go at me only yesterday because, as I threw my back out at Leeds, I didn't help a female workmate lift a trolley (which I usually drag round on my own) up onto a curb. Never mind my injury.Then sua culpa. Never mind the apparent equality between men and women.I don't mind it, because it's not there. You seem to think a woman can't be sexist due to being a woman, and a man can't avoid it because he's a man.How you inferred that I cannot think. Have you ever met a woman at all? ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Sept 3, 2005 23:00:56 GMT
Anyway, some educational ones:
Middle-class parent: "Our obsession with getting our children into the highest school in the local league tables and the government's response in policy-making ultimately damages our and others' children's education."
Traditional socialist: "The comprehensive system, whatever its predecessor's flaws, has plenty of its own and reformed and improved selection would have been better."
Educational modernist: "Classical (or 'dead') languages, unless taught just as they were by bad teachers before the War, are just as worthwhile as any other arts subject."
Educational traditionalist: "Media studies, unless taught as the worst teachers teach it, is as worthwhile as any other humanities subject."
Leftist: "Not everyone should go to university, unless the scope and form of university education widens greatly, and this is not an élitist attitude - indeed, the idea that it is is prompted by the élitism of the idea that graduates are automatically better."
British Tory: "Chris Woodhead's ideas are bollocks."
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Sept 4, 2005 11:08:42 GMT
Those aspects, though, are not what define religion as being such So what? They are still characteristics of religion that give religion a valid purpose. Even if I do, which I don't, the fact is you are more likely to find women acting like that than men these days, so the fact stands as stated - modern women are more likely to be aggressively sexist than men. Again you're trying to differentiate with side details. Yes, some. As in, not many. If there are many, I am unaware of most of them. That's not an insult, Thanatos, it's a complaint. (And if you think about it, by claiming it's an insult you're using circular logic.) Analyse the detail of what I'm saying, not any subtextual implications of it, because there aren't any - it means exactly what it says. In other words, what modern women are even more guilty of in their attitudes to men. I don't know for the life of me how you've managed to miss them so completely, Thanatos, but there are women like that by the busload these days. The 'ladette' culture, as just one example, shows much the same mentality you're describing only in the transposed form, and is far more shameless and aggressive about it. Men are openly treated like sexual objects and told they are all incompetent and sex-obsessed simpletons, and by women who'd be most scandalised and angered if they were treated that way in return. The women that most resemble this don't happen to dominate the media, therefore it's easy to get the impression, thanks to the tiresome phenomenon of lad-mags, that it's still all one-way, but it's not. The truth is, Thanatos, that insofar as there is any sexual bias in the law, it is tilted in favour of women. If you don't think that's true, name me something in law that is unfairly tilted against them. Yes there are certain aspects in other areas that still work that way, especially in the area of employment, such as the wage gap and promotion prospects (hence the fact I appended against Male Chauvinists), but even there, things aren't quite as straightforward as have been presented. Vis a vis the wage gap, it's stated that on average women are paid 20% less than men for doing the same work. The thing is, people get paid differently according to what company they work for as well, and indeed there is strong reason to believe that this is the main cause of the ongoing gulf. I have never seen any reliable evidence at all that women and men are paid differently for doing the same work within the same company. I have no doubt that it does happen in some places of course, but not many. As for the glass ceiling phenomenon, the sad truth is that for promotion to happen for anyone, they usually have to wait for the people above them to get out of the way. This can take anything up to 40 years unless the person above them is forcibly removed. Only if that person has measurably been doing a bad job can it be justified offloading them by decree. So although the glass ceiling is still real and still plays a substantial role, even in the fairest climate there was always bound to be a long wait for parity to get very near. It is certainly far closer than it was back when the process really started in the 80's. I wasn't going to, nor Doris Lessing for that matter - not least because if you read some of their recent views you'll find they are substantially in agreement with me. They are both scathing about the arrogance and complacency of modern women, especially the younger generation, and the widescale assumption of superiority over men. As for your little challenge to me, I can list a few dozen or so names if you like, but sadly there's no point, as will soon become apparent. Here's a sample though; - Stacy Wilkes Leigh Cunningham Emma Farnsworth Shona Meningal Corinne Smith Joanne Scott Elizabeth Steel Rebecca Scott (no relation to Joanne) Louise McFall Samantha Carrington Jennifer Robertson Sarah Toche I'd be astonished if you've heard of any of these individuals, and that's because they're women I happen to know personally. A number of them have been work colleagues who, when they have the benefit of numbers, will cheerfully rattle off sexist jokes and taunts by the binload against male colleagues who've done nothing but mind their own business. On occasions when I've been on the receiving end directly and asked them to stop it, the general response has been to sneer that I'm a wimp. Several of them regularly cheat on their boyfriends and justify it by saying that it's a privilege of femininity (and seem genuinely puzzled that there was any need to ask for such an obvious explanation), and furthermore, when I've asked them what they'd do if their bfs cheated on them, they've said in all seriousness that the guy's life would end violently. If you insist on celebrity views (and I didn't think you were the sort to assume that fame denotes superiority of opinion, but never mind), you can try such individuals as Lowri Turner, Angela Rippon, and Imelda Wheelehan. No, because those are examples of ineffective military policy. Weren't you the one getting agitated earlier about confusing the two? Look at it this way. What is the most powerful and influential country on Earth right now? The USA. Why? No, not just because of money. England was one of the richest countries in the world in the Anglo-Saxon era, but was politically powerless, which was why it was so easy for the Vikings to keep raiding and reaping for centuries. In the same way, if it were just riches that allowed America to bully the rest of the world, other countries would just send bandits to American shores and steal riches in untold quantities. They don't. Why not? Because the USA would respond by invading their countries and blasting them off the face of the Earth. They have effective foreign policy because their military is so much more powerful than anyone else's. From your own examples... Why was it no other Middle Eastern country moved to defend Iraq or Afghanistan when the USA invaded them? Even countries that dislike each other in that region tend to let pan-Arabism override that when attacked from outside, yet not in this case. And why not? Because America would have flattened them if they tried to interfere. And it's nonsense to say that the USA's foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan was not effective, as you can't have a much bigger effect on a foreign country than toppling its goverment. A bad or selfish effect doesn't mean no effect. You speak of Vietnam, but there again you underline the point rather than defeat it. Whom did South Vietnam appeal to for assistance when the North attacked? The USA, because the USA was the (supposedly) democratic country with all the power. Just because the Americans made a catastrophic balls-up of the whole campaign when they got there doesn't mean their political influence was low. It was very high, that's why South Vietnam turned to them. (Some of the shine was taken off its influence, yes, but only in hindsight.) True, Krushchev wasn't a bad guy, but it was still anti-democratic and expansionist in his time, largely because most of the people around him were still hardliners. (The leader is not the country.) And as for the glasnost era, was it not during the time of the first Gulf War that the Red Army was sent into Lithuania and Estonia in order to butcher a separatist movement who had made a perfectly peaceful attempt to secede from the USSR? Brezhnev was no Stalin, but that's about the warmest thing I could say for him. Oh rubbish! You did ascribe it to religion, as you spoke of them as being aspects of religions! You pointed out that these aspects are found in other methods, but that doesn't suddenly mean that they are not in religions after all. Again, rubbish! Whether they are defining characteristics or incidental characteristics is beside the point. The point is, they have shown themselves to be there in practise, and governments have historically used them to maintain order, and many still do so today. That makes it a valid purpose. Actually no, feminism is the advocation of women's rights, full stop. It does not mention comparison with men's rights at all, and therefore can be interpreted according to what the man-haters want it to be. If it were about equality, feminists would not insist that mothers must always have first say on children, nor that women should be allowed to hit men but that men must never hit women. (For my own part, neither a man hitting a woman nor a woman hitting a man is justified except in self-defence.) But that's not what we're saying. We're pointing out that women do have privileges of their own, ones that they seem horrified at the suggestion that they should be prepared to let go of, even as they, quite rightly, demand that men let go of privileges of their own. Look at the details of the average divorce settlement these days and figure it out for yourself. But they aren't, Thanatos, that's the point. They should do, but they aren't. If anything, the issues of parental rights and the very real two-way nature of domestic violence are even less likely to be addressed properly now than before. It's a dangerous assumption (just like the ancient assumption that the death of capitalism automatically means the birth of socialism). One of the sad legacies that the past dominance male chauvinism has given us is that, because the stubbornness of the male elite left women with no alternative in order to close the gap, women had to resort to hatred and aggression towards men i.e. it was such an uneven playing field that women had, so to speak, to 'fight dirty' to make headway. And because they developed such a bitterness towards the male elite, it was easy for them to start believing even the more extreme insults they'd been compelled to throw. As a result, nowadays it's almost second nature in an awful lot of women to assume that men are all inadequate and inferior, as that's what their mothers, who grew up in the women's lib era, brought them up to believe. As I say, even Germaine Greer and Doris Lessing have developed a real despair at the complacent arrogance that many young women have these days, as they appear to have learned exactly the wrong lessons. It is true that misogyny continues, but it is less aggressive and no more commonplace than man-hatred among women. Which is the point we started out with. Yes, but not just hers. The above story has overtones that many a modern man will find familiar.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 4, 2005 15:22:50 GMT
I used them - I made this clear and am much surprised that someone of your with would so either misinterpret or misrepresent - of certain aspects of certain religions. Those aspects, though, are not what define religion as being such, it is the spiritual side that does so, and the former therefore cannot be taken as a yardstick for determining whether religion has a valid purpose. Utterly irrelevant. They are the fundamental organizing principles of a religion, which, in spite of their existence in other orders, therefore lend their own validity to the religion as a whole. And as for the concept that it is the spiritual side that defines religion, you are clearly utterly unaware of any sociological definitions. Would you like some? 1: Religion is a unified system of moralaity and practice in order to bind a community together. (Durkheim, 1912) 2: Religion is a social creation to provide a ready-built world in which we can act and interact together (Mueller, 1856) 3: Religion is a means of creating a group-entity and thus avoiding the difficulties inherent in the competition-based Hobbesian problem of order. Not a single mention of the spirirt there, is there? These are the sociological methods of defining religion. In sociology, it is totally irrelevant if you create your religion based on the belief the moon is made of cheese, as long as you create a unified group who all believe it. Which it has, and therefore it HAS A VALID SOCIOLOGICAL PURPOSE. (And before you mention it, even in the dictionary defintion there is no mention of spirituality. ) Yes, women had a hideously rotten deal for thousands of years, and in some areas they still haven't 'caught up'"Some"? Ah yes, that whole thing about women having equal voting rights is just a government conspiracy. You do realise that you've just defined 'valid purpose in sociological terms', don't you?But, as I have explained, not ascribed it to religion. Yes. You did. you wrote "Some of [religion's] moral precepts (e.g. thou shalt not steal or kill) and some of its social effects (e.g. uniting communities) do or can have a valid purpose". So you DID ascribe it to religion, even if only in the effects it causes (which may be indirect, but they are caused by religion). You are attempting to argue with the point through paraphrasing, and now you are attempting to deny you did so. Some of it's social effects have a valid purpose. Hence, it has a valid purpose in sociological terms.Only if said effects are taken to be the defining characteristic of religion, which they aren't. See above. In SOCIOLOGICAL TERMS (which is the point of the discussion), these ARE the defining characteristics. They are the only purpose it has from a sociological view point. It is an organising principle. Any organising principle is sociologically valid. You are simply unwilling to accept it, and in doing so you prove that the statement listed as the point 'Atheist' will not accept is correct. It's the promotion of one gender without the equivilent promotion of the other.When the other is in the first place in a position of superiority, such promotion is a move towards equality. If equality had been achieved - which it most certainly has not - then your claim would be valid. Irrelevant. The validity is correct regardless of whether equality has been achieved. Even if it does move toward equality, the driving ideal behind the concept is NOT equal. The simple fact is, Thanatos, that during the many centuries of male dominance certain structures where created to protect women (marriage, for example, or chivalry, or the 'women and children first' mentality).So that's all right, then. The sense in which we generally think of "chivalry", by the way, is largely a Victorian myth. And how does marriage protect women any more than men? The sole purpose of marriage is to create a defence for women, who had no rights without it at it's inception. It is now an anachronism. Also, take note of such cases as Anna Nichole Smith, Rachel Hunter, and the entire concept of mail-order brides. Oh, and it's also irrelvant who came up with the idea of chivalry. My point stands regardless of whether it was created by Victorian romantics or by Mickey Mouse. As such attitudes towards women are the product of aeons of firm conviction of their inferiority (and therefore their need of protection), the two will wane (and are waning) together Nonsense. You seem to think a woman can't be sexist due to being a woman, and a man can't avoid it because he's a man.How you inferred that I cannot think. I read your post.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Sept 4, 2005 15:39:38 GMT
Traditional socialist: The comprehensive system, whatever its predecessor's flaws, has plenty of its own and reformed and improved selection would have been better. That's an opinion, not a fact. (It's one I agree with, but until we see it in practise we can't be sure.) Again, that's not so much a fact as an interpretation of fact. I also question your description of the study of languages as an 'art' form. Leftist: This fact should stop here. You don't need to put a pre-emptive justification for it or attack against a disputant. You just need to offer an accurate statement that you know the group you're appending it to will disagree with on reflex. As soon as you add the justification, you kind of defeat the purpose.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Sept 7, 2005 12:49:36 GMT
He'll kill me for this but I can't resist it;
MEKANIK: The British Rail System isn't the best in the world, most people do not want the monarchy restored to power and facts are necessary to win an argument.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Sept 7, 2005 16:56:32 GMT
Or even.... MEKANIK: Running away from an argument means you've lost it.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Sept 8, 2005 11:29:48 GMT
Or even.... MEKANIK: Running away from an argument means you've lost it. Naughty boy! (funny tho) ;D
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Sept 8, 2005 20:42:05 GMT
Why, thank you, I can sense definite approval there. Here's a link where you can read the Orwell article if you haven't already by the way; whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/nationalism.htmlAMERICAN BLACK ACTIVIST: If a black man does not receive preferential treatment from a white man, it does not necessarily mean racism. US CONSERVATIVE: American troops based in the Middle East over the last fifty years were not sent there to fight for truth and justice. JOURNALIST: Most tabloids and many 'quality' newspapers report more opinions than facts. ENVIRONMENTALIST: Many policies that 'Green' groups espouse would impact hugely and negatively on a great many human lives. HOMOPHOBE: A world where homosexuality is not a crime and where rape is, is far, far better than a world where it is the other way around (like the world we were living in a few hundred years ago).
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Sept 9, 2005 0:45:54 GMT
So what? They are still characteristics of religion that give religion a valid purpose.Not unless religion is a necessary concomitant of them. That's not an insult, Thanatos, it's a complaint.It's still sweeping, patronising, aggressive and without equivocation or impartiality. In other words, what modern women are even more guilty of in their attitudes to men.Then why does the Sun - edited, remember, by a woman - not feature nude men on page three? The truth is, Thanatos, that insofar as there is any sexual bias in the law, it is tilted in favour of women.There's no bias in the law, but there is in the application (or not) thereof and in attitudes, and it's quite definitely on the misogynistic side. If so many of your female associates are of that nature, I can only advise you to try your best to keep different company. As regards military and foreign policy, I never said there was no connection, just that it's not an absolute rule. Cf. Suez - quick, clean military victory, foreign policy disaster. I didn't say the USSR was nice during said times, just that "terribly repressive" was an exaggeration. You did ascribe it to religion, as you spoke of them as being aspects of religions!The point is that the latter fact is incidental. Actually no, feminism is the advocation of women's rights, full stop.A definition I've never seen in a dictionary. Or anywhere else (except here). If it were about equality, feminists would not insist that mothers must always have first say on childrenThey do? nor that women should be allowed to hit men but that men must never hit women.Oh, pull the other one. We're pointing out that women do have privileges of their ownTo what privileges do you refer? But they aren't , Thanatos, that's the point.They haven't disappeared by any means, but they are distinctly less prevalent than they were. Which also happens to be true of misogyny. It is true that misogyny continues, but it is less aggressive and no more commonplace than man-hatred among women.I can only say that one of us has had a very atypical experience (and for my part no male acquaintance of mine with a mentality above that of the average Express-reader has ever complained in such terms as you to my knowledge). And as for the concept that it is the spiritual side that defines religion, you are clearly utterly unaware of any sociological definitions. Would you like some?The first two (I don't understand the third) apply to, say, the pre-1980s trade union movement in much of Britain; is that a religion? Ah yes, that whole thing about women having equal voting rights is just a government conspiracy.As I said, the inequality is not statutory. The validity is correct regardless of whether equality has been achieved. Even if it does move toward equality, the driving ideal behind the concept is NOT equal.What? If two groups are manifestly unequal in status and the lesser wishes to change that, how would promoting the status of the greater contribute? The sole purpose of marriage is to create a defence for women, who had no rights without it at it's inception.That may have been its purpose several centuries ago, but not now. I read your post.Do me a favour. Nothing I posted states or could be construed by anyone of the wit of Ruth Kelly or above to imply that all men or no women are inherently and inescapably sexist, which is what you said I said, and to claim that I did so is as dishonest as to claim that those who point out the causal link between British participation in Second Gulf War and the July bombings thus defend the latter. JOURNALIST: Most tabloids and many 'quality' newspapers report more opinions than facts.I think many journalists would and do admit this (albeit not on page one).
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 9, 2005 12:58:34 GMT
You did ascribe it to religion, as you spoke of them as being aspects of religions!The point is that the latter fact is incidental. No, the point is that the religion has a valid purpose to society. Merely because it can be abused and perverted for other purposes does NOT invalidate the primary; you might as well say that because Democracy can be corrupted it has no validity. Actually no, feminism is the advocation of women's rights, full stop.A definition I've never seen in a dictionary. Or anywhere else (except here). I quote from the Little Oxford Dictionary: Feminism (fe'minizm) n. Advocacy of women's rights. Buy a dictionary. If it were about equality, feminists would not insist that mothers must always have first say on childrenThey do? Yes. nor that women should be allowed to hit men but that men must never hit women.Oh, pull the other one. An often espoused opinion. Don't seriously try and pretend you've never seen or heard of such doublethink, unless you really do live in a small bubble with no TV. We're pointing out that women do have privileges of their ownTo what privileges do you refer? Those mentioned by both myself and HStorm in previous posts, that you seem to have carefully forgotten. Including almost automatic custody of children in divorce settlements, regardless of any ther factors; there's a particularly well-known case where a heroin addict got custody of her children over her wealthy husband (who divorced her after she attacked him, though clearly that must be false as you've pointed out women would never do such a thing. ). But they aren't , Thanatos, that's the point.They haven't disappeared by any means, but they are distinctly less prevalent than they were. Which also happens to be true of misogyny. Rubbish. It is true that misogyny continues, but it is less aggressive and no more commonplace than man-hatred among women.I can only say that one of us has had a very atypical experience (and for my part no male acquaintance of mine with a mentality above that of the average Express-reader has ever complained in such terms as you to my knowledge). Either you have few friends more intellectual that your average Express reader, or they don't bother to say these things to you to avoid a long, drawn-out and pointless argument where you refuse to budge despite much cited evidence to the contrary of your position. And as for the concept that it is the spiritual side that defines religion, you are clearly utterly unaware of any sociological definitions. Would you like some?The first two (I don't understand the third) apply to, say, the pre-1980s trade union movement in much of Britain; is that a religion? No, they couldn't. The trade Unions did not, at any point, provide a pre-built vision of the world for their members to interact with. They made no effort to produce a unified system of morality, either. So you're actually just speaking total nonsense. Ah yes, that whole thing about women having equal voting rights is just a government conspiracy.As I said, the inequality is not statutory. So in statutory areas they HAVE caught up. Which makes you're 'Some?' statement seem a little ridiculous, really. The validity is correct regardless of whether equality has been achieved. Even if it does move toward equality, the driving ideal behind the concept is NOT equal.What? If two groups are manifestly unequal in status and the lesser wishes to change that, how would promoting the status of the greater contribute? It wouldn't, because that would move toward inequality as well. I refer to a group which would aim for EQUALITY, as oppose to advocating either gender (or any individual race, for that matter). Feminist groups don't. They advocate women's rights, and even though that does move toward equality in the short term, it is a fundamentally sexist concept. Which anyone with the mental ability of the average Express reader or above should be capable of seeing. The sole purpose of marriage is to create a defence for women, who had no rights without it at it's inception.That may have been its purpose several centuries ago, but not now. Which is why many people don't bother with marriage any more. And it's still stacked in favour of creating a unit for the female to reproduce in, safe in the knowledge her partner is tied to the unit and will suffer financial reperations should he breach contract. I read your post.Do me a favour. Nothing I posted states or could be construed by anyone of the wit of Ruth Kelly or above to imply that all men or no women are inherently and inescapably sexist, which is what you said I said, and to claim that I did so is as dishonest as to claim that those who point out the causal link between British participation in Second Gulf War and the July bombings thus defend the latter. Your inability to even remotely consider the possibility that women can be sexist is what kicked off this lengthy debate, through your immediate and vehement argument against HStorm's statement about Feminists. Also, your argument seems to stem entirely from the idea that cultural influences FORCE men to be sexist, while women are, in your view, incapable of being sexist while they remain the lesser side in the battle for equality. Thus, your righteous indignation is aimed at a statement which EXACTLY describes your position, as could be seen by anyone with the mental agility of an average fourth-year PE student.
|
|