Not unless religion is a necessary concomitant of them.
What you're saying on the religion issue boils down to, "It may be a fact, but the only admissable facts are the ones I say are admissable." Which is exactly the mentality that this topic is highlighting. I therefore thank you, Thanatos, for being an ideal case study.
No it isn't.
The statement was, "Modern women are at least as prone to sexist prejudices as men and are more likely to be aggressive about them."
A sweeping, patronising, aggressive version of that would be, "Girlies today are all a bunch of spiteful whiners who don't treat us studs with the reverence they owe us."
I did not say
all women are sexist or female imperialists, nor that
no man is a misogynist. Let me try putting it this way; if you were to choose one man and one woman from the British population completely at random, it is likelier that you will find the woman will be openly and aggressively sexist than the man. This is not to say that it is
impossible for the man to be a misogynist, nor is it to say that the woman will
definitely be a man hater, it's just the odds are rather more tilted in favour of the latter than the former. Okay?
Maybe she's a transposed misogynist? (It was once said that a misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate each other.) Maybe she fears the circulation would plummet if there were no page 3 girl because, being a man-hater, she assumes that men only buy tabloids for the nudity. Maybe I wouldn't know because I've never asked her, as it's not really an issue that interests me very much. All I'll say for now is, hatred of someone doesn't always need sexual outlets.
The only area where that might be true is the lack of convictions in rape trials, but the sad fact is that in the great majority of such trials, the case is never really proven and therefore the defendant has to walk free.
Where else is such misogynistic dominance evident in the application of law?
I do, but it doesn't make the women who are like that any less real, so what's your point?
Well I didn't say it was an absolute rule either, merely that the likeliest way a country has of influencing another is to be able to back up its wishes with force. I wish beyond anything else in the world that that weren't the case, but it is, and sulking about it and trying to pretend otherwise isn't going to do any good.
The butchery in the Baltic Republics was a terrible act of repression, so not really. But in any case, if we go back to the point I originally made, taking the history of the USSR
as a whole it was terribly repressive. I could qualify such statements by pointing out exceptions in the patterns, but getting carried away with detail like that might make it seem like I was straying from the point a little, yeah?
By the same measure, you yourself have made numerous exaggerated statements of condemnation against the likes of Thatcher and Reagan in the past. Because you were broadly correct and because I knew it wasn't practical to demand that you go over every detail, I never bothered pointing out that you were only looking at the bad side of their respective times in office. So cut me the same slack, would you?
So you've never met a woman
and you've never looked in a dictionary either.
Among countless others, G******e G***r (whose name I've blanked out as you insist I'm not allowed to mention her - yet another example of a solid fact that you have declared to be inadmissable).
I'm not going to cut and paste half the posts we've previously written in this thread, Thanatos, so don't try to win the argument by pretending to be stupid because we know you aren't, and it would be kind of self-defeating anyway, wouldn't it?
Beyond Nas' own, very correct, response to this, Thanatos, let me make this point; this silogistic gambit you've resorted to is another attempt to win by feigning stupidity, in this case by an absurd leap to conclusions that is very easy to see. Now we've already said ourselves that religions share certain characteristics with other types of organisations, but at no stage have we said that this makes those organisations the same thing. You, on the other hand, are implying that no two factions can have any shared characteristics unless they are exactly the same type of faction. By this preposterous and very obvious leap of logic you have resorted to, you could marry almost any two combinations of anything. For instance; -
The Yellow Pages is a book. The bible is a book. Therefore the bible must be a phone directory.
Revenge Of The Sith
is a movie with Ewen McGregor in it. Trainspotting
is a movie with Ewen McGregor in it. Therefore Revenge Of The Sith
must be a remake of Trainspotting
.
Socrates used to be alive. The dodo used to be alive. Therefore Socrates must have been a dodo.
On TV, Paul Merton regularly pretends to be stupid. On this thread, Thanatos is pretending to be stupid. Therefore Paul Merton must be Thanatos.Or alternatively, as you've done here, you can use the same 'rule' to separate off all sorts of valid combinations by quibbling over unimportant distinctions. For instance; -
The comedy series Red Dwarf
has episodes thirty minutes in length. Most episodes of Only Fools And Horses
are fifty minutes in length. Therefore Only Fools And Horses
can't be a comedy.
Tennis matches at the French Open are played on clay. Matches at the All-England club at Wimbledon are played on grass. Therefore the sport played at Wimbledon can't be tennis.
The movie The Terminator
stars Arnold Schwarzenegger. Dances With Wolves
doesn't feature Arnold Schwarzenegger. Therefore Dances With Wolves
can't be a movie.Some would, but an awful lot of them - especially tabloid hacks and
Times correspondents - get very defensive when it's pointed out to them.
