RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Musicmystery -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/6/2016 9:58:29 AM)

Kind of an obvious point -- associations are ALWAYS a function of those associating them.

Whatever the reason, they became linked.



PeonForHer -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/6/2016 10:20:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Kind of an obvious point -- associations are ALWAYS a function of those associating them.

Whatever the reason, they became linked.


In politics, those sorts of processes are very often fraught, though. For an illustration, see Respectmen's thread entitled 'Actually, Yes, Hitler was a Socialist Liberal'. (I can't even *read* that without getting the beginnings of a headache.) RM's is not the majority and powerful view in the USA, I don't suppose ....

... Yet. It'll be interesting to see certain terms getting redefined, should Trump get his hands on the presidency. God knows, he's done a lot of that already - though so far gaining acceptance for his redefinitions largely only amongst his supporters.





Musicmystery -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/6/2016 10:35:38 AM)

Making up your own version is hardly the same as recognizing that terms have acquired connotations historically.



PeonForHer -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/6/2016 12:48:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Making up your own version is hardly the same as recognizing that terms have acquired connotations historically.


True. But where does the one stop and the other start? Politics has always been heaving with propaganda and the terms in politics tend to get pulled every which way. As a result one always has to ask: connotations acquired amongst whom, why - and (the bottom line) what's in it for them to give a term this or that connotation?

If only politics were like, say, biology, and the terms were as non-contentious as those such as 'duck' and 'elephant' ....

As a bit of a BTW: It's interesting, to me, that fewer Americans now seem to equate 'communism' with 'socialism' ... after what seemed like decades of people widely doing just that. Is this a byproduct of Sanders' candidature? Only a few years ago I'd regularly see "socialism/communism" written on this forum. I haven't seen that for a while, now.



WhoreMods -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/6/2016 2:57:36 PM)

If Sanders was either a socialist or a candidate, I could buy that.
The fact that he's spent the whole of Obama's Presidency going along with what ever right of centre, rebranded Republicanism the Democrats have been coming out with at the time makes his claims to be a lefty after eight years of doing that a bit hard to credit, frankly.



PeonForHer -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/6/2016 3:57:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

If Sanders was either a socialist or a candidate, I could buy that.
The fact that he's spent the whole of Obama's Presidency going along with what ever right of centre, rebranded Republicanism the Democrats have been coming out with at the time makes his claims to be a lefty after eight years of doing that a bit hard to credit, frankly.


Well, he's a candidate for the Democrat nomination, anyway. As for crediting him with being a lefty - don't forget, we're talking American idea of 'lefty'. Christ, a lot of them call Obama a 'socialist', don't forget.



WhoreMods -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/7/2016 4:50:19 AM)

Sanders is a bit to the right of Obama, hence the fact that many of his followers (who seem resigned to the fact that he's very unlikely to get the Democrat nomination now) have been saying that they'd rather vote for Flump than Clinton.



Musicmystery -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/7/2016 4:54:44 AM)

You are the only one in the universe who thinks Sanders is to the right of Obama.



WhoreMods -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/7/2016 5:03:10 AM)

In both cases any hint of leftiness is a lingering historical thing from before they moved to the right to further their political career. If Sander's alleged "spocialism" is a result of the crap he was spouting immediately before voting the other way along with the rest of the Dems, then he wasn't making quite as many extravagant (and utterly unfulfilled as a politician) promises and claims about the need for social and financial reforms as Obama was noted for before he started campaigning for the Presidency, was he?
Neither is a left leaning politician in any way, shape or form, but if we're just calling them that on the basis of them talking the talk (as neither has ever made any effort to walk the walk), then Obama talked a bit leftier than Sanders ever has, dig?



Lucylastic -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/7/2016 5:24:30 AM)

yeah I gotta say, bernie is nowhere near the right of obama. If he was I wouldnt be "virtually" supporting him or his campaign.



WhoreMods -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/7/2016 5:30:33 AM)

And as I said, the perception of both being lefties seems to be purely down to what they've said, rather than anything they've actually done, and Barack talked a much better game than Bernie did when he was lying about what he stood for.
[;)]



Musicmystery -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/7/2016 5:38:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

In both cases any hint of leftiness is a lingering historical thing from before they moved to the right to further their political career. If Sander's alleged "spocialism" is a result of the crap he was spouting immediately before voting the other way along with the rest of the Dems, then he wasn't making quite as many extravagant (and utterly unfulfilled as a politician) promises and claims about the need for social and financial reforms as Obama was noted for before he started campaigning for the Presidency, was he?
Neither is a left leaning politician in any way, shape or form, but if we're just calling them that on the basis of them talking the talk (as neither has ever made any effort to walk the walk), then Obama talked a bit leftier than Sanders ever has, dig?

No, I don't. It's a specious argument.

Obama is Bush Lite. Hilary is between Bush and Obama.

Granted, Sanders is not a traditional Socialist--but then, he doesn't claim to be either: he's an advocate of Democratic Socialism. In the right leaning US, that distinction is lost, but only the US calls European countries socialist. If that helps, that's the distinction.

"Democratic socialism is not specifically revolutionary or reformist, as many types of democratic socialism can fall into either category, with some forms overlapping with social democracy, supporting reforms within capitalism . . . as a prelude. Some forms of democratic socialism accept social democratic reformism to gradually convert the capitalist economy . . . using pre-existing democratic institutions."

That more accurately describes Sanders' ideology, if you must label it.

For example, single payer (a strong Sanders position) is far more progressive than the ACA. Free public college tuition is far to the left of the current loan program. Getting rid of Citizens United is a key point . . . while Obama has just adjusted to it (while disagreeing with the decision).

Is Sanders to the right of socialism? Sure.

Is Obama to the left of his rhetoric? Certainly not his 2008 agenda, which largely died with the economic bust. Basically, except for the ACA (which resembles the early 90s Republican plan), he's mainly continued Bush policy.



WhoreMods -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/7/2016 7:02:22 AM)

As Sander's has made no effort to allow his ideology to influence his voting it's an irrelevance, and doesn't make him any more leftwing than Hilary or Obama in practice. If anything, the fact that he's coming out with stuff while electioneering, after spending most of his senate career voting against anything even remotely reminescent of any of it in oder to endear himself to his party, just makes it more obvious that he's all talk and just as rightwing as the rest of the Democrats. If he had made any attempt to practice these democratic socialist values by voting against Obama during Bush's third and fourth terms, I could take the talk about him being a lefty seriously, but as things stand, it's no more convincing than any of the other ridiculous nonsense we've been hearing this election cycle.
He was very definitely convincingly leftwing early on his congressional career, but had largely given up on that approach by the time he was elected to the senate, and I find it a bit feeble that he's still being allowed to coast on stuff he did back back in the '90s, rather than what he's been doing since being seen as more representative of his agenda now. Mind you the whole Fox "oh noes! Socialist!" stuff is muddying the waters as much or more than Sanders pretending he hasn't been voting purely along party lines for the last decade or so.

Mind you, I am saying that as a citizen of a European country where they have Democratic Socialists who see ideological purity as far more important than than winning elections, and that probably does colour my attitude towards Sanders at least a bit. Somebody who's willing to compromise their stated principles in pursuit of election is probably a lot more useful than those guys, even if he's to the right of them in real terms, and I wouldn't dismiss that as selling out the way some purists would.



Musicmystery -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/7/2016 7:23:35 AM)

Again, this just ignores reality.

Sanders has even moved both Obama and Clinton to the left, getting them to embrace positions they formerly opposed.

[sm=dunno.gif]

Believe what you want. Clearly, you're going to do so.

But you're the only person on the planet who believes it.

I guess you'll just have to live with the burden of being the only perceptive human alive.

Must be lonely.



Cinnamongirl67 -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/7/2016 7:25:58 AM)

This sounds a bit cold but who gives a crap? This is their culture, their business and as a country if the people want to change their ways let THEM change it. Who are we to change it for them?
If people's noses get any longer they will need legs to support it.
Now if they come here and want their own laws and don't want to follow ours then game on.



Awareness -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/7/2016 7:42:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

You idiot. A fucking comic's not going to do it. Show me a reasoned critique of Charlie Hedbo which supports the claims you're making or just fuck off. Jesus Christ, you're fucking dim.

So where's the religious imagery being mocked on that front cover? The absence of a grinning Jihadist, Jew or Catholic on there would seem to be an argument that the magazine contains satirical material on other subjects besides religion.
You show me a reasoned critique which supports your contention that the magazine has no content that does not concern religion. Expecting me to substantiate my statements when it appears to be beneath your dignity to even pretend that you're trying to prove your own is utterly pathetic.
Alright fucktard, if you insist:

Glenn Greenwald (probably most famous for his participation in the Snoweden incident) has is essentially a prime example of what's known as the regressive left. He's been identified as such by both Sam Harris and Majid Nawaz. In this missive: https://theintercept.com/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/ he argues repeatedly that Charlie Hedbo is a racist magazine that focuses the vast majority of its output upon Islam and is insufficiently interested in similarly mocking Judaism. He notes that the magazine fired one its writers for writing an allegedly anti-Semitic sentence.

So, basically, you have a noted member of the regressive left calling out Charlie Hedbo for racist cultural bigotry. Now frankly, I was prepared to write off Charlie Hedbo as your usual atheist anti-religious bigots, but apparently they're racist anti-religious bigots as well.

Consequently your characterisation of them as part of the regressive left - IE: pandering to Muslims in the name of muilticulturalism - is a demonstration that you - as usual - have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Congratulations on highlighting your complete fucking ignorance, you tedious little Mongloid.



WhoreMods -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/7/2016 12:18:28 PM)

I said a reasoned critique, not a a single American fuckwit talking nonsense. Still, if you think that dragging the content of the magazine into a general whine about all satire aimed at moslems being inherently racist trumps a history of generalised satire at all sorts of targets that goes back to the early '70s, that's your problem.

However, assuming that this bizarre argument you've derived from a regressive lefty (not your usual choice of source, I note) bears any resemblance to reality, how do you reconcile the fact that you're now insisting the magazine has a racist agenda with your previous (unsubstantiated) arguments that its only issue is anti-Religious?

Your source is clearly pandering to the moslems. Charlie Hebdo (note the order of the d and b, btw) definitely isn't. You don't get attacked by fundamentalists if you're an apologist.

(Nice work on changing your story and hoping that nobody will notice because you couldn't find any evidence to support your original argument, though. I'm glad I'm far too ignorant to resort to that sort of desperate evasiveness myself. )



Cinnamongirl67 -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/7/2016 12:35:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

I said a reasoned critique, not a a single American fuckwit talking nonsense. Still, if you think that dragging the content of the magazine into a general whine about all satire aimed at moslems being inherently racist trumps a history of generalised satire at all sorts of targets that goes back to the early '70s, that's your problem.

However, assuming that this bizarre argument you've derived from a regressive lefty (not your usual choice of source, I note) bears any resemblance to reality, how do you reconcile the fact that you're now insisting the magazine has a racist agenda with your previous (unsubstantiated) arguments that its only issue is anti-Religious?

Your source is clearly pandering to the moslems. Charlie Hebdo (note the order of the d and b, btw) definitely isn't. You don't get attacked by fundamentalists if you're an apologist.

(Nice work on changing your story and hoping that nobody will notice because you couldn't find any evidence to support your original argument, though. I'm glad I'm far too ignorant to resort to that sort of desperate evasiveness myself. )

No one is talking about Muslims, bitch.
We are just telling you worry about your own lot.
Trump is coming into office, whether you like it or not.
Carry your own country.
And if you don't like our rules get the fuck out.
Plain and simple.



WhoreMods -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/7/2016 12:43:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67
No one is talking about Muslims, bitch.

Most of the thread has been about moslems. Look at the title.
Do you not read very well?



blnymph -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/7/2016 12:47:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67
No one is talking about Muslims, bitch.

Most of the thread has been about moslems. Look at the title.
Do you not read very well?


I guess it is rather a problem with viewing as such



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625