Bar,
I doubt I would lobby about anything in a modern democracy except possibly for fundamentally changing the structure of the system itself. The stakes would have to be high enough for me to get involved. And yes I would act in some way or another if I felt that injustice was done, and I might even use force. The difference between me and you, though, is that while I use force I will say "I'm using force" while you would pretend you're not using force and say you are acting in my interests. This is necessary for you have a clear conscience about what you are doing. It would hurt too badly to have to admit that you must hurt others to improve your own situation. It would create all sorts of contradictions that would be painful to deal with.
I have no problem with people standing up for what they believe in, and even using force if they feel it necessary. Wars and other bloody conflicts are natural parts of evolution. What I do have a problem with, though, is hypocrisy. Feminist, leftist, PC and homosexual movements are hypocritical because they are fighting hard for one type of ideology while pretending to be acting for the common good of all.
I doubt I would lobby about anything in a modern democracy except possibly for fundamentally changing the structure of the system itself. The stakes would have to be high enough for me to get involved. And yes I would act in some way or another if I felt that injustice was done, and I might even use force. The difference between me and you, though, is that while I use force I will say "I'm using force" while you would pretend you're not using force and say you are acting in my interests. This is necessary for you have a clear conscience about what you are doing. It would hurt too badly to have to admit that you must hurt others to improve your own situation. It would create all sorts of contradictions that would be painful to deal with.
I have no problem with people standing up for what they believe in, and even using force if they feel it necessary. Wars and other bloody conflicts are natural parts of evolution. What I do have a problem with, though, is hypocrisy. Feminist, leftist, PC and homosexual movements are hypocritical because they are fighting hard for one type of ideology while pretending to be acting for the common good of all.
With the exception of a very small handful of suffragettes in early twentieth-century England, feminists have not used forced to accomplish their goals. In fact, the feminist movement is touted as the most successful non-violent revolution in world history.
As for the hypocrisy you associate with feminism -- if the antithesis of feminism (let's call it patriarchy for argument's sake) is an ideology 'acting for the common good of all' then why has feminism been so successful? Further, and to risk pointing out the extremely obvious here, you DO know that women are actually a majority, right?
There will never exist a scenario in which the 'common good of all' will exist ... but the common good of the majority is possible. Between the women and men I know who support feminist ideology, I'd say we're well on our way.
Anyway, back to your homosexuality debate ...
As for the hypocrisy you associate with feminism -- if the antithesis of feminism (let's call it patriarchy for argument's sake) is an ideology 'acting for the common good of all' then why has feminism been so successful? Further, and to risk pointing out the extremely obvious here, you DO know that women are actually a majority, right?
There will never exist a scenario in which the 'common good of all' will exist ... but the common good of the majority is possible. Between the women and men I know who support feminist ideology, I'd say we're well on our way.
Anyway, back to your homosexuality debate ...
XP,
I have to remind you of a certain fact: that making a law which is enforced is using force. You are threatening me with jail time if I don't follow the law you made. That's force.
Please show me where I claimed that the opposite of feminism is for the common good of all. I am stating that feminists claim they are acting in the common good of all and that this is the root of their hypocrisy. I am perfectly fine with admitting that I act and fight for causes in my own interest and that these will necessarily conflict with others' interests ie. it is necessary to hurt (some) others in order to further my own interests. It would be nice if you could do the same.
Yes I know women represent a very small majority. So what are you trying to say with that? That they should rule because of that? By that logic straights and whites should rule because they are also in the majority. Imagine if I brought up the "straights are in the majority" argument in the gay vs. straight debate!? I don't think it would be too effective, nor do I consider it valid.
It's true that feminism has been successful in North America mainly and also in western Europe to some extent. Women got most of what they asked for but I'm not sure they are any happier than they used to be. Of course I'm not a woman so I can't be sure. One thing I'm quite sure of, though, and that is that if the women's movement had been somewhat less successful, the US would be having fewer problems with Al Qaeda right now. The connection is not at all obvious, though, and a full debate on that would be very long indeed.
I have to remind you of a certain fact: that making a law which is enforced is using force. You are threatening me with jail time if I don't follow the law you made. That's force.
Please show me where I claimed that the opposite of feminism is for the common good of all. I am stating that feminists claim they are acting in the common good of all and that this is the root of their hypocrisy. I am perfectly fine with admitting that I act and fight for causes in my own interest and that these will necessarily conflict with others' interests ie. it is necessary to hurt (some) others in order to further my own interests. It would be nice if you could do the same.
Yes I know women represent a very small majority. So what are you trying to say with that? That they should rule because of that? By that logic straights and whites should rule because they are also in the majority. Imagine if I brought up the "straights are in the majority" argument in the gay vs. straight debate!? I don't think it would be too effective, nor do I consider it valid.
It's true that feminism has been successful in North America mainly and also in western Europe to some extent. Women got most of what they asked for but I'm not sure they are any happier than they used to be. Of course I'm not a woman so I can't be sure. One thing I'm quite sure of, though, and that is that if the women's movement had been somewhat less successful, the US would be having fewer problems with Al Qaeda right now. The connection is not at all obvious, though, and a full debate on that would be very long indeed.
I never said feminists are fighting for the common good of all. I suggested that women are the majority and that feminism promotes the rights of said majority. Promoting rights, by the way, has meant bringing our social, legal, political, and economic status to the same levels already enjoyed by men, the minority. You make it seem as though the feminist agenda is to establish a matriarchy, as opposed to the diminishment of the patriarchy. I get the impression you do not know too many, if any, feminists.
Your teetering on the verge of blaming the extent of AQ's hatred toward the West on feminist ideology is not wrong. There is little doubt that much of what they see wrong with us is that we don't condone raping your wife or killing a woman who has sex before marriage. However, if you are even a little bit implying that the proper course of action is to withdraw support for women's rights, rather than further question the direct effects of institutionalised patriarchy, you are correct in assuming that we will need a separate thread to debate this.
Your teetering on the verge of blaming the extent of AQ's hatred toward the West on feminist ideology is not wrong. There is little doubt that much of what they see wrong with us is that we don't condone raping your wife or killing a woman who has sex before marriage. However, if you are even a little bit implying that the proper course of action is to withdraw support for women's rights, rather than further question the direct effects of institutionalised patriarchy, you are correct in assuming that we will need a separate thread to debate this.
DP: ....while you (BAR) would pretend you're not using force and say you are acting in my interests. This is necessary for you have a clear conscience about what you are doing. It would hurt too badly to have to admit that you must hurt others to improve your own situation.
BAR: ??
Within the context of the current Topic, "Should society have laws which unduly discriminate against people simply because they are homosexual", my activism is most certainly not 'for the benefit of all'.
It's pretty much all about reducing the amount of undue discrimination against people simply due to their homosexuality.
I am not forcing you to do anything, unless you happen to be the Clerk of the Court who issues wedding licenses. Your daily life is totally unaffected by allowing same-sex marriages, with the exception of self-inflicted mental anguish.
Thus you cannot be put in jail, even for your personal opposition to the notion of same sex marriage.
I am definitely at a loss to see where I am using force against you in any way when I seek to assure equal constitutional rights for all people, regardless of sexual preferences.
BAR: ??
Within the context of the current Topic, "Should society have laws which unduly discriminate against people simply because they are homosexual", my activism is most certainly not 'for the benefit of all'.
It's pretty much all about reducing the amount of undue discrimination against people simply due to their homosexuality.
I am not forcing you to do anything, unless you happen to be the Clerk of the Court who issues wedding licenses. Your daily life is totally unaffected by allowing same-sex marriages, with the exception of self-inflicted mental anguish.
Thus you cannot be put in jail, even for your personal opposition to the notion of same sex marriage.
I am definitely at a loss to see where I am using force against you in any way when I seek to assure equal constitutional rights for all people, regardless of sexual preferences.
XP and MM,
Believe it or not I am actually in favor of equal rights and equal opportunity for the two sexes in the TRUE meanings of the terms. Unfortunately, my observations are that the feminist movement has come nowhere near achieving this ideal. Instead, it has created chaos and planted a few time bombs waiting to detonate.
I don't necessarily blame only women for that, either. Men are just as much responsible for letting it happen as the women are since they were not strong enough to resist the movement.
Incidentally I have not only known feminists but I have been brought up by one, dated a few, and married one (and divorced one).
As for the solution, I think the onus is on the men to find it and implement it. It has to be important to men or there is no hope. Women can hardly be expected to suddenly stop fighting for their rights.
Just wondering, what examples of institutionalised patriarchy do you see in today's North American society? I see some serious female-skewness in sexual harassment and child custody laws for example. I thought the male-skewness ended with the affirmative action programs of the early 80's!?
I have copied this message to the top of another thread entitled "Feminism in the 21st century". Perhaps we should continue the discussion there if you are interested.
Believe it or not I am actually in favor of equal rights and equal opportunity for the two sexes in the TRUE meanings of the terms. Unfortunately, my observations are that the feminist movement has come nowhere near achieving this ideal. Instead, it has created chaos and planted a few time bombs waiting to detonate.
I don't necessarily blame only women for that, either. Men are just as much responsible for letting it happen as the women are since they were not strong enough to resist the movement.
Incidentally I have not only known feminists but I have been brought up by one, dated a few, and married one (and divorced one).
As for the solution, I think the onus is on the men to find it and implement it. It has to be important to men or there is no hope. Women can hardly be expected to suddenly stop fighting for their rights.
Just wondering, what examples of institutionalised patriarchy do you see in today's North American society? I see some serious female-skewness in sexual harassment and child custody laws for example. I thought the male-skewness ended with the affirmative action programs of the early 80's!?
I have copied this message to the top of another thread entitled "Feminism in the 21st century". Perhaps we should continue the discussion there if you are interested.
Bar,
The gay marriage issue affects me in only a minor way but the principle still applies. If the law is passed then force will be applied on me in two areas -- 1) I will be forced to put up with the nuisance of having to contradict the PC propaganda given to my kids by their teachers. No possibility of jail here but my kids have no choice but to hear that stuff and that is also a form of force, albeit a mild one. 2) Whatever economic implications there are force me to make a larger contribution to central government coffers than I otherwise would. Admittedly this one is small as well but I can imagine a scenario in which abuse happens eventually and guys like Borat "marry" his Kazakhstani henchmen to get them into the country to wreak havoc. I would have to help pay the social costs for that as well. If I decide to give myself a voluntary tax deduction to compensate for my pro rata costs of gay marriage (I admit these would be small), then I would expect to do jail time.
My point is the principle that force is being used even if it is small. A small issue here, another one there, it adds up and eventually several small forces will add up to one big one. You may like to apply your force in small doses at a time, while I may just run up a tab and wait until the debt becomes large and collect it all in one go. In any case both sides are applying force on the other, even if it is using different methods with different dosages.
Incidentally I'm all for avoiding "undue discrimination". It's just that we differ on what constitutes discrimination and what doesn't.
And just to be consistent with the last lines of my previous posts...
You stink!
The gay marriage issue affects me in only a minor way but the principle still applies. If the law is passed then force will be applied on me in two areas -- 1) I will be forced to put up with the nuisance of having to contradict the PC propaganda given to my kids by their teachers. No possibility of jail here but my kids have no choice but to hear that stuff and that is also a form of force, albeit a mild one. 2) Whatever economic implications there are force me to make a larger contribution to central government coffers than I otherwise would. Admittedly this one is small as well but I can imagine a scenario in which abuse happens eventually and guys like Borat "marry" his Kazakhstani henchmen to get them into the country to wreak havoc. I would have to help pay the social costs for that as well. If I decide to give myself a voluntary tax deduction to compensate for my pro rata costs of gay marriage (I admit these would be small), then I would expect to do jail time.
My point is the principle that force is being used even if it is small. A small issue here, another one there, it adds up and eventually several small forces will add up to one big one. You may like to apply your force in small doses at a time, while I may just run up a tab and wait until the debt becomes large and collect it all in one go. In any case both sides are applying force on the other, even if it is using different methods with different dosages.
Incidentally I'm all for avoiding "undue discrimination". It's just that we differ on what constitutes discrimination and what doesn't.
And just to be consistent with the last lines of my previous posts...
You stink!
Oh ok, so anytime the teachers give your kids information that runs counter to your opinions about the world, then you are 'forced to deal with the annoyance' of providing your kids with a rational explanation for your beliefs.
Where I come from, that's called A Teaching Moment, but I guess if one lacks confidence in their opinions it might be viewed as an annoyance.
After all, if you're correct on a certain topic, why should it be annoying to correctly provide accurate information? Isn't that what raising kids is all about?
And actually, you're not forced in the context you mentioned above. You can abdicate the opportunity to teach with no criminal or civil penalties from me or mine.
Please don't try and fob off responsibility for your choices - in this case choosing to teach your children what you personally believe - on me or anyone else. You have the power to choose your own course of action. There is no law mandating your choice here.
Where I come from, that's called A Teaching Moment, but I guess if one lacks confidence in their opinions it might be viewed as an annoyance.
After all, if you're correct on a certain topic, why should it be annoying to correctly provide accurate information? Isn't that what raising kids is all about?
And actually, you're not forced in the context you mentioned above. You can abdicate the opportunity to teach with no criminal or civil penalties from me or mine.
Please don't try and fob off responsibility for your choices - in this case choosing to teach your children what you personally believe - on me or anyone else. You have the power to choose your own course of action. There is no law mandating your choice here.
Bar,
You are assuming that you are "correct" and that what I think is just "my beliefs". What if we used a bit of symmetry here and assumed that my beliefs are "correct" and that yours are "your beliefs"?
How would your argument look then!?
Besides, if I have already made a decision to enroll my kid in a school and then a law comes along to change what is said in that school, then force is being applied to me regardless of whether the change is correct or not. I entered into a contract and then the contract got changed without my approval. Force is applied and then I can choose to react or not. What I do does not change the fact that force was applied.
What's next!? Maybe it will become mandated that on every receipt from every store they will print "Gays deserve equal rights" right next to "Have a nice day". You may say that is also correct but I'm not sure I should have to put up with it. That would be another example of force being applied.
You are assuming that you are "correct" and that what I think is just "my beliefs". What if we used a bit of symmetry here and assumed that my beliefs are "correct" and that yours are "your beliefs"?
How would your argument look then!?
Besides, if I have already made a decision to enroll my kid in a school and then a law comes along to change what is said in that school, then force is being applied to me regardless of whether the change is correct or not. I entered into a contract and then the contract got changed without my approval. Force is applied and then I can choose to react or not. What I do does not change the fact that force was applied.
What's next!? Maybe it will become mandated that on every receipt from every store they will print "Gays deserve equal rights" right next to "Have a nice day". You may say that is also correct but I'm not sure I should have to put up with it. That would be another example of force being applied.
I suppose you even get pissed about being 'forced' to eat in order to avoid dying of malnutrition, so I'll acknowledge that Darryl really is put out by all this pushing around society is doing to him, even though I give you credit for having more free choice than you seem ready to accept.
DP: What's next!? Maybe it will become mandated that on every receipt from every store they will print "Gays deserve equal rights" right next to "Have a nice day". You may say that is also correct but I'm not sure I should have to put up with it. That would be another example of force being applied.
BAR: Yeah, maybe it will. Maybe they will pass a law that says all cars must be orange, which will force you to stop using your non-orange ride.
Maybe they will pass a law that says the Redskins will always win the Super Bowl, so you will be forced to bet on them and no other team if you want to make a profit gambling.
Maybe.
Maybe you will wake up in the morning tomorrow and no longer fear other people's free choices as taking away your own right to choice.
See, none of the things you've suggested have actually happened, returning me to my observation which is that with only semantical gripes on your part, all the things you fear are self-inflicted.
But then again, that's only my opinion, maybe I'm wrong. But you have to choose your path...sorry you're choosing to make it so rocky at the moment.
DP: What's next!? Maybe it will become mandated that on every receipt from every store they will print "Gays deserve equal rights" right next to "Have a nice day". You may say that is also correct but I'm not sure I should have to put up with it. That would be another example of force being applied.
BAR: Yeah, maybe it will. Maybe they will pass a law that says all cars must be orange, which will force you to stop using your non-orange ride.
Maybe they will pass a law that says the Redskins will always win the Super Bowl, so you will be forced to bet on them and no other team if you want to make a profit gambling.
Maybe.
Maybe you will wake up in the morning tomorrow and no longer fear other people's free choices as taking away your own right to choice.
See, none of the things you've suggested have actually happened, returning me to my observation which is that with only semantical gripes on your part, all the things you fear are self-inflicted.
But then again, that's only my opinion, maybe I'm wrong. But you have to choose your path...sorry you're choosing to make it so rocky at the moment.
Lesbian couple Janet Deegan (L) and Constance Cervone leave City Hall carrying flowers and their marriage license issued just minutes before in Boston May 17, 2004. Massachusetts became the first state in the United States to legally sanction same-sex marriage based on a ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that ordered the state to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
wil.
