 |
| |
|
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
Che- You know I love you man. I have learned a lot from you, and I admire you a great deal. But I think you are looking at the feminism issue the wrong way. The way I see it, it is entirely superfluous with socialism. In a socialist society, women would be treated as equals anyway, it nearly goes without saying. If feminists chose to abandon feminism and instead take up socialism, the world would be a much better place.
Of course I will grant you that not every feminist is a Dworkin. But that is irrelevent, mostly. You cited a lot of examples of subtle ways in which women still suffer inequality. I could cite just as many for men. We could go back and forth forever. But just consider this, feminism, at it's core, is naturally divisive, obviously a quality that we should try to avoid, as socialists. Instead of fighting for the betterment of only women, why not just try to help improve all of humanity? There's no need for feminism, and now that women have achieved equality, very little good can come of it, at least in regards to building an egalitarian society. I hope you will agree with me, comrade.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
If we decide that motive is important enough to create a difference in scale between killing with a premeditated motive, and say, killing out of passion (the end result being the same), then can;t we then differentiate between motives as well? |
Motive isn't the sole element in making that determination.
If you stab someone 400 times, skin what's left and mount it on your living room wall, and preserve the internal organs in your refrigerator, you're going to have a much tougher time selling the jury on a reduced offense, regardless of the crime of passion argument.
The other issue is that the intent of allowing motive to be part of the elements of lesser offenses isn't to make punishment harsher than it would be otherwise, it's to recognize that certain circumstances are mitigating, and thus a just result is to convict on the lesser offense.
Crime of passion example - woman finds out husband has been cheating, and embezzled from family business they both owned to pay for gifts for bimbo and put money into her account, such that the her and husband's business goes BK, but he doesn't care, he was going to dump her and shack up with piece of fluff - she goes ballistic, freaks out, and goes straightaway to kill his ass, with no delay, and no real effort to cover her tracks.
Same situation, but this time, the woman sets up an out of town trip for herself and hires a hitman to do the dirty work. One is a temporary loss of self-control under highly unusual circumstances, the other is a clearly planned out course of events.
It's a much greater difference in thought process than "I'm going to waste this queer for hitting on me" than "I'm going to waste this loser ******* because he doesn't have enough money for me to steal to get high on" One is rationality vs. lack of rationality, the other is callous disregard due to bigotry, vs. callous disregard period.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
johncmcleod
|
 |
Coeur d'Alene, ID, USA
Jan 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
originally posted by: Imran Siddiqui:
You're NUTS! As Lorizael said, feminism is just the idea that women are people too! MOST (as in 90%) of feminists simply want equality in the workforce and more CEOs and elected representatives be women. I see nothing wrong with that.
What you are doing is confusing radical feminists with mainstream feminists. To compare them to the KKK is to lose touch with reality.
|
No Imran, I believe you are incorrect. First off, many feminists will say they want things to be equal just to justify their views, when really they have a bias against men. Secondly, the doctrine that we should be equal is equalism. Feminists say either they are for being equal because that's what they want you to believe, or they say that women should get better rights to make up for the "years of oppression."
quote:
originally posted by Japher:
The NAACP, IMO, has outlived is usefulness.
|
I disagree. The NAACP stands for National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peopls. Minorites are in a bad situation. There is nothing wrong with something trying to advance them and get them in a better one.
quote:
originally posted by MichaeltheGreat:
Nobody claims consent as a defense to armed robbery.
|
In an armed robbery, the person says "If you don't open the cash register I'll kill you." The cashier is forced to consent. If a man tells a women, if you don't have sex with me, I'll kill you. That is a rape. When the women actually says "Have sex with me." That is consenting and not rape.
quote:
originally posted by MichaeltheGreat:
real:
Two straight white males beat a gay male nearly to death (actually or allegedly triggered when he hit on one of them in a bar), then they tie him to a fence post in a remote area where they know he'll die due to lack of medical treatment for his injuries.
hypothetical:
Two straight white males beat a straight white male nearly to death because they were going to rob him, then got pissed that he only had $15.00 on him, and no credit cards or other valuables, then they tie him to a fence post in a remote area where they know he'll die due to lack of medical treatment for his injuries.
Which is worse?
IMO, they're equivalent, and should be punished equivalently.
|
They are not equivalant. In the first one the object is to kill someone because of their sexual preference, just because of the way that they are. Saying they're equal is like saying killing someone in self-defense is as bad as murder. After all, the intentions don't matter, killing someone is killing someone. It is also saying that if you fight a war in which a lot of people die it is the same as the holocaust, because killing someone is killing someone. It us also saying that if the government gives someone the death penalty because they're a serial killer is the same as giving it to them just because they're a communist, killing someone is killing someone.
It is also saying that if the principal decides he should throw out the 15 Mexicans out of his school is the same as expelling 15 kids for getting in a bad fight.
Discriminating against someone is what caused hundreds of years of dehumanization and bigotry for Indigenous peoples, therefore that should be added to the sentence of a murder. Murder+discriminatory treatment > murder
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 31-05-2003 at 06:26
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-05-2003 00:15
|