LGBT Smashers

[Brav3r]

lol i was on and off the chat a few time so yeah kinda dead, but then again it is sunday.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

I meant that as an overall thing too. Sorry. But Meno is right. Men tend to be relatively straightforward versus women. In general.

However, I know some very blunt girls and some very subtle dudes.

yeah. men are often more straightforward, but they are also more likely to hide things.

I think it's more complicated to try to guess what's going on in the mind of a man who's not saying things than in the mind of a woman who, while her actions may not be straightforward, will at least attempt to convey most of her thoughts and feelings.

That's just what traditional stereotypes say, however.

 

[Bitter Romantic]

I will have to disagree with IrArby on the point that gender is a random social construct
to the point where I will go against what you've said and say that gender is very much biologically dependent :O

I'm sure we've all noticed by now that there are physical differences between the sexes
women bearing children, men being physically stronger [really D:]

these biological differences then influence the social blah blah blah

too lazy to argue, but I think you get my point

 

[IrArby]

No no. I agree with you. Thats my point.

Cultural differences are biologically based too. Its not as if were silly people making things up and abritraly assigning different roles to either sex.

See?

People make gender roles out to be this random stupid thing that we've created out of nowhere that subjigates women. I argued that its not random at all since almost every culture world wide does it.

But yea thats what I'm saying. People are in general a result of Nuture + Nature but lets not kids ourselves Nature always comes first.

 

[adumbrodeus]

No no. I agree with you. Thats my point. See?

People make gender roles out to be this random stupid thing that we've created out of nowhere that subjigates women. I argued that its not random at all since almost every culture world wide does it.

But yea thats what I'm saying. People are in general a result of Nuture + Nature but lets not kids ourselves Nature always comes first.

Ah, but that's side-stepping the fundamental issue of gender roles, are they nature ANYMORE or merely nurture (aka social inertia).


It's very obvious that gender roles initially had a purpose, why are men more biologically strong, why are women more biological endurance, why?

Yes, there were strong reasons for that, it helped humanity to survive.



But now, tens of thousands of years later do those biological reasons still exist anymore. The purpose was to defend the women for child-bearing since it was a long process. Men were therefore more biologically expendable and therefore biologically stronger.

But now, most people survive till the age of reproduction, men in a slightly lower rate, but that's not important. Why?

Because almost everyone gets their chance at reproduction, and the primary roles of people are, not simply reproduce, but to participate in society.


The thing is, those previously practical social organizations encouraged by the biology of the time... they don't do much anymore, they have no purpose and are only enforced by deeply ingrained social inertia.


So, there IS an understanding that they once were caused by biological necessity, but today gender roles are unnecessary, and hurtful to men and women.

 

[KirbyKaze]

I got 3rd in a tournament yay go me I'm so good.

 

[IrArby]

Ok here goes a huge essay of stuff that ambrodeus got me thinking about. Sorry its so long but some of this stuff has come up alot recently in my mind. Again I apologize for the length and possible irrelevance to the topic. So don't feel bad if you think its too much trouble to read it. My feelings will only be slightly hurt.

Interesting. I think that differences still exist between men and women and not exlusively because we continue to recreate them (nowadays). However, I agree that on the whole the basis of why gender roles were created initially has changed. For that reason, conventional roles are being challenged and quite often broken.

Also, its hard to say what elements of a culture are neccesary or extraneous. For example, when Japan began modernization in the early Meiji period, they modeled their newly unified army after the Prussians. The Prussians had a brass band as part of their force. Japan adopted a brass band into thier new army. Neccesary?

Anyway, I agree that the extremities of gendered training are dated but can we really say that they all are? Baby boys and Baby girls play differently before they recieve any kind of social gendered training. Differences are still there. We can't get rid of instinct in 20 or 30 generations. Then again, maybe we're modernizing and growing technologically to fast for evolution to keep up (many extinct species would agree)?

As far as gender roles being exclusively hurtful to males and females I think that too is a tall claim. As a whole, we could possibly argue that, but on the individual level how well one can adhere (in some case disadhere) to gender norms is often an attractive feature to the opposite sex. Is it exclusively harmful? Male peacocks make the same trade off. Detremental behavior for Sex Appeal. Its hard to say that something we value in our culture, or in basically every culture is worthless or solely harmful to its members.

And then I guess what it comes down to is roles were created to perpetuate life. Life is much easier now so whats the point? Indeed if the point in life is not to perpetuate more life through offspring, what is the point? This is where people began turning to religons as a sense of self-worth (that and fear) once they've acheived or unlearned the supposed need to achieve their intial child-rearing purpose in life.

So gender roles are just another perk of life. Thats how you know your still alive!

And what constitutes a biological neccessity. If our new purpose is to participate in society clearly were meant to socialize which entails recognizing differnces between ourselves and others while assimilating with others who share some characteristics with us. Roles continue to exist since they serve a purpose in socialization. Inclusivity through exclusivity. Lets not forget that thier is inherent elitism in everything that we do.

If your favorite color is orange, every other color is in your eyes inferior to orange's superiority. To see everything in a given category as perfectly even is evolutionarily backwards. In fact, ecologically speaking its a bad thing. We cannot appreciate diversity if we embrace everything equally. That would cheapen everything's worth. As the world continues to interbreed ultimately the variety of alleles for different traits will gradually decrease. Thus, prejudice is, strangely enough, evolutionarily benificial. By reducing our genetic variety we reduce our ability/likelihood to adapt. Racisim, Sexism, Ageism, is all an outgrowth of that instinct, to discern and have favorites. It maintains variety in a species that is rapidly homogenizing.

 

[Bitter Romantic]

according to Ambrodeus' argument is that gender roles stem from tradition [there is no need for them now, but we still do it because that's how we used to do it], yes?

and IrArby's is that they rose out of the human instinct of prejudice/favoritism, yes?

you know what's funny? Lil' ol' compromise-me thinks that it's both :D

Agreed that gender roles today stem from tradition, it becomes more evident when looking at countries less 'developed' and how structured and strict/exacting their gender roles are [I'm not sure how I want to word this :/ like Iran and it's theocracy has some VERY clear distinction between genders and their roles, and in the western countries, that guideline is less developed/strict? it's more alright, I guess, for a girl to act like a guy in the US, though less alright for a guy to act like a girl (this is more due to the homophobia and what I would say is a stricter sense of that gender role), though that would be the extreme examples]

Why do we follow tradition? I don't think 'because it works' works in this case, as I feel that it'd be 'more' beneficial if both sexes worked towards progress/whatnot
I think that it stems from the human 'instinct' [is that the right word to use?] to like or be drawn to what we're most familiar with. There is a reason there is a 'road less traveled by.'
Some may value independence, but I think it would be safe to assume that most people like the comfort of knowing, of having expected results even if those results are subpar.
Fear of change.

I agree with Ambrodeus that gender roles are bad and that they have a negative effect on people

blah blah blah
brain has been tired for a while, so forgive any lapses in logic, grammar or whatever D:


congrats to KirbyKaze :D

 

[adumbrodeus]

Ok here goes a huge essay of stuff that ambrodeus got me thinking about. Sorry its so long but some of this stuff has come up alot recently in my mind. Again I apologize for the length and possible irrelevance to the topic. So don't feel bad if you think its too much trouble to read it. My feelings will only be slightly hurt.

Lol, I have a tenancy to cause this actually.

Anyway, I agree that the extremities of gendered training are dated but can we really say that they all are? Baby boys and Baby girls play differently before they recieve any kind of social gendered training. Differences are still there. We can't get rid of instinct in 20 or 30 generations. Then again, maybe we're modernizing and growing technologically to fast for evolution to keep up (many extinct species would agree)?

It's more likely that our technology is growing to fast to keep up with the speed that our societal structures mature.

As far as gender roles being exclusively hurtful to males and females I think that too is a tall claim. As a whole, we could possibly argue that, but on the individual level how well one can adhere (in some case disadhere) to gender norms is often an attractive feature to the opposite sex. Is it exclusively harmful? Male peacocks make the same trade off. Detremental behavior for Sex Appeal. Its hard to say that something we value in our culture, or in basically every culture is worthless or solely harmful to its members.

And then I guess what it comes down to is roles were created to perpetuate life. Life is much easier now so whats the point? Indeed if the point in life is not to perpetuate more life through offspring, what is the point? This is where people began turning to religons as a sense of self-worth (that and fear) once they've acheived or unlearned the supposed need to achieve their intial child-rearing purpose in life.

So gender roles are just another perk of life. Thats how you know your still alive!

And what constitutes a biological neccessity. If our new purpose is to participate in society clearly were meant to socialize which entails recognizing differnces between ourselves and others while assimilating with others who share some characteristics with us. Roles continue to exist since they serve a purpose in socialization. Inclusivity through exclusivity. Lets not forget that thier is inherent elitism in everything that we do.

If your favorite color is orange, every other color is in your eyes inferior to orange's superiority. To see everything in a given category as perfectly even is evolutionarily backwards. In fact, ecologically speaking its a bad thing. We cannot appreciate diversity if we embrace everything equally. That would cheapen everything's worth. As the world continues to interbreed ultimately the variety of alleles for different traits will gradually decrease. Thus, prejudice is, strangely enough, evolutionarily benificial. By reducing our genetic variety we reduce our ability/likelihood to adapt. Racisim, Sexism, Ageism, is all an outgrowth of that instinct, to discern and have favorites. It maintains variety in a species that is rapidly homogenizing.

In the case of the peacocks, it makes it easier for them to become extinct.


Now, you are, in a very round-about way, bringing up that divirsity is the spice of life, which is true, but you can't force people to be museum fremen, unless you have actual people to fulfill the roles it merely comes off as hollow and worthless.


And here again is the reason why it only seems odd that I'm attacking gender roles, because I only dislike people being forced to carry them out, I have no problem with being a pretty typical guy.


As for biases in general, I have no issue with you being interested in specific cultures' practices. What I have issue with is when people make false assumptions about other people based on "their culture", but this is an annoyance. I also have issue when they deny people promotions/jobs/whatever for similar reasons, and this is the real issue.


Basically, things like that FORCE us to be homogeneous if we ever face a legitimate threat because that's when we need to work together, we can't afford racism and sexism when push comes to shove, we need to be able to analyze things objectively with only true practical issues coming into play, not personal feelings.

 

[deepseadiva]

I agree.

Women should stay in the kitchen.

 

[Bitter Romantic]

yay for clarifying, adumbrodeus :D

that was my main little complaint with your argument on that I only kinda agreed with :O

it isn't gender roles in and of itself being bad, but being forced into it
thank you for putting that into words that my brain failed to do [but realized]


oh meno :3/XD

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

I agree.

Women should stay in the kitchen.

*high fives*

I can't count all the times I've been punched for those comments:

"You know why women have small feet?"
"So they can stand closer to the sink"


"Why don't women need driver's licenses?"
"There are no roads between the bedroom and the kitchen"



I normally can get away with such things though because people know that I have a LOT of respect for woman and I think a lot of the inequality they face is just total and utter bullcrap. But, I mean, come on, I'm a liberal, that's expected of me no?

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I agree.

Women should stay in the kitchen.

I won't lie.

I lol'ed.

Smooth Criminal

 

[DoH]

I feel there's a big and glaring difference between Prop 8 and Xsyven's situation. Like, I can at least see the reasoning to prop 8. People believed that marriage should be between a man and woman, and gay marriage encroached heavily on their moral beliefs of a holy sacrement. I think those people that believe that need to start thinking outside the box a bit but they had every reason to think the way they did. This case is just plain ****ed up. There's no defense against a community's religious beliefs, it's just people being given the right to totally **** with people due to ignorance. I mean you can actually turn down a guy that's fighting for a job because of a personal lifestyle? That's just ignorance with no basis. ****'s dumb.

Uhhh

This isn't how law works.

Or at least not how law is supposed to work.

You don't get to legislate morality. It doesn't matter what you believe, you don't get to put it into a law that has to be followed, especially not when it infringes on other people's rights. People need to wake up and realize that just because they can *******ize Biblical interpretations doesn't mean they have the right to enforce it.

And it's not a personal lifestyle. It's a central component of identity. Lifestyle is the PC term for debauchery.

 

[Veril]

Uhhh

This isn't how law should work.

You shouldn't get to legislate morality. It doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is your political influence. People do realize that because they are a powerful political faction means they have the right to force their beliefs upon you.

Corrected for the sad sad truth. Progress will be slow.

 

[1048576]

On March 24 in Alachua county where I currently reside as a student at the University of Florida, there is an amendment allowing for the discrimination of hiring people or providing service to people based solely on sexual orientation or gender identity.

In November we lost the ability for civil unions to be given rights such as seeing partners in a hospital, and now this...

Thoughts?

Imma 'bout to take a flamethrower into my local church and let them all experience a little bit of hell.

 

[Brav3r]

Well, i guess Utah isn't the only place with discrimination issues

oh and chat is gonna die w/o your help lol

 

[Teran]

Imma 'bout to take a flamethrower into my local church and let them all experience a little bit of hell.

Say goodbye to every Gay Bar in the radius of a pickup truck's fuel tank.

 

[KingJiggyWiggy]

On March 24 in Alachua county where I currently reside as a student at the University of Florida, there is an amendment allowing for the discrimination of hiring people or providing service to people based solely on sexual orientation or gender identity.

In November we lost the ability for civil unions to be given rights such as seeing partners in a hospital, and now this...

Thoughts?

Imma 'bout to take a flamethrower into my local church and let them all experience a little bit of hell.

So you are blaming the Church for something that a civil leader has done? Wouldn't you rather go for the people who are in charge of this whole operation?

 

[Deception]

Imma 'bout to take a flamethrower into my local church and let them all experience a little bit of hell.

All that will do is reinforce the idea that gay=bad.

I certainly wish Florida's Christians were more liberal.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

On March 24 in Alachua county where I currently reside as a student at the University of Florida, there is an amendment allowing for the discrimination of hiring people or providing service to people based solely on sexual orientation or gender identity.

In November we lost the ability for civil unions to be given rights such as seeing partners in a hospital, and now this...

Thoughts?

Imma 'bout to take a flamethrower into my local church and let them all experience a little bit of hell.

another sad thing. but i would like to take pictures of the burning

 

[The.End]

another sad thing. but i would like to take pictures of the burning

Haha, that's exactly my thought. -snaps a picture-
In my opinion, most of the hate of the world comes from 'groups' or in my own terms: 'religion'.
I don't mean to offend anyone, but it's very much true. By promoting ONE group, another group will be hated. No matter, even if your group is good or bad, another group will end up on the hating end. It's the way the world works, unfortunately. Some christians support marriage as something between a man and a woman- obviously the other end, that gets screwed would be the gays. -ve * -ve = +ve So yea, i'm involving math now xD

P.S. Bring teh chats alive!

 

[KingJiggyWiggy]

You are very confused with what hate really is. If you want gay marriage then keep it to yourself instead of forcing a religion to practice this. You want to know what real hate is? "another sad thing. but i would like to take pictures of the burning." That's what hate is. Adding to the heinous crime another evil. All I see you people doing is a hallow reversing of victims.

 

[1048576]

So you are blaming the Church for something that a civil leader has done? Wouldn't you rather go for the people who are in charge of this whole operation?

A conservative christian organization went around and collected enough signitures to put it on the ballot, as I understand it.

I know I'm not supposed to bash religion, but c'mon. Tolerance does not supercede tolerating intolerance.

Edit: ooh that last sentence fit perfectly with the above post. I didn't even see it.

Example: I don't have to tolerate Hitler because Hitler refused to tolerate the Jewish people.

Can you make rainbow fire?

Edit2: It's not gay marriage, KJW, it's letting me buy a house or be an engineer in Alachua. If this passes, the employer/realator can simply say "nope, too LGBT"

 

[The.End]

You are very confused with what hate really is. If you want gay marriage then keep it to yourself instead of forcing a religion to practice this. You want to know what real hate is? "another sad thing. but i would like to take pictures of the burning." That's what hate is. Adding to the heinous crime another evil. All I see you people doing is a hallow reversing of victims.

Hmm- I never mentioned a definition of hate, although i did mention a source of it.
Hate can be everything bad, and can be everything good for the other. Hate is simply disliking something, and that's exactly what most people are doing, i only mentioned that religion had a great part in 'hate'.
Nobody is forcing a religion to practice anything- The only problem in the gay marriage idea is that most people believe in a religion where as this idea is a sin or something worst. And while some believe that gay marriage may be right, some believe it isn't, because they only look at one aspect of it, which brings me to my next point.
A quote by shakespear, that i love to hear is "There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Exactly as it sounds: to someone, their actions is good, but to the other it might be a sense of hate or disdain. I'm not saying that anything you said is wrong, I'm just stating my opinion on your words. Just as anybody here would state their opinions on the topics that were at hand. Simply put, we're all biased, some people look at things in one sense, yet others look at them in another sense, someone takes a side, they take another.

Hmm, i forgot what else i was going to say- but for now, that's about it.

P.S. I'm like a posting advertisement- Chat group is dead.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

guys hate to stop the juicy topic atm but religion is tabooed here. it goes on forever and Sonics a devoute christian too so....

i know the other part about it is important (i want to keep my jobs too ), but lets try and leave religion out if possible, or end it soon, before we get sent candy.

 

[Timbers]

this thread is serious business.

anyways yeah, it's hardly religion that "hates," but more of it's followers who are clearly misguided in their own beliefs. i hate this, i hate that, when the (Christian) religion teaches you to accept everyone. The followers become biased and try to incorporate their own beliefs through a moral consensus, i.e. religion, and it gets set like wildfire. Religion is awesome imo, but there's always idiots to ruin a good thing.

But yeah I'm dropping it there.

 

[The.End]

Soo guys, try to touch your tongue to your elbow :D
haha- anyhow, let's return to gender roles o.o

 

[KingJiggyWiggy]

Oh I don't mind if someone brings up religion, so long as you have done the research. Believe it or not Catholics do not believe it is a sin to naturally like the same sex, rather they do not believe it is ok to practice sex with the same gender. There is a difference.

But I do agree that no one should not take away work opportunity just because of their sexuality. It's just not right.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

if we didn't like the same sex to some degree then men could only get along w/ women. that sounds like a lighthearted way of saying "its ok to like them, like really good friends, but that is all."

thats just what it sounds like to me though.

but bringing up religion here has always gone way out there so thats why i aksed for it to be toned down soon. we can discuss it for free in the group chat though.

 

[Veril]

Oh I don't mind if someone brings up religion, so long as you have done the research. Believe it or not Catholics do not believe it is a sin to naturally like the same sex, rather they do not believe it is ok to practice sex with the same gender. There is a difference.

Stupid distinction. If you want to live a normal life, in accordance with your sexual orientation, you aren't gonna be celibate. Having the core component (same sex... sex) classified as a sin is close enough that you are really splitting hairs here.

Also, as someone who went to Catholic school (though for a very short time... couldn't take it); that distinction is completely ignored by the faithful IN MY EXPERIENCE. Now you could say that the "good insert religion here" person wouldn't have picked fights with me eventually driving me out of their school, and I would say, "bs theory is bs 99% of the time".

I've met very religious people who are ok with homosexuality, but they are a minority and DO NOT represent the religion as a whole.

My best friend's mom is a pastor, obviously I don't hate religious people. So don't accuse me of that. I do hate the dogma.

but bringing up religion here has always gone way out there so thats why i aksed for it to be toned down soon. we can discuss it for free in the group chat though.

Whoops.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

its ok Veril you got here late and didn't know. byt Xsyven and Azua may start handing out candy if we don't keep it on gay and minimize the religion.

i also went to catholic school.....(continued in group thread)

 

[adumbrodeus]

On March 24 in Alachua county where I currently reside as a student at the University of Florida, there is an amendment allowing for the discrimination of hiring people or providing service to people based solely on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Send me a link to the governing document, I study law I believe that violates supreme court precident.

I'll take a look.

Imma 'bout to take a flamethrower into my local church and let them all experience a little bit of hell.

And so you... kill random people because a large number of people who do what they're doing espouse different political beliefs then you?


Seriously, we're in a representative democracy, and we gotta take the good and bad that comes with that. You've got a problem with the local politics? Form an interest group, fight for what you believe in.

Students tend to be a very apathetic group, but they get very riled up when it's something they believe in.

 

[Brav3r]

if we didn't like the same sex to some degree then men could only get along w/ women. that sounds like a lighthearted way of saying "its ok to like them, like really good friends, but that is all."

@.@ That came from Nowhere.

Well ive never been a guy to get along really well with women. The Longer I hang out with
any Woman the more it feels like they try to enforce thier "uspoken rules" on me. Plus i nevor would try to have any interest with their relationships either[cant stand the emotional drama being involved]. Kinda weird though, i never feel like that when i hang out with the guys. More or less they dont even care about it.

......p.s i think the chat died....Meno(nvm)

 

[adumbrodeus]

A conservative christian organization went around and collected enough signitures to put it on the ballot, as I understand it.

I know I'm not supposed to bash religion, but c'mon. Tolerance does not supercede tolerating intolerance.

Edit: ooh that last sentence fit perfectly with the above post. I didn't even see it.

Example: I don't have to tolerate Hitler because Hitler refused to tolerate the Jewish people.

Can you make rainbow fire?

Edit2: It's not gay marriage, KJW, it's letting me buy a house or be an engineer in Alachua. If this passes, the employer/realator can simply say "nope, too LGBT"

Let me put it this way, that's the same reasoning that they use to attack us "hippie liberals" (aka everyone who's not ultra-conservative), because supposedly we hate them.


Guess what? Tolerance includes tolerating intolerance, it's EVERYBODY.

Legally, treat EVERYBODY in a viewpoint neutral manner, don't kill anyone unless they're directing trying to antogonize you, and don't hate, because hatred gives them control over you, it makes you dangerious to yourself in your quest against your foe.


I refuse to invoke Godwin's law, because it's stupid, but let me say this. Yes, Hitler had a right to have his viewpoints tolerated. But legally treating him in a viewpoint neutral manner would not be very friendly to his tastes.

So, tolerate everyone, you don't have to support everyone, but they all have a right to their opinions.

 

[1048576]

Oppression of a minority group is bad, democracy or no.

I wouldn't kill random people. I'd "fight for what I believe in "


Ok, I tolerate Hitler and I'm sad that we forced his suicide. Hopefully that made you lurch a little and hopefully you understand why. You don't tolerate intolerance.

If certain groups didn't try to strip me of basic rights, I wouldn't hate them. I was born and raised Protestant. It's a lifestyle I used to appreciate. Now I can't stand it.

It makes me more dangerous to my foe than it does to me...

The first sentence of the above post went over my head. They attack us for violating an arbitrary moral code; not for hating them.

 

[Brav3r]

I think "tolertaring the intolorable" is a little vague to describe how to handle this situations. Sure you can accept the poeple they are but its kind of pathetic to let otheres take your opportunities away and give you little if any chance to challenge it.Going hostile is not a good way to go about this. Hmm, what to do. i was hoping you were sarcastic about the ***** fire thing. Im gonna stop heres

Anyways i feels ignored T.T . oh wells lol

 

[IrArby]

The problem being that most groups religous or whatever, teach and practice basically converting and imposing as part of their package deal culture. These people are merely, as ambrodeus rightly said, participating in their societies. In my Gender Politics in Asia class we basically spend 1hour and 15mins learning about how sh*tty women in different Asian countries have it. Yet we don't say "thats wrong" since were approaching the issues from a very liberal feministic standpoint that doesn't allow for such talk. By those standards every culture is equal and different.

By our standards they are wrong. No one should have any problem admitting that most cultures think your is wrong. Believe or not, our would be tolerant attitude still identifies what they do as wrong. I'm pretty sure that everyone in this thread would identify the Honor Killing of women who are sometimes just suspected of promiscuity or in some cases innocent **** victims who are then killed and cut up into pieces by their male family members who are then aquitted of murder charges or simply ignored by or bribed and threatened officials as wrong. Would most of us call throwing acid at women who don't were their veils wrong or faking so called "kitchen accidents" so as to collect a woman's dowry and become widowed so as to collect another women's dowry in the same manner as wrong.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying its our job to right the world. And to some extent I'm giving you guys some graphic examples to illustrate a point perhaps over excessively. I'm not even really saying we should do this that or the other but to the extent that these people will try to exert their lifestyle on you, it is an imperative of every living thing to preserve your way of life and if possible better it.

Its all good and well to say we shouldn't disqualify a Pakistanny (sorry I'm sure thats spelled wrong) Man from a job as he meets our criteria and we shouldn't assume anything about him based on what we think we know about his culture. In England and France there are large middle eastern communities which presumably started in a similar matter. Slowly intergrating as workers from another country looking to better their lives and the life of their family. Those same Honor Killing that were happening in another part of the globe which shoot to sh*t every legal practice in those two countries are now happening there too. So are riots and deaths and cultural tensions and old prejiduces are arising.

In all seriousness I'm not attacking middle eastern culture. Merely saying lets not be hypocritical and say all cultures are equal. By your standards and by everyone else's, as individuals, they aren't. Which means, inherently they are wrong. Its good to critical of the people in charge of our governments but the way people in charge run things around the world work and they work by subduing and oppressing certain people.

Someone's got to get the shaft. Theres an idea thats been floating around (probably since there were first winners and losers) that those in charge get to call the shots and thats irrepresentative of everyone. Why shouldn't the losers get they're say and thus call the shots too? If the losers call the shots, then their in charge and that does happen, its called revolution. I can't think of a single peaceful revolution that for the most part quelled the social tensions it sought to end while putting both or all sides at equal footings. Real revolutions don't do this either but they have a much more successful track record of establishing order.

IDK I'm gonna quote Dogma (the movie) and say that having a belief structure is a bad thing. That its better to just have ideas which you can change and assimilate new ones or get rid of old ones. Unfortunately, thats kind of a belief system onto itself. I don't think that people are basically good or evil which as some one else rightly said, is all a matter of subjective perspective. Try as we might, you cannot avoid subjectivity and its not at all bad to use it at your discression. Instead people are self-driven to acheive and do what they think constitutes a right path in life. I'll keep discerning people individually by what I see in them but H*LL NO I'm not afraid to generalize people.

 

[Duchock]

youre weird...

But in all honesty, your argument has some validity, but also is complete bullplop at the same time. Let me also preface by appologizing that I'm jumping into this conversation way late. And also, I tolerate everyone's opinion. You can have all the opinion you want.


What you're claiming as evidence for why other cultures are "not equal to ours" is, from what I gather, one of two things. Either A) these so-called honor killings which are, apparently, perfectly acceptable cultural practices for THEM. You're viewing it as "wrong" from your own culutural mindset (people know the limits of their society. Whenever they break these limits, there is consequence). Or B) gross excuses of corruption trying to be passed off as "culture" (men bribing officials).

I don't entirely understand your argument against allowing people of these cultures into "our" societies, if that's the point you're getting at. Are you claiming that they are bringing their cultural practices (honor killing) into places like England and France? If they performed an honor killing in one of those countries, no doubt the police force would be knocking down their door. Honor killing may very well be a part of these cultures in question (I am not familiar with them, so I cannot say one way or another), but certainly it has had a place in their society for centuries.

Saying that all cultures are equal isn't being hypocritical, it's being culturally sensitive. And saying that everyone (read: every person alive) believes that not all cultures are equal is a false statement. I don't really think I'm the only one who thinks the same on this issue. What may be right for you may not be right for a person from Turkey, or a person from Japan, or even a person from another state.

Your argument on "losers and winners" also falls a bit flat. You state that someone always is stepping on someone else in order to better their own kind and oppress another kind. While it's true that revolution rarely works to protect the safety and will of the people they represent in today's world where violence is the only answer to life's problems. What you fail to see is not all people see it in terms of "losers" and "winners." For example, the caste system in India. For the longest time (probably not recently due to India's evolving and Westernization's effects), no one had a problem with being ontop *winner* or on bottom *loser*, and simply given these lables based purely upon who they were born from. Everyone knew, through their faith and life, that they had a place in this world, and in their culture, that was a significant feeling.

I'm also not saying there is no CORRUPTION in this world. In Africa especially, there are injustices. African people are very community oriented, so one would naturally think their governments would work towards the betterment of their people. Yes, they do work towards the betterment of their people (like their culture says) but not everyone who is a part of their country is "their people." Africans mostly identify themselves with their tribe and who they came from, not what country they are in. Country boarders (and most of these governments in power today) were established by colonialism. The colonizing countries, whenever they eventually pulled out, expected the same system that worked for them to work in these different totally different cultures. They set up governments, often modeled after their own, stuck a few people in power, and let them loose. Yes, it's an injustice, but it's not entirely their fault. Colonization is to blame for a lot of issues.

Take this for example. In most Islamic countries, there are laws that require women to always be covered when in public areas. Western culture may see this as subjugation and needless control over women, but in reality, it is done for religious purposes and to protect both women and men from things like temptation or other people getting the wrong idea. It's not like these are arbitrary rules set forth by some king who ruled decades ago; these are guidelines set forth by their religion on how they should dress. In this situation, you cannot say that it is "wrong" for the males to force these women to conform to these standards that you might think is unfair and binding. You can say that it is "different" because it is! To them, it is a source of protection and devotion to their religion: not "wrong," but instead, "right."

 

[Xsyven]

This thread is grounded for 24 hours. Take this time to think of something on-topic to talk about.

NO RELIGION TALK.