My daddy always told me......

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, January 30, 2009 20:37
VIEWED: 5895
PAGE 9 of 11

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:24 PM

Thank you for clarifying your position, DT.

I do not agree with you, but I'm not going to make an argument about it because I neither have the time nor do I think you would much like that. But again, thanks for clarifying.

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:29 PM

DT

"I thought that agreeing to disagree would work ..."

As I get it, you want to be able to rant at length and make shit up, and can't stand when other people express their opinions if they are not in line with yours. You want this to be your personal forum and are looking for other people to just shut up and go along with whatever you post.

In other words, you just want people to agree with you. And then when they don't, you blame them for your response.

***************************************************************

Smooth move.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:59 PM

Rue,

As I get it, you want to be able to rant at length and make shit up, and can't stand when other people express their opinions if they are not in line with yours. You want this to be your personal forum and are looking for other people to just shut up and go along with whatever you post.

In other words, you just want people to agree with you. And then when they don't, you blame them for your response.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 30, 2009 12:25 AM

Based on that lovely mad rant?
That's hardly sporting. I was initially just trying to tick off Kathy because she said some very insulting things.

When one side of an argument crawls into its shell and clings to its stubborn beliefs, the other side must do the same, or risk an absurd compromise.

Follow this logic, say you and I disagree, your position is 100, mine is 0, and the truth is somewhere in the middle, we don't know where. If you say 90, and I say 10, etc. until you've said 60 and I've said 40, then you suddenly say 100, you're inviting me to compromise, and say 70. That road lead to me saying 99, and eventually 100.

Consider the Regnery argumentative structure:

Regnery says that his model is to start with an accepted truth, say, white people killed indians and took their land. Then he creates an absurd counterpoint, he argues that no, actually, whites moved into empty land after indians killed each other in wars. Then, he could spark a debate, and create proponents of both sides, and have them land in the middle. He has now compromised truth with falsehood, and a new accept version is created.

The point being, compromise is not always the best tactical move. If She and her friend take the position of "If you don't completely agree with us you're a pig" the only sensible countermove is to be a pig. If it continued, I had some great slavegirl pics to post. The only alterative is to appease unlimited arrogance until it becomes dictator of truth.

The fact of the matter is my position is that there's nothing offensive about female empowerment, but that early feminists were fascists, which, go ahead, read them and see, and that there was a push to get this new ideology in, which swept in a lot of good people. Tying yourself to this older movement is like tying yourself to any other atrocious ideas. George Allen thought institutional racism was probably a good idea, John Kerry thought nuking Japan was a good move. These things sink campaigns. If the new feminists are going to be this hostile, then by all means, let them fail. But if they want to succeed, they should be a little more careful, and less starry eyed followers.

Essentially, the basis is real: The ism of you is the flattery sell, it appeals to the ego, and a sense of superiority. That doesn't mean there aren't equality issues, etc. But, come to me with the approach of: "I'm going to ram my world view down your throat, and eat it buster" then I'm going to not look at those issues. I'll say, oh, it's the same old guard in new clothing.

Reality: there's a lot of scary stuff that goes on. I'm not a random follower of conspiracy theories. I know far more about this stuff as I would ever post. I may be crazy, but I'm not wrong.

Here's a harsh cold reality:

HIV (however it was derived) was not genetically engineered to target black people, since genetic engineering hadn't been invented yet. But, the science of how to spread a plague is very simple, and was know in Europe during the black death, and in the ancient Mediterranean civilizations, where it was used. If you look at the evidence, the WHO swept in and did massive blood transfusions which spread the disease across Africa. Why? I don't know. I don't have a motive. If I were to guess, I would say someone was testing a bioweapon plan, and Africans were disposable.

The proof of that conspiracy theory is the massive transfusion plan that infected 10 million people in the former soviet union, after the collapse of communism. There's my "Aha!" The target was probably the USSR all along, and they needed a window of opportunity. Now I have a motive. Also, means, and opportunity. Mystery solved.

So, nefarious doctrines in feminism? As I said, it's not unique. There's a powerful group out there with the stated goal of reducing the world's population to 1 billion. That's not theory. It's not theory that population control is the major means they chose to do this. It's not theory that the early feminists were involved in population control, and part of that agenda.

What bother

RUE

Friday, January 30, 2009 1:09 AM

So DT

What exactly did I post that was insulting ? Find it. Post it. Or shut up.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 30, 2009 1:20 AM

Kathy,

1. Where do I start? Where you compared me to Margaret Sanger? I think it was before that. You can be a can of venom sometimes.
2. Stop tag teaming, everyone hates it.
3. Do you guys have any idea how you sound? I mean, move over Rush Limbaugh.

I'm angry at you at the moment, but it will pass, if you stop posting. I'm not going to godwin this one, I have plenty of parallels to draw.

On this board, there are a few things that people that post stuff that's truly objectionable. I think Auraptor's posted some things about muslims that I found reprehensible. So has FMF, and a couple of other people.

I may be mistaken, but I don't make stuff up. We're on subjects I've researched fairly well. I don't think anything I've posted here is inaccurate. Oh, I might have made a snark or two, they're usually identified as such, either in the post, or the following one where I say "that was a snark" but the facts are real: You're pet political movement has a dark side to its history. So does the UN, WHO, IMF, World Bank, hell, even the United States of America, as a whole, has a serious dark side to its history, and some of it isn't that old.

If it were me, I'd be concerned, introspective, and examine that history.

I'm still not clear on one thing. You know who I am, everyone does, Im a former lunatic, with a fifth grade education, and I grow tomatoes. Anyone who is afraid of me as a force has issues. I wield the power of the rotten tomato.

You, on the other hand, are a govt. scientist, if I have this right, you work on atmospheric issues, which I'm guessing is pollution control.

You wield the power of the co2 count. Give me a co2 count and carbon monoxide, and pollution analysis, a little local greenhouse effect analysis in Los Angeles, I'm likely to believe you.

In the information age, we all have access to the same information, suddenly, we're all equal. I mentioned before I watched a group of researchers at Princeton get taken down and pwned on their own subject by a group of African villagers in a remote region of Kenya. Why? Because the guys in Kenya were right, and the guys at Princeton eventually caved. Because everyone has a brain, and everyone has access to the same information.

We are each entitled to out own opinions, but as politicians are fond of saying... [i think you can complete this]

So, sure, I agree with Pirate News on Roe v. Wade. It's a religious point of view. It doesn't affect my feeling towards feminism, or female empowerment, which I don't view to be the same thing, or even related, except by the academic connection, which is an opinion. The women of my family went to arch liberal colleges became ardent feminists, chased away the men of their life, and are childless. That's another nail.

But if you scan through, I've already posted the really creepy story about one of my sisters, and the visit that it prompted from planned parenthood: She was a problem birth, due to a chemical exposure to a teratogenic. You're a scientist, but you might want to check the etymology of that word if you don't know it offhand. They tried to convince my mother to not have any more children. Their assumption, it was a genetic defect. The fact that it wasn't isn't an issue, the issue is that had they been successful, I wouldn't have been born. And, they had an issue with my sister being born. Selective abortion, there's a scary issue. Different people being deleted, based on scans, genetic scans. This is an opinion from a mind foreign probably to your own: The moral equivalent would be to, instead of trying to cure the sick, we could simply kill them, and maintain a healthy population.

So yes, I have opinions, and issues. There are also facts. And I was driven to uncover some of those facts.

I suspect you and signy have issues, you're arguing to beat down a random rural uneducated unemployed farmer with a history of problems. What? Do my ideas represent a threat to your ideology?

A lot of people here have issues. Some have religious beliefs. Some have ideals, and things they care ab

RUE

Friday, January 30, 2009 1:40 AM

Here is the sum of my posts, in order, up to the point of your self-described rant.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 10:38
"Working in the home is STILL work. Despite what others would tell you. And its a damn important job, too."
But it's a job that can be done by men as well as women.
By rough numbers: most people had mothers who were less nurturing than their fathers.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 10:56
"Despite the hype about alpha males, it's all about the kids."
Since you didn't mention this, I thought I'd put it in for others: it doesn't matter how 'fit' you are - in terms of evolution, sterility negates virility. But even more, it isn't even about how many you spawn - in terms of evolution, dead young ones won't carry your family tradition, or you genes.
It's about how many of your young SURVIVE LONG ENOUGH TO HAVE YOUNG OF THEIR OWN.
Otherwise --- game over.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 10:58
"Lets not go there, and lets play nice, shall we Rue?"
I AM playing nice. It's the truest and most helpful thing you'll ever get from anyone.
Or, in a more extended version: as long as you define who you are by the things that were done to you, you will never get over them - and you will never grow up to be a free adult.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 12:59
"... seriously, pressure!"
Oh great. Now I have the song going through my head ...
PRESSURE !
Under pressure ...
Um ba ba be
Um ba ba be
De day da
Ee day da - that's o.k.

And here is the timestamp on your self-described rant.
Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 01:02

Here is your rationale for your rant.

"1. Where do I start? Where you compared me to Margaret Sanger? I think it was before that. You can be a can of venom sometimes."

So, where is it ? Where is the horrible insult ? Where is the venom ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Friday, January 30, 2009 1:59 AM

As a separate post, regarding what you perceive as tag-teaming ---

Apparently you haven't noticed that there are many days each week when I don't come to the board at all, and that there are many other days each week when I barely post. You also haven't noticed that SignyM is genuinely interested in making-nice, and I am not. We also have different opinions. Do you REALLY think we get together to figure out how to 'get you' ? That neither of us has our own opinion, or agenda ? Do you really think we spend our time focusing on you, or Wulf, or others on the board ?

How logical is that ?

I understand that many people get us confused, just as I sometime confuse Rap with Zit. But if you take the time, you will see that we are not the same, and not even close to being the same.

And, to turn this around - and what are you and Wulf doing, exactly ? It sure seems to me like you two are tag-teaming. In fact, I KNOW it is ! So there !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, January 30, 2009 2:00 AM

DT, I think you see venom where there is none and I have absolutely no idea what you're reacting to. Call it tag-teaming if you want- altho I usually don't step in to defend Rue- but I think you'd have a hard time demonstrating where this horrible insult is.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Friday, January 30, 2009 2:24 AM

But, to the issues at-hand:

Quote:
The fact of the matter is my position is that there's nothing offensive about female empowerment, but that early feminists were fascists

You quote ONE early feminist and label all of them fascists? Somewhere between Sanger and now, there wer whole host of feminists without the eugenics baggage. Apparently you've never read "Witches Midwives and Nurses". But the exception seems to fascinate you.

Quote:
Tying yourself to this older movement is like tying yourself to any other atrocious ideas.

I'm not espousing Sanger eugenics program, and the only one who is "tying" me to her is you, apparently.

Quote:
If the new feminists are going to be this hostile, then by all means, let them fail.

New? Do you mean new as in Gloria Steinem? Or newer than that? Which "new" feminism are you talking about? The one that is all about female empoerment but is silent on birth control?

Quote:
Essentially, the basis is real: The ism of you is the flattery sell, it appeals to the ego, and a sense of superiority. That doesn't mean there aren't equality issues, etc. But, come to me with the approach of: "I'm going to ram my world view down your throat, and eat it buster" then I'm going to not look at those issues.

Prolly the same reason I don't take Wulf too seriously on the issues either.

Quote:
Reality: there's a lot of scary stuff that goes on. ... Here's a harsh cold reality: So, nefarious doctrines in feminism? As I said, it's not unique. There's a powerful group out there with the stated goal of reducing the world's population to 1 billion.

LIke I asked before: if a large populaton is esential for spreading an idea, how is it that the very wealthiest... the least reproductive and numerically the smallest... have convinced everyone else to go along with capitalism?

Quote:
Now, if people drag up that baggage, you signal that yes, you are that old baggage, and nothing has changed.

A woman being able to limit her number of pregancies is not "population control". But if you think there is something inherently wrong with that, then you should focus on changing the CIRCUMSTANCES which make fewer children the ideal option. Either make women poor, ignorant, disenfranchised... barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen again... or come up with a system that makes child-bearing and child-rearing not so onerous to one gender.

Quote:
When I detailed the evolution of English genocide against the Irish, that was where I was coming from. Not from a wacko perspective. This is very real. Look at Ireland today: It's being colonized by Brits. The Irish are now a minority in Ireland. Soon, there will be no Ireland, just more of England. Part of a 1500 year plan. More than that, the Romans and Germans had to wipe the celts out of Europe first.

Peeps simply aren't organized enough for 1500-year plans.

Quote:
When I hear someone come out in support of population control, that's scary, because of the purpose of population control, which is ultimately, genocide.

You hop, skip and jump from birth control to selective population control to wipe out a group. Slippery slope. But you havent' made your case that they are the same.

Quote:
So, is feminism hated? You betchya.

By who?
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE