Sandy Braille
Banned
You just said ***. Reported.
Are you guys completely cool with your kids dating/marrying someone of a different race?
- Thread starter Sandy Braille
- Start date
You just said ***. Reported.
Because I genuinely believe in what I am saying, and because I want the world to be a better place for my daughters.
While some people try to disguise a "just shut up" argument, I accept this was not your intent. However, unless you are saying that only women should be arguing against sexism, I don't understand your claim of hypocrisy.
As you should be. I don't want anyone to accept my arguments because they think I'm smart or pure.
However, when I use a phrase like "by all appearances", it's because appearances can change. So far, you haven't offered anything that indicates an effort to rise above the common cultural misogyny we grow up in, either on your part or on the part of your religion. So far, your religion shows the symptoms of reinforcing it, by rules like a male-only bishopric. So far, I think your a very decent person, genuinely concerned for all, eager to be on the correct side of an issue (because most people feel that way and because of your posts), and perhaps you think that I don't believe or accept that. So far, I think you have allowed the genuineness of your intentions to keep you from seeing the unfairness of your church's doctrines. Any of those opinions are open to revision, based on further evidence.
There is no "all women", but there are feelings and experiences shared by many different women, and you can read accounts of them in many places.
However, if at any point I said that I can say what a woman/women are feeling and experiencing (I do not recall so doing, but I acknowledge that I may have over-stepped), it was wrong for me to say that. Behaviors can observed, and effects can be measured, but I can't speak for what other people feel and experience. Not you, not any woman.
Are you saying that it is not possible for a measurable phenomenon to be directly related to feelings and experiences? Are you asking for a list of effects that can be/have been seen/studied/measured? What authority have I seized?
Old habits die hard. I was religious for 35 years, had a five-year transition where I was basically deist, and came to atheism only about 10 years ago. I'm still working on that.
If the private university accepts no government funding, they don't have to allow anything. However, I can't think of a single university in the country to forbids two people of the same sex to be roommates. In the more conservative universities, the dormitories are segregated by sex. Which college/university is this?
If the adoption agency does not accept government funds or government placements, they can set their own adoption standards.
Both of these are well-protected in 1st Amendment law.
I am speaking for my perspective, about what I believe is important. Is there some reason this should not be important to me?
By all appearances you are being a hypocrite. So far you haven't offered anything that indicates an effort to rise above you new cultural hypocrisy you have adopted, but your words and posting habits show the symptoms of reinforcing it and then turning a blind eye toward your actions. While I think you think you are right and that you see things that others don't and that you think you are always right, I think you only see part of the picture and refuse to look at things in any other way. It could be because you think you know it all already because you've "been there and done that", or because you don't want to rock the boat of non belief you are comfortable with. You play with words and try to spin things to sound nice and that you know what you're talking about, but you talk in circles and never actually get anything done with your posting, and never seem to understand points other people make as part of your endless circle of arguments. It's like a bolt that is stripped, you keep turning and turning but stay in the same spot.
You speak about how women are treated, and what is fair for women, yet if someone else speaks about how women are treated from another perspective you dismiss their words because they are not women and have not walked in their shoes (even if the poster is a woman). If you don't get how you are being a hypocrite and want to continue to either act like you don't get it or that you don't understand what is being said, then it tells me in yet another instance that you are trolling again and that maybe your whole schtick is a troll. I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm about done with that.
This is why I stopped with my explanation earlier, I see no point in wasting effort on a troll. Someone that refuses to understand, will never understand.
So you are a man speaking about what is important to women?
Why can silesian not speak about what is important from his perspective? Why does he have to be Old, Rich, Fat, or Female to speak for them or understand their experiences?
It's not about it being important, it's the know it all attitude coupled with the hyprocrisy that makes people shake their heads at you and your absurd, idiotic, moronic, and foolish arguments.
You missed the point either by accident or intentionally. I am leaning towards intentionally. Spazz has given a worhty rebuttal.
I've already offered some specific examples of things I've learned to recognize and change, and in fact it was in a response to you (post #441 in this thread). Could you go into more detail about the specific belief you feel I am endorsing but not acting upon?
Many times in the past, when this charge has been leveled at me, it was based on the assumption that if I understood a point, I would acknowledge its validity. I reject that assumption. So, I'm just curious: how would you tell the difference between the two, that is, between my misunderstanding a point and my understanding yet rejecting of a point? Why do you infer the former and not the latter has occurred?
Now, in this particular case, you might be referring to some point(s) I genuinely did not understand. Feel free to present them again. However, don't be surprised if I say I understand, and reject, that point.
If you mean that I dismiss the perspective that woman and men need to treated differently because some religious doctrine so indicates, you are absolutely correct. Perspectives can be inherently unjust (that is, have unjust principles built into them). I don't think it's the least bit hypocritical to point that out, and I don't think pointing it out indicates any lack of understanding.
Also, I didn't bring up the feelings and experiences in the first place, that was silesian in post #426, in response to "Sexism will either be misogynistic or misandristic, simply because if there is no inferiority, there is no need to segregate.", a sentence that says nothing at all about how people feel. He brought into the discussion to notion of seeing hatred (a condition I had never said must apply, and actively argued against). My response was that silesian didn't appreciate the overall experience, and by focusing on hatred held by a person, he was missing the point. You are correct that I am not short, old, rich, fat, or female; I don't pretend to say exactly what their experiences are. I do have sufficient understanding to say that silesian has no reason to discount the accounts of people who relay their experiences.
I agree this is a different thing from telling someone how they feel or should feel about the unjust experience. For example, I have not once told PearlWatson that I rejected her depictions of her own feelings or opinions. However, and you may have not realized this, some people don't mind being treated unfairly, and indeed may have been taught from birth that the unfair treatment is appropriate. In the days of slavery, some slaves were content in their slavery. Some women are content in being treated with contempt, even finding some noble purpose in it. That does not make the unfair treatment just or fair. I wouldn't think of telling any woman that she feels oppressed or experiences some reaction to her oppression; the oppression remains, nonetheless.
I genuinely don't. Based on your description, you seem to think that I have been telling people how they feel or should feel (I may have misunderstood that point, but it is an honest evaluation of your complaint). If I have understood you correctly, I challenge you to present an example of that. If I misunderstood what my claimed hypocrisy is concerning, please try again.
As you wish.
Women are not a monolithic group, so the notion of "important to women" is itself a fiction. As I just said, I'm speaking about what is important to me. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
He can, and should.
If he is so qualified, he should. Go back and check the post, though. He was not even attempting to do that, qualified or otherwise. He was speaking about the tall/young/poor/thin/men not feeling hatred. My response meant that the lack of hatred by the one group did not change the experiences relayed by the other group. "I mean well" doesn't give someone a free pass to do bad things.
So once again you can and he cannot. Got it.
I can not reconcile this response with both honest intentions on your part and a basic ability to read what I wrote. In particular, after I explicitly said, 'If he can, he should' and 'I did not'.
So, what precisely are saying that I think I can do but sliesian can not do?
After you called him out about it. There are earlier posts where you speak for a group you are not a part of but question others ability/worthiness to do so. Seems extremely hypocritical to me.