definition of evil according this this ng
Jude
Michael Snyder
> What's the difference between an evil female and evil male?
>
>
The topic of the group is feminism, not evil.
Feminism is, of course, evil, but trees are green --
and a newsgroup about trees would not by extension
be seen as being about all things green.
Ann0minous
>What's the difference between an evil female and evil male?
A chromosome?
(All's I know is, at least for one certain poster, the definition of "evil" is,
"anything that makes him feel bad.")
Jude
"Ann0minous" <ann0m...@aol.combat> wrote in message
news:20030922222400...@mb-m15.aol.com...
lol
Jude
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:bko8oq$514$4...@stan.redhat.com...
Hey, I agree. However, the guys on this ng spend a LOT of time talking
about evil WOMEN and not about feminists.
Michael Snyder
That's pretty much the definition of evil in general.
Michael Snyder
No they don't. Maybe bob does, maybe giant attitude does,
but "the guys on this ng" do not. You, on the other hand,
spend about equal time defending feminism and trashing men.
Ann0minous
You forget that personal perspectives can be extremely subjective, and
sometimes there is justification for making someone "feel bad": i.e. a person
guilty of doing something that was truly wrong.
If we are to go by that definition alone, then the poster is "evil" too, for
making others "feel bad".
Michael Snyder
> Michael Snyder wrote:
>
>
>>Ann0minous wrote:
>>
>>>Jude wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What's the difference between an evil female and evil male?
>>>
>>>
>>>A chromosome?
>>>
>>>(All's I know is, at least for one certain poster, the definition of "evil"
>
> is,
>
>>>"anything that makes him feel bad.")
>>
>>That's pretty much the definition of evil in general.
>
>
> You forget that personal perspectives can be extremely subjective, and
> sometimes there is justification for making someone "feel bad": i.e. a person
> guilty of doing something that was truly wrong.
Circular reasoning. How do you define "something that was truly wrong"?
>
> If we are to go by that definition alone, then the poster is "evil" too, for
> making others "feel bad".
I haven't heard an alternative yet. Whose objective reality should
we use? Yours?
Ann0minous
> Ann0minous wrote:
>> Michael Snyder wrote:
>>> Ann0minous wrote:
>>>> Jude wrote:
>>>>> What's the difference between an evil female and evil male?
>>>> A chromosome?
>>>> (All's I know is, at least for one certain poster, the definition of
"evil"
>> is,
>>>> "anything that makes him feel bad.")
>>> That's pretty much the definition of evil in general.
>> You forget that personal perspectives can be extremely subjective, and
sometimes there
>> is justification for making someone "feel bad": i.e. a person guilty of
doing
>> something that was truly wrong.
> Circular reasoning. How do you define "something that was truly wrong"?
Red herring. We're talking about a person being made to "feel bad" no matter
what the situation; that the "feeling bad" part is what defines what "evil" is.
So let's take a for-example: let's say, a shoplifter being sentenced. The
judge gives her a stern lecture. She "feels bad" because of what the judge
said. Does this make the judge "evil"? Does it make parents "evil" if they
give a stern lecture to their teenager, who subsequently "feels bad"? Does it
make a cheated-on boyfriend "evil" for getting angry at his girlfriend for
cheating on him (thus making her "feel guilty"?)
You see what kind of trap you're setting yourself up for? Keyword: FEEEEEL.
"Feelings" are subjective. Do you also agree with the feminist worldview of
what's "evil" to them because of the way THEY feel?
>> If we are to go by that definition alone, then the poster is "evil" too, for
making
>> others "feel bad".
> I haven't heard an alternative yet. Whose objective reality should we use?
Yours?
Red herring again. I just gave a couple examples of where you might run into
problems with that particular definition. The dictionary defines the word
proper as "morally reprehensible", and certainly, most would agree that a judge
(or parents) giving a stern lecture in the best interests of the individual and
community would not fall into that category.
The dictionary also gives secondary definitions which are more along the lines
of subjective superlatives (not unlike "bogus" or "icky"), but their implied
subjective nature, as you pointed out above, probably gives us just as much or
more information about the person who uses the word, than the person or thing
being described.
Now, I would agree that someone who was *deliberately* making someone "feel
bad" and not acting out of anything other than a deliberate, cold-hearted
desire to hurt someone would be "evil". But if the focus is on the victim's
"feelings" rather than the perpetrator's *intent*, the word becomes more and
more subjective, becoming more like an expletive than a adjective.
Jude
I DON'T trash men. What a lying statement. I've trashed the worst of the
men on this ng. You'll NEVER find me trashing men. I don't trash women
either. You, otoh, have on occasion trashed women and NOT just feminazis.
You barely admit that feminazis are the fringe. To you, ALL feminists are
fringe, right?
>
Michael Snyder
> Michael Snyder wrote:
>
>
>>Ann0minous wrote:
>
>
>>>Michael Snyder wrote:
>
>
>>>>Ann0minous wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Jude wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>What's the difference between an evil female and evil male?
>
>
>>>>>A chromosome?
>
>
>>>>>(All's I know is, at least for one certain poster, the definition of
>
> "evil"
>
>
>>>is,
>
>
>>>>>"anything that makes him feel bad.")
>
>
>>>>That's pretty much the definition of evil in general.
>
>
>>>You forget that personal perspectives can be extremely subjective, and
>
> sometimes there
>
>>>is justification for making someone "feel bad": i.e. a person guilty of
>
> doing
>
>>>something that was truly wrong.
>
>
>>Circular reasoning. How do you define "something that was truly wrong"?
>
>
> Red herring. We're talking about a person being made to "feel bad" no matter
> what the situation; that the "feeling bad" part is what defines what "evil" is.
> So let's take a for-example: let's say, a shoplifter being sentenced. The
> judge gives her a stern lecture. She "feels bad" because of what the judge
> said. Does this make the judge "evil"?
Probably -- in her eyes. That's the point.
> Does it make parents "evil" if they
> give a stern lecture to their teenager, who subsequently "feels bad"?
Ask the teenagers. I'm sure they'll say yes. I know I did,
when I was one.
> Does it
> make a cheated-on boyfriend "evil" for getting angry at his girlfriend for
> cheating on him (thus making her "feel guilty"?)
I am positive that the girlfriend would say yes.
> You see what kind of trap you're setting yourself up for? Keyword: FEEEEEL.
> "Feelings" are subjective.
That's the point.0
> Do you also agree with the feminist worldview of
> what's "evil" to them because of the way THEY feel?
No. I agree with my own worldview of what's evil to me,
because of the way I feel.
>>>If we are to go by that definition alone, then the poster is "evil" too, for
>
> making
>
>>>others "feel bad".
>
>
>>I haven't heard an alternative yet. Whose objective reality should we use?
>
> Yours?
>
> Red herring again. I just gave a couple examples of where you might run into
> problems with that particular definition.
Yet you refuse to offer another.
> The dictionary defines the word
> proper as "morally reprehensible", and certainly, most would agree that a judge
> (or parents) giving a stern lecture in the best interests of the individual and
> community would not fall into that category.
Circular definition, again. What does "morally reprehensible" mean?
Why, it means evil. You're not offering any definition, just more
undefined (and undefinable) terms.
>
> The dictionary also gives secondary definitions which are more along the lines
> of subjective superlatives (not unlike "bogus" or "icky"), but their implied
> subjective nature, as you pointed out above, probably gives us just as much or
> more information about the person who uses the word, than the person or thing
> being described.
>
> Now, I would agree that someone who was *deliberately* making someone "feel
> bad" and not acting out of anything other than a deliberate, cold-hearted
> desire to hurt someone would be "evil". But if the focus is on the victim's
> "feelings" rather than the perpetrator's *intent*, the word becomes more and
> more subjective, becoming more like an expletive than a adjective.
At the risk of repeating myself, that's the point.
Michael Snyder
> "Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
> news:bkq8n3$7qm$4...@stan.redhat.com...
>
>>Jude wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
>>>news:bko8oq$514$4...@stan.redhat.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jude wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What's the difference between an evil female and evil male?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The topic of the group is feminism, not evil.
>>>>Feminism is, of course, evil, but trees are green --
>>>>and a newsgroup about trees would not by extension
>>>>be seen as being about all things green.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hey, I agree. However, the guys on this ng spend a LOT of time talking
>>>about evil WOMEN and not about feminists.
>>
>>No they don't. Maybe bob does, maybe giant attitude does,
>>but "the guys on this ng" do not. You, on the other hand,
>>spend about equal time defending feminism and trashing men.
>
>
> I DON'T trash men. What a lying statement. I've trashed the worst of the
> men on this ng. You'll NEVER find me trashing men. I don't trash women
> either. You, otoh, have on occasion trashed women and NOT just feminazis.
Liar. Quote me. You can't, lying asshole, because I have
never trashed women, here or anyplace else.
Jude
Oh, I'M a lying asshole yet you lied about me trashing men. Michael, it
seems you have double standard, one for you and one for everybody else. No
apology there from you. Why should I bother?
>
>
>
>
ishka bibble
actually you did lump all the men on this ng. above you did and to me you did.
as for the fringe question - from my other post to you
as to what the whining is about - it isn't fringe feminists and if you
think it is and if you are really interested in equality you should
look into it a bit more. for example the now organization is
currently sponsoring a 'love your body' day for children. but only
female children. do they really suppose that boys grow up with a real
love and appreciation of their bodies? there is also an article about
how the number of women in jail is on the increase and most of them
are in for drug offenses and not violent crimes - a valid point
however, men in jail are also on the increase and most of them are in
jail for drug offenses. in percentages women are trailing behind men
in jail / haven't acheived equality.
> >
Michael Snyder
You should have demanded I quote you, instead of lying about me.
Now I've demanded that you quote me first. Too bad, you missed
the perfect opportunity.
Quote me trashing women, and I'll quote you trashing men.
Jude
Michael, quite being a baby with I'll do this if you'll do that first. YOU
said I trashed men which I have NEVER done. Men and women are to be taken
on an individual basis... period.
Jude
"ishka bibble" <ishka_bi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e17f0149.03092...@posting.google.com...
That is ALL men which is what Michael implied... that I trash men... well I
don't and that would include myself. End of conversation about trashing
men or women in regards to Michael. He and I can work THAT out or not.
Thanks.
> as for the fringe question - from my other post to you
>
> as to what the whining is about - it isn't fringe feminists and if you
> think it is and if you are really interested in equality you should
> look into it a bit more. for example the now organization is
> currently sponsoring a 'love your body' day for children. but only
> female children. do they really suppose that boys grow up with a real
> love and appreciation of their bodies? there is also an article about
> how the number of women in jail is on the increase and most of them
> are in for drug offenses and not violent crimes - a valid point
> however, men in jail are also on the increase and most of them are in
> jail for drug offenses. in percentages women are trailing behind men
> in jail / haven't acheived equality.
I don't define equality like I hear most people define it. There can't be
exact equality between people. Fairness is the key word. I've also said
that fairness is a hard concept to define and even harder to carry out
especially if fairness has not been achieved between the genders for a long
time, some ways towards men and some ways towards women.
I don't give ear to fringe from either side of the argument...Feminazis or
Masculinazis....
>
> > >
ishka bibble
no. not end because i brought it up four or five times before (that
you were lumping things) and you ignored it. so i tried again here.
and in denying his implication you said 'ive trashed the worst of the
men on this ng' but you didn't you trashed all of the men on this ng.
and if you are a man well, then you trashed yourself too. what -
that's impossible?
>
>
> > as for the fringe question - from my other post to you
> >
> > as to what the whining is about - it isn't fringe feminists and if you
> > think it is and if you are really interested in equality you should
> > look into it a bit more. for example the now organization is
> > currently sponsoring a 'love your body' day for children. but only
> > female children. do they really suppose that boys grow up with a real
> > love and appreciation of their bodies? there is also an article about
> > how the number of women in jail is on the increase and most of them
> > are in for drug offenses and not violent crimes - a valid point
> > however, men in jail are also on the increase and most of them are in
> > jail for drug offenses. in percentages women are trailing behind men
> > in jail / haven't acheived equality.
>
> I don't define equality like I hear most people define it. There can't be
> exact equality between people. Fairness is the key word. I've also said
> that fairness is a hard concept to define and even harder to carry out
> especially if fairness has not been achieved between the genders for a long
> time, some ways towards men and some ways towards women.
fairness?? nothing is fair. no really. life isn't fair. a kid born
without arms who wants to break the world record for pushups just
can't. fair. no. heartbreaking even.
and if that is your criteria then so be it - define it. hard to
define? maybe but at least tell me what isn't fair. you said you got
exasperated with men on this ng lumping people together. but the
thread you said so on he wasn't lumping. he specifically separated
out evil and otherwise.
>
> I don't give ear to fringe from either side of the argument...Feminazis or
> Masculinazis....
fine. but now is by no means the fringe of feminism.
> >
> > > >
Jude
I think you have forgotten why feminism got started in the first place.
Men had ALREADY reduced women to chattel. Of course, some men loved their
wives but STILL didn't do anything to change the laws. Until very recently
in human history, could women own property. Well, perhaps, you say THAT'S
the past. Let's deal with today. Forgetting why feminism exists is to be
half blind.
>
ishka bibble
not that i have any idea what the hell that has to do with the now
organization but . . .
the laws were unfair (for more than just women) but it did not make
women chattel of their husbands. i don't recall any laws about being
able to sell your wife.
yes women could own property but only under certain circumstances.
and as you haven't answered my questions of mine i'll let you be the
first to go ahead with the research.
> >
Jude
Are you that uneducated? There is NO secret that, in the past, women WERE
chattel. Number one, just read the bible. THAT is easy to read. A woman
that was raped COULD be given as a wife to the man who raped her. What
about the Vikings who burned their dead men with their live wives? What
about the India Indian's who have done the same? What about the old
marriage vowsswhere there were pronounced MAN and wife.... not HUSBAND and
wife. The woman was declared the wive of the man. THere is so many
examples throughout history. Just read some history books.
>
> yes women could own property but only under certain circumstances.
> and as you haven't answered my questions of mine i'll let you be the
> first to go ahead with the research.
In a few civilization women were allowed to hold office.
Look, you're so uneducated on the subject of women. You're just involved
with today, feeling the anger of women, believe there is NO basis for their
anger and are in the process of stiking back.
Sorry, what research are you talking about?
>
>
>
> > >
ishka bibble
if there are so many cite me one. educate my little mind. first of
all we are talking about writen laws aren't we? secondly, are you
telling me that feminism when created in the early 1900s was some sort
of DELAYED REACTION to vikings or laws from 600AD. yes, there was a
time that women were chattel and so were most men (owned by the
nobility) however - - - if it is possible for you to stay on topic AT
ALL - you said that feminism got started as a reaction to women being
chattel. the very word feminism dates somewhere around the turn of
the century. and around the turn of the century women were not
chattel - though there were still unfair laws.
by all means continue being insulting though because i am sure that
method will bring me swiftly around to seeing your point of view
> >
> > yes women could own property but only under certain circumstances.
> > and as you haven't answered my questions of mine i'll let you be the
> > first to go ahead with the research.
>
> In a few civilization women were allowed to hold office.
do you have any ability to focus on what is being said? when did we
get into holding office.
>
> Look, you're so uneducated on the subject of women.
no, i'm not. not at all. but if you think i am going to give every
piece of information i have at once . . . again you said that
feminism developed as a reaction to women being chattel. i suppose it
is my fault i _assumed_ that you meant reaction to something that was
contemporaneous. i didn't realize that you meant that were having a
delayed reaction to biblical times.
You're just involved
> with today, feeling the anger of women, believe there is NO basis for their
> anger and are in the process of stiking back.
um, thank you for that delightful glimpse into my psyche. now, wtf
are you talking about.
this is not about anger. this is about feminism. now if you are
telling me that feminism is anger than you are proving my point for
me. no matter how you feel you don't seek your rights with anger.
why do i say that? because anger will bring you down and anger will
cause you to seek revenge. Revenge is not about your rights it is
about denying other people theirs.
>
> Sorry, what research are you talking about?
something that shows me an actual law from somewhere late 1800s or so
saying that women couldn't own property
like this - you asked could women own property. again, as you didn't
say when we were talking about but as you used it as a reminder of why
feminism began i assumed we were talking about somewhere near the
beginning of the feminist movement. so here is the answer
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/property_law.html
passed in 1848 - you will note that this is a law for married women.
the reason this distinction is made is because unmarried women of a
particular age could own property. which is why i said under
particular conditions. which is again why i said the laws were not
fair but did not equal chattel.
you accuse me of not knowing my history but you take bits and pieces
and tape them together in a way to justify your feelings. you also
accuse me of anger and striking back. how? i haven't insulted women.
what i did was point out that the now organization which is not fringe
feminism is not about equality. end list.
Jude
Let me put it this way. Would YOU be upset if you knew that men generally
had been chattel for the duration of history. Would you react to that fact?
Also, It wasn't only about the history between the genders. Up until the
20th century did women start to demand for more opportunity and rights. At
that time, it was met with a lot of resistance. Would YOU resent that?
Okay, things get better but there is room for improvement. Would you feel
you were wrong in continuing to seek improvement. It's your life.
>
> You're just involved
> > with today, feeling the anger of women, believe there is NO basis for
their
> > anger and are in the process of stiking back.
>
> um, thank you for that delightful glimpse into my psyche. now, wtf
> are you talking about.
Don't you believe that there is no basis for THEIR anger? Tell me. If I'm
wrong, then I'm wrong.
>
> this is not about anger. this is about feminism. now if you are
> telling me that feminism is anger than you are proving my point for
> me. no matter how you feel you don't seek your rights with anger.
> why do i say that? because anger will bring you down and anger will
> cause you to seek revenge. Revenge is not about your rights it is
> about denying other people theirs.
> >
> > Sorry, what research are you talking about?
All you have to read is history.....not rewritten history. Just read
history books, watch discovery and history channels. Watch documentaries.
You learn a lot.
>
> something that shows me an actual law from somewhere late 1800s or so
> saying that women couldn't own property
>
> like this - you asked could women own property. again, as you didn't
> say when we were talking about but as you used it as a reminder of why
> feminism began i assumed we were talking about somewhere near the
> beginning of the feminist movement. so here is the answer
>
> http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/property_law.html
>
> passed in 1848 - you will note that this is a law for married women.
> the reason this distinction is made is because unmarried women of a
> particular age could own property. which is why i said under
> particular conditions. which is again why i said the laws were not
> fair but did not equal chattel.
>
> you accuse me of not knowing my history but you take bits and pieces
> and tape them together in a way to justify your feelings. you also
> accuse me of anger and striking back. how? i haven't insulted women.
No, I didn't say you insulted women in general. Some of the guys on this ng
do that. Some more vile than others. Look, I understand being angry. I
understand worrying that other people aren't taking seriously what affects
you or anybody else personally. People, in general, don't care very much
about other people. I understand people fighting to be heard.
> what i did was point out that the now organization which is not fringe
> feminism is not about equality. end list.
I CAN understand guys getting upset at the fringe element of feminism.
NOBODY likes being disliked ESPECIALLY for something that one is born.
OhSojourner
>no, i'm not. not at all. but if you think i am going to give every
>piece of information i have at once . . . again you said that
>feminism developed as a reaction to women being chattel. i suppose it
>is my fault i _assumed_ that you meant reaction to something that was
>contemporaneous. i didn't realize that you meant that were having a
>delayed reaction to biblical times.
You're forgetting that the Bible and its views have been a major influence on
our society and culture for a couple milennia now. Even if women aren't kept
as chattel now, the general view, and what was taught to girls and women for
hundreds and hundreds of years, was that they had a "place" and that "place"
was not to be their own person -- but to be a subordinate, as was decreed by
God, based on the story of Adam and Eve. http://bible.connfer.co.uk/gen-3.htm
Just do a casual search on any number of Christian websites about the subject.
(FWIW here is an interesting essay I found while doing the search:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Religion/HL570.cfm )
ishka bibble
whoa - wait a minute. my whole point was that while things were not
fair (ie know their place) women were not in fact chattel. that's it.
jude didn't say feminism began because things were unfair s/he said
it was because women were chattel. slaves were chattel. women were
coerced to be a certain way.
that is all.
as for the bible - you really don't need to explain this to me. read
the thread on the goddess has no clothes. i'm all set thanks
ishka bibble
aren't you making an assumption about me there? oh well - anyway . .
.
you said that feminism began as a direct reaction to women as chattel.
and i contended against that. feminism began as a direct result to
women not having say in their country. a country that strove to
develop its laws outside of religion (albeit did not always succeed).
as for reacting to the fact that women had been chattel. if the
situation was improving that seems a strange time to react to it. as
for men being chattel -would it seem reasonable to you for men to
suddenly be pissed off about having been serfs? and even in our own
country's history - the founding fathers didn't just exclude women and
blacks from voting but men who didn't own land.
one can not forget history. nor can one dwell there if you hope to
acheive anything at all.
> Also, It wasn't only about the history between the genders. Up until the
> 20th century did women start to demand for more opportunity and rights. At
> that time, it was met with a lot of resistance. Would YOU resent that?
it was met with resentment that is true. there were also men who
assisted in the effort so to be pissed at all of them is well, a
little whacky. and ultimately though wrong it was men and men alone
who had to decide to give women the vote
> Okay, things get better but there is room for improvement. Would you feel
> you were wrong in continuing to seek improvement. It's your life.
everyone should be seeking improvement. when we cease to do so we are
dead. but unfortunately or fortunately emotional reactions are not
helpful to anything resembling progress. well informed passion (ie
martin luther king jr) yes that works.
> >
> > You're just involved
> > > with today, feeling the anger of women, believe there is NO basis for
> their
> > > anger and are in the process of stiking back.
> >
> > um, thank you for that delightful glimpse into my psyche. now, wtf
> > are you talking about.
>
> Don't you believe that there is no basis for THEIR anger? Tell me. If I'm
> wrong, then I'm wrong.
i'd love to tell you either that you are wrong or right. however, i
am not sure what you are talking about. and here's why. i'm not sure
that women as a whole are angry, i personally have felt very little if
any of it, depends on what they are angry about as to whether there is
basis. as for striking back, for instance, if a feminists says today
about boys doing worse now in schools then girls 'well, that is their
problem girls were left behind for so long'. she may have basis for
her angry but it is still wrong and vile. see, you can't strike back
at someone who hasn't done anything to you - that is called striking
out and is counterproductive for everyone.
> >
> > this is not about anger. this is about feminism. now if you are
> > telling me that feminism is anger than you are proving my point for
> > me. no matter how you feel you don't seek your rights with anger.
> > why do i say that? because anger will bring you down and anger will
> > cause you to seek revenge. Revenge is not about your rights it is
> > about denying other people theirs.
> > >
> > > Sorry, what research are you talking about?
>
> All you have to read is history.....not rewritten history. Just read
> history books, watch discovery and history channels. Watch documentaries.
> You learn a lot.
you just answered your own quote. i know my history pretty well and
what i dont' know i am very adept at looking up. so until you get a
shade more concrete on what you are talking about . .
> >
> > something that shows me an actual law from somewhere late 1800s or so
> > saying that women couldn't own property
> >
> > like this - you asked could women own property. again, as you didn't
> > say when we were talking about but as you used it as a reminder of why
> > feminism began i assumed we were talking about somewhere near the
> > beginning of the feminist movement. so here is the answer
> >
> > http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/property_law.html
> >
> > passed in 1848 - you will note that this is a law for married women.
> > the reason this distinction is made is because unmarried women of a
> > particular age could own property. which is why i said under
> > particular conditions. which is again why i said the laws were not
> > fair but did not equal chattel.
> >
> > you accuse me of not knowing my history but you take bits and pieces
> > and tape them together in a way to justify your feelings. you also
> > accuse me of anger and striking back. how? i haven't insulted women.
>
> No, I didn't say you insulted women in general.
well, then how am i striking back?
Some of the guys on this ng
> do that. Some more vile than others. Look, I understand being angry. I
> understand worrying that other people aren't taking seriously what affects
> you or anybody else personally. People, in general, don't care very much
> about other people. I understand people fighting to be heard.
>
> > what i did was point out that the now organization which is not fringe
> > feminism is not about equality. end list.
>
> I CAN understand guys getting upset at the fringe element of feminism.
> NOBODY likes being disliked ESPECIALLY for something that one is born.
how can i put this clearly? NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN IS NOT
THE FRINGE ELEMENT OF FEMINISM - THEY ARE THE LARGEST REPRESENTATION
OF FEMINISM
Jude
Geez, it's NOT JUST a delayed reaction to history... it also includes VERY
recent history. Like within the last 30 years.
> >
> > Let me put it this way. Would YOU be upset if you knew that men
generally
> > had been chattel for the duration of history. Would you react to that
fact?
>
> aren't you making an assumption about me there? oh well - anyway . .
> .
>
> you said that feminism began as a direct reaction to women as chattel.
> and i contended against that. feminism began as a direct result to
> women not having say in their country. a country that strove to
> develop its laws outside of religion (albeit did not always succeed).
>
> as for reacting to the fact that women had been chattel. if the
> situation was improving that seems a strange time to react to it. as
> for men being chattel -would it seem reasonable to you for men to
> suddenly be pissed off about having been serfs? and even in our own
> country's history - the founding fathers didn't just exclude women and
> blacks from voting but men who didn't own land.
Men have reacted historically and have carried on revolutions in response to
unjust governments.
>
> one can not forget history. nor can one dwell there if you hope to
> acheive anything at all.
>
> > Also, It wasn't only about the history between the genders. Up until
the
> > 20th century did women start to demand for more opportunity and rights.
At
> > that time, it was met with a lot of resistance. Would YOU resent that?
>
> it was met with resentment that is true. there were also men who
> assisted in the effort so to be pissed at all of them is well, a
> little whacky. and ultimately though wrong it was men and men alone
> who had to decide to give women the vote
Yes, there have always been good men. I don't hold to the belief that we're
all destined to be selfish and self-centered. I know a lot of guys who are
basically good. A few I know well are better than I am.... very fair
minded. They all would be called "sissys" even through they're hetero and
married because they all believe in gay rights and women's rights. They
aren't stupid and apologetic for being male either, otoh.
I don't think every woman out there is overly angry. I think almost
everybody has issues with politics/power.
> > >
> > > this is not about anger. this is about feminism. now if you are
> > > telling me that feminism is anger than you are proving my point for
> > > me. no matter how you feel you don't seek your rights with anger.
> > > why do i say that? because anger will bring you down and anger will
> > > cause you to seek revenge. Revenge is not about your rights it is
> > > about denying other people theirs.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, what research are you talking about?
> >
> > All you have to read is history.....not rewritten history. Just read
> > history books, watch discovery and history channels. Watch
documentaries.
> > You learn a lot.
>
> you just answered your own quote. i know my history pretty well and
> what i dont' know i am very adept at looking up. so until you get a
> shade more concrete on what you are talking about . .
What I'm referring to is the fact that many of the guys on this ng say there
is NO historic basis for feminism. You can look up any history book and
look for the way in which the women and children were treated in that
society to know what I mean.
> > >
> > > something that shows me an actual law from somewhere late 1800s or so
> > > saying that women couldn't own property
> > >
> > > like this - you asked could women own property. again, as you didn't
> > > say when we were talking about but as you used it as a reminder of why
> > > feminism began i assumed we were talking about somewhere near the
> > > beginning of the feminist movement. so here is the answer
> > >
> > > http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/property_law.html
> > >
> > > passed in 1848 - you will note that this is a law for married women.
> > > the reason this distinction is made is because unmarried women of a
> > > particular age could own property. which is why i said under
> > > particular conditions. which is again why i said the laws were not
> > > fair but did not equal chattel.
> > >
> > > you accuse me of not knowing my history but you take bits and pieces
> > > and tape them together in a way to justify your feelings. you also
> > > accuse me of anger and striking back. how? i haven't insulted women.
I'm not justifying feelings.
> >
> > No, I didn't say you insulted women in general.
>
> well, then how am i striking back?
>
> Some of the guys on this ng
> > do that. Some more vile than others. Look, I understand being angry.
I
> > understand worrying that other people aren't taking seriously what
affects
> > you or anybody else personally. People, in general, don't care very
much
> > about other people. I understand people fighting to be heard.
> >
> > > what i did was point out that the now organization which is not fringe
> > > feminism is not about equality. end list.
> >
> > I CAN understand guys getting upset at the fringe element of feminism.
> > NOBODY likes being disliked ESPECIALLY for something that one is born.
>
> how can i put this clearly? NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN IS NOT
> THE FRINGE ELEMENT OF FEMINISM - THEY ARE THE LARGEST REPRESENTATION
> OF FEMINISM
I know that. What the heck?
Okay, to finish this dialog, I KNOW that there are feminists that don't hate
men and that there are feminists that do hate men. I know that there are
women who AREN'T feminists that don't hate men and some that do hate men.
Being a feminists isn't necessary connected to man hating. Otoh, some of
the men on this newsgroup denies the above statements. ALL feminists,
according to them, are man hating and N.O.W. is run by ugly fat dykes trying
to destroy the family and especially stick it to ALL men. This constant
vilifying of all feminists actually HURTS their case, imo. If they would
say, yes, there are some issues that women have every right to be upset
about and I say go for it, BUT there are also issues that men have now that
the rules have changed and I have the right to be upset about those issues.
I don't hear that.
Jude
news:<20030926001354...@mb-m06.aol.com>...
> > ishka bibble wrote:
> >
> > >no, i'm not. not at all. but if you think i am going to give every
> > >piece of information i have at once . . . again you said that
> > >feminism developed as a reaction to women being chattel. i suppose it
> > >is my fault i _assumed_ that you meant reaction to something that was
> > >contemporaneous. i didn't realize that you meant that were having a
> > >delayed reaction to biblical times.
THIS is tottally NOT true. During the old testament times, sometimes "God"
would tell the Israelites to go into a land and slaughter all the men and
take the women for their wives. If this isn't chattel, what is? Also, read
the 10 commandments REAL carefully..."Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's
house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor
his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy
neighbour's." This is "God" talking to MEN because he refers to wives along
with his other property, not husbands and wives. Even though there was love
within some marriages, and with love the women were probably treated fairly
well, that doesn't mean they were free in the sense men were.
Ian
> What's the difference between an evil female and evil male?
The amount of damage they can do on a global scale.
Ian
> What's the difference between an evil female and evil male?
An evil male doesn't deny it when he's caught. Evil
women pretend it was somebody else's.
ishka bibble
> "ishka bibble" <ishka_bi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e17f0149.03092...@posting.google.com...
> > ohsoj...@aol.com (OhSojourner) wrote in message
> news:<20030926001354...@mb-m06.aol.com>...
> > > ishka bibble wrote:
> > >
> > > >no, i'm not. not at all. but if you think i am going to give every
> > > >piece of information i have at once . . . again you said that
> > > >feminism developed as a reaction to women being chattel. i suppose it
> > > >is my fault i _assumed_ that you meant reaction to something that was
> > > >contemporaneous. i didn't realize that you meant that were having a
> > > >delayed reaction to biblical times.
>
> THIS is tottally NOT true. During the old testament times, sometimes "God"
> would tell the Israelites to go into a land and slaughter all the men and
> take the women for their wives. If this isn't chattel, what is?
i see. and this proves that god was preferential to men because he
only wanted them slaughtered. but again - let me redirect you to the
paragraph you were supposedly answering - particularly where i said
that "i didn't realize you meant that they were having a delayed
reaction to biblical times". since you had trouble parsing it what i
meant was are you trying to say that feminism was a reaction to
something that happened over two thousand years ago?
Also, read
> the 10 commandments REAL carefully..."Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's
> house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor
> his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy
> neighbour's." This is "God" talking to MEN because he refers to wives along
> with his other property, not husbands and wives. Even though there was love
> within some marriages, and with love the women were probably treated fairly
> well, that doesn't mean they were free in the sense men were.
first off, the bible isn't god talking. it's men talking about what
they say god says. if you think differently well, you have quite a
conundrum on your hands and i am not a spiritual mentor. secondly,
love within marriages is a fairly recent thing by and large. marriage
was a necessity - for both sexes. and yes, women were secondary but
if you read the bible REAL carefully you will see that man was not
intended to OWN women or asses for that matter. he was intended to
steward them. now, this is not my world view but there is a
difference between stewardship and ownership. when you own something
or someone it or they are yours to do with as you please no holds
barred when you steward you must care for said such thing or person.
it is your job to keep them from harm and provide the best for them.
btw, since god was only talking to man i suppose that means that women
were not required to follow such said laws?
ishka bibble
fine. that was my point - you used chattel as the justification for
feminism. so please point to chattel status in the last 30 years.
> > >
> > > Let me put it this way. Would YOU be upset if you knew that men
> generally
> > > had been chattel for the duration of history. Would you react to that
> fact?
> >
> > aren't you making an assumption about me there? oh well - anyway . .
> > .
> >
> > you said that feminism began as a direct reaction to women as chattel.
> > and i contended against that. feminism began as a direct result to
> > women not having say in their country. a country that strove to
> > develop its laws outside of religion (albeit did not always succeed).
> >
> > as for reacting to the fact that women had been chattel. if the
> > situation was improving that seems a strange time to react to it. as
> > for men being chattel -would it seem reasonable to you for men to
> > suddenly be pissed off about having been serfs? and even in our own
> > country's history - the founding fathers didn't just exclude women and
> > blacks from voting but men who didn't own land.
>
> Men have reacted historically and have carried on revolutions in response to
> unjust governments.
yes. which is why things have changed. which is also why a man
renting an apartment shouldn't be pissed off that 200 plus years ago
he couldn't have voted.
> >
> > one can not forget history. nor can one dwell there if you hope to
> > acheive anything at all.
> >
> > > Also, It wasn't only about the history between the genders. Up until
> the
> > > 20th century did women start to demand for more opportunity and rights.
> At
> > > that time, it was met with a lot of resistance. Would YOU resent that?
> >
> > it was met with resentment that is true. there were also men who
> > assisted in the effort so to be pissed at all of them is well, a
> > little whacky. and ultimately though wrong it was men and men alone
> > who had to decide to give women the vote
>
> Yes, there have always been good men. I don't hold to the belief that we're
> all destined to be selfish and self-centered. I know a lot of guys who are
> basically good. A few I know well are better than I am.... very fair
> minded. They all would be called "sissys" even through they're hetero and
> married because they all believe in gay rights and women's rights. They
> aren't stupid and apologetic for being male either, otoh.
right.
precisely. because while we fight against it power is held by very
few. so to be upset with men in general -- men in general have very
little control. and btw, you did suggest previously that most women
were angry
> > > >
> > > > this is not about anger. this is about feminism. now if you are
> > > > telling me that feminism is anger than you are proving my point for
> > > > me. no matter how you feel you don't seek your rights with anger.
> > > > why do i say that? because anger will bring you down and anger will
> > > > cause you to seek revenge. Revenge is not about your rights it is
> > > > about denying other people theirs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, what research are you talking about?
> > >
> > > All you have to read is history.....not rewritten history. Just read
> > > history books, watch discovery and history channels. Watch
> documentaries.
> > > You learn a lot.
> >
> > you just answered your own quote. i know my history pretty well and
> > what i dont' know i am very adept at looking up. so until you get a
> > shade more concrete on what you are talking about . .
>
> What I'm referring to is the fact that many of the guys on this ng say there
> is NO historic basis for feminism. You can look up any history book and
> look for the way in which the women and children were treated in that
> society to know what I mean.
what the men in this ng are saying by and large is that a movement
that favored one gender over the other should not have claim to be for
equality. why not have called the movement egalitarianism - here's
why - because it wasn't about that. in its roots feminism had a
better record than it does now but all the same was still muddied from
the get go. did you bother noticing in same such society how the
majority of men were treated. there was no easy go at that time.
>
> > > >
> > > > something that shows me an actual law from somewhere late 1800s or so
> > > > saying that women couldn't own property
> > > >
> > > > like this - you asked could women own property. again, as you didn't
> > > > say when we were talking about but as you used it as a reminder of why
> > > > feminism began i assumed we were talking about somewhere near the
> > > > beginning of the feminist movement. so here is the answer
> > > >
> > > > http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/property_law.html
> > > >
> > > > passed in 1848 - you will note that this is a law for married women.
> > > > the reason this distinction is made is because unmarried women of a
> > > > particular age could own property. which is why i said under
> > > > particular conditions. which is again why i said the laws were not
> > > > fair but did not equal chattel.
> > > >
> > > > you accuse me of not knowing my history but you take bits and pieces
> > > > and tape them together in a way to justify your feelings. you also
> > > > accuse me of anger and striking back. how? i haven't insulted women.
>
> I'm not justifying feelings.
you say at the bottom of this post - i have a right to be upset. and
you base it on half of history. why shouldn't men be pissed that say
more men died on the titanic as a direct result of them being
chivalrous?
>
> > >
> > > No, I didn't say you insulted women in general.
> >
> > well, then how am i striking back?
> >
> > Some of the guys on this ng
> > > do that. Some more vile than others. Look, I understand being angry.
> I
> > > understand worrying that other people aren't taking seriously what
> affects
> > > you or anybody else personally. People, in general, don't care very
> much
> > > about other people. I understand people fighting to be heard.
> > >
> > > > what i did was point out that the now organization which is not fringe
> > > > feminism is not about equality. end list.
> > >
> > > I CAN understand guys getting upset at the fringe element of feminism.
> > > NOBODY likes being disliked ESPECIALLY for something that one is born.
> >
> > how can i put this clearly? NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN IS NOT
> > THE FRINGE ELEMENT OF FEMINISM - THEY ARE THE LARGEST REPRESENTATION
> > OF FEMINISM
>
> I know that. What the heck?
i pointed out the bias of NOW on a number of occasions to which you
responded about fringe elements of feminism. since NOW is not fringe
you response was no response and i am trying to elicit a response to
the statements that i make and not the stuff going on inside of your
head.
>
> Okay, to finish this dialog, I KNOW that there are feminists that don't hate
> men and that there are feminists that do hate men. I know that there are
> women who AREN'T feminists that don't hate men and some that do hate men.
> Being a feminists isn't necessary connected to man hating. Otoh, some of
> the men on this newsgroup denies the above statements. ALL feminists,
> according to them, are man hating and N.O.W. is run by ugly fat dykes trying
> to destroy the family and especially stick it to ALL men. This constant
> vilifying of all feminists actually HURTS their case, imo. If they would
> say, yes, there are some issues that women have every right to be upset
> about and I say go for it, BUT there are also issues that men have now that
> the rules have changed and I have the right to be upset about those issues.
> I don't hear that.
you don't hear that in here because you hear it every where else. and
yes, there is a rigidity in here. i will grant you that. however, i
knew a lot of skinheads that didn't hate black people. guess what
they shouldn't have been calling themselves skinheads. when the vast
representation of your group presents a certain way . . . secondly,
roughly translated feminist means advocate for women - to advocate for
one thing does not necessarily mean to the detriment of something else
but rather that the something else is not important to you. in this
case the something else is half of the population.
Jude
I agree that the bible isn't God talking. I believe in God but I DON'T
believe the bible is inerrant. It was written by men who meant well but
made mistakes.
I read your response on the other post but I don't have the time to respond
to it. I will later. At first, I think women were responding to a history
of political neglect in anger. I think they're angry about certain subjects
but, given so many individuals, it hards to generalize. I think they're
angry about some subjects but I don't meet any women who are actiavely
trying to make men's lives miserable. That is reserved for some
marriages.... ha ha (same for men - I'm not being ugly.) I see women
CONSTANLY referring to historic accounts to PROVE the past because there are
so many men who deny that women were even held down and that they we happy
with their lot.
It really doesn't matter if men were supposed to be a honourable steward or
owner of women or asses because HUMAN nature, being what it is, is weak and
succumbs to abuses where too much power is given over another human being.
That is why we have the 3 branch government that we have. Due to living
under so many tyrannts for thousands of years, at least some men learned
that lesson. However, at first it didn't apply to women. Eventually,
though, I think it has. Everybody that knows anything knows that with us
people you have to keep balance. No one should be given complete control
over someone else. Hey, it's tough enough to be a child once in life,
right? lol
> btw, since god was only talking to man i suppose that means that women
> were not required to follow such said laws?
In a way true. AND, I've heard that pointed on in serious biblical
discussions. I used to be one of those kinds of church goers. lol
Where the laws related to women, within the bible, it points those laws out
specifically. Only men were counted in the census also. I don't know why.
> >
> > > >
> > > > You're forgetting that the Bible and its views have been a major
> > influence on
> > > > our society and culture for a couple milennia now. Even if women
aren't
> > kept
> > > > as chattel now, the general view, and what was taught to girls and
women
> > for
> > > > hundreds and hundreds of years, was that they had a "place" and that
> > "place"
> > > > was not to be their own person -- but to be a subordinate, as was
> > decreed by
> > > > God, based on the story of Adam and Eve.
According to the bible, Eve was made to HELP Adam. Women were GIVEN in
marriage. Obvioulsy, again, human nature being what it is, I'm SURE there
were fathers who loved their women children and if the women child DIDN'T
have any feelings for a particular guy, the father didn't push it. However,
that was his power to listen or not listen.
I think it's obvious also that when people find themselves in a power-down
position, they become overtly or covertly maniuplative to get what they need
or want. This goes for both men and women.
Jude
Women in America are NOT chattel. They're involved in improving their lot,
not just becoming full fledged citizens like they were 30 years ago.
> > > >
> > > > Let me put it this way. Would YOU be upset if you knew that men
> > generally
> > > > had been chattel for the duration of history. Would you react to
that
> > fact?
> > >
> > > aren't you making an assumption about me there? oh well - anyway . .
> > > .
> > >
> > > you said that feminism began as a direct reaction to women as chattel.
> > > and i contended against that. feminism began as a direct result to
> > > women not having say in their country. a country that strove to
> > > develop its laws outside of religion (albeit did not always succeed).
> > >
> > > as for reacting to the fact that women had been chattel. if the
> > > situation was improving that seems a strange time to react to it. as
> > > for men being chattel -would it seem reasonable to you for men to
> > > suddenly be pissed off about having been serfs? and even in our own
> > > country's history - the founding fathers didn't just exclude women and
> > > blacks from voting but men who didn't own land.
> >
> > Men have reacted historically and have carried on revolutions in
response to
> > unjust governments.
>
> yes. which is why things have changed. which is also why a man
> renting an apartment shouldn't be pissed off that 200 plus years ago
> he couldn't have voted.
People get caught up in the argument whether or not it even happened 200
plus or minus years ago. I don't think their anger is about things that
happened 200 plus or minus years ago UNLESS they get into an argument on
whether or not it DID happen.
It reminds me of the neo-nazis who claim the holocaust didn't happen. THAT
pissed ME off and I'm NOT Jewish!!!
> > >
> > > one can not forget history. nor can one dwell there if you hope to
> > > acheive anything at all.
> > >
> > > > Also, It wasn't only about the history between the genders. Up
until
> > the
> > > > 20th century did women start to demand for more opportunity and
rights.
> > At
> > > > that time, it was met with a lot of resistance. Would YOU resent
that?
> > >
> > > it was met with resentment that is true. there were also men who
> > > assisted in the effort so to be pissed at all of them is well, a
> > > little whacky. and ultimately though wrong it was men and men alone
> > > who had to decide to give women the vote
> >
> > Yes, there have always been good men. I don't hold to the belief that
we're
> > all destined to be selfish and self-centered. I know a lot of guys who
are
> > basically good. A few I know well are better than I am.... very fair
> > minded. They all would be called "sissys" even through they're hetero
and
> > married because they all believe in gay rights and women's rights. They
> > aren't stupid and apologetic for being male either, otoh.
>
> right.
THAT'S what separates feminists from feminazis. There IS a difference.
There will always be reasonable and unreasonable women and men.
Angry about certain issues. I don't think they walk around fuming out of
their ears while they go on with their everyday life.... Of course, it will
differ from individual to individual.
I don't think it ever claimed to be about equality in the sense of looking
for issues that men were at a disadvantage, ie. family courts in
relationship to custody. Although, many a first generation feminist was
also an abolitionist. They were involved with becoming full fledged
citizens. After full citizenship was acquired and the majority of "doors"
opened to them, the movement underwent a change.
Now, for the first time in history, both genders need to re-look at all the
issues that affect them both and come to better understanding with those
issues, and begin to move toward respectful compromises.
I'll NEVER forget when I heard that that happened. That was quite
couragous. I'm not responsible to understand a time I didn't live in. Men
viewed women, and vice versa, differently in those days.
Until wo/men upset at indifference and abuse, nothing can be done to change
it.
Well, I'm laughing because I missed something. You said that NOW is NOT
fringe feminism but it's also NOT about equality. I see your point. You're
saying that NOW is the mainstream's organization of feminism but it's NOT
about equality. Right?
It's almost exclusively about women's issues and helping WOMEN get equality.
THAT doesn't mean everything out of every mouth of every feminist that
belong to NOW is going to be all flowers and bows. Doesn't mean that
everything they say or the stance that they take is universally agreed upon
by every other feminist. I think you understand.
Perhaps the issues that even mainstream feminists, male or female, take a
stand on doesn't met your approval or standard of equality if by that
standard it has to make men's lot better.
I think a lot of women do have sympathy about men's issues. Perhaps, it's
time for men to have a real working (instead of talking) organization that
seeks to improve men's lot where it relates to family courts, etc.
Why would anybody call themselves a skinhead and not be what a skinhead is?
Strange.
Michael Snyder
> "ishka bibble" <ishka_bi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e17f0149.03092...@posting.google.com...
>>i pointed out the bias of NOW on a number of occasions to which you
>>responded about fringe elements of feminism. since NOW is not fringe
>>you response was no response and i am trying to elicit a response to
>>the statements that i make and not the stuff going on inside of your
>>head.
>
>
> Well, I'm laughing because I missed something. You said that NOW is NOT
> fringe feminism but it's also NOT about equality. I see your point. You're
> saying that NOW is the mainstream's organization of feminism but it's NOT
> about equality. Right?
Ladies and gentlemen -- the clue plane has landed!!!
Jude
DUH, Michael. Why should anybody apologize for trying to make their lot in
life better, DUMBASS? Do you try to get a better job and who should YOU
apologize for that, huh, dimwit? Do you try to make more $, do you try to
be taken more seriously? If so, why should you or anybody else apologize?
YOU want women to APOLOGIZE for wanting a better life. Poor pitiful Michael
can't take care of himself, perhaps without women NOT trying to make their
lives more meaningful JUST for themselves? Huh? Is that a bad thing,
Michael? Do YOU apologize to women for trying to make YOUR life better.
DID that last thing you did JUST for yourself.... did YOU apologize if it
didn't further the needs of a woman or women in general, PATHETIC SELF
PITYING BOY/MAN!! Perhaps, you need to recheck you jock strap...
>
BitingHeart
some anti-male sexism, while vehemently defending feminists and
attacking people who just want equality.
I feel sorry for you. Or maybe I feel scorn. its hard to say.
I guess its a bit like how the creature "Gollum" was seen, hard to
tell if its pity or disgust.
I never did understand males who want to sell themselves out, AND be
dishonourable/dishonest at the same time. At least feminists, are
dishonest, but do it for *personal gain*. You are kind of like the
jewish nazi...
"Jude" <Ju...@nunyabiznez.usa> wrote in message news:<cMJbb.16823$8j....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
Jude
"BitingHeart" <collec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff08daf.03093...@posting.google.com...
> Your quite a confused person. Being a man who seems to be aware of
> some anti-male sexism, while vehemently defending feminists and
> attacking people who just want equality.
>
> I feel sorry for you. Or maybe I feel scorn. its hard to say.
>
> I guess its a bit like how the creature "Gollum" was seen, hard to
> tell if its pity or disgust.
>
> I never did understand males who want to sell themselves out, AND be
> dishonourable/dishonest at the same time. At least feminists, are
> dishonest, but do it for *personal gain*. You are kind of like the
> jewish nazi...
You're quite a pathetic man, whose world view is strickly divided by gender
lines. Any man that sees that woman have some issues is a traitor is your
eyes. Grow up, people are people. The differences between genders doesn't
make one evil and the other good. Get a life, get a heart and get real!
Ann0minous
>
>> Michael Snyder wrote:
>
>>> Ann0minous wrote:
>
>>>> Michael Snyder wrote:
>
>>>>> Ann0minous wrote:
>
>>>>>> Jude wrote:
>
>>>>>>> What's the difference between an evil female and evil male?
>
>
>>>>>> (All's I know is, at least for one certain poster, the definition of
>
>> "evil"
>
>>>> is,
>
>>>>>> "anything that makes him feel bad.")
>
>>>>> That's pretty much the definition of evil in general.
>
>>>> You forget that personal perspectives can be extremely subjective, and
>
>> sometimes there
>
>>>> is justification for making someone "feel bad": i.e. a person guilty of
>
>> doing
>
>>>> something that was truly wrong.
>
>>> Circular reasoning. How do you define "something that was truly wrong"?
>
>> Red herring. We're talking about a person being made to "feel bad" no matter
what the
>> situation; that the "feeling bad" part is what defines what "evil" is. So
let's take a
>> for-example: let's say, a shoplifter being sentenced. The judge gives her a
stern
>> lecture. She "feels bad" because of what the judge said. Does this make the
judge
>> "evil"?
>
>Probably -- in her eyes. That's the point.
I disagree. We speak of values such as "good and evil" based on codes of
ethics that have established and recognized in society for hundreds and
thousands of years. To use these words based on various subjective feelings is
to lose a certain value to the word's meaning. It then becomes about as
"meaningful" a term as "icky".
>> Does it make parents "evil" if they give a stern lecture to their teenager,
who
>> subsequently "feels bad"?
>
>Ask the teenagers. I'm sure they'll say yes. I know I did, when I was one.
Yes, but supposing the kid was too immature to understand that the lecture
might have been deserved on their part (i.e. that they had done something
inconsiderate, that had inconvenienced other parties).
>> Does it make a cheated-on boyfriend "evil" for getting angry at his
girlfriend for
>> cheating on him (thus making her "feel guilty"?)
>
>I am positive that the girlfriend would say yes.
>
>> You see what kind of trap you're setting yourself up for? Keyword: FEEEEEL.
"Feelings"
>> are subjective.
>
>That's the point.0
I disagree. There is a more formal use of the word that implies something that
crosses ethical boundaries. (And yes, sometimes there are situations that can
be problematic in terms of how they can be ethically classified or defined.
That's why we have lawmakers, judges and court systems.)
>> Do you also agree with the feminist worldview of what's "evil" to them
because of the
>> way THEY feel?
>
>No. I agree with my own worldview of what's evil to me, because of the way I
feel.
...So in other word's someone else's use of the word wouldn't necessarily mean
anything to you, correct?
>>>> If we are to go by that definition alone, then the poster is "evil" too,
for
>
>> making
>
>>>> others "feel bad".
>
>>> I haven't heard an alternative yet. Whose objective reality should we use?
>
>> Yours?
>
>> Red herring again. I just gave a couple examples of where you might run into
problems
>> with that particular definition.
>
>Yet you refuse to offer another.
I just did offer another: "Morally reprehensible". For example, something
that deliberately seeks to inflict unnecessary damage or harm. A judge giving
a stern lecture with the intent that the shoplifter shape up and do better in
society would not fall into that category, as his intent is that she doesn't
repeat the same mistakes, steal from others and wind up in jail again.
>> The dictionary defines the word proper as "morally reprehensible", and
certainly, most
>> would agree that a judge (or parents) giving a stern lecture in the best
interests of
>> the individual and community would not fall into that category.
>
>Circular definition, again. What does "morally reprehensible" mean? Why, it
means evil.
Not a "circular definition" -- if one wishes to learn the meaning of the phrase
"morally reprehensible" then one would then undertake to find out the
definition of "morals".
>You're not offering any definition, just more undefined (and undefinable)
terms.
I am presuming readers here are capable of consulting the dictionary et al
again, to learn what the definition of "morals" is. "Morals" is a synonym for
"ethics", which is defined as: 1 : plural but singular or plural in
construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral
duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles or values b : a theory or system of moral
values <the present-day materialistic ethic> c : plural but singular or plural
in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group
<professional ethics> d : a guiding philosophy
We could go on and on about this, but why repeat here what the ancient
philosophers have already written? If people are really that curious about
elaborations on morality and ethics they could always do a Google search on the
definition of "ethics" (which would probably be too long to write about in one
Usenet post).
>> The dictionary also gives secondary definitions which are more along the
lines of
>> subjective superlatives (not unlike "bogus" or "icky"), but their implied
subjective
>> nature, as you pointed out above, probably gives us just as much or more
information
>> about the person who uses the word, than the person or thing being
described.
>
>> Now, I would agree that someone who was *deliberately* making someone "feel
bad" and
>> not acting out of anything other than a deliberate, cold-hearted desire to
hurt someone
>> would be "evil". But if the focus is on the victim's "feelings" rather than
the
>> perpetrator's *intent*, the word becomes more and more subjective, becoming
more like
>> an expletive than a adjective.
>
>At the risk of repeating myself, that's the point.
What is your point? That "evil" is a subjective notion and the word is about
as meaningless as "bogus" or "icky"?
Michael Snyder
> "Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
> news:bld46t$1nb$1...@stan.redhat.com...
>
>>Jude wrote:
>>
>>>"ishka bibble" <ishka_bi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:e17f0149.03092...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>>i pointed out the bias of NOW on a number of occasions to which you
>>>>responded about fringe elements of feminism. since NOW is not fringe
>>>>you response was no response and i am trying to elicit a response to
>>>>the statements that i make and not the stuff going on inside of your
>>>>head.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, I'm laughing because I missed something. You said that NOW is NOT
>>>fringe feminism but it's also NOT about equality. I see your point.
>
> You're
>
>>>saying that NOW is the mainstream's organization of feminism but it's
>
> NOT
>
>>>about equality. Right?
>>
>>Ladies and gentlemen -- the clue plane has landed!!!
>
>
> DUH, Michael. Why should anybody apologize for trying to make their lot in
> life better, DUMBASS?
DUH, Jude. Why should we appologize for criticizing a movement that
claims to be about "equality", but is in fact ONLY about making life
better for SOME people, often at the expense of others? ASSHOLE?
> Do you try to get a better job and who should YOU
> apologize for that, huh, dimwit?
Do I try to get a better job at the expense of women? Nope.
Do feminists try to get women better jobs at the expense of men? Yep.
Fem-wit.
> Do you try to make more $, do you try to be taken more seriously?
At the expense of women? Nope. And when I *do* try to make
more money, I don't make up phony statistics to falsely show
that I've been cheated, and must be given more for the sake
of "equality". I do it on my own merit.
> If so, why should you or anybody else apologize?
Feminists should appologize, Jude, for lying.
For lying about rape, lying about pay, lying about DV,
and most of all for lying about being "for equality",
when in reality they are for women.
>
> YOU want women to APOLOGIZE for wanting a better life.
Nope. I want FEMINISTS to appologize for wanting a better life
ONLY FOR WOMEN.
> Poor pitiful Michael
Poor moronic Jude.
Jude
You are thoroughly pitiful because you believe if a woman's lot is bettered
in the world, that MUST take away something from a man. What a pathetic
thing for you to wish for... for women to apologize for trying to make their
lot better. I don't believe, even so, that EVERY feminist out there wants
ONLY good things to happen to women. If they're involved in an organization
then their focus is probably on women's uplifting.
I guess the NAACP should apologize to all us whites too, Michael?
>
> Poor moronic Jude.
>
michael price
> "Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
> news:bld46t$1nb$1...@stan.redhat.com...
> > Jude wrote:
> > > "ishka bibble" <ishka_bi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:e17f0149.03092...@posting.google.com...
>
> > >>i pointed out the bias of NOW on a number of occasions to which you
> > >>responded about fringe elements of feminism. since NOW is not fringe
> > >>you response was no response and i am trying to elicit a response to
> > >>the statements that i make and not the stuff going on inside of your
> > >>head.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, I'm laughing because I missed something. You said that NOW is NOT
> > > fringe feminism but it's also NOT about equality. I see your point.
> You're
> > > saying that NOW is the mainstream's organization of feminism but it's
> NOT
> > > about equality. Right?
> >
> > Ladies and gentlemen -- the clue plane has landed!!!
>
> DUH, Michael. Why should anybody apologize for trying to make their lot in
> life better, DUMBASS?
If the method they use if systematically organising unjust discrimination I
would hope that they would feel the need to appologise. If a white man tried
to keep all black men out of college so he could get a place isn't he doing
wrong? So why is feminist discrimination in education better?
> Do you try to get a better job and who should YOU
> apologize for that, huh, dimwit? Do you try to make more $, do you try to
> be taken more seriously? If so, why should you or anybody else apologize?
>
> YOU want women to APOLOGIZE for wanting a better life.
No, for trying to cheat to get it.
> Poor pitiful Michael can't take care of himself, perhaps without women
> NOT trying to make their lives more meaningful JUST for themselves?
No but if they systematically attack him for being male it is harder.
> Huh? Is that a bad thing, Michael? Do YOU apologize to women for trying to
> make YOUR life better.
> DID that last thing you did JUST for yourself.... did YOU apologize if it
> didn't further the needs of a woman or women in general, PATHETIC SELF
> PITYING BOY/MAN!! Perhaps, you need to recheck you jock strap...
Maybe he'll find your brain in it. It has to be somewhere.
>
> >
Jude
"michael price" <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5678a39d.03100...@posting.google.com...
Oh, I'm so wounded, idiot by your comment. OF COURSE, if someone tries to
CHEAT to get an advantage it's wrong.... DUH There are copious amounts of
men who want women to apologize, across board, if they even TRY to make
their lot better in the world because they see the world divided into 2
groups of men and women. Therefore if any woman gets a better shot at
something, it took something away from some man and therefore is totally
selfish on the woman's part. THAT'S what I'm talking about... not in any
case where an advantage is gained through wrong doing. THAT goes for
everybody, not just women.
Michael Snyder
Name calling -- the last resort of the logically defeated.
Michael Snyder
/so/a/
Jude
to the self-appointed ignorant. I've said all I've had to say to you. We
all know what you have to say. You've been on this ng for YEARS. I posted
for several months several years ago and you were doing your "statistic
thing."
Feminists should apologize about lying about rape, pay, DV etc. That's so
idiotic to believe and scream about such things. Do men apologize about
rape, making more money etc? In your opinion, men NEVER get over women?
Men NEVER make more money than women doing the same work? You make sweeping
statements.
You want a better life for MEN. Do YOU apologize for that. I wouldn't even
think of asking you to... There will always be rapers and false accusers.
There will always be inequities among fellow employees for various reasons,
some no more than they like one guy more than another guy. Ask all those
fuckers to apologize. In fact, ask the fucking world to apologize while
you're at it, both male and female. THAT is what I'D like to hear.....
Michael Snyder
> "Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
> news:blhtht$8er$1...@stan.redhat.com...
>
>>Jude wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
>>>news:blfdev$504$1...@stan.redhat.com...
>>>
>>>>Jude wrote:
>>>>>Poor pitiful Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>You are thoroughly pitiful
>>
>>Name calling -- the last resort of the logically defeated.
>>
>
> Not always, Michael. It's also sometimes the last thing someone has to say
> to the self-appointed ignorant.
No doubt. But in this case, since that equally name-calling bit about
"the self-appointed ignorant" does not apply, it is the last resort of
the logically defeated.