This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - bukowski
What DOESN'T circumcision cure??? I mean really it seems to be a cure all...Or maybe a scapegoat?
I don't come here anymore really. But I was another site browsing, abd noticed the circumcision thread so I went. Some people seem gung-ho about this business.
I wonder though, if stopping FGM would do anything to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa? I was at another site, a liberal site, and I didn't see anyone ask this, although I didn't/couldn't read all 128 and counting posts, so I could be wrong. but it seems that that would be a question feminist liberals would ask, I would think. Some were against it, some were for it.
The answer to that question might not only help with HIV in africa but give good reason to stop FGM (if it helped spread HIV). But this question seemed absent.
I can't help but sometimes think that maybe circumcision is touted as such a cure all only because it scapegoats men for, at least some, of the world's ills. Why else wouldn't the above question be immediately asked?
I wonder how it is that men are held responsible for a future child, the same future child, that doesn't exist when we are talking about abortion rights for women?
Other than men are simply responsible for women's choices, and children are the equivelant of women's property, what is the logic of women's rightists holding men responsible to a future child?
Every political ideology has double standards. It's the nature of the game.
It's all subjective.
I'm not against the subjective. But that is why I am a-political.
They wholeheartedly support the use of physical force, as long as they get to define the terms of its use. They only reject physical force when it doesn't accomplish the goals they want.
This is exactly what libertarians do. As long as they define their force, as retaliation or, defense, against the force from others, even if that force is not against their physical person, but against their property, their violence (which by the way, is usually through the state apparatus) is a-okay.
Which is why libertarians often defend the limited state to protect/defend capitalist property rights. They define the (limited) state's violence as objective defence of natural rights. Rights that humans define.
I forgot to write my whole point.
But when other people of different political persuasions come up with other "natural" human rights, and then use the state to accomplish their subjective desires, it is totalitarian and they are against freedom.
What leads you to assume I was defining socialism?
I didn't believe or, say, that you were defining socialism. Maybe I should have been more clear.
In fact, pacifism and socialism are polar opposites. Socialism requires the use of force to redistribute wealth and nationalize industry. If John Doe refused to let his wealth be redistrubuted or his company taken over, the true pacifistic socialist would be powerless to do anything about it.
gwallan responded to the above
As a pacifist allow me to posit that the use of force is one of the cornerstones of our civilisation. We use the threat of state sanctioned violence, force or deprivation of liberty to control the behaviour of individuals. The types of economic sytems we choose to apply do not change this thing.
"All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Marx
I've never heard of your definition of socialism before. Though I think socialism as it is practiced by socialists is abhorrent.
I guess brokeback mountain now...
But I think that's new. And I'm talking more about porn.
Why aren't straight women interested in reading or seeing men having sex with men, the way some straight men are into seeing women have sex with women?
How many straight women get off on seeing (or reading) man and man sex? Where's the desire, or market, for it besides gay men?
What about women having sex with women?
Which then, seems more socially acceptable and desirable, by the most people?
It would free my inhibitions up dramatically
I think this may be why some people are against the male pill. Not all but some.
But according to Katz -- who is scheduled to talk about his ideas Monday at the London Convention Centre -- I'm the kind of guy who helps produce hundreds of thousands of abusive boys each year.
But I'm a good dad. Why, just the other night my sons and I were watching a bit of WWE wrestling on TV and we just had to laugh when that buxom bimbo Victoria climbed into the ring and . . . Oops.
Somehow, I think this is what Katz is talking about.
"There's a level of callousness and brutality that's entered the culture that was not around a generation ago," he says. "The coarsening of the mainstream media culture is implicated in some of the attitudes and behaviours we're seeing being played out by boys and men."
"The larger effect is desensitization and normalization," he says, adding that for many young viewers the damage is already done.
A scantilly clad woman shows off her body, in between men who are pretending to beat each other up, and men are to feel guilty for being calloused and desensitized enough not to think she was being objectified?
If your going to claim sensitivity and concern, with the problem of desensitization and callousness toward violence, wouldn't it show callousness and desensitization toward violence, to say that it's women who are the victims of objectification in that situation? That woman was simply being looked at. The main entertainment was men beating each other up, or, pretending to.
I'd say this person is lacking credentials
Oh, he has the credentials.
If that's not enough, he also appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show.
Need I say more?
If the business owners themselves went on strike, and shut their companies down in the process, the economy would get royally fuster-clucked and the government would do some serious soul-searching and reevaluating of its policies. (Granted, not because it actually had a change of heart, but because of necessity.)
In such a situation of capitalists putting in the collective effort to go on strike, for their seemingly common interests, people would only starve to death if they were barred by violence (ie govt. or privtaized violence) from taking care of their needs.
People would disregard property rights and simply use the resources at hand to survive just as any group of people would who put in the collective effort for their common self interests. In this case food, survival.
People would only stop working to survive if they were barred from doing so by such a "strike" from the owners. Such a "strike" would not really be a "strike" from working, but would be barring people from the means of survival, resources, for the owner's common interests. As oppossed to the normally thought of strike, denying someone your labor to persuade, or coerce, owners for the laborer's self interests.
Only one is dependent on the other and that is why such a 'strike' is not so common, it is not profitable by the owners. And usually is dependent on the govt. to enforce enmasse.
Is it a crime to hate hate speech laws?
What about tyranny? Can I hate that?
Can I hate the people who tell me what to think and do?
Can I hate straight white men?
Can I hate the people who scapegoat me for the absolution of their own sins?
Can I feel hate? Is that all right? Can I hate but just not speak about it?
Or is it wrong to feel like hating too?
I really want to know?
Who can I hate?
Can I hate just a little bit?
What if hating just a little bit isn't enough?
Can I have detailed hate list?
What if the people who make that list love what I hate? What if they hate me?
Because I want to be perfectly sure on who and what I can get away with hating.
What I personaly find funny, and what I believe is even more damaging to feminism, is the claim that an oppressed class can somehow live longer and do less dangerous work than their oppressors.
That alone, I believe, disproves the idea that female oppression is equitable with 'racism' and 'classism'.
Imagine a world of white power where poor blacks lived longer and did less dangerous work than rich whites.
I also notice that when the horrors of oppression are brought up by female firsters they often put racism and sexism in the same sentence, and that same order. It's kind of like a neat-o way to be self righteous, caring and racist in an anti-racist sort of way.
"Attorney Henry McMaster says that domestic violence is a secret which can no longer be kept?"
Whom ever is keeping DV (against women) a secret sure has a loud mouth.