mclovin1
Banned
What? It took many years for women to even get the right to vote in the US. It isn't democracies that champion human rights.
Lilith or Eve? Female equality or not?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
What? It took many years for women to even get the right to vote in the US. It isn't democracies that champion human rights.
Not to mention Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama as far as human rights causes.
Sure. He helped black to white equality but ignored, thanks to being a Christian, the black male oppressing the black female.
We also tend to forget that he was doing black women on the side.
Regards
DL
Even democracies have to evolve over time. That was then, this is now.
If democracy is not equalities champion then which political system is?
Regards
DL
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure of Tutu's stance on Gays but I do know that the Dalai Lama does discriminate against them.
Regards
DL
mclovin1
Banned
You're assuming any political system is. Democracy is a politcal system but it doesn't necessarily champion equality. The US was founded on the idea that all men are created equal but it was founded by slave owners. Go figure. Politcal systems don't define equality the people do.
Who cares?
Anyone who cares about injustice and discrimination without just cause and those with a social conscience.
Change the labels in this quote to women, Gays or children beingbrainwashed by religions and it show what we should be thinking and doing foreach other.
"First they camefor the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for thesocialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came forthe Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they camefor me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”
Regards
DL
It's good you admit to your lie about religion but I would think someone with your lack of morals would see Dr King's discretions as admirable.
You are right, who cares.
You're completely off the mark here.
What she eluded to was nearly a text book definition of submission.
Because a woman submits (I say "woman" just in this case, there are men who are submissive as well) does not make them less, seen as less, valued as less...or in any way shape of form, less of a person.
It is, quite honestly, simply a role that they find comfort in.
That doesn't mean that they have less responsibilities or importance. It simply means that, in a relationship, they willingly submit to another person.
It hardly makes her powerless or weak.
She still retains the power, at any given time, to revoke the gift of her submission to the one she's granted it to. She has simply entrusted another with her most sacred gift; herself.
The Dominant who takes on that gift has a lot of responsibilities and never takes those lightly.
Just exactly what injustice would there be by a woman, or man for that matter, submitting?
Do you not think that a Dominant would demand a lot more from their submissive than merely where they walked in respect to the Dominant?
I think you have an inkling of what you mean but are sorely lacking in understanding of what it means for a person to truly submit to someone rather than being a person who is helplessly dependent upon another.
Two huge errors.
Submissive and slave are two wholly different entities.
Either gender can be either one. Has absolutely zero to do with gender and everything to do with a person's personal preference/happiness.
The way you wrote that it sounds like you have considered possibilities where injustice and discrimination have just cause......care to explain?
Then explain how you rationalize chemical slavery ( specifically the legalization of drug abuse ) while claiming a social conscience.
All I see is you gaming the forum in promotion of your own religion. And you sell using the emotional argument of hate.
BTW......the form of government in the US is a republic.
Last edited by a moderator:
Extrovert
I will have to let BleedingBull reply to what you think he or she was alluding to.
As to submitting. It is defined as, ---- to yield to governance or authority
Yield is defined as, ----to give or render as fitting, rightfully owed, or required.
To say that men rightfully own the submission of women is injustice.
This to me is basically coercion.
To say that anyone must submit to coercion is not justice.
Regards
DL
I will have to let BleedingBull reply to what you think he or she was alluding to.
As to submitting. It is defined as, ---- to yield to governance or authority
Yield is defined as, ----to give or render as fitting, rightfully owed, or required.
To say that men rightfully own the submission of women is injustice.
This to me is basically coercion.
To say that anyone must submit to coercion is not justice.
Regards
DL
Stone
You see what you want to see and not what is.
On negative discrimination. Not positive discrimination.
"The way you wrote that it sounds like you have considered possibilities where injustice and discrimination have just cause......care to explain?"
Injustice has no just cause and I did not allude to such as far as I can see. Even linguistically, it would be illogical.
Every law is permission and indeed coercion for us to discriminate against certain sub groups within society.
An example would be murderers. We are to discriminate negatively against these because we have decided that they do harm without just cause.
Do you see drug addicts as criminals or as people who have a medical condition?
Regards
DL
You see what you want to see and not what is.
On negative discrimination. Not positive discrimination.
"The way you wrote that it sounds like you have considered possibilities where injustice and discrimination have just cause......care to explain?"
Injustice has no just cause and I did not allude to such as far as I can see. Even linguistically, it would be illogical.
Every law is permission and indeed coercion for us to discriminate against certain sub groups within society.
An example would be murderers. We are to discriminate negatively against these because we have decided that they do harm without just cause.
Do you see drug addicts as criminals or as people who have a medical condition?
Regards
DL
It's clear what she, BleedingBull, was alluding to. She stated it quite plainly.
Yes, those are the text definitions of the two words. Bravo for the ability to read.
What you're missing, in the whole point of submission, is the whole yielding part. It is an act of one's free will to do so. They CHOOSE to do it.
What you're talking about is subjugation not submission.
It is defined as:
subjugation - forced submission to control by others
No one said men (again, you're being a bit sexist in your view point on submission)* own the submission. I, quite clearly, stated that it was a GIFT.
If the Dominant in a relationship does not cherish their submissive and attend to all the needs, the submissive has every right to walk away. The whole point of giving the gift of their submission is that the Dominant inspires them and is willing to take the lead in the relationship.
*On the point of submissives...either gender can be submissive...and can submit to either gender.
"Bravo for the ability to read. "
Thanks for this.
Regards
DL
Thanks for this.
Regards
DL
You're quite welcome.
Note that I held my tongue on comprehension.
I did, though, clarify your error on the point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Check out my other posts and you'll find I value perception of reality with great regard.
If I get something wrong, it's merely 'wrong', not dogma as you project.
That would be 'affirmative action'.
Are you defining 'affirmative action' as justifiable injustice and justifiable discrimination?
How can that be if the concept of affirmative action is to create equal opportunity?
Sounds like more BS.
Indeed......and the terms 'justifiable injustice' and justifiable discrimination' make no sense
Much of what you post seems fallacious logic.....I can only ask to discover what you mean as you butcher semantics , context and logic.
It would be more correct to state laws are restrictions :
The lack of reasonable/responsible restrictions can create issues of economic and social abuse.
What, you just make this shit up as you go along and think no one will notice?
Seriously, study up on critical thinking and review before posting such nonsense.
That was logic, sophistry and context butchered beyond belief ( pun
)The laws concerning acts of killing are restrictive in all but the issue of self defense.
There is no positive nor negative discrimination in those laws.
There is discrimination when considering enforcement, when justice is sacrificed upon some element of bias.
I see drug addicts as people with medical issues and why I argue for decriminalization of drug abuse.
However, your stance, as you did post, was to legalize drug addiction in a manner that ignored the social damage done not only to the victim, but society as a whole.
ie......you've no apparent noticeable social conscience . And yet pose as if your support for acceptance of a culture of drug abuse entitles you to some bizarre notion of respectability.
Some major conflicts in your position GIA.
And I notice you still evade my central questions.
Well?
Out of interest, google 'Hitler+Gnostic'
Interesting, indeed.
Very well stated.
My intent is not to start a hostile exchange with you, but saying you'd willingly submit to a man brings up all kinds of pictures in my head from deferring to his superior intellect to letting him have his way with you sexually just because he knows what's best, or what he requires of you to commit to a relationship. I'm not saying this is you, but I'm saying this is a picture of you with a substandard brain, relegated to a second class citizen status.
Keep in mind that the traditional roles you refer to are best suited to a primitive developing society where survival required strong muscles, men hunted, woman raised the children they bore. Physical strength plays less and less of a role in an advanced society. And as far as brains, you really don't believe that men have corned the market on intelligence do you? All of the indicators seem to indicate that women are on the verge of taking over in the office.