sobo Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Thankful ...Of course, if you ask me, all that religious crap is about putting the boot on someone's neck. I am so down with you on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Wonder why this and many other books got excluded from the modern protestant bible.....hmmmmm What, you mean that earlier versions are not the revealed word of god, only the current sanctioned version is? Did you skip the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit because all that stuff that's been excised from King James on is invalid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 26, 2007 Author Share Posted January 26, 2007 "If they become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there" Martin Luther blah blah blah, you get the gist. Women aren't better off here than in some Muslim countries because this is a predominantly Christian culture, it's because we're a significantly secular liberal democracy. As Dru aptly pointed out, we're not done by a long shot. Witness the recent question, "Gosh, is it even possible a woman could be president?" But Off, if having a female head-of-state was the best manner in which to asses the legal, political, and cultural status of women in a given society, then we'd have to conclude that Pakistan is on par with Finland, since they've both only had one. You might even have to cede the contest to Pakistan, because Bhutto held office before Jäätteenmäki. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Oh c'mon, Christianity still embraces the concept of original sin and puts it off on those disgusting women. At least Islam believes everyone is born pure. Jay, if you were an Orthodox Jew, every day you would pray, "Blessed be God King of the universe that Thou has not made me a woman." Worse - he could not climb on Saturdays! Of course, if you ask me, all that religious crap is about putting the boot on someone's neck. Or if you can't put the boot on their neck, pack you car full of explosives and drive it into their market and blow a bunch of their wives and children to bits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Quote: Follow me and together we'll C.H.O.P.S away the Gay. Castrati for Christ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Topics include: How to identify homosexuals. What is a sexual predator? What are gay bands? :lmao: :lmao: this is great: Kansas Frank Sinatra Ravi Shankar Eminem Nirvana Best of all- Barry Manilow. I mean, doesn't every man's anus begin to twitch while listening to him?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) Quote: Follow me and together we'll C.H.O.P.S away the Gay. Castrati for Christ! Better Faye than Gay!!! Edited January 26, 2007 by ericb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Or if you can't put the boot on their neck, pack you car full of explosives and drive it into their market and blow a bunch of their wives and children to bits. Exactly! Religious fervor is a kissing cousin to flat out insanity. Check out the Reverend Fred Phelps for a prime example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) Better Faye than Gay!!! I must misunderstand the reference, surely you're not endorsing sexual reassignment surgery? edit: Okay, now I see since you added the pic. Tammy hosted a talk show with a gay co-host, she's hardly the most vehement anti-gay warrior in the christian world. Have you seen the documentary "The Eyes of Tammy Faye?" I was thinking you were referring to the divine Fay Wray... Edited January 26, 2007 by Off_White Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 For you, perhaps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 For you, perhaps Oooh, well maybe if you'd love me all up, big boy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 For you, perhaps Oooh, well maybe if you'd love me all up, big boy... I just threw up a little in my mouth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I don't get the contradiction between these two beliefs: 1. Women are so evil, they shouldn't be touched with a ten foot pole 2. Men shouldn't love other men (in intimate ways). At least the Greeks were logical and considered man-man love far superior to man-woman love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I don't get the contradiction between these two beliefs: 1. Women are so evil, they shouldn't be touched with a ten foot pole 2. Men shouldn't love other men (in intimate ways). At least the Greeks were logical and considered man-man love far superior to man-woman love. Sorry - which belief system is this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Read above thread. (pssst...I think she is referring to Christianity, though it could probably be Islam too) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I don't get the contradiction between these two beliefs: 1. Women are so evil, they shouldn't be touched with a ten foot pole 2. Men shouldn't love other men (in intimate ways). At least the Greeks were logical and considered man-man love far superior to man-woman love. baa baa baa 8D 8D 8D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Read above thread. (pssst...I think she is referring to Christianity, though it could probably be Islam too) 1. Women are so evil, they shouldn't be touched with a ten foot pole Ahh....someone must have left the Song of Solomon out of her Bible then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) I don't get the contradiction between these two beliefs: 1. Women are so evil, they shouldn't be touched with a ten foot pole 2. Men shouldn't love other men (in intimate ways). At least the Greeks were logical and considered man-man love far superior to man-woman love. baa baa baa 8D 8D 8D It's ok for everybody to love sheep. Edited January 26, 2007 by AlpineK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Jay let's be like the Economist and use statistics. Jordan: 20 women killed by fathers/uncles/brothers etc. for sex outside marriage Population: 5,906,760 Rate: 20/5.9 million = 3.4 x 10^-6 USA: 1,232 women each year killed by an "Intimate partner" . No mention of how many killed by male relatives, but we'll skip that bit for now. USA Population 298, 444, 125 as of July 2006 Rate: 4.13 X10^-6 These are not significantly different figures. The level of violence against women is therefore probably not statistically much different between Jordan and the USA. Your smug "Ooooh I'm so glad I'm not a Muslim" ignores that violence against women in the West occurs at levels comparable to those elsewhere in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 26, 2007 Author Share Posted January 26, 2007 If you were being like the Economist you'd neither use Jordan as a representative sample of all Muslim lands nor confuse homicides that the state of Jordan could specifically determine were "honor killings" and actually reported as such with the total number of women killed by men for any reason, but that's beside the point. There's a significant difference between random violence between individuals that's a contravention of both the prevailing legal and moral standards, and violence that's sanctioned by both the law, the prevailing culture, or both. Once the Supreme Court or another equivalent body issues a sentence which condemns a woman to being stoned to death for adultery because she can't produce four male witnesses who will testify that the rape was not consensual, then you will have a point. As things stand now, you are left in the position of trying to argue the impossible, which is that the odd state sanctioned stoning-to-death aside, women in Muslim lands enjoy the same level of personal freedoms and legal protection that they do in the West. You are clearly too smart to literally believe that, and I think if you ever impregnate a woman and have a daughter, and had to choose whether she'd be raised in a Western country and subject to Western law and tradition, or raised in a Muslim country and subject to Sharia for the rest of the life, there's no doubt about what you'd choose, so you are clearly just making an insincere argument on behalf of Islam's treatment of women to satisfy some other impulse or agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 "If they become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there" Martin Luther blah blah blah, you get the gist. Women aren't better off here than in some Muslim countries because this is a predominantly Christian culture, it's because we're a significantly secular liberal democracy. As Dru aptly pointed out, we're not done by a long shot. Witness the recent question, "Gosh, is it even possible a woman could be president?" But Off, if having a female head-of-state was the best manner in which to asses the legal, political, and cultural status of women in a given society, then we'd have to conclude that Pakistan is on par with Finland, since they've both only had one. You might even have to cede the contest to Pakistan, because Bhutto held office before Jäätteenmäki. who is jatteenmaki? and how do i do umlauts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 26, 2007 Author Share Posted January 26, 2007 Finnish PM circa 2003 or so, and cut-and-paste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 you are clearly just making an insincere argument on behalf of Islam's treatment of women to satisfy some other impulse or agenda. and what sort of sincere argument are you making? oh yeah, that you are glad that you don't live in a muslim country! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) Jay let's be like the Economist and use statistics. Jordan: 20 women killed by fathers/uncles/brothers etc. for sex outside marriage Population: 5,906,760 Rate: 20/5.9 million = 3.4 x 10^-6 USA: 1,232 women each year killed by an "Intimate partner" . No mention of how many killed by male relatives, but we'll skip that bit for now. USA Population 298, 444, 125 as of July 2006 Rate: 4.13 X10^-6 These are not significantly different figures. The level of violence against women is therefore probably not statistically much different between Jordan and the USA. Your smug "Ooooh I'm so glad I'm not a Muslim" ignores that violence against women in the West occurs at levels comparable to those elsewhere in the world. Yu kin jack awl da stisics yu wan, butt de only thing yu gotta aks yosel bout vahlince to da wimins is, did thuh mothuhfuckin bitch deserve it? Edited January 26, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.