HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Know who else advocates m...

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 02:31 AM

Know who else advocates marrying 15-yr-old girls? The Taliban.

Stop creepy creeping Christian Sharia.

61 replies, 5060 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 61 replies Author Time Post
Reply Know who else advocates marrying 15-yr-old girls? The Taliban. (Original post)
ZRT2209 Dec 2013 OP
firsttimer Dec 2013 #1
freshwest Dec 2013 #3
KitSileya Dec 2013 #47
blkmusclmachine Dec 2013 #2
etherealtruth Dec 2013 #52
anti partisan Dec 2013 #4
kcr Dec 2013 #5
anti partisan Dec 2013 #7
kcr Dec 2013 #9
anti partisan Dec 2013 #15
kcr Dec 2013 #16
anti partisan Dec 2013 #20
kcr Dec 2013 #24
JNelson6563 Dec 2013 #56
lunasun Dec 2013 #58
WowSeriously Dec 2013 #10
anti partisan Dec 2013 #13
kcr Dec 2013 #14
Nanjing to Seoul Dec 2013 #17
kcr Dec 2013 #18
anti partisan Dec 2013 #19
kcr Dec 2013 #23
anti partisan Dec 2013 #26
kcr Dec 2013 #27
anti partisan Dec 2013 #28
WowSeriously Dec 2013 #40
anti partisan Dec 2013 #41
WowSeriously Dec 2013 #53
Nanjing to Seoul Dec 2013 #21
anti partisan Dec 2013 #22
kcr Dec 2013 #25
Nanjing to Seoul Dec 2013 #30
anti partisan Dec 2013 #32
Nanjing to Seoul Dec 2013 #33
anti partisan Dec 2013 #34
Nanjing to Seoul Dec 2013 #35
anti partisan Dec 2013 #36
Nanjing to Seoul Dec 2013 #37
anti partisan Dec 2013 #38
Squinch Dec 2013 #44
anti partisan Dec 2013 #45
Squinch Dec 2013 #46
anti partisan Dec 2013 #48
Squinch Dec 2013 #50
anti partisan Dec 2013 #51
SammyWinstonJack Dec 2013 #54
anti partisan Dec 2013 #55
ErikJ Dec 2013 #6
Ichingcarpenter Dec 2013 #8
WowSeriously Dec 2013 #11
Ichingcarpenter Dec 2013 #12
WowSeriously Dec 2013 #39
ZRT2209 Dec 2013 #59
napkinz Dec 2013 #29
Nanjing to Seoul Dec 2013 #31
Paulie Dec 2013 #57
ZRT2209 Dec 2013 #60
Fla_Democrat Dec 2013 #42
anti partisan Dec 2013 #49
dipsydoodle Dec 2013 #43
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2013 #61

Response to ZRT2209 (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 03:18 AM

1. Mormons? Amish maybe..........

 

Ami

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firsttimer (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 04:53 AM

3. Duck Dynasty clan...

A good woman is "hard to find. Mainly because these boys are waiting until they get to be about 20 years old before they marry 'em. Look, you wait till they get to be about 20 years old, they only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You gotta marry these girls when they're 15 or 16, they'll pick your ducks. You need to check with mom and dad about that, of course."

~ Speaking at Sportsmen's Ministry in Georgia in 2009.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024206973

Naturally, she won't need education for such purposes, will she now?

And if her parents agree, they might even pay a dowry. Could sell her for a few cows or a car.

Great...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firsttimer (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:26 AM

47. Not the Amish, at least.

The Amish don't let you marry until you've been baptized, and their huge thing is adult baptism - you have to be at least 18 to decide to get baptized, and then do a year of classes before you receive the sacrament, IIRC. The average age of marriage is low compared to rest of society, but that is because pretty much everyone do get married - at about 21-22, I believe.

Now, with Mormons, I'm sure there are Mormons on this board that can reply to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZRT2209 (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 03:22 AM

2. I think in AR you can marry a 13 year old. Of course, AR also wants a Death Penalty for children,

 

so...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:32 AM

52. I had to look this up

...the age is 16 (sorry for being pedantic). Though I think it would be really, really horrible for 16 year olds to marry ... the thought of a 13 year child marrying anyone was even more repulsive (I would think child abuse/I don't need legal definitions I am speaking of a moral value)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZRT2209 (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 04:56 AM

4. You know who else supported universal health care? Hitler.

Threads like this offer no substantive discussion with their lazy guilt-by-association fallacious tactics.

If you have a point to make, defend it with logic and reality. This may just be a pet peeve of mine, and my intent is not to go full Godwin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:05 AM

5. Hmmm. I'm not sure I understand your point.

How is that fallacious? It's the same act. Universal healthcare isn't bad. But marrying teenage girls, at least by our current social norms, is. So, why the objection to comparing the two? I'm not getting how that's fallacious? It would be fallacious to do that with something like universal healthcare, because supporting universal healthcare isn't a bad thing. It wouldn't make one like Hitler, even if Hitler did something like that, because it isn't evil. Comparing an evil act on the other hand, with another evil person that also does that same evil act is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:11 AM

7. The point is that using fallacious arguments is a poor standard.

Especially for a topic so uncontroversial as marrying teenage girls, we shouldn't have to resort to blatant fallacies in order to make a point. We can defeat right-wing arguments without stooping to their level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:13 AM

9. I hardly think that's stooping to their level

And it's a fact. If someone advocates marrying 15 year old girls, they're doing the same thing. If someone is pointing that fact out, I hardly see how that's a fallacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:26 AM

15. Marrying 15 year old girls is not wrong because the Taliban supports it.

Bringing up the slight similarity between two different entities does nothing to contribute meaningful insight to the discussion. That's why it should be avoided in an intelligent discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:27 AM

16. Maybe not. But it isn't a fallacy

And I don't think it's as bad as marrying 15 year olds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:31 AM

20. I don't either, but "not as bad as marrying 15 year olds" isn't exactly a high standard to set (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:39 AM

24. Oh, come on. Quite a bit lower than what the person you were responding to did. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:21 AM

56. My personal favorite...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JNelson6563 (Reply #56)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:12 PM

58. _+1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:13 AM

10. Can you point to any source about Hitler's support for Universal Healthcare?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WowSeriously (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:22 AM

13. Not the point I was trying to make

I was just basically taking a silly right wing claim, which is used to create a false equivalency between progressives and Hitler, and making a point out of it.

You can search 'Hitler universal health care' in Google and see a bunch of wingnut sites pop up like below:
https://www.google.com/search?q=hitler+universal+health+care

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:24 AM

14. Yes

But "You like universal healthcare! You're just like Hitler!" Fallacy. "You like genocide! You're just like Hitler!" Not a fallacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:27 AM

17. You have a mustache. You're just like Hitler

 

Lewis Black did shit like that against Glenn Beck.

"You like speed limits. You know who else liked speed limits. HITLER!!!!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjing to Seoul (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:30 AM

18. Horrible fallacious comedy.

Poor, poor Glenn Beck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:30 AM

19. It's an implicit fallacy

While nothing said is actually false or fallacious at face value, it certainly begs the question of "so this must be wrong because Hitler supports it?" Hitler supporting anything doesn't make it wrong. Genocide is wrong on so many levels that Hitler's name should not come up when discussing why it is wrong.

I admit that I'm a bit unconventional on my views of what should constitute discussion about certain topics, but yes I go through effort to avoid using the latter as reason for condemning genocide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:37 AM

23. Genocide is wrong on so many levels.Gee, you think? That's the reason behind the whole Godwin thing.

It's not an actual fallacious claim that anyone's made, here. I don't make it a habit of talking to people who like genocide. When people actually talk to genocidal maniacs, I actually doubt they say things like that. You made a actual fallacious claim that people actually make, the Hitler health care bit, because it's absurd. And then used it to compare it to a claim that wasn't. And was nothing close to Hitler. Your claims not to Godwin notwithstanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:43 AM

26. Perhaps it wasn't an apt comparison that I made.

I still stand by not using these associate-with-evil tactics in order to make a point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:47 AM

27. I get what you're saying

And normally I think I'd agree. But this is an instance where I think the OP is right. This is a specific enough act being compared, with the person being discussed invoking religion to justify it. That person and those defending him would very likely condemn the group the OP is referencing as association. This is a case where I think it's a valid point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:48 AM

28. Fair enough. Agree to disagree on this one. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:47 AM

40. I understand that. But the rightwing has also succeeded

 

in convincing people that Nazis were atheists and yet the Nazi soldier wore a belt buckle that said Gott mit uns, or God with us.

It's a pain in the ass during the who is responsible for more death, atheism or religion, debate.

Just my pet peeve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WowSeriously (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:58 AM

41. FWIW I don't feel like Christianity or Atheism were directly responsible for most Nazi policies.

While it's true that most of the soldiers were Christians, Hitler felt threatened by centralized religion. The belt buckles were more of an appeasement than anything, and most of the anti-Jewish sentiments were grounded in ethnic/racial propaganda centered about the Jews being a bunch of selfish parasitic money-grubbers. It's obviously very complicated and multifaceted, but I don't believe that Christianity itself was the main driving force, although it was certainly an influence and part of the cultural identity which the Germans wanted to be purified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #41)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:51 AM

53. I think you are correct. Religion was never

 

A driver in WWII other than as a concern of central authority. The same was true for Stalin.

You summarized quite well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:35 AM

21. You know who else supported gun control? Mao

 

And Stalin.

Come off it, guy. Logical leaps like this are not productive. If you're going to throw the Hitler name about people who think it's honky-dory for 15 year old girls to get married, you lose all credibility before you finish your first sentence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjing to Seoul (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:37 AM

22. Tell that to the OP, not me (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #22)


Response to anti partisan (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 06:53 AM

30. You tell me where the OP is wrong in that assertation that the Taliban also supports marrying

 

15 year old girls the way that douche-tacular asshat on Schmuck Dynasty said?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjing to Seoul (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 06:55 AM

32. You tell me when it's relevant to any meaningful conversation (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 06:58 AM

33. It's called a correlation. One group espouses the same claptrap the other group does

 

Except one is hated upon in the US and the other is glorified.

Both are religious fundie. . .both are bigoted, racist and xenophobic. Both are completely destructive.

But wrap your religious idiocy in the New Testament and American will accept it. Wrap it in the Koran and you'll have protests.

I see the correlation. Surprised you don't.

What is this? Be kind the bigots week?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjing to Seoul (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:11 AM

34. Research the political positions of the Taliban

Before you compare them to some faux backwoods hillbilly.

This faux backwoods hillbilly is nothing like the Taliban. The false equivalency is disingenuous at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #34)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:16 AM

35. Same turd. . .different polish. Next!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjing to Seoul (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:25 AM

36. Not even close.

Not to mention extremely insensitive to the victims of Taliban brutality.

I wonder what Mr. Robertson thinks about civilian massacres, and death by stoning, and brutal forced oppression of women.

Not even remotely close to the same anything. Try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:32 AM

37. Probably okay with it because Christian fundies have never had any problems killing for Jesus

 

Again. Same turd. . .different polish.

But again, thanks for playing. You defend bigots, we at DU don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjing to Seoul (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:40 AM

38. I'm actually just respecting intellectual honesty and the dignity of Taliban victims

There is no indication that this personal Christian fundie (probably just a publicity stunt anyway which you are perpetuating) endorses killing for Jesus, or any of the horrific practices of the Taliban. If you see this as me "defending a bigot", please take a step back and re-assess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:53 AM

44. Erm....

"my intent is not to go full Godwin."

And yet, I think you dove right into the Godwin, there, didn't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #44)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:57 AM

45. Eh, your call.

I wasn't personally comparing anyone to Hitler. I was just using a ludicrous right-wing Godwin-ism as an admittedly poor reference point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #45)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:02 AM

46. Sure. You weren't using Godwin-ism, you were just using Godwin-ism. I see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #46)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:29 AM

48. Sorry if it's too hard to understand.

Godwin-ing is the act of comparing something to Hitler.

I was bringing up how right-wingers compared something to Hitler, with the purpose of showing how ludicrous the Godwin-ing was.

I was the Anti-Godwin!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #48)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:31 AM

50. Nope. Really not hard to understand at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #50)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:32 AM

51. Aren't you a tough cookie? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:58 AM

54. You're comparing universal health care to marrying off 15 yr old girls ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SammyWinstonJack (Reply #54)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:01 AM

55. Clearly (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZRT2209 (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:05 AM

6. "subjugates women" check

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:11 AM

8. That's worthy of its own OP

thanks..... gonna send it around

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:16 AM

11. I'm pretty confident the Nazis didn't oppose science, only Jewish scientists.

 

We owe our rocketry and stealth technologies to the science of Nazis.

Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WowSeriously (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:19 AM

12. Jewish Science therories

In the checklist I would have
notated that in the yes or no answer otherwise I still like the checklist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:43 AM

39. I mentioned the Jewish Scientist exception, which I think would have included their theories.

 

But I also like the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 01:21 PM

59. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZRT2209 (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 06:20 AM

29. Phil and Osama ...









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napkinz (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 06:55 AM

31. I know where you're going with this. . .but it does seem a little much.

 

Schmuck Dynasty asshat didn't fly airplane or run an international terrorist organization. He's just a fake douche in it for the Benjamins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjing to Seoul (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:02 PM

57. Tell that to the ducks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paulie (Reply #57)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 04:22 PM

60. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZRT2209 (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 08:29 AM

42. Roman Polanski?

Oh, wait, she was 13.. and he didn't marry her.... Jerry Lee Lewis, no, she was 13 as well. Ok, I'm stumped.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla_Democrat (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:31 AM

49. I'd like to see Roman Polanski apply for Taliban membership (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZRT2209 (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 08:34 AM

43. All countries for comparison here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZRT2209 (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 04:41 PM

61. So what?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread