Peterson verdict seems to please the statist feminists and the theocrats.

[xequals]

The biggest threats to civil liberty coming from the right are the conservative theocrats, i.e. the moralizing patriarchs. Peterson was an immoral individual whose lifestyle went against dogma of The Church: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not covet any woman other than his wife, and shalt treat her according to the rules of the Bible. "Hand the sinner over to the State for execution."

The biggest threats to civil liberty coming from the left are the nanny statists and feminists, i.e. the moralizing matriarchs. Peterson is a man -- a man who liked to have sex with many different women -- not just one special woman he loved and valued highly. His lifestyle went against the dogma of The Liberal Elite: Thou shalt not want more than one special woman, and thou shalt treat her according to the rules of the Feminine Mystique. "Hand the sinner over to The State for execution."

Such is the danger of political ideologies which favor groups and agendas over the individual and duty: they are not concerned with any objective system of liberty and justice, only with outcomes which favor the particular group they advocate for.

As in the Kobe Bryant case - the feminists could care less about the rights of the accused. As long as the "bad man" pays the price for allegedly hurting their fellow woman, it doesn't even matter if the accused committed any crime or receives the same level of fairness and justice afforded to his accuser (whose identity was allowed to be withheld while his was trashed in the media).

It has been said that the founding fathers were geniuses who created a government to be run by idiots. But somehow I don't think the founding fathers realized how determined the "idiots" would be to hand over their freedom.

edit: punctuation

[sonicx]

1. feminists are calling for execution?

where?

btw, RWers wanting the death penalty has little to do with religion. they just like revenge and killing.

[McKenzie]

2. which document is your quote taken from?

<snip>

"Thou shalt not want more than one special woman, and thou shalt treat her according to the rules of the Feminine Mystique. Hand the sinner over to The State for execution."

<snip>

[arcos]

3. he loved and valued her so highly, that he killed her...

:eyes:

[xequals]

6. Editing period over. To clarify

what I should've stated was "Peterson liked to have sex with many women he had little value for (including his wife).

Liberal and feminist* dogma states that a man should have high value for his female partner (wife or not) and regard her as a sexual equal, not just something to be used.

I believe he was a bad man, and possibly guilty, but did not receive a fair trial and was judged through the media, mostly by the feminist* commentators and critics. Capital punishment (State sanctioned murder) is Unconstitutional - whether the accused is found guilty or not. The State has no rights, only duties it is entrusted to carry out with consent of the citizens, who have no right to kill another citizen.

*note: by "feminist" I mean "small f" feminists, which are women -- mostly women on the left but not neccessarily -- who have an agenda of advancing the interests and power of women as a group.

[Bunny]

10. Cite the appropriate statute violations that led to his unfair trial.

And no, you may not use the words of "feminist commentators" to declare his trial to be unfair. You must state specific chapter and verse that were violated by the Prosecution.

Legal minds are anxiously awaiting.

:eyes:

[Bunny]

34. Still waiting for those cites.

*taps foot*

[H2O Man]

18. You are confused.

He was judged by a jury. You were swayed by the media.

[blondeatlast]

19. Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner.

Wish I'd said that. Thank you.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[H2O Man]

75. Oh, clearly you are right.

They were on tv afterwards. Most likely, they were confused, because they expected Donald Rump to be sitting on the bench, yelling, "Scott, you're FIRED!" I mean, this is the tv age, right? Or do you think they thought it was an extended episode of "Survivor," and they were merely kicking Scott off the earth-island? What else could it possibly be?

And, because the judge was a woman with a raging case of penis-envy, we need to keep in mind that her instructions to the jury were really off the wall: "Ignore the facts in this case. Judge it soley on your hatred for men in general."

I trust you are a founding member of the "Free Scott Peterson" movement. We need a voice of conscience to represent men who murder pregnant women.

[wicket]

22. What would "big F" Feminists be?

[blondeatlast]

24. I was wondering the same thing.

Possibly the non-intellectual kind, like the OP claims to be?

[wicket]

43. What's the OP?

Sorry if this is a stupid question, I haven't had my coffee yet :)

[Bunny]

47. Original Poster. Or Original Post. n/t

[wicket]

56. Thanks!

I need some :donut: :D

[gottaB]

49. OP="Original Poster" --n/t

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wicket]

60. ok, then I am a "small f" feminist

And I don't fit any of the generalizations in your original post. His lifestyle went against the dogma of THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Which is also why I am against him receiving the death penalty. And I know that there are tons of other feminists who don't give a shit that he was schtupping other women, he KILLED his wife and that's what we have a problem with.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wicket]

80. Then shouldn't the media be included...

....in your list of threats to civil liberties?

[Mandate My Ass]

86. "I did not see the evidence the jurors saw...

and cannot make a determination as to SP's innocence or guilt. But based upon what the jurors are saying now, I just don't think they care about facts, or that he received a fair trial."

So you are admitting you have no idea what you're talking about but it seemed like a dandy idea to blame feminists and theocrats for your discomfiture with the outcome of this circus of a trial.

Was the jury made up of solely of feminists and moralizing matriarchs? Did they come out with explicit admissions as such? No.

You're worse than the people calling for his head on a platter and rooting for him to be repeatedly anally raped while in prison. They at least admit that their bloodlust is all about making themselves feel vindicated and using the justice system as a lynch mob.

Talk about agendas. You feign a concern for presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt but that is just a useful platform for you to express your contempt for feminists and theocrats.

With the wild conclusions you draw based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence, maybe you have a future in trial advocacy.

[Tansy_Gold]

111. great post, mandate!

I'm in a bad mood today and this thread reeally got my dander up.

Thank you for a wonderful post. You greatly improved my outlook on life this morning!

:thumbsup:

Tansy Gold, radical feminist -- which is very different from liberal faminist or cultural feminist or socialist feminist. . . . .oh, yeah, and I don't hate men either.

[Mandate My Ass]

112. Hi, TAnsy_Gold

Don't let the haters get your blood pressure up. You can always recognize them because they're the ones accusing you of their own very obvious failings.

Peace.:hi:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

191. But his remedy came from the jury. You are triangulating here

On the one hand you argue it isn't up to us..on the other hand you admit his punishment came from the jury who heard all the evidence. I think you simply wished to start a sexist thread bashing feminists and framing SP as a victim of feminism and morality. Well even us sinners on the left aren't fond of murderers and there's a fucking boatload of evidence to indicate he carried this out.

[Pithlet]

201. You didn't clarify your point one bit

You just reiterated the same sexist BS as your OP. Equality for women="Dogma" and the agenda of women on the left to have men executed. This thread is ludicrous.

[countryjake]

4. Some balls you got there!

I think most older feminists, those who have already fought the fight for legalized abortion, once, see this case as a defeat for women's rights. It was used as a prime tool to enrage & inflame normal, rational people to demand the head of a guy, (innocent or guilty) for murdering two people. This is the case we have feared would come one day, the trial which publicly legitimizes an unborn child to the merits of protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is no coincidence that it comes at a time when half of the country is in an uproar over "the murder of millions of innocent babies" by "evil leftist liberal Democrats"; now a precedent has been set that even the stupidest prosecutor will be able to utilize against conscientious citizens or even the most unbiased, impartial justice will be forced to consider.

I feel sorry for all involved...Scott, his pregnant wife, their families, but most of all, for the future of reproductive freedoms in this country.

[Lexingtonian]

5. Maybe

The real threat to our civil liberties is those people who don't accept that there is a social contract from which all freedom derives. Freedom without justice is as much of a travesty as justice without freedom.

Begone, you poor oppressed person. May your children, those unfortunates, grow up to realize that the word 'statist' is not a noun, and an adjective used only by fools, and in fact the word 'statistic' is a far more useful concept to learn. After all, a statistic can apply to reality and is not useful in fantasies. I recommend you go and get yourself oppressed by a better dominatrix next time- and wear real leather.

Oh, poor poor Kobe Bryant. You can whine about him being misunderstood and only able to engage in a smear campaign with high priced lawyers, but you'll want some KY jelly along when he wants to check out his hotel suite with you....

[xequals]

7. I'm glad the founding fathers understood the definition of "statist".

The only contract The Individual has with The State is The Constitution.

I don't remember ever signing up for any "social contract".

[izzie]

8. Well some people think like this but I do not.

I think he most likely killed his wife, but did not plan it and we do not know if they had not been happy with a life of playing around. That is not for you or me to say. Some people like it that way. I seem to think he did plan to get rid of the body.I never saw where they had any real proof. As for not acting the way the jury wanted is just beyond me. I was taught you never show how you feelings in public as it is to be kept to your self. I think the jury did not dare to do anything but what they did do. It is what the public wanted.

[xequals]

14. Yep. From everything they've said, it seems like vigilanteism to me.

The duty of the jury is to judge the facts presented by The State, not to go on TV and talk about how they didn't like Scott and how bad they feel for Lacy. They don't even try to pretend their verdict was based on facts -- that's how you know where this country is going. It should scare people of any political stripe - left, right and center. Any one of us could be charged with a crime. Would you or I like to be tried on through the media, by a bunch of vigilantes ? People don't think about things like this. They only think about how to advance their particular cause-of-the-month. Justice and liberty have become secondary to the process.

[REP]

9. Speed Kills, Man

Ever read The Femine Mystique? No? Didn't think so!

Nice rant. Too bad it has nothing to do with reality.

[xequals]

11. That's the problem with modern liberals: the "spellchecker" mentality.

I like liberals, I really do. Many of my friends/family members are liberals. I understand that they mean well, even if I strongly disagree with them.

However, there is some truth to the charge that liberals are overly concerned with academia and not real learning. They aren't concerned with the big picture, only the selective facts handed down by the leftist, ivory tower academicians.

Modern liberals are the ultimate subjectivists/postmodernists - they don't believe reality has any inherent structure. They believe that things like free societies and free markets are simply "constructs". They believe that human nature has been "programmed" by society and culture - not something inherent to our biology.

I used to be a liberal -- but I came to realize that I'm too much of a rationalist, an objectivist, a secular humanist, a libertarian. I believe in science and objective truth over everything else.

[Undercover Owl]

12. what does this have to do with scott peterson?

If you really wanted, you could make a connection to people who eat fruit leather:

People who enjoy news articles about Scott Peterson are the same people who enjoy eating fruit leather. Those same people who like reading frivolous, yet sensational "news" are the same people who eat their fruit in the form of fruit leather, which is similarly frivolous "fruit" and is sensational tasting.

[xequals]

16. Nothing. I was responding to the "spellcheck" nannies. /eom

[Undercover Owl]

31. I guess I didn't make my point

What I meant to say, the whole issue of Scott Peterson as an augur of....anything you want....including a reflection of feminists, and whatever else you want to pull out of thin air just to somehow connect it to an infamous murder trial has really gotten out of hand.

Yours seems to be the biggest stretch I have seen, when it comes to creatively connecting issues to the Scott Peterson topic.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Huh?

That might be in my Top 10 dumbest things ever read on DU. Academia doesn't concern themselves with the big picture?????? That's ALL academia concerns itself with! The whole idea of long term academic pursuit is to understand the cause and effect of whatever condition is under study so that the details can be fit to the BIG PICTURE providing a better understanding of how this system works. This is true in every academic field.

Also, free societies and free markets aren't "constructs". Says who? You? What proof do you offer to this biological inherency? None. Hence, your opinion is intended to be accepted as absolute truth. Sorry, no sale.

Your whole post is a bold-faced rationalization as to why you no longer consider the effects of your philosophy on others. You have decided to be a rationalist and an objectivist and now you don't want to think about the hard-hearted aspects of those "constructs". That's pathetic.
The Professor

[Swamp Rat]

27. I second that Prof! This belongs in a Top 10 List.

I ain't buying that bridge either.

[July]

152. I'll third it.

Used to be a liberal, huh? Or was that a "liberal," because that post talks about liberals I've never met.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wicket]

65. Well, there's a reason for that

Check out this article when you get a chance: http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/10415702.htm

[gottaB]

Pinker's "evolutionary psychology" is totally political

Real scientist? Pinker is a linguist by training who ventured into evolutionary theory--for what reason??--and got his butt spanked.


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1070

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,792160,00.html

Not political? That's rich.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bunny]

78. You completely disagree with yourself?

:shrug:

[gottaB]

98. no kidding

But being a self-avowed rationalist, perhaps you could supply a few reasons for why academia should be any more tolerant of reactionary pseudoscientific drivel than it already is.

Allow me to pre-empt you, as you've chosen to rest your case. Because academia tolerates feminists and Marxists, it should also tolerate reactionary fools. I don't disagree with that position. But that's not what's at stake here. Here we have a case of a blowhard who, wandering far from his basic competence, is unwilling or unable to accept some basic evolutionary concepts, and instead of tackling these concepts head on, he rabidly attacks the political views of leading evolutionary theorists. And then he gets even more bent out of shape when one of those scientists dares to fight back.

Well, I wouldn't favor censoring the guy or revoking his tenure or punishing him in any way, but I'm sure as hell not going to let that stand as a paragon of apolitical, rational scientific discourse. Nor will I abide elevating Pinker to the status of martyr. Pinker is not being persecuted for his politics, his ideology, or his ideas. He is quite simply not being persecuted. He has been justly criticized for putting forward ill-concieved, simplistic views of evolution and human nature.

[blondeatlast]

166. Care to explain?

woops, sorry--this Ffeminist forgot you aren't an "intellectual."

How convenient that the rules of informed argument don't belong to you as such...

[ProfessorGAC]

82. I'll Say That Pinker Is Wrong

I'm in that environment and he is establishing nothing about it.

There is no such heavy political bias. As a matter of fact, there is high tendency toward liberterianism in economics, science, mathematics. Liberalism is high in sociolgical areas as well as "liberal arts", and conservatism is high in business and accounting fields. So, where's the bias?

There may be a natural intellectual correlation between education, IQ and sociopolitical persuasion. But, there is no causative link to the formation of an agenda, de facto or otherwise. There is no credible scientific study that has ever shown that there is anything other than a sociological tendency for highly educated people to be more liberal. That's not an agenda. It's just a generalized tendency.

Pinker also appears as guilty as are you, of making bold assertions without any supportive data or any reveleation of his analytical methodology. That's pretty darned convenient.

Lastly, the whole idea of biological predisposition to certain philosophical "constructs" and the relation of those to societal absolutes is wholly unproven and completely speculative. So, the guy writes a book on a subject that isn't proven, can't be proven, and is arguably unsupportable, even anecdotally, is your basis for this conjecture, and i'm supposed to roll over? I don't think so.
The Professor

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProfessorGAC]

124. If You Say So

Gould's liberalism affected his work, negatively, how? It permeated his work, how?

You say he is the danger, but don't say what's dangerous and how is a danger. You say academics with an agenda are a danger, but don't describe how that agenda is manifested and how it is dangerous for science and the academic world.

I don't see the dangers you see, i don't see the biases your cites see, i don't understand how having an agenda is a problem, even if there IS an agenda, and i don't see any evidence that any of this critique is provable. And, you have yet to demonstrate answers to any of these.

So, i don't know how we can agree to disagree. I don't know what we're disagreeing about, other than some nebulous opinions.
The Professor

[Tansy_Gold]

113. For a person who believes in rationalism and objective science,

you certainly are jumping to a lot of unfounded conclusions based on little more than your own interpretation of other people's opinions.

As a feminist -- there are no Feminists; it's not a recognized political party, religion, or ethnic group -- I assure you that not one single other feminist I know, and there are many, approves of the the Scott Peterson sentence. We do not approve of the death penalty in any form, and we most certainly do not approve of the verdict related to the "murder" of Laci's unborn child.

At the risk of having my post pulled and myself scolded for a "personal attack," may I politely suggest that you do a bit of research on what "feminism" really is, how many different philosophies and ontologies it embraces, how feminists really behave in the non-academic real world, etc.

feminism didn't start with Betty Friedan and the problems she grouped under the rubric "the feminine mystique." Many women before her encountered the same oppression -- Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Virginia Woolf, Mary Wollstonecraft, Aphra Behn, Ada Lovelace, Christine de Pizan, Mathilda Joslyn Gage, et al. That you seem to think all feminists are the same, that we're all "statists" or man-haters or vengeful harpies indicates to me that you need further education.

Sadly, a place like DU is more conducive to the venting of whatever rage consumes an individual at any given moment than to the calming and enlightenment of that individual. I expect my post to be pulled, and I expect the OP to go on as before.

My apologies to all fellow DUers, but if we can't use this forum to point out deficient thinking, what's the use?

Tansy Gold, restrained

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tansy_Gold]

128. you're closer to being an anarchist than either a

libertarian or an authoritarian. And since many (small-a) anarchists are in fact totalitarian -- "I can do what I want to do without restraint, but you can't do what you want to do if it in any way impinges on my right to do what I want to do." -- you fit quite well there. That's what Rand was.

I suspect, dear OP, that you are very young and very much in love with whatever philosophy you've latched on to. Apparently, it's Randism -- which is different from randyism, which I don't think you believe in -- and in that case you are doomed to disappointment. The people you want to oppress are not going to be happy in their oppression. They ain't gonna be good l'il n*****s, happy as clams givin' yo' all dey's tax munnies so's you cans sit in dat fancy house all purty and shiny.

I think all the posters who have replied to you are pretty well experienced living in the real world. But you, perfect little projectionist that you are, are blaming us for our academic intellectualism, when I would not be one tiny bit surprised to find out you are an eager and easily influenced young college student who has just had some prof take an interest in him (and yes, I'd bet ral money you're a guy) and introduce him to the genius of Ayn Rand.

We've been there and done that. We know more about authoritarianism than you have even dreamed of. We know more about feminism and anarchism and postmodernism and social constructionism and functionalism and even objectivism than you can imagine.

I suggest, even though I know it will deprive me and my fellow DUers of more opportunities to make a complete and utter fool of you, that you might be happier over on that other site that none of us mention. You'll find fellow know-nothings and non-thinkers and liberal-haters and misogynists and "I don't believe in putting all feminazis and bleeding-heart do-gooders into categories" buffoons galore.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[prof_science]

149. OK, that clinched it...

Now I'm certain that you have no idea what you're talking about.

""Me! Me! Me! The government should give everything to me!" ... Why do anything to improve oneself personally or financially when the State can do that for us, right ?"

You truly believe that most liberals are poor people looking for a handout? Way to recite those Rush talking points. We all know who gets the handouts-- the money "handed out" to people in need is small potatoes compared to the cash thrown at the feet of corporations.

I'm not sure, but DU may not be a good fit for you...

[July]

153. If it sounds like bait, and it smells like bait . . .

What do you think, prof? Is it bait?

[prof_science]

162. Um, maybe?

[Mandate My Ass]

167. HAHAHAHA - Great gif

:thumbsup:

[blondeatlast]

168. "To a libertarian such as myself, both the feminists and the theocrats

believe in using the government to advance their own society-remaking political agenda. To a libertarian, they are both authoritarian and statist. "

And so do the Greens, and the gunners, and the African Americans, and the Radical Right in the White House (read up on Grover Norquist--it'll do you good, and it isn't "intellectual"), and the Israelis, and the Palestinians, and the Democrats, and the Republicans, ad nauseaum.

And if you agree with Ayn Rand, what the HELL are you doing at DU?

[arcos]

130. "I don't hate gays! I have many gay friends! I just strongly disagree

with their lifestyle!" :eyes:

[patcox2]

182. You could be describing Bush foreign policy, driven by ideology.

All stemming from the ideas of one particular ivory tower intellectual. How about the Bush admin official quoted earlier this year telling a reporter "we don't car about reality, we act and create reality," and suggesting that only losers give a crap about facts and objective reality. The conservative foreign policy ideology, which sprung from the ivory tower, was spun up in the think tanks, and ballyhooed by PNAC and Pearle and Feith, themselves proud intellectuals, has now boldly and openly announced that facts are irrelevant. Turn your analysis, which is, with limits and in certain circumstances, correct, to this topic, then you'll have credibility.

Want another example: who, pray tell, is more dogmatically ideological than the free marketeers who follow Milton Friedman, who pronounces from his ivory tower such idiocies as "market competition will improve schools," based on nothing more than an objective fact free chain of inductive reasoning? There are no "liberal" dogmas any more ivory tower and reality free than the ideas of Friedman, yet here we are, privatizing everything and reducing taxes kneejerk fashion, in slave to the conservative economic ivory tower.

Anything else out there" Compassionate conservatism and the faith based initiative, didn't that come from a college professor, Bob Jones university, I think, another conservative ivory tower.

I agree with you that intellectualism frequently crosses the border into scholasticism and loses sight of reality, but it happens across the spectrum, my friend.

[thedailyshow]

13. you have no fucking idea what you are talking about

A lot of feminists I know aren't pleased with the Petersen verdict because they think the evidence was too flimsy to give him the death penalty.

[Bunny]

15. How dare you say that!

He's an intellectual! A libertarian! A rationalist! An objectivist! A secular humanist! Of course he knows everything. Question him not!! Just be sure you don't call him a liberal, cause God knows he's not one of "them".

If he would display at least one ounce of any of these qualities in his posts, he may make something of a point. I guess we're going to be kept waiting.

[xequals]

17. I'm not an intellectual. Liberals are intellectuals. I can barely spell,

as many liberal academics have advised me in this thread.

[ProfessorGAC]

21. No Kidding!

The Professor

[blondeatlast]

23. "I'm not an intellectual,"

I just like to play one on DU--and oppressed one at that.

How did this thread become all about you?

[H2O Man]

32. Some definitions

which fit Scott Peterson might be important to remember:

A "con man" fools others with his lies.
A "buffoon" fools himself with his lies.

Without applying them to those who advocate for poor Scott, I'd note that there is not a single theory of who killed Laci that makes any sense, except Scott. Laci & baby just happen to end up dumped where Scott went fishing. Perhaps the devil-cult homeless feminists did this to promote abortion rights and to seek a perverse revenge on that bastard Scott for having affairs?

Always remember that the concocting of a false alibi is evidence of guilt.

[blondeatlast]

41. Wow, you just nailed my agenda!

//sarcasm//

Does that make me a big "F" or little "f"? :hi:

[H2O Man]

42. I've read that

women are dangerous. It's in the Old Testicle Book of Genocide. If we listen to Pat Robertson's interpretation of this holy writ, we'd know that Scott is the victim of angry women. Thank Gosh for insightful posters who start threads to bring this to our attention.

[FizzFuzz]

48. lmao!!!

love it!

"Old Testicle Book of Genocide"--heh heh heh

[Bunny]

50. ***spew****

There went my coffee, straight to the keyboard! Good one! :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[H2O Man]

66. That depends.

Women need to know "their place." Scott decided that Laci's place was at the bottom of the ocean. Leave it to a bunch of sexually frustrated women to think they have the right to interfere with Scott's being the king of his castle.

What ever happen to the America that knew the deeper meaning of "women should be obscene, but not heard"? I think we could accommodate them, if they'll just behave, and make it "women should be obscene, but not hurt." Thinking men like you move the human race forward in special ways like that. But, you know as well as I do, if you give the "little lady" an inch ....(wink).

Just look what women have done to our society! Non-scientific polls among Bud-drinkers prove that 90% of all crimes are a direct result of women. Let's face it, if Laci hadn't tried to get a job outside the house, she'd be alive today.

On behalf of all men, sir, I take my hat off to you.

[Mandate My Ass]

69. LOL Best. Response. Ever.

:D

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[H2O Man]

87. Far be it from me!

You are clearly confused. I support you in your noble cause! Can you find a single instance where I used the quote you quoted? Of course not. Please do not let the man-hating lesbians who botched the forced abortion, thus killing poor Laci, drive a wedge between we of the brotherhood!

And I had never considered the possibility that you were a "Conservative," or even a conservative who had ventured on DU in a confused effort to stir the pot. I think that you are doing your civic duty, and advocating for the rights of men who batter and even murder women. In our "politically correct" society, we face dangers -- first they take God out of schools, then they attack a great American like Christopher Columbus, then they use smoke and mirrors to make Mike Tyson appear slightly unstable and prone to violence .... and then and only then the take-over is complete, and an innocent man like Scott Peterson can be convicted on mere emotion. Note that the verdict came on the day when all the jurors were menstrual. I agree with you totally: these women have made divorce and child support waaaay too expensive. Scott had no options really.

[Misunderestimator]

109. LMFAO

:bounce:

[cally]

133. H20 man and several others

You are hilarious. I started this thread furious and now I'm laughing. Thanks. :bounce:

[H2O Man]

145. If I didn't know better

I'd suspect someone came on here with a goal of making people furious. I did all I could to highlight that. While there are several very important issues about the case that deserve to be discussed seriously (domestic violence; the media & court; the death penalty), this thread plunges to the depths of stupidity. Add that to the fact that I watched a half hour special on the 1st Amendment and Lenny Bruce last night.

[July]

155. You do us a great service.

Giving us some great laughs over those depths of stupidity.

[blondeatlast]

172. OMG. Tears. Make it stop.

BTW, the interview went very well--and now I am LMFfLWAO.

If you keep topping yourself, I'm not gonna last, H2OMan.

[Tansy_Gold]

115. I knew it, I knew it, I knew it.

The "objectivist" in that early post raised a red /sic/ flag.

Ayn Rand was a nutcase. She was a sexist pig who believed rape was an expression of love and women should expect it, that women could not hold positions of power unless there was a man higher than them that they could "look up to," and who made all her own rules in violation of her own rules. She was a liar and a sexual predator.

"Atlas Shrugged" is the bible of the neo-cons, and it's entirely based on Rand's own worst nightmare -- false logic. It's a litany of coincidences and impossibilities tied together with fantasy and implausibilies. And it won't work in the real world. Unlike Rand and Dagny and Galt and Hank and Ragnar and Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Anconia and poor Cheryl and even Wesley Mouch, we live in a world where we have to get along with other people, where science either works or doesn't depending on its own laws rather than the dictates of a novel's plot, and where there are lots and lots and lots of poor people and children who have rights, too.

"Atlas Shrugged" only works in a fantasy world where you can run the world on static electricity and make invisibility shields over valleys in Colorado. Galt, much like Hitler, took over the airwaves, but do you really think the dittoheads in this country would leave the radio on if he fed them three hours of economic theory today?

I don't fucking think so.

[wicket]

119. If you don't see people according to categories, why did you use so many..

...in your original post?

"Nanny statists", "moralizing patriarchs/matriarchs", "feminists", etc, etc.

[blondeatlast]

173. Mustn't forget "big F/little f" feminists.

Best. Thread. Ever.

I'm saving it for good!

[July]

154. You don't?

You paint feminists with a broad brush, and do the same with liberals and intellectuals. You're talking in cliches.

[blondeatlast]

171. So glad this thread wasn't locked.

It just gets better and better.

[Baconfoot]

186. I disagree. This shouldn't be a live topic. Next thing you know...

The next thing you know whether conservative students are oppressed in the classroom by their liberal professors will be a live topic. (Oh wait... it is. *sigh*)

There's no reason to be responsive to this stuff.

You can only engage in debate with an opponent who is willing to do more than simply deny your premises or conclusions. These topics don't lend themselves to that because of who advocates which position.

I actually think, for reasons not to be disclosed, that if this thread can't be locked it's a pretty sad day.

[blondeatlast]

170. So are know it alls.

Fortunately, I'm assuming you possess as much political power as I do.

[blondeatlast]

58. Thank you for the laugh! I have a job interview today,

and a great laugh is a big help.

Oh, sheesh, make it stop, my stomach hurts!

[H2O Man]

95. Good luck.

Hope you get the job. Please don't think about this thread in mid-interview.

[Swamp Rat]

33. Dog pile on the rabbit!

Man, you should think things through first... oh wait! Only well-educated, intellectual liberals do that.

You are a riot! :D

[thinkingwoman]

40. I nominate you

for best post in this thread!!

The subject line made me choke on my tea and I'm very glad that I swallowed before seeing the graphic inside!

Thanks for brightening up my morning! LOL

[FizzFuzz]

45. boy I can't stand people who use words like subjectivist/postmodernist,

slash included, and then bleat that they are not trying as hard as their little brains will work to look intellectual.

You don't have the slightest idea of the goals of feminism, but your contempt for women is clear.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Selwynn]

137. I've never met a friend of DU who's had contempt for intellectualism...

...you don't seem like a "friend" to me.

[blondeatlast]

25. And this feminist (I don't know; am I big "F" or little "f"?!)

opposes the DP under any circumstances.

[Bunny]

26. I'm going to call myself a Big F AND a small f feminist!

And I agree with you!

[blondeatlast]

29. Let's call ourselves "Ffeminists," I kinda like it!

I don't care what the OP's explanation of the difference is.

[Bunny]

30. I don't think the OP has any explanation for the difference.

Pseudo-intellectualism, ya know! ;)

[FizzFuzz]

52. I'm an F-You Feminist!

:evilgrin:

F-You, anti-subjectivist/postmodernist libertarian bloviators!!

Wheeeeee!!

[Bunny]

54. Careful now. You don't want to upset his carefully crafted and oh-so-

tenuous world view, now do you? You big mean Ffeminist, you! That's all your type wants to do, isn't it - picking on poor unintellectual libertarian, secular humanist, rationalist white guys! Stop!!! For the love of God, stop!!!


:evilgrin:

[FizzFuzz]

89. I have such contempt for liberty.

Yep dat's me, big ol' authoritarian feminist. Ffeminist.

I just want big government, not like this forward thinking fellow who thinks that scrapping all laws and institutions that enforce liberties is the way to achieve liberty.

Yeah, sure, makes sense, let people with the most money or ascribed power (=white guys) make the rules, end all fairness regulations of law, business, education, media, health care, paving the way for the ascendancy of a monopoly society (=feudalism)....yep. love it.

[July]

157. Yes, big-government feminists are a group I don't know.

OP is confusing using the law of the land with creating big government, as you point out.

[gottaB]

28. I think some people watch entirely too much tv

[H2O Man]

36. At very least

the wrong programs. Television, like the printing press, can produce mindless comic book programing, or classics. It is up to the individual to determine what they want to feed their mind with.

[Swamp Rat]

37. Yeah, it's like a slow lobotomy.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

174. No categories in that post...

Nope, none at all.

[hollywood926]

193. Are you high? Or a misogynist?

The jurors sat in a courtroom for 6 months listening to the evidence. They didn't convict him based on the media just because the result wasn't what you, a misogynist, hoped for. Why would you assume the jurors weren't doing their jobs?

[Bridget Burke]

35. Please supply a link to these "statist feminists"

Or are they a figment of your imagination?

Peterson may have been guilty of murder but I oppose the death penalty. Toss him in jail, throw away the key.

As a feminist, I'm worried about his conviction for the "murder" of an unborn child. We've already had abortion clinic workers killed.

Further correction: It's "I couldn't care less"--not "I could care less."

[Bunny]

38. You know who they are.

The ones who continually oppress poor unsuspecting white men!

[H2O Man]

39. exactly!

They set Scott up. They are like that.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kitka]

79. Please explain precisely

What about that post tells you she is a "nanny state liberal". Thank you.

[Bridget Burke]

90. I dared to correct his English usage.

But I knew it would set him off.

Lots of us are having fun on this thread--kind of like a cat with a mouse!

He still hasn't been able to name one "statist feminist".

[Bunny]

91. Word of advice? Don't hold your breath.

He doesn't do well with explanations of his own words!

[TalkingDog]

46. Best Thread Ever

Hi Intelligent Women of all Ff persuasions.

Nice to read some well-considered rejoinders to flawed critical thinking. Nice to know I'm not alone in the "who is this goober?" camp.

Semper Fem

TD

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kitka]

77. Well, no, it doesn’t seem to be that simple.

If it were, most of us would probably agree with you. You aren’t simply talking about Scott Peterson being tried in the media and executed by the state… that it something that I have a problem with also. But you are somehow trying to blame feminists for this, which is bullshit.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kitka]

121. LOL! “Every political group” have become the media? My goodness.

If EVERY political group (including the feminists) controls the media, how on earth can you narrow down whose fault this particular trial is? EVERY political group? How does that support your argument that it’s feminists and ‘liberal nanny-staters’ responsible for the Peterson verdict? Were they the political groups in charge that day? :eyes:

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kitka]

127. Yes, feminists are the authoritarians that control the government

and the press. That explains how terms like “partial birth abortion” got into mainstream press verbage so easily. That also explains why women and violence are exploited through the media. If you honestly believe that feminists have a hand in this, you’re simply too far out of touch to reach and I’ll stop wasting my time.

You’re right on one thing… our press isn’t free… but it’s not the liberals controlling it.

As for the libertarians being closer to the ideals of the founding fathers, this may not be a very popular sentiment here, but I really don’t give a damn whose ideals are closer to the founding fathers. I know what I think will work in modern U.S. society, and am not as concerned with what would have worked in the days the U.S. was formed.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tansy_Gold]

136. since liberals and conservatives have VERY different

opinions on government, and since the government is currently controlled by a whole lot of self-proclaimed conservatives who want more conservatives -- and strict constitutional constructionists -- in power, where the fuck do you really stand? Pro-government or anti-government? Anti-just-this-government? Anti-any-government?

Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?

Oh, wait, sorry, foolish me. I forgot. I'm talking to an idiot.

Never mind.

[countryjake]

143. Could it be...?

hmmm, this sounds a little Feminist to me! (snicker)

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion." Thomas Jefferson


Too bad some people don't pay attention to the words of their own heroes!

[blondeatlast]

177. No, in this case, it's the secular humanist, pro-life, gunner Greens.

It's the Christian liberal, bisexual, Hispanic, Red State anarchists turn next week.

Should be a good week to watch "Crossfire."

[blondeatlast]

175. Yes, us Ffeminists are so very well represented in the "State."

For pity's sake--grow a sense of humor, or is that too "intellectual?"

[Iris]

51. Not this feminist.

I'm over the "abused woman who can't help herself" crap. It would take a lot more than a picture of Lacy in her maternity outfit at Christmas to make me not think she was as vacuous as her hsuband.

And if she weren't white, no one would give a shit.

[Kitka]

70. Sad but true. 1500-2000 women murdered every year by an intimate….

a husband, or a boyfriend.

http://www.dopcampaign.org/stats.htm

But the outrage is saved pretty exclusively for middle class white women.

[Iris]

74. Yes. The story I would like to see is why this happens.

Especially in light of the "sanctity of marriage" bullshit that's been going around.

Ridiculously expensive and extravagant proposals, blood diamond engagement rings, bachelor AND bachelorette parties that are WAY more than just getting drunk w/your buddies - all because once you are married the perception is your life is OVER.

Ain't this country great?

[gordianot]

62. I am teaching my daughter how to shoot and use a baseball bat.

She also knows how to lead with a left jab, and stand up for herself. Her verbal defenses are very good and shows good judgement.

I also hope she becomes a feminist but do not necessarily link this with self defense.

[Mandate My Ass]

67. April 1st already? I always wanted to sleep thru a whole winter.

What a steaming pile of horseshit. Phew.

[Walt Starr]

68. I LOVE the smell of flamebait in the morning

::sniff sniff:

Smells like, fear!

[Solly Mack]

71. Yes. Everynight before I go to bed, I pray to Betty Friedan

to make me a warrior in the fight against men.

Then I make a list of all the men whose life I'm going to ruin.

The next day, I strap on my wonder bra and pull on my golden girdle of power. Over that I wear a comfortable jersey dress and sensible shoes.

I roam the early morning streets looking for helpless men to crush beneath my 1 inch cushioned sole. Naturally, this is just a warm-up for my selected targets of the day. I leave my foot print on 4 or 5 men a morning. I sometimes even get to tread on a male toddler or two; stopping them before they get the chance to grow up. Afterwards, I grab a double-shot latte, skim milk.

And then the real work begins.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[H2O Man]

114. No, you simply can't be wrong!

You are the Second Coming of the Founding Fathers. Preach, Brother! Preach! Deliver the message! Scott was railroaded bythe militant lesbian agenda! There needs to be some test -- perhaps not unlike a pap smear -- that allows us to look in a woman's, well, "eye" and read her soul. Otherwise our justice system will become a pornographic sideshow shown on FOX and quoted by Bill O'Reilly to that feminist that harassed that poor man!

I like that you Ayn Rand. If baseball players can steroids, so can Ayn. I think that the women who remind us most of men are best. Maggie Thatcher was the source of Rod Stewart's classic, "Wake Up, Maggie" song. Great set on her! I'm also thinking you can advocate for what types of blacks can serve on juries. Thank Gosh they let OJ off. What a set-up! Mark Fuhrman was a puppet of the militant feminists. Now they're after Michael Jackson. Everytime there's a strong male role model, women want to bring him down. Michael never hurt anyone. He's as genital as a Catholic priest.

It's up to you! Lead!

[Tansy_Gold]

117. Uh, that would be "no" problem, not "know" problem

eom

Tansy Gold, the nanny-statist liberal feminazi Rand-hater or whatever the fucking hell you want to call her.

[blondeatlast]

179. Since you've changed the subject yet again, have you ever been called

for jury interviews?

Both sides are pretty damn good at picking sides sympatehtic to their cause, so sorry, my non-"intellectual" friend, but nothing you've said holds water.

I guarantee that someone on that jury beat their spouse one time or another, that someone else voted for "moral values," that stilll another is a (snarf) "Jeffersonian libertarian."

The justice system is political, it's a fact. Most of us don't like it, but you aren't going to fix it on DU--especially when I have yet to see ANY support for your ever-changing, oppressed opinions, anywhere in this thread.

[Bunny]

84. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

THAT was good!!!! :toast:

[Solly Mack]

101. LOL

and to you! :toast:

[July]

160. Solly, where can I get me one o' them golden girdles?

Put me down for 10 when you open your Ffeminist Lingerie Shop.

[Solly Mack]

176. Will do! 10 golden girdles of power for July

Don't forget the sensible shoes!

[blondeatlast]

180. Rmember we Ffeminists are all "big-boned," too,

so make sure you order plenty of XLs.

Wonder what size dear Ayn would wear?

Just when I think the damn thread can't get any better...

A classic in the making, any "you are there..."

[Solly Mack]

196. "My, what big bones you have"

"Better to crush you with my boychik"




Girdles come with the optional men-seeking GPS (Gobal Penis Sensor)....for the Ffeminists who enjoy the kill more than the hunt.

[smirkymonkey]

126. LOL!

Why, you've revealed the complete feminist agenda! We can no longer operate on stealth. :evilgrin:

[Solly Mack]

178. Whatever will we do? Curses!

LOL

[Joe Chi Minh]

81. I think you have

feminists in America who are virtually insane, but on the basis of what seems compelling circumstantial evidence, Peterson seems to be a vicious killer, who deserves the death penalty, and is likely to face much worse when he dies.

Guilty or not, a more classic psychopath it seems impossible to imagine. My first perception when seeing shots of him in the court-room on Mad Larry's was that of a high-power, if surprisingly young lawyer, the more nervous man, his legal counsel next to him, being the defendant. In fact, wherever you looked in the court-room or the TV studio, the lawyers looked a little nervous, and naturally so - but, Peterson? They talk about alpha males - if there's any sense in using such an expression, at least in worldly or psychological terms, here he was, the prototype, right in his own element. If he'd been in the middle of a personal harem, and just had a real good time, it's difficult to imagine he could have looked more complacent and self-satisfied.

This is where I depart from liberals, (but not progressives), who evidently see themselves as more compassionate than Christ, while prepared to do a lot less for their fellow man, being precoccupied with suffering womankind who sometimes face a glass ceiling, when it comes to joining their company's board of directors.

It was recently reported by multiple sources present there (though denied by the War Office), that Hoon, the UK Minister of Defence, had addressed a specially-assembed audience of SAS personnel. He told them that they needed to be more gender-inclusive and have women in their ranks. In a complete break with tradition, his speech was met by all in the room with a stony silence.

An SAS officer commented afterwards, "We're not PC.. we kill people".

The reasons given by SAS soldiers for not accepting them in their ranks were basically twofold: 1) they have to carry heavy equipment over long distances, and b) their presence would be disturbing (extraordinarily fit and healthy young men, needing to be focused on their work, inevitably being distracted by a nubile female counterpart).

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tansy_Gold]

131. But who sets the criteria? Are the men who set the physical

requirements for military assignment unbiased objective authorities /sic/ on what constitutes the best military performance? What unbiased science determines that? The ability to kill without being killed? By what means?

Someone has not taught you how to think critically, son.

[Joe Chi Minh]

150. You're right about that, Pop/Ma.

I've thought critically for as long as I can remember; and my conclusions tend to be anything but mainstream conventional.

You, though, seem to have a touching faith in academic disciplines and empirical science; though admittedly, the academic scientific disciplines, by reason of their incremental methodologies and their rudimentary subject matters, tend to be less vulnerable to human folly than those of the Arts. Until the students get into the market place and have the directions of their research dictated by the almighty dollar, that is. Dr Mengele was doubtless a highly qualified scholar but no less a cretin for that, like many many others, living and dead.

You have completely missed my point, or rather the points made by the SAS officer. I once read that women are actually more efficient killers, and personally, I don't doubt that one bit. The top ace in the Russian airforce in WWII was a woman.

But, do you really doubt that the libido interferes with the more superficial rational thought, required in a battle situation?

And do you also think academic studies are needed to ascertain that, even if a woman were a top marathon runner, she would not be likely to have the corresponding physical strength in other departments; or vice versa? The number of *men* who get into the SAS, in relation to those who fail to make it, is tiny. If you think that men and women do not tend to have specialised strengths you are deluding yourself. Don't ask me what Skeat says on the subject.. oh, it's not Shakespeare is it?

[Tansy_Gold]

163. It's "Ma." "Tansy" is a wildflower herb, not likely a man's name.

Anyway, I was responding to xequals, or at least I was intending to, my point being that even something as "objective" as setting the requirements for inclusion in a military group might have political aspects. Sorry if I screwed up and accidentally addressed you,KCDM3, as "son." I've taken to thinking of the OP as a young man, whether he is or not.

The debate over whether women are more efficient killers than men might be interesting. We could look at levels and types of motivations as well as prefered methods. Of course, we could also look at whether killing in and of itself is the most efficient way to achieve certain goals. In some cases undoubtedly yes, in others perhaps not.

But yes, I do have a "touching faith" in academic disciplines and empirical science. They tend to get me safely through my days most efficiently. They turn on the lights, literally and metaphorically, with amazing reliability. I think I'll keep them.


Ms. Tansy Gold

[Joe Chi Minh]

169. In fact, I strongly suspected

that you were a woman, Tansy, since your gender entry in the profile was left blank, but it seemed courteous to respect what seemed to be your choice not to disclose your gender. Maybe it was just an oversight.

I may have overstated the overall primacy of the female WWII Russian ace, but you and xequal might find this URL interesting:

http://www.thaiwave.com/hwelte/

[Joe Chi Minh]

146. Well, xequals

It may seem unfair to you, xequals, but they were not talking about a moral imperative, or a quixotic personal preference, but a very primordial reality. Most men are really turned on by women, and in some circumstances, that can be disruptive. They do not want their heart and gonads interfering with their thought processes on dangerous sorties.

If there were a majority of women in the SAS, it would be inappropriate for men to be recruited to it. It's just practical, taking into consideration the primordial reality.

[blondeatlast]

181. Care to start up the same argument for Michael Jackson? or OJ, whom

I still bet most DUers think murdered his wife and her possible boyfriend?

They are undeniably American citizens too.

[LincolnMcGrath]

85. Way to throw yourself under the bus.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tansy_Gold]

164. You can shrug, sweetheart, but

you'd've been tombstoned long ago if we hadn't been having so much fun showing how ignorant your arguments are.

I think it's fair to say we've allowed you certain liberties on DU and just a few little alerts could spell your DU death, too.



Tansy, prepared for DU discipline if she went too far.

[wickerwoman]

88. LMAO.

"His lifestyle went against the dogma of The Liberal Elite: Thou shalt not want more than one special woman, and thou shalt treat her according to the rules of the Feminine Mystique."

You can't make this shit up... I swear.

All the feminists I know are polyandrists who think monogamy is the last bitter holdover of medieval "woman as property" bullshit.

Have you even read the Feminine Mystique? Thought not.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

93. you are completely right FEMINISTS HATE MEN

as a feminist myself i would not have realized this till i read your post...now i know i hate my male friends, brother, father, grandfather and male politicians (esp clinton, gore, kerry, kucinich etc)


Thank-you for showing me the light...i was so confused till i read this.


this is why we need men ...to show us exactly what we mean when we say equal rights and opportunites and the right to control our bodies.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mandate My Ass]

100. There has been a feminist takeover of gov't *and* the media?

And nobody informed this moralizing matriarch? I'm crushed.

When do we swear in Lorena Bobbit? I want to be front and center at the inauguration and at the inaugural balls. :evilgrin:

[Misunderestimator]

107. Why yes... Haven't you heard of all the Activist Feminist Judges being

appointed during the Bush administration? Making a mockery of the court, I tell you... /sarcasm

[Mandate My Ass]

108. A mockery of the Constitution too...Life, liberty and the pursuit

of happiness.

After all, murder by the father of the fetus is the number one cause of death of pregnant women in America, so SP was only following a time-honored tradition. Poor Scott was doing what so many other red-blooded American males have done for ceturies but the poor boy got lynched by the man-hating, ugly broads. :eyes:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

103. so are you saying men only get the death penalty when they kill women

and also is it possible that men actually rape women and not that we scream rape for no good reason?

[blondeatlast]

185. Apparently Mandate is a "big F" Feminist,

or wait, is that little "f?"

I'm so confused!!!

[blondeatlast]

184. We clearly hold SO much power. That Laura Bush is

just such a castrating little bitch, she must be stopped at any cost.

[alarimer]

99. Bullshit

He killed his wife. That makes him a grade-A, first class asshole. If you don't want to be faithful to one person DON"T FUCKING GET MARRIED.

[Mandate My Ass]

102. Excellent point

I'd only add that if you don't want to stay married -- GET A DIVORCE.

[alarimer]

142. right

I understand that people make mistakes. I don't really know anything abour Kobe Bryant, what kind of person he is otherwise so I am not prepared to call him an absolute scumbag but Peterson killed his wife I guess because he wanted to fool around.

Actually the original post offended me on so many levels that it is hard to know where to begin. To blame feminism for Scott Peterson is ridiculous. I thought he was basically saying that she would be alive today if only she let him fool around.

[Misunderestimator]

104. LOL... Thanks! Funniest Bullshit I've Read All Day!

Statist Feminists? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes, the problems of the world are caused by feminists frothing at the mouth for the death penalty. :eyes:

Moralizing Matriarchs indeed....

Why did you write this swill?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

105. its so funny...when all the threads went up on du about Petersen yesterday

i noticed a lot of women objected to him being given the death penalty.

[Misunderestimator]

106. Yep... this Moralizing Matriarch Ffeminist is against the Death Penalty

I'm wondering who the hell he's referring to. :shrug:

[smirkymonkey]

116. What the hell are you talking about?

Your argument is completely illogical and it sounds like you are just pulling random "information" out of your ass to go off on a rant against "feminists."

No facts, no links, no logic - just some theory you have conjured up to spout off your hateful rhetoric against "moralizing matriarchs" poorly disguised as an argument against the verdict in this particular legal case.

[Tansy_Gold]

122. Maybe he didn't do well on his "Gender Issues in Contemporary

America" final exam.


Tansy Gold, who actually took this thread seriously for a while and was going to alert the mods but who now finds this the best entertainment she's had since, oh, 11/3/04

[blondeatlast]

187. Perhaps we can tutor him;

but will it be the big "Fs" or the little "fs?"

[Forkboy]

118. Who wants some punch?

:crazy:

[NashVegas]

125. Regarding Your "Moralizing Matriarchs"

While the left does have, IMO, its share of moralizers I think a) your examples need a little work and b) your term is a misnomer.

For one thing, killing people is generally frowned upon regardless of one's political creed. And dragging your wife in front of a media press conference in exchange for a rock the size of a toaster, while trying your accuser - who was trying to obey a gag order (how's that for symbolic?) - in the court of public opinion is generally not a good way to do much anything except win at all costs.

For another, I don't believe it's necessarily a matriarchy trying to impose this; if anything, it has been my experience that it can be a patriarchal response, but using matriarchal values. ie, sucking up.

Example: I once worked closely with a fellow who made a regular habit of expressing his conviction for womens' rights, minority rights, save the whales, etc. But when push came to shove, he wanted to be the one making the decisions that would affect both of our abilities to perform our jobs, even though he was not up to my speed in several areas. Someone recently described this type of person to me as "Yahweh in a skirt."

[Selwynn]

138. What exactly is a "moralizer" is talking about morals wrong?

I've just always wondered what the definition of the word "moralizer" really was?

I believe there are some issues of fundamental right and wrong in life - does that make me a moralizer?

[NashVegas]

139. Well Ya Know, Selwynn

My moral standards are higher and better than yours. They just are.

;)

[Selwynn]

140. Ah. So you're talking about self-righteousness. But what about this:

What if it was phrased differenty?

"you know, people really ought to do x thing or behave x way because it is morally right (insert long justification of the moral foundation for x behavior)"

That doesn't sound the same as saying "my moral standards are higher and better than yours if you disagree with me" but it is basically what is being implied. If you disagree with me, then an implication of my belief that x behavior is a moral right is that the opposite of that behavior is a moral wrong...

[NashVegas]

141. Well It's Basically The Same

It's all a matter of whose reality it is, isn't it?

Morals *are* a subjective matter, as determined by our reality. When you have a group of a few hundred million who share that same reality, and they have the political clout, that reality holds sway.

I'd say the difference between the two statements is, one is attempting to use persuassion, and the other, a flying mallet.

[Selwynn]

147. That statement holds no cognitive meaning

The subjectivity of morality is merely an opinion, not fact. In my opinion, an equally if not more justified case can be made for the objectivity of certain foundational principles, and the subjectivity of their contextual application. In other words, I argue that certain basis principles are inherent right at the biological/evolutionary heart of the natural world. That "reality" is a shared reality, objective in nature. The subjectivity of morality comes not at this level of normative principles, but rather at the applied level of everyday experience.

Going around blowing off all responsibily to act in a morally responsible way by saying "well your reality, my reality, whose reality - its all subjective" is just a copout to excuse to justify any behavior, even if it is morally wrong behavior. There is an objective reality - we really exist, really live on planet earth, in a real solar system, etc. We then have subjective experiences and interpretations of the contextual realities within this objective framework. No everything is not subjective any more than everything is objective. Life is a mixture of both in a hierarchical fashion. An Objective framwork of understood natural phenominon leads to subjective interpretations of specific contexts and personal experiences, through the lens of those objective principles.

That's really all the study of ethics is: identifying what objective principles should be the lens through which we evaluate right and wrong, understandign what the basis/justification for those ojective principles actually is (i.e. is it a "God," does it emerge as part of the natural evolutionary order of things (which I believe), is it something else, etc.) and finally, understanding how to approach specific subjective contextual situations in such a way that our actions bets honor these objective principles that we understand.

So if you go and rape someone, I don't say "hey man - that's your reality, you know it seems wrong to me but you gotta do what you gotta do." I say, "that's wrong. It is always wrong. It is never morally right. It is wrong in part because it goes against principles of our objective literal reality on an evolutionary and biological level and fundamentality undercuts the basic impluse of life to survive and thrive by acting in a destructive and anti-life fashion. I call that "wrong" becuase it goes fundamentally contrary to the heart of life."

I believe that normative moral priciples are not subjective. They are the discerned and understood facts of existence, emergine right out of the very core of life, centered around the drive of life to survive an thrive. From that basis, we use this understanding of some foundational absolutes as a lens through which to evaluate our actions and make decisions even in tough subjective circumstance when we are really torn about what the "right" think for us to do might actually be.

Life is a combination of objective principles and subjective interpretation/application of those principles.

[Tansy_Gold]

151. And do you really think our young friend will understand that?

n/t

:evilgrin:

[Selwynn]

188. Ha. No but still.

[NashVegas]

158. And I Disagree

In other words, I argue that certain basis principles are inherent right at the biological/evolutionary heart of the natural world.

In the natural world, like eats like all the time. Yet, we condemn cannibals. We make jokes about the Roadkill Café.

Going around blowing off all responsibily to act in a morally responsible way by saying "well your reality, my reality, whose reality - its all subjective" is just a copout to excuse to justify any behavior, even if it is morally wrong behavior.

No, it's not a cop-out at all. These are rules we put into place to protect our civilization and sensibilities. *And there's not a thing that's inherently wrong with that.* A species has as much right to self-defense as any individual.

Saying 'my reality differs from your reality, therefore it's okay if I screw you over' is not a cop-out because you're trying to excuse morally wrong behavior, it's a cop-out because you're trying to say 'my reality is superior to your reality,' when in fact we have no objective way to prove it, unless you have some way to travel into the 4th and/or 5th dimension.

So if you go and rape someone, I don't say "hey man - that's your reality, you know it seems wrong to me but you gotta do what you gotta do." I say, "that's wrong. It is always wrong. It is never morally right.

About that 4th dimension: if you were a member of say, a 6th century Viking invasion (were they still plundering about then?), you might be in a time and place where the mores were completely different and would have had a different influence on your moral compass than what they may now.

Similarly, I'm not aware of any popular anti-slavery movements prior to the Enlightenment. I believe that slavery is morally wrong, and if I were around prior to the 18th century, I might also have believed so. But I might not have; I might have simply accepted it as the 'way of the world,' the mores of the times.

[Bridget Burke]

183. (OT answer to historical question)

June 8th, 793 (AD) is generally considered the beginning of the Viking age. That's when they sacked the monastery at Lindisfarne. There had been raids before, but not so big-time.

www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/2002/06/daily-06-08-2002.shtml

[Selwynn]

194. Ignorance is not a defense.

"About that 4th dimension: if you were a member of say, a 6th century Viking invasion (were they still plundering about then?), you might be in a time and place where the mores were completely different and would have had a different influence on your moral compass than what they may now.

Similarly, I'm not aware of any popular anti-slavery movements prior to the Enlightenment. I believe that slavery is morally wrong, and if I were around prior to the 18th century, I might also have believed so. But I might not have; I might have simply accepted it as the 'way of the world,' the mores of the times."

Simply because you are not aware that something is wrong does not change the fact that it is wrong. However I will ask you, to give me a concrete example from the present day of a scenario in which rape would be considered morally right anywhere in the world? Second, do you actually believe that this "Viking" would actually say, "I feel I am acting morally by raping this woman who is screaming and beating me and begging for me to stop?" Or would you confess that it seems more accurate to say that perhaps this Viking simply wouldn't CARE that he was doing something wrong because it was of little importance to him? Third, let's assume for the sake of argument, the Viking does believe rape is morally justifiable - compare his opinion the opinion of the woman who has just been raped? Let's assume that she does not feel that her rape was morally justifiable. In fact, let's go ahead and assume that she believes her rape was wrong. Who is right? Was the rape right or wrong? How can it be both when the opinion of one - the viking - that rape is morally justifiable, strips away from the woman the possibility of having her believe that rape is wrong, being raped is a violation and should not happen.

"In the natural world, like eats like all the time. Yet, we condemn cannibals. We make jokes about the Roadkill Café."

You are comparing apples to oranges. Human beings are part of the "natural world" however they are not the identical with other elements of the natural world. It is reasonable to presume that creatures with the capacity to understand more of the natural order also have responsibility to act more rational accordance with that order.

Saying 'my reality differs from your reality, therefore it's okay if I screw you over' is not a cop-out because you're trying to excuse morally wrong behavior, it's a cop-out because you're trying to say 'my reality is superior to your reality,' when in fact we have no objective way to prove it, unless you have some way to travel into the 4th and/or 5th dimension.

First of all, what is the 4th and 5th dimension? Second of all, if you are making the argument that the basis for morality is in fact a rational basis, and a natural basis, that the foundation for moral action comes straight out of the heart of the biological order - then you have plenty of ways to "prove it" -- the same tools that are available to tests all hypothesis. All we have to do is set aside our personal defiance and look at observable evidence. Human beings have a long, long, long, long history of identifying certain basic principles of right and wrong, many of which have remained essentially consistent throughout generations, and cultures and contexts. Certainly there are exceptions - but there is also long standing pattern. We can also observer readily the evidence of the benefits of certain behaviors and actions to ourselves, to others, and to the earth.

It is literally more difficult to deny the reality of an objective foundation to ethics than it is to affirm it. It takes a greater leap of faith. The real problem is that so many people have been so turned off by dogmatic legalistic judgmental moral frameworks that they've gone to the other extreme and ludicrously rejected any basic foundation for morality as part of the natural order. That's ridiculous. There are clearly foundations by which we can make our ethical decisions which are both natural as well as practical, objective as well as a positive utility. But the thing is, they are just foundations, they are principles. Meaning they can't tell us how to make the best decision on all the different contexts we are going to face. We have to do our best to do what we think is right, and different people are going to disagree on that.

So hypothetically speaking, let's say I come to understand that the principle which might be summed up in the phrase "do no harm" is really a basic natural tenant of healthy living among sentient cognitive human beings. It's good for life. Evolution is often referred to as survival of the fittest, but there is plenty of evidence which indicates that nurturing healthy communities and strong supportive relationships play a huge role in the evolutionary process and the healthy thriving of life.

So, let's say I accept that. That doesn't change the fact that in the specifics of my life, I may be faced with decisions in which I feel forced to hurt someone in order to help someone else, or not hurt someone and allow hurt to someone else. How should I choose, what should I do? I think many different arguments could be made for many different courses of action, and its not clear that I can say one is more right than another. Because in the discussion, we could all agree than the basic principle of "do no harm" is a morally appropriate foundation, even if we disagree about what to do in a specific context.

So in the CONTEXT of a specific applied situation, I would say that yes, I am not qualified to say that your choice is less appropriate in my choice -- ASSUMING that we do AGREE foundationally. Where I do say "you are wrong" is if we do not agree on basic normative-level foundational principles. The reason I disagree is because contrary to your claim, we are not having an a-rational non-objective, opinion oriented discussion. It is the difference between someone arguing that the earth is flat and someone arguing that the earth is round. So, I've never been to space, so I can't personally prove for myself that the earth is round.

Maybe all the things I've seen that I haven't' directly verified with my own eyes was fake. I don't know. But, I do know that I can evaluate the evidence and the arguments for the two different points of view. And I can listen to both sides give their evidence and then decide which case seems to have the stronger support. In this case it would definitely be the earth is round argument, which while I can't *technically* "prove" that its true since I have not personally verified it, I am satisfied with the level of evidence available to me and am willing to assume that it is very likely to be true. It is so likely in fact that I usually just leave the "very likely" part off and simply say "true."

Because I do not posit a God as the basis for a moral framework, nor any non-natural reality, the argument for basic moral principles is a natural one, it is as easy to seek out data and make observation and build a case for the hypothesis as it is to apply scientific method to any other observable phenomenon. I believe the case for some fundamental underlying basic principles at the heart of the natural order is well evidenced and strong. Things like "it is wrong to steal, or even "it is wrong to kill" are not part of this basic underlying structure to life, they are the conclusions/consequence of this structure. At the heart of biological life is the constant movement toward greater depth and complexity and the impulse to not only survive but the thrive. Psychology, sociology and anthropology give us a lot of evidence which indicates that we are healthier, live longer and do better when we act in certain ways - when we build non-exploitative healthy mutual relationships with those around us and establish a community framework in which the rights and needs of each other are understood and respected - in other words, positive healthy relationships. This sort of relational understanding is the foundational moral framework for making contextual applied ethical decisions - how will my choice affect this healthy relationship? That is the framework for decision making.

In so far as you accept this framework, I definitely give you the freedom to come to different specific contextual applied conclusions about what exactly to do in specific circumstances. But if you attempt to deny to me the basic foundational basis for ethical decision making, I don't give you such allowance - I simply tell you that you are wrong. That's not someone anyone likes to hear, and I don't expect you to accept it. That's fine. But it remains my position.

Freedom in non-essentials yes, but agreement in essentials. Life is an ambiguous mixture of essential and existential elements, absolute and non-absolute, concrete and abstract, objective and subjective. When you deny either side of those contrasts, you start detaching from reality.

I won't have any more time to write today - so have a good one, and my best to you. :(

Sel

[Pithlet]

200. Wrong.

Just because you lived in the 18th century, and perceived that it was just the "way of the world" doesn't make it so. That is what Selwyn is trying to say to you. The act of slavery itself, and the morality of it, doesn't change according to who is perceiving it.

[Pathwalker]

129. I am a Matriarch and a Feminist, and I don't believe

a single word you posted. UTTER BUSHIT. I don't even believe in the death penalty. So take your stereotyping and peddle it elsewhere.

[ernstbass]

134. Well I'm not for the death penalty

but Scott Peterson's death won't bother me

[bamacrat]

144. still confused

why was this such a big national case. i mean it happens alot a man kills his pregnant girlfriend, wife, whatever. why not do theis for everyone. just like we should have a day, a parade, a statue for all the dead soldiers not just for one.

[Bridget Burke]

159. It's a distraction.

Any newspaper will reveal dreadful stories of abuse & murder; at least in Texas, maybe not in Canada. The media would rather spend time on stories like this than mention those dead soldiers. Or the dead Iraqis. Or the plummeting dollar.

There's also the detail of Peterson being charged with the murder of an unborn child. It will be a useful precedent when the courts are packed with enough anti-choicers.

[MISSDem]

148. I haven't followed the case but still, I don't think that anyone

should be put to death when there is no witness or any other evidence that they did the crime. He probably did it but that is not good enough for the death penalty, IMHO.

[Ripley]

156. Is it FIELD DAY on Feminists and Southerners at DU?

:wtf:

Oh, excuse me, I meant FIELD MONTH OR POSSIBLY YEAR.

[Bridget Burke]

161. Not quite. Some Southerners do have annoying traits....

I'm not just a Southerner, I'm a TEXAN!

But the particular type of feminist being derided by this OP is a figment of his imagination.

[Quill Pen]

165. If that were true, small-f feminists like myself would give a rat's ass...

...about Monica giving head to Bill Clinton. I know an awful lot of small-"f"-ers, and we just yawned for months straight over that story.

However, you're onto something about the blend of theocracy, hypocrisy and sentiment that I think is at the root of the media frenzy surrounding this case.

Personally, I don't think Laci would be dead if she'd ascertained Scott's true feelings about starting a family before flushing her little pink pills. It's fairly obvious from the outcome that Scott was not ideal daddy material, and was not interested in having a baby. I'll bet Laci didn't really care what he thought, though, as long as she got herself a nice plump white baby, just like all her friends have. I also wonder how much she knew about Scott's affairs; we've seen that he's not the brightest criminal ever minted.

I'm a real unsentimental kind of gal, so I'll just speculate that Laci snapped her blinders on tight through the affairs and Scott's passive whining about not being ready to be a father. She wanted to be a SAHMommy like her peers, and nothing was going to stop her, not even reality. I don't believe she deserved to die, but truth be told, I don't really care, and I don't really care that we're down by one extra fetus this year as a result, either. As a feminist, I'm a big believer in women not being intentionally f*cking stupid. And Laci strikes me as someone who spent at least the final eight months of her life, if not longer, playing dumb so she could get her Barbie Dream Family for Christmas.

Laci's death also would have been utterly ignored by the news if she had not been pregnant, or if she had not been an attractive young woman. If Laci had been a toothless, barren, leathery, chain-smoking trailer slag, this whole story would barely have survived two nights on the local news.

[KnowerOfLogic]

189. He's a man.. he can't help himself and shouldn't be held responsible

for his choices. This feminist says SCREW THAT.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

190. This is the most idiotic OP I've ever read..I think most people's issue

with Scott is that it appears he MURDERED his wife..NOT that he fucked around on her.

While I am against the death penalty, poor little Scotty (as with poor little Kobe) got the best defense money could buy...turned out good for Kobe in spite of the fact that the alleged victim in that case was dragged through the mud, threatened, her home addres published on the web etc. Didn't turn out so good for Scott, who couldn't buy his way out of a brutal murder.

So now you want to blame this on women? I don't think so.

And..just in case you still persist in this even after being taken to task on your faulty logic and reasoning...my advice would be...if you don't want feminists to hate you...try not to kill your pregnant wife just so you can go bang another woman.

[blondeatlast]

192. NSMA, you are a VERY welcome addition to this thread.

Now if someone could just send Skittles as well...

:evilgrin:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

195. I can't believe it's still open given the OP

blatant sexism

[blondeatlast]

197. I alerted early this AM, and it's still open.

That's not all--watch for my PM.

[Pithlet]

198. I agree. This post is bullshit.

:mad:

[ogradda]

199. I don't like the death penalty.

But i believe he was convicted of killing his pregnat wife, not for being hot to trot.

[Moderator]

202. Locking

DU Moderator