Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 03-10-2013, 12:38 PM
Perky's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 03-07-13
Location: Kyrenia, North Cyprus
Posts: 26
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
@Perky: If you're going to focus on violence against women, then it is sexist. If you doubt that, look up the definition of sexism.
You don't get to change that definition just because you don't want to appear sexist.
So it's sexist to build a Breast Cancer awareness website even though men get Testicular Cancer? By your logic, which is mildly amusing, all the tens of thousands of people who have setup Breast Cancer awareness sites are sexists because they didn't bother to publish Testicular Cancer awareness sites too. Same goes for the gents that published testicular cancer sites.

Your somewhat comic logic regarding sexism as is applied to this situation fails entirely, even when applied to other topics besides the VAWA, so while you may or may not know what the definition of sexism is, perhaps you need to 'better comprehend it' and how it applies to different situations.

I don't find it amusing, in the slightest, that you insinuate with your post that I may be sexist (pointed out in the italicized quoted text). Having said that, your comment shows your desperate attempt to save face, though why you would is beyond me, we were having a fun, healthy, polite discussion and you decide to take off your gloves and make a failed attempt at sarcasm by insulting me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
And it also doesn't mean that you get to say others don't see "the bigger picture" when they call sexism out for what it is.
When people call something sexism, wrongfully, then I am entitled to my opinion and that means I get to say that yes, you indeed don't see the bigger picture. The same picture I paint clearly with my replies that you either ignored to read or failed to comprehend, and even if you did read and comprehend my posts but disagree, you decide to instead state it's not my right to share my view and opinion.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
And the sad reality is that a spiffy new "Violence Against Women Act" will likely be more about scoring political points than curbing violence towards women.
You can't be sure of that, in fact most people who like to think they're politically tuned in to what's going on and those that like to dabble in political discussions like yourself usually have a fixed opinion primarily based on a limited number of articles they read, news they watch and opinions they decide to hear from like minded people.

What that does is skew your ability to see other peoples point of views for what they are and feel inclined to instead drill holes in their views by way of mild insults, direct or indirect, instead of discussing things further to help share YOUR point of view and elaborate on why you think the way you do about a certain issue, such as the VAWA.

I respect your opinions, and everyone elses, as I have stated before, but that doesn't mean that in 'my' opinion, you're way of thinking is wrong. I can state that if I want as it is my view. I did my best to elaborate and explain why I felt the way I did, I took from this that some, including yourself, feel this Act was pushed through for some political agenda, and while I disagree, even if it was it will have a positive effect down the line for women and children who face different forms of violence, sexual abuse, harassment and rape. Either way, that's good enough for me.


@TheIrish - I don't need you to speak on my behalf, but thank you nonetheless for attempting to clarify that to Zap. Doubtful he cares or will get it, but it's appreciated.
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #22 (permalink)  
Old 03-10-2013, 03:26 PM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
I think the main purpose of the Violence against Women Act is a better protection for the Native American women.

Check this article!

Quote:
The new version of the law includes several new measures, including granting Native American tribes jurisdiction to prosecute non-native perpetrators of domestic and sexual violence against native women. Previously, tribes had no jurisdiction over non-tribal members, even if they are married to native women or reside on native lands.

But, said Obama Thursday, "as soon as I sign this bill, that ends."

According to Tina Olson, co-director of Mending the Sacred Hoop, an advocacy group dedicated to fighting violence against native women, as many as 50 percent of native women marry non-native men. This means that if they become victims of domestic violence, they have little recourse through the tribal justice system.

"It's not as if native women want something unique," says Olson. "They just want the justice other women get."

Olson says she has "high hopes" about how the new law will help tribal women, but is taking a "wait and see" attitude until funds for enforcement - and consequences for failing to enforce - arrive.
President Obama signs Violence Against Women Act
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...nst-women-act/
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2013, 03:02 AM
TheIrish's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: 03-08-13
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perky View Post
@TheIrish - I don't need you to speak on my behalf
Sorry fella, I didn't mean no offense by my post.
 
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2013, 05:30 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,751
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perky View Post
So it's sexist to build a Breast Cancer awareness website even though men get Testicular Cancer? By your logic, which is mildly amusing, all the tens of thousands of people who have setup Breast Cancer awareness sites are sexists because they didn't bother to publish Testicular Cancer awareness sites too. Same goes for the gents that published testicular cancer sites.

Your somewhat comic logic regarding sexism as is applied to this situation fails entirely, even when applied to other topics besides the VAWA, so while you may or may not know what the definition of sexism is, perhaps you need to 'better comprehend it' and how it applies to different situations.
Oh, for Pete's sakes... Here. Let me help educate you...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism
Quote:
sexism: prejudice or discrimination based on sex
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism
Quote:
sexism: attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles
Quote:
sexism: discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex
I suggest that you take your issues with the definition of sexism up with Merriam Webster and/or Dictionary.com instead of trying to hide your ignorance with thinly veiled attacks of those who disagree with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perky View Post
I don't find it amusing, in the slightest, that you insinuate with your post that I may be sexist (pointed out in the italicized quoted text). Having said that, your comment shows your desperate attempt to save face, though why you would is beyond me, we were having a fun, healthy, polite discussion and you decide to take off your gloves and make a failed attempt at sarcasm by insulting me.
I did not attack you. You had a hissy fit when I pointed out that, while your intentions were good, they were sexist. I didn't imply it. I came out and said it. You might want to check out the definition of "imply" while you're at it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perky View Post
When people call something sexism, wrongfully, then I am entitled to my opinion and that means I get to say that yes, you indeed don't see the bigger picture. The same picture I paint clearly with my replies that you either ignored to read or failed to comprehend, and even if you did read and comprehend my posts but disagree, you decide to instead state it's not my right to share my view and opinion.
You failed to understand what I posted. Nowhere did I say that you aren't entitled to an opinion, nor did I say or imply that you were not entitled to express your opinion. I merely pointed out that you are constrained to the same definition of sexism as the rest of us, no matter how much you desire to appear non-sexist. That seemed to put you on the offensive. Unfortunately for you, others here share that same ability, to state their opinion, even if it doesn't meet with your approval.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perky View Post
You can't be sure of that,
You're right. I can't be sure of that.
That's why I used the word "likely".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perky View Post
in fact most people who like to think they're politically tuned in to what's going on and those that like to dabble in political discussions like yourself usually have a fixed opinion primarily based on a limited number of articles they read, news they watch and opinions they decide to hear from like minded people.
Awesome! Since you know me so well and people "like myself", I guess there's no need for you to hear from anyone with a differing opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perky View Post
I respect your opinions, and everyone elses, as I have stated before, but that doesn't mean that in 'my' opinion, you're way of thinking is wrong. I can state that if I want as it is my view. I did my best to elaborate and explain why I felt the way I did, I took from this that some, including yourself, feel this Act was pushed through for some political agenda, and while I disagree, even if it was it will have a positive effect down the line for women and children who face different forms of violence, sexual abuse, harassment and rape. Either way, that's good enough for me.
Respect for the opinions of others shouldn't be cause for attacking their character. Just my opinion on your behaviour.

And if you feel so strongly that this law will do anything substantive towards the plight of women in society, then why don't you advocate for some more sexist laws?

Make it illegal for people to kill women.
Make it illegal for people to defraud women.
Make it illegal for people to steal from women.
Make it illegal for people to set fire to a woman's home.
Make it illegal for people to hack into a woman's computer.
Make it illegal for people to extort women.
Make it illegal for people to harass women.
Make it illegal for people to forge a woman's signature.
Make it illegal for people to kidnap a woman.
Make it illegal for people to vandalize a woman's property.

These are all areas which are sadly underserved in law right now.
And don't worry about the men and children. They can take care of themselves, I guess???
 
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2013, 05:51 AM
TheIrish's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: 03-08-13
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I think the discussion between Zap and Perky took a left turn at Misunderstanding St.

Perky thinks Zap called him a sexist which he didn't and like then Perky went onto bash Zap with his reply which was an underhand card to play if you ask me but he obviously felt offended.

Perky mate you sort of misinterpreted what Zap meant by his post. Even by appearing sexist with your views, that doesn't make you one Perky, and zap never called you one.
Quote:
You don't get to change that definition just because you don't want to appear sexist.
lets have us more of this and a little less of this

 
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2013, 06:09 AM
ScriptMan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 13,127
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Make the popcorn Irish this is starting to look like a heavy- weight match.
__________________
I do not put ads or pop-ups in my posts and I have no control of what shows there. I do not endorse any product displayed in my post.
Scriptman's Playhouse || Ramblings from an old man
 
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2013, 06:12 AM
TheIrish's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: 03-08-13
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2013, 06:46 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,751
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Maybe I'm missing something, here?

I see a law aimed at women just as sexist as I would see a law aimed at black people as racist.
I know there are some who would call it "reverse racism" when a law favours black people but that's a ridiculous concept.
Racism is racism, whether it helps or hurts a particular race.
 
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2013, 09:35 AM
Breeze Wood's Avatar
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 04-06-11
Location: USA
Posts: 958
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Violence Against Women Act


Quote:
http://www.dyess.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123070512

The beginning of domestic violence ...

DYESS AIR FORCE BASE, Texas -- Domestic Violence laws can be traced back to 753 B.C., where, during the reign of Romulus in Rome, wife beating was accepted and condoned under the Laws of Chastisement. These laws permitted the husband to beat his wife with a rod or switch as long as its circumference was no greater than the girth of the base of the man's right thumb. This was the origin of the phase "Rule of Thumb."

Fast forward to the 1500s. Early settlers in America based their laws on old English common-law, which explicitly permitted wife-beating for correctional purposes. The husband was allowed to whip his wife only with a switch no bigger than his thumb.

Moving forward to 1824, a decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court allowed a husband to administer only moderate chastisement in cases of emergency. Then, in 1867, a North Carolina man was acquitted for giving his wife three licks with a switch about the size of one of his fingers, but smaller than his thumb. The reviewing appellate court later upheld the acquittal on the grounds that the court should "not interfere with family government in trifling cases."

Finally, in 1871, Alabama became the first state to rescind the legal right of men to beat their wives. Massachusetts also declared wife beating illegal. In 1874, the Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that "the husband has no right to chastise his wife under any circumstances." Moving forward, in 1882 Maryland was the first state to pass a law that made wife-beating a crime, punishable by 40 lashes or a year in jail.

there is nothing sexist in recognizing a specific "Violence Against Women" existed to the extent of being codified into laws dating back to Antiquity ... it is indeed the mindset against woman as being subservient that is being addressed by the Violence Against Women Act, specifically.
__________________
.

All's Well that Ends Well

.
 
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2013, 09:52 AM
txshellie's Avatar
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 05-04-08
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 2,045
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Crime is crime.

Perhaps instead of crafting legislation targeted at endearing voter groups, officials would be better off finding real solutions to issues.

Instead they pump out legislation that let's them sleep at night knowing they are morally and socially superior ... more evolved, so to speak, than the rest of us knuckle-draggers who must believe that if there isn't a law against something then it must but fine.

Laws regarding hate crimes that make crimes against certain special groups "more criminal" marginalize crimes against those not included.

That defies all common sense and creates division and victim-hood in our society.

When parents turn off the TV and refuse to let their children wallow in violent media content. When people give their time and energy helping with those less fortunate - whether by birth or choice. When parents actually attempt to impart wisdom to their kids, then we'll see a decrease in violence of all sorts.

Violence against women decreases when education increases. That's one reason why I take my son on Thursday afternoons and we assist new immigrant children with their homework.

There are real concrete things that we can all do to help reduce violence. We should all get busy. Let's stop looking to Washington to solve all our problems.
__________________
Shellie
Owner, Christmas Light Source
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Violence in Europe Franc Tireur Forum Lobby 6 01-27-2009 05:21 AM
Galactic Violence jdspc Forum Lobby 14 12-20-2007 11:15 AM
Violence John Scott Controversial Social Issues 23 12-11-2007 06:57 AM
Violence John Scott Controversial Social Issues 32 05-10-2007 12:24 AM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:05 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2014 Escalate Media




Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.