Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Equality

lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 9:48:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
For blakcs, white, between races?
For all straits? For gays? Bis?
For religious and non religious?
For men and women?

What is the just equality? Why?

Obviously I think that blacks white everybody deserve the same opportunity, and if they don't go for it they don't deserve any more just because of race.

I think sexal orientation should not affect ones rights, or how one is treated, or talked to.

I do not think that religion should affect how one is treated, for those inside and out of the religion. And for any other group that is in the religion that was mentioned above.
Men and women, such as the blacks and whites, should be given the same opportunites, and treated the same way.

Just equality is truely treating everybody exactly the same until you learn about that person's personality and characteristics, then tailor how you treat them or talk to them from that.
Equality is not having to sets of standards based on anything I posted above, and also many more I did not mention.

Your veiws? And Mirza equality is not outdated, sexism is outdated.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 9:56:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 9:52:20 AM, tkubok wrote:
Equality is equality is equality.... Everyone gets it.

Thats my stance.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 9:57:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm not so much for Equality for equality's sake.

I'm just not for people imposing on people in ways I don't like....

so... saying Equal rights keeps people from imposing on other people in such ways...

so... I'm for equal rights.. but not for equality's sake....people are unequal... people are different in different ways.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 9:59:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 9:48:11 AM, lovelife wrote:
Just equality is truely treating everybody exactly the same until you learn about that person's personality and characteristics, then tailor how you treat them or talk to them from that.

sure... but observed patterns do kind of prep me to expect certain things from certain people.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 10:06:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 9:59:32 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/19/2010 9:48:11 AM, lovelife wrote:
Just equality is truely treating everybody exactly the same until you learn about that person's personality and characteristics, then tailor how you treat them or talk to them from that.

sure... but observed patterns do kind of prep me to expect certain things from certain people.

Expecting, preparing for, and all that is not the same as initially treating one differently or imposing your veiw of how they ought to be on them
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 10:08:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 9:57:23 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I'm not so much for Equality for equality's sake.

I'm just not for people imposing on people in ways I don't like....

so... saying Equal rights keeps people from imposing on other people in such ways...

so... I'm for equal rights.. but not for equality's sake....people are unequal... people are different in different ways.

What youre talking about, is whether or not people are born with equal opportunities, and what were talking about, is whether or not people receive equal rights.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 10:12:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 9:57:23 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I'm not so much for Equality for equality's sake.


hmmm?

I'm just not for people imposing on people in ways I don't like....


That is pretty bad. I hate that.

so... saying Equal rights keeps people from imposing on other people in such ways...


It does.

so... I'm for equal rights.. but not for equality's sake....people are unequal... people are different in different ways.

so people are unequal but should be treated as equal so you aren't imposed upon? I'm not sure I follow the logic.

Besides I'm asking if you believe any of the above makes one inequal. Particualrly the male/female one.
Everyone is different, but is it right to treat people differently because of their gender? (or anything else in the OP)
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 10:16:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 10:12:19 AM, lovelife wrote:
Besides I'm asking if you believe any of the above makes one inequal. Particualrly the male/female one.
Everyone is different, but is it right to treat people differently because of their gender? (or anything else in the OP)

clearly men are generally better/superior at stuff like sports... I really can't hack that up to culture.

at intellectual type things.... it's a tough cookie to see who if anyone is better at what.... Culture is a Gigantic Variable...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 10:23:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Equality of access to publically held property.
Equallity in contracts.
Equality in terms of personal liberty.

So for instance a homosexual is not excluded from state education,
Not excluded from signing marriage contracts.
Not denied the right to privately achieve orgasm.

Arguably, shops, corporations etc, should have the right to discriminate on the grounds of race, sexuality etc so long as they make this discrimination public. Market forces will do the rest. But it's not a point I am entirely convinced of.

Private organisations, political parties, gentleman's clubs, hobby groups, religions should be permitted to discriminate as much as they want to. If should be my right to form a whitepower knitting circle.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 2:22:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 10:23:08 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Equality of access to publically held property.
Equallity in contracts.
Equality in terms of personal liberty.

So for instance a homosexual is not excluded from state education,
Not excluded from signing marriage contracts.
Not denied the right to privately achieve orgasm.

Arguably, shops, corporations etc, should have the right to discriminate on the grounds of race, sexuality etc so long as they make this discrimination public. Market forces will do the rest. But it's not a point I am entirely convinced of.

Private organisations, political parties, gentleman's clubs, hobby groups, religions should be permitted to discriminate as much as they want to. If should be my right to form a whitepower knitting circle.

Not if they actually attack a group. Like Mirza and his love for beating wives.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 2:56:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 2:22:49 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/19/2010 10:23:08 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Equality of access to publically held property.
Equallity in contracts.
Equality in terms of personal liberty.

So for instance a homosexual is not excluded from state education,
Not excluded from signing marriage contracts.
Not denied the right to privately achieve orgasm.

Arguably, shops, corporations etc, should have the right to discriminate on the grounds of race, sexuality etc so long as they make this discrimination public. Market forces will do the rest. But it's not a point I am entirely convinced of.

Private organisations, political parties, gentleman's clubs, hobby groups, religions should be permitted to discriminate as much as they want to. If should be my right to form a whitepower knitting circle.

Not if they actually attack a group. Like Mirza and his love for beating wives.

That's violence, a different issue.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 2:56:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 10:23:08 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Equality of access to publically held property.
Equallity in contracts.
Equality in terms of personal liberty.

So for instance a homosexual is not excluded from state education,
Not excluded from signing marriage contracts.
Not denied the right to privately achieve orgasm.

Arguably, shops, corporations etc, should have the right to discriminate on the grounds of race, sexuality etc so long as they make this discrimination public. Market forces will do the rest. But it's not a point I am entirely convinced of.

Private organisations, political parties, gentleman's clubs, hobby groups, religions should be permitted to discriminate as much as they want to. If should be my right to form a whitepower knitting circle.

I agree with you, but a business' discrimination ought not have to be public. They can discriminate against blacks withotu a big sign saying "No blacks plz!"
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 3:04:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 2:56:03 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/19/2010 2:22:49 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/19/2010 10:23:08 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Equality of access to publically held property.
Equallity in contracts.
Equality in terms of personal liberty.

So for instance a homosexual is not excluded from state education,
Not excluded from signing marriage contracts.
Not denied the right to privately achieve orgasm.

Arguably, shops, corporations etc, should have the right to discriminate on the grounds of race, sexuality etc so long as they make this discrimination public. Market forces will do the rest. But it's not a point I am entirely convinced of.

Private organisations, political parties, gentleman's clubs, hobby groups, religions should be permitted to discriminate as much as they want to. If should be my right to form a whitepower knitting circle.

Not if they actually attack a group. Like Mirza and his love for beating wives.

That's violence, a different issue.

Violence. Hate crime. Its all wrong.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 11:39:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Equality between people, equality between cultures, equality between religions, and equality between races is a nonsense.

Such equality simply does not exist.

What should exist is equality of opportunity.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 11:42:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 2:56:54 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/19/2010 10:23:08 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Equality of access to publically held property.
Equallity in contracts.
Equality in terms of personal liberty.

So for instance a homosexual is not excluded from state education,
Not excluded from signing marriage contracts.
Not denied the right to privately achieve orgasm.

Arguably, shops, corporations etc, should have the right to discriminate on the grounds of race, sexuality etc so long as they make this discrimination public. Market forces will do the rest. But it's not a point I am entirely convinced of.

Private organisations, political parties, gentleman's clubs, hobby groups, religions should be permitted to discriminate as much as they want to. If should be my right to form a whitepower knitting circle.

I agree with you, but a business' discrimination ought not have to be public. They can discriminate against blacks withotu a big sign saying "No blacks plz!"

No, that is misleading and violates consumer rights.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 11:45:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 3:04:04 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/19/2010 2:56:03 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/19/2010 2:22:49 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/19/2010 10:23:08 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Equality of access to publically held property.
Equallity in contracts.
Equality in terms of personal liberty.

So for instance a homosexual is not excluded from state education,
Not excluded from signing marriage contracts.
Not denied the right to privately achieve orgasm.

Arguably, shops, corporations etc, should have the right to discriminate on the grounds of race, sexuality etc so long as they make this discrimination public. Market forces will do the rest. But it's not a point I am entirely convinced of.

Private organisations, political parties, gentleman's clubs, hobby groups, religions should be permitted to discriminate as much as they want to. If should be my right to form a whitepower knitting circle.

Not if they actually attack a group. Like Mirza and his love for beating wives.

That's violence, a different issue.

Violence. Hate crime. Its all wrong.

Mirza's religion states that as a last resort he may his wife without leaving marks or causing injury, his wife that has to consent to marry, his wife who can divorce him.

So you all in effect denying the right of Mirza and his wife to form contracts and make personal decisions for themselves...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 11:45:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 11:39:42 PM, Zeitgeist wrote:
Equality between people, equality between cultures, equality between religions, and equality between races is a nonsense.

Such equality simply does not exist.

What should exist is equality of opportunity.

More or less that is exactly what I was trying to get at.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 11:46:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 11:45:09 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/19/2010 3:04:04 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/19/2010 2:56:03 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/19/2010 2:22:49 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/19/2010 10:23:08 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Equality of access to publically held property.
Equallity in contracts.
Equality in terms of personal liberty.

So for instance a homosexual is not excluded from state education,
Not excluded from signing marriage contracts.
Not denied the right to privately achieve orgasm.

Arguably, shops, corporations etc, should have the right to discriminate on the grounds of race, sexuality etc so long as they make this discrimination public. Market forces will do the rest. But it's not a point I am entirely convinced of.

Private organisations, political parties, gentleman's clubs, hobby groups, religions should be permitted to discriminate as much as they want to. If should be my right to form a whitepower knitting circle.

Not if they actually attack a group. Like Mirza and his love for beating wives.

That's violence, a different issue.

Violence. Hate crime. Its all wrong.

Mirza's religion states that as a last resort he may his wife without leaving marks or causing injury, his wife that has to consent to marry, his wife who can divorce him.

So you all in effect denying the right of Mirza and his wife to form contracts and make personal decisions for themselves...

Does she have the right to hit him for the same thing? I asked Mirza but shortly after he disappeared without answering. INH was there too, and she also did not answer me.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 11:49:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 11:46:56 PM, lovelife wrote:

Does she have the right to hit him for the same thing? I asked Mirza but shortly after he disappeared without answering. INH was there too, and she also did not answer me.

Can a wife beat their husband? It's not actually a written rule, but I wonder if one could actually put it in a marriage contract? Maybe...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 11:51:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 11:49:28 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/19/2010 11:46:56 PM, lovelife wrote:

Does she have the right to hit him for the same thing? I asked Mirza but shortly after he disappeared without answering. INH was there too, and she also did not answer me.

Can a wife beat their husband? It's not actually a written rule, but I wonder if one could actually put it in a marriage contract? Maybe...

Its in the religion that he can. Is it in the religion that she can? If not it is still sexist. I would gladly edit my debate to be less foccused on Mirza if you or anyone else wishes to defend what I have posted.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 11:57:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 11:51:19 PM, lovelife wrote:

Its in the religion that he can. Is it in the religion that she can? If not it is still sexist. I would gladly edit my debate to be less foccused on Mirza if you or anyone else wishes to defend what I have posted.

Yes, it is for the husband. As for the wife, I don't think so, but one could possibly put it in their marriage contract that if their husband has that right that they should too. For many people that would probably be really pushing it though. As for the debate, let me read it and I might choose to accept it.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 12:04:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 11:46:56 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/19/2010 11:45:09 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/19/2010 3:04:04 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/19/2010 2:56:03 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/19/2010 2:22:49 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/19/2010 10:23:08 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Equality of access to publically held property.
Equallity in contracts.
Equality in terms of personal liberty.

So for instance a homosexual is not excluded from state education,
Not excluded from signing marriage contracts.
Not denied the right to privately achieve orgasm.

Arguably, shops, corporations etc, should have the right to discriminate on the grounds of race, sexuality etc so long as they make this discrimination public. Market forces will do the rest. But it's not a point I am entirely convinced of.

Private organisations, political parties, gentleman's clubs, hobby groups, religions should be permitted to discriminate as much as they want to. If should be my right to form a whitepower knitting circle.

Not if they actually attack a group. Like Mirza and his love for beating wives.

That's violence, a different issue.

Violence. Hate crime. Its all wrong.

Mirza's religion states that as a last resort he may his wife without leaving marks or causing injury, his wife that has to consent to marry, his wife who can divorce him.

So you all in effect denying the right of Mirza and his wife to form contracts and make personal decisions for themselves...

Does she have the right to hit him for the same thing? I asked Mirza but shortly after he disappeared without answering. INH was there too, and she also did not answer me.

No, it's sexist. I am not defending it. I was being slightly tongue in cheek, but the fact still remains that an Islamic woman in a modern society does not have to consent to this. If she does, that is kinda her problem.

You can't have freedom of religion without accepting that some religions are a bit problematic.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 12:18:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 11:57:40 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/19/2010 11:51:19 PM, lovelife wrote:

Its in the religion that he can. Is it in the religion that she can? If not it is still sexist. I would gladly edit my debate to be less foccused on Mirza if you or anyone else wishes to defend what I have posted.

Yes, it is for the husband. As for the wife, I don't think so, but one could possibly put it in their marriage contract that if their husband has that right that they should too. For many people that would probably be really pushing it though.

Sexist with a slight option to make it more fair if HE consents to that. You think she's all "Hey yeah if your stressed and don't know anything better to do you can beat me. I wont even hit back."
Some might I know thats not me, and I doubt its even a majority. Even in the islamic world. Doesn't change that its still sexist tho.

As for the debate, let me read it and I might choose to accept it.
Okay, again I might de-personalize it if you want.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 12:21:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 12:04:18 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/19/2010 11:46:56 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/19/2010 11:45:09 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/19/2010 3:04:04 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/19/2010 2:56:03 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/19/2010 2:22:49 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/19/2010 10:23:08 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Equality of access to publically held property.
Equallity in contracts.
Equality in terms of personal liberty.

So for instance a homosexual is not excluded from state education,
Not excluded from signing marriage contracts.
Not denied the right to privately achieve orgasm.

Arguably, shops, corporations etc, should have the right to discriminate on the grounds of race, sexuality etc so long as they make this discrimination public. Market forces will do the rest. But it's not a point I am entirely convinced of.

Private organisations, political parties, gentleman's clubs, hobby groups, religions should be permitted to discriminate as much as they want to. If should be my right to form a whitepower knitting circle.

Not if they actually attack a group. Like Mirza and his love for beating wives.

That's violence, a different issue.

Violence. Hate crime. Its all wrong.

Mirza's religion states that as a last resort he may his wife without leaving marks or causing injury, his wife that has to consent to marry, his wife who can divorce him.

So you all in effect denying the right of Mirza and his wife to form contracts and make personal decisions for themselves...

Does she have the right to hit him for the same thing? I asked Mirza but shortly after he disappeared without answering. INH was there too, and she also did not answer me.

No, it's sexist. I am not defending it. I was being slightly tongue in cheek, but the fact still remains that an Islamic woman in a modern society does not have to consent to this. If she does, that is kinda her problem.


Even if she reports it whats she gunna say? If its part of her religion she prolly can't do sh*t about it. Even if its his religion and not hers I doubt much could be done.

You can't have freedom of religion without accepting that some religions are a bit problematic.

I accept all religions. I defend Islam's right to be here. Just look at the Obama thread. I don't even mind if Obama was muslim, I just do not support the sexist parts. Not saying it should be banned, it should be changed, but it should also be accepted.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 12:23:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 12:18:36 AM, lovelife wrote:

Sexist with a slight option to make it more fair if HE consents to that. You think she's all "Hey yeah if your stressed and don't know anything better to do you can beat me. I wont even hit back."
Some might I know thats not me, and I doubt its even a majority. Even in the islamic world. Doesn't change that its still sexist tho.

Again, it's things like this that made me shift more towards Sufism and away from Orthodox Islam. Although I believe in the Qur'an being a true revelation from God and Muhammad being the final prophet there are still some things that have become part of the practices I don't fully agree with. Many of these said practices are cultural while some are not. Regardless, I won't engage in them and Sufis seem to stay away from alot of these things. Human interpretations of scriptures, I blame that, lol.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 12:25:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 11:49:28 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/19/2010 11:46:56 PM, lovelife wrote:

Does she have the right to hit him for the same thing? I asked Mirza but shortly after he disappeared without answering. INH was there too, and she also did not answer me.

Can a wife beat their husband? It's not actually a written rule, but I wonder if one could actually put it in a marriage contract? Maybe...

Hmmm... possibly not, but there are precedents in the fact that Sado-masochistic groups can not apparently avoid assault charges (or at least I think that is the case in the UK now).
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 12:30:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 12:21:54 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/20/2010 12:04:18 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/19/2010 11:46:56 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/19/2010 11:45:09 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/19/2010 3:04:04 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/19/2010 2:56:03 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/19/2010 2:22:49 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/19/2010 10:23:08 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Equality of access to publically held property.
Equallity in contracts.
Equality in terms of personal liberty.

So for instance a homosexual is not excluded from state education,
Not excluded from signing marriage contracts.
Not denied the right to privately achieve orgasm.

Arguably, shops, corporations etc, should have the right to discriminate on the grounds of race, sexuality etc so long as they make this discrimination public. Market forces will do the rest. But it's not a point I am entirely convinced of.

Private organisations, political parties, gentleman's clubs, hobby groups, religions should be permitted to discriminate as much as they want to. If should be my right to form a whitepower knitting circle.

Not if they actually attack a group. Like Mirza and his love for beating wives.

That's violence, a different issue.

Violence. Hate crime. Its all wrong.

Mirza's religion states that as a last resort he may his wife without leaving marks or causing injury, his wife that has to consent to marry, his wife who can divorce him.

So you all in effect denying the right of Mirza and his wife to form contracts and make personal decisions for themselves...

Does she have the right to hit him for the same thing? I asked Mirza but shortly after he disappeared without answering. INH was there too, and she also did not answer me.

No, it's sexist. I am not defending it. I was being slightly tongue in cheek, but the fact still remains that an Islamic woman in a modern society does not have to consent to this. If she does, that is kinda her problem.


Even if she reports it whats she gunna say? If its part of her religion she prolly can't do sh*t about it. Even if its his religion and not hers I doubt much could be done.

Not true, it's still assault under western laws.


You can't have freedom of religion without accepting that some religions are a bit problematic.

I accept all religions. I defend Islam's right to be here. Just look at the Obama thread. I don't even mind if Obama was muslim, I just do not support the sexist parts. Not saying it should be banned, it should be changed, but it should also be accepted.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.