This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
@ Feminism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
You would take my freedoms from me over my dead body and I can't fathom thinking any other way.
Not saying I agree with anything you guys are saying because this thread makes my brain melt, but that quote I stand by 100%.
So you think that these women are somehow weaker than you, because they are unwilling to do what a more empowered woman like you would do? Is this racial, because we are talking about women in the middle east. How is it that you feel you are somehow better than them?
Post by
Sagramor
You would take my freedoms from me over my dead body and I can't fathom thinking any other way.
That's an incredibly selfish way of thinking. Of course, not when it pertains to sexuality, but so when it pertains to most other things. In order to successfully live in a society, all parties must give up some of their "natural" freedom, otherwise it would collapse. I forget who said it first, but "To give up a privilege, and submit to a government out of our volition and to the well-being of all is an act of liberty."
Post by
Eccentrica
I really don't care. I am here first and foremost for my children, then for myself. I belong where I like. I am not the property of my country or my countrymen. I am mine.
I have no wish to interfere in your life, but won't allow you to interfere in mine at least to the extent that physiological and safety needs are met for myself and my children. I'd sacrifice untold numbers of people for my children. Call that selfish if you like, that's neither here nor there to me. I call it ferocious motherhood.
Post by
Sagramor
I really don't care. I am here first and foremost for my children, then for myself. I belong where I like. I am not the property of my country or my countrymen. I am mine.
No, you are not. There is not one thing in your life that you accomplished or are currently in possession of due solely to yourself. Everything you do and use and take part of and enjoy required someone else to work for it as well. Assuming you do not live and sustain yourself in the wilderness, secluded completely from society, you take part in it, and therefore enjoy things that are only possible because humans being worked in cooperation - basically, because of someone(s) else.
A human being is not a being that is auto-determined; it is a
zoon politikon
, a political animal - it thrives when in a society because it allows him to use what others have created for his own purposes, but it requires him to contribute as well; those are the basic principles of rights and duties.
You live in a country that was built on the sweat of people you don't even know exist - from the richest to the poorest - every single person who lives among others depends on them for their lives to function as they wish.
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."
Post by
MyTie
"To give up a privilege, and submit to a government out of our volition and to the well-being of all is an act of liberty."This sounds pretty good, on the surface. It's dangerous to think like this, as if our government is the instrument of 'well being of all'. Giving up freedoms, and submission to government, never reverses. Government never willingly returns freedoms to citizens. Franklin said it best:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Post by
Skreeran
I think one can say that there are certain things we owe the government without going so far as to say they own us. The government does not own me, but I do have to pay taxes and submit to local, state, and federal law in order to keep the benefits that the government affords me.
Post by
Sagramor
Government never willingly returns freedoms to citizens.
Untrue. The Glorious Revolution; The Civil Rights Movement; CLT of Getúlio Vargas; The Tsar banning Serfdom in Russia.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I will not accept a quote about liberty from an aristocrat who supported the Revolution's ideals while at the same time perpetuating slavery in his home country because of economic hangups. During his stay in France; Benjamin was approached by the
Society of Friends of the Negro
, a membership which he dully refused, and a group that he sought to fight and close.
Also, people have the wrong idea about the founding fathers - they weren't "patriots" as we know the world today - at the time there barely was a concept of "nationality", they didn't saw themselves as Americans, and until the very last minute were willing to submit to the British Crown - as along as they had a say in their Parliament (in both houses, the Commons and the
Lords
; once again: aristocrats).
Their logic was "freeborn
Englishmen
are not required to pay a tax determined by a parliament which does not represent them".
They, like me, believed in the concepts of rights and duties in a society.
And, most importantly, I'm not talking about safety - that's what the US government does (War on Terror, anyone?) - I'm talking about what is necessary for human beings to fully function in a fair, determined by all, society. As Aristotle would have wanted. He was also an aristocrat, by the way.
I think one can say that there are certain things we owe the government without going so far as to say they own us. The government does not own me,.
Of course it doesn't; we own it. The problem, I think, is that we view 'government' as a separate entity from ourselves - something enforced by the regrettable actions of pretty much all political organizations in modern times. The thing is, government isn't a thing that exists on it's own in nature, determined in and by itself. It is but a social construct; that only sustains itself because
all of the people
in one way or another, directly or indirectly, support it.
A government can't do jack if it's people decide to no longer obey it (remember, all those in the Army and the Police forces are also citizens, population, and have as well a duty to be politically aware) - it is dependent upon all of the population to properly function, and most important of all, to be
legitimate
.
The moment the social agglutination, acting as one, that is, the
real
"government" or the
real
"powers-that-be", if you will, decides it's supposed administration as illegitimate, there is nothing for that administration to do - because it no longer exists. The problem is, for that logic to function, it is necessary that all people be politically aware, politically intelligent, and politically active - in other words, it is necessary for the "people" to be the "citizens", for that is what citizenship entails: political participation, the most important of all the duties, and the most sacred of all the rights.
So, of course, government doesn't own us; that would be logically absurd. However, there are things which we, as a society have to agree to give up on in order for it to work (such as, but not limited to, the perfectly "natural" right to kill, or to enslave, or to rape, or to be selfish, or just in general to act like a %^&*) - we just have to have an
a priori
set of principles that will make sure the social order does not emancipate itself into a self-determined government (which, by the all, all have done), which then might turn into the real tragedy of the commons: despotism. That set of principles is what I believe a Constitution is for. The postulates which will stop democracy (which has never been successfully applied in History) from turning either into a dictatorship of the majority, or to be taken over by a minority-elite.
Post by
MyTie
Government never willingly returns freedoms to citizens.
Untrue. The Glorious Revolution; The Civil Rights Movement; CLT of Getúlio Vargas; The Tsar banning Serfdom in Russia.
willingly
And, you dislike Benjamin Franklin? Seems an unlikely candidate for dislike, all things considered, but to each their own.
Post by
Sagramor
willingly
In none of those movements there was an immediate violent cause for the decisions; the governments realized the people had spoken, that to not listen would listen to chaos and disorder - the exact opposites of society.
But, don't worry, I don't believe in non-violent movements for actual political change. Except boycotting, that has solid grounding, but it is too volatile - any one person can bring down the whole movement simply by not participating.
And, you dislike Benjamin Franklin? Seems an unlikely candidate for dislike, all things considered, but to each their own.
I'm pro-anti.
Post by
MyTie
willingly
In none of those movements there was an immediate violent cause for the decisions; the governments realized the people had spoken, that to not listen would listen to chaos and disorder - the exact opposites of society.
But, don't worry, I don't believe in non-violent movements for actual political change. Except boycotting, that has solid grounding, but it is too volatile - any one person can bring down the whole movement simply by not participating.
The government willingly accepted these movements with open arms? I thought that the FBI was out for blood with MLK. Serfdom in Russia took how long for the government to get rid of? How long did the nobles oppose it? I mean, I'm saying that government doesn't willingly give freedom to people, and then you tell me I'm wrong, and give me examples of where people had to fight tooth and nail for decades to get freedom from the government. It's like you agree that I'm right, without realizing it.
I'm pro-anti.
I don't even...
Post by
Sagramor
The government willingly accepted these movements with open arms? I thought that the FBI was out for blood with MLK.
Exaggerated, and
Serfdom in Russia took how long for the government to get rid of?
Immediate violent causes.
How long did the nobles oppose it?
Um, the group that orchestrated the Glorious Revolution had a #$%^load of nobles.
I mean, I'm saying that government doesn't willingly give freedom to people, and then you tell me I'm wrong, and give me examples of where people had to fight tooth and nail for decades to get freedom from the government. It's like you agree that I'm right, without realizing it.
What I'm saying is that those are all times the real power of society manifested itself: public opinion. There was no need for individual death or violent,
forceful
action as an immediate cause. It took so long for those things to happen, because for a long time, the public opinion did not
manifest itself
- in order for it to happen it is required, first, to be a homogeneity in the opinions, which rarely happens (when it does, it usually doesn't take long for a government to fall), and for the people to publicize it. Those were all times that in most ways fit that criteria, and the administration acted accordingly.
I don't even...
Exactly.
Post by
Skreeran
So let's maybe take the Political Theory out of the Feminism thread? :P
Post by
MyTie
So let's maybe take the Political Theory out of the Feminism thread? :P
If only. Unfortunately, the two subjects are intertwined.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Yeah, that's pretty bad... :\
Incidentally Elura, did you see
this channel
I linked you earlier? I think you might like her.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Yeah, that's pretty bad... :\
Incidentally Elura, did you see
this channel
I linked you earlier? I think you might like her.
I'm not sure why you'd think that as I can't get past 20 seconds (the way she talks annoys me and that's superimportant when watching these things D:)Aww... :( I was thinking it because she's an intelligent woman who's funny and good at analyzing comics and movies and stuff. I like her. But different strokes for different folks I guess... :P
Post by
Skreeran
http://youtu.be/fM1czS_VYDI
Post by
Aimsyr
This isn't really only feminism but we've discussed rape culture here before. Apparently on twitter the hashtag #ThingsWorseThanRape is trending, meaning a lot of people are using it.. My "favorite" was "being too ugly to be raped".
Why are these people allowed to go on the internet? Worst part is that this isn't like 3 @#$%^&*s joking around, this is thousands of people. And while hopefully they are not rapists, people thinking these kind of jokes are acceptable is a huge part of rape culture.
Sort of playing devil's advocate here, but it's called free speech, either you have it or you do not.
Not that I am supporting those people, I am totally against rape, but if you're going to have free speech you've got to tolerate the "@#$%^&*s" as you called them.
Educating people against behaving like that, on the other hand, would potentially help reduce the occurrence of those sorts of things, without taking away peoples' right to express their opinions freely.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.