PETA just grossed me out!!

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
even though as pointed out women are more socially responsible.

You've stated this, but as of yet have failed to prove it.

Sexism isn't treating sexes equally.

You're right, it's not.

It's oppression. I've made that clear in this thread. Imran agrees with treating people as equal, however this results in oppression.

And treating people as unequal doesn't result in oppression?

Could you please try to be a little bit smarter Mrs Snuggles.

I'm not the one whose statements are rife with fail.

You just compared physical violence with social violence (defined as social rejection)

Is not social rejection a form of violence? Is it not harmful to the individual? Is it not, in many cases, socially damaging? Is it not more difficult to treat, due to its nature of being less blatant than physical violence?

Also, you're asking for proof that empathy is a socially desirable trait.

Given the simple fact that much of what you've posted has been gibberish and hot air, I think I'm justified, if only to see whether you actually understand what it is you're saying.

Especially because I haven't stated my view on it at all.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Ah yes, women are free to prepare your meals for you and change your diaper. You shouldn't owe them anything for that though. Perfect reasoning and very masculine.

How do you get this from Imran's posts?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Women should be free to make whatever choices they wish to make... or do you disagree with that premise?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

How do you get this from Imran's posts?

Follow the logical conclusion to what he's been saying all along. He's saying that women should get the short end of the stick for being socially responsible. No wait, it's worse actually. What he's saying is that neither women or men should be socially responsible, that they should all be greedy ****ers who just work all day to get money, and don't care about anyone else. You can't see what kind of world that would lead too?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Women should be free to make whatever choices they wish to make... or do you disagree with that premise?

That's totally ignoring relationships.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Women should be free to make whatever choices they wish to make... or do you disagree with that premise?

[Elok]

He was talking about women's right to choose their own roles (including traditionally male ones), and you interpreted it as meaning "women should stay in the kitchen and shut up." In other words, the exact and obvious opposite of what he actually said. What Feminist Economics has to say is irrelevant when the issue is that the Reading Comprehension Module of your brain was apparently put in backwards.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

You've stated this, but as of yet have failed to prove it.

I've presented PLENTY of evidence. No it's your turn. Show that men are just as socially responsible as women.

And treating people as unequal doesn't result in oppression?

Helping oppressed people fights oppression. That's exactly right.

Is not social rejection a form of violence? Is it not harmful to the individual? Is it not, in many cases, socially damaging? Is it not more difficult to treat, due to its nature of being less blatant than physical violence?

Gee I don't know, whould you like me to punch you in the face or reject you socially.

Why are you such a ****?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Women should be free to make whatever choices they wish to make... or do you disagree with that premise?

Yes, I do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Good, you are on the proper path.

Now, can we agree that "social roles" for the sexes should be abolished and we should treat people like individuals?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
He was talking about women's right to choose their own roles (including traditionally male ones), and you interpreted it as meaning "women should stay in the kitchen and shut up." In other words, the exact and obvious opposite of what he actually said. What Feminist Economics has to say is irrelevant when the issue is that the Reading Comprehension Module of your brain was apparently put in backwards.

No, no, no dumb dumb. This is about relationships and taking advantage of people because they do the right thing socially.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Follow the logical conclusion to what he's been saying all along. He's saying that women should get the short end of the stick for being socially responsible. No wait, it's worse actually. What he's saying is that neither women or men should be socially responsible, that they should all be greedy ****ers who just work all day to get money, and don't care about anyone else. You can't see what kind of world that would lead too?

I have not read anything of Imran's saying anything even remotely like that. Certainly not in this thread. Can you cite a post where he says something like that explicitly, as opposed to saying something entirely different which leads to that as a "logical conclusion" provided the thinker is smoking whatever you're smoking?

I might as well say that the logical conclusion of your arguments is a world where we're all forced to attend group therapy at gunpoint. It does not follow.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Good, you are on the proper path.

Now, can we agree that "social roles" for the sexes should be abolished and we should treat people like individuals?

I agree with treating people fairly.

Also, you must not have realised that I said that I disagree with your premise.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Good, you agree with treating people fairly. Now do you agree that stereotyping traits on the basis of broad social groups is wrong?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok


I have not read anything of Imran's saying anything even remotely like that. Certainly not in this thread. Can you cite a post where he says something like that explicitly, as opposed to saying something entirely different which leads to that as a "logical conclusion" provided the thinker is smoking whatever you're smoking?

I might as well say that the logical conclusion of your arguments is a world where we're all forced to attend group therapy at gunpoint. It does not follow.

He has said that he doesn't want women to be sensitive. This is exactly what allows men to exploit them. It's also the way that children are socialized in the male dominated world. There's only one logical conclusion.