Lesbian Feminist Whores Sexually Molest and Physically Attack Catholic Boys

[Kidlicious]

I don't believe abortion is illegal in Argentina. Wtf is COckney talking about. This is a violent and perverted hate group that has no respect for the law.

[Kidlicious]

Kid, it is good to see your balls are still safely tucked away in the purse of your ex.

I don't see what criticising hate groups has to do with my manhood. If you're such a fan of feminism why are you pressuring me to conform to gender constructs?

[Kidlicious]

Not going to answer?

Me? Same punishment men recieve for such crimes whatever it is there.

[Ban Kenobi]

I don't believe abortion is illegal in Argentina. Wtf is COckney talking about. This is a violent and perverted hate group that has no respect for the law.

Yes it is. Illegal with some exceptions.

[Kidlicious]

Well vandalizing churches and attacking people isn't the answer. Use the democratic process. If you can't get the votes violence is not the answer. There are a lot of minorities. If they all resorted to such measures we would have anarchy.

[Ban Kenobi]

I, too, am against vandalizing churches and attacking people.

[Kidlicious]

[C0ckney]

People will generally not support groups who engage in violent acts. The suffragettes likely had a harder road after committing violence. This is something that Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. learned. Violence in reaction to non-violence is especially egregious and these ridiculous people just made the Catholic Church look sympathetic - think on that.

perhaps the suffragettes should have voted for candidates who supported their position.

oh wait a minute...

actually, i agree (and i have already said) that a non-violent approach is usually better than a violent one. in steven pinker's book (the better angels of our nature), he points out that non-violent movements have roughly a 75% success rates, and violent ones a 25% success rate. however, you have to take into account the specific context in which these events take place.

the catholic church may not be violent themselves (although of course they have a history of supporting violent forces, and not just in south america), but there are other kinds of oppression. it is no coincidence that women tend to be in a worse position in catholic countries, compared to secular or protestant ones.

And what is the 'ban' in Argentina? Would you support violent acts against organizations who advocate for a complete ban on alcohol? That would obviously be madness. As is violence against people peacefully desiring a ban to abortion. If you believe violence is ok, then you don't really believe in democracy.

abortion is illegal in argentina, as it is in most, perhaps all, i'm not sure, latin american countries. also, it's not just about abortion but women's rights in general

you're stretching the analogy too far in any case. all i wanted to say is that there is a difference between reasonable regulation and a ban.

They are far more similar than you are willing to admit. Violence in the sake of political disagreement is anti-democracy to its core.

i think you're just being dramatic here. a fight in a bar and the rwandan genocide are both examples of violence, but no one would argue they are similar things.

[Kidlicious]

Currently they have the right to beat people up etc. What other rights are they demanding?

[N35t0r]

(who belong to an extreme conservative catholic group, which promotes anti-semitism)

Very very very big no. The group that you posted about (and which urged believers to 'defend' the cathedral) is pretty small, and I'd bet that they made up less than 5% of the Catholics there. The majority of them were pretty normal (Catholic) people.

Could it be the same young men who linked arms in front of the cahedral?

99% certain that they aren't.

I don't believe abortion is illegal in Argentina. Wtf is COckney talking about. This is a violent and perverted hate group that has no respect for the law.

Yes it is. Illegal with some exceptions.

This. Only when there is clear risk to the mother, or the pregnancy was the result of rape (until last year, only mentally disabled women could get an abortion on these grounds).

Also, as from last year, rape cases no longer need to go through the justice system to get approval for the abortions (in theory). There have been several cases in which the judicial delay (often with appeals all the way to the supreme court) meant that the abortion wasn't performed due to the advanced state of development of the foetus.

[Imran Siddiqui]

perhaps the suffragettes should have voted for candidates who supported their position.

oh wait a minute...

actually, i agree (and i have already said) that a non-violent approach is usually better than a violent one. in steven pinker's book (the better angels of our nature), he points out that non-violent movements have roughly a 75% success rates, and violent ones a 25% success rate. however, you have to take into account the specific context in which these events take place.

You mean in a democratic society where the people who want change can vote for it? Which also serves to indicate where your suffragette analogy falls horribly short.

it is no coincidence that women tend to be in a worse position in catholic countries, compared to secular or protestant ones.

Those poor Spanish and Italian women.

abortion is illegal in argentina, as it is in most, perhaps all, i'm not sure, latin american countries. also, it's not just about abortion but women's rights in general

you're stretching the analogy too far in any case. all i wanted to say is that there is a difference between reasonable regulation and a ban.

There is a difference between reasonable protest and violence.

i think you're just being dramatic here. a fight in a bar and the rwandan genocide are both examples of violence, but no one would argue they are similar things.

Actually I'm not being dramatic. Once you accept violence is acceptable in democratic debates, you have started on the path to justifying violent overthrows of democratic governments. Where is your line? And does it make any rational sense?

[Hauldren Collider]

c0ckney can no longer complain when I advocate the overthrow of democratically elected communist governments.

QFMFT

[Hauldren Collider]

It'd be like (albeit this would be self-defeating and no one would ever do this) justifying violence against the NRA for its power and pervasiveness in American policy on guns.

I know this wasn't your point, but even putting aside any political factors, I really can't think of a worse organization to attempt violence against than the NRA...just an extremely bad idea...

[Dr Strangelove]

c0ckney can no longer complain when I advocate the overthrow of democratically elected communist governments.

Like Ukraine?

[Alexander's Horse]

you can but you would lose it