After Saying ‘Vagina,’ a Woman Legislator is Banned From Speaking on House Floor by Niki2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

The two guards at the end made me giggle. Gawd bless Monty Python.

And actually, your "comment" is right on target.

(Weird how I'd completely forgotten John Cleese was in Monty Python for a while...)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 1:35 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'm sorry, but how is this misogynistic again?

The Congress somehow manages to survive some 225 years w/ out the word 'vagina' uttered on the floor, or in the records, and NOW it's a terrible affront to women to ask for some measure of decency and decorum?

This seems like a completely fabricated, utterly pointless issue, being brought up in an election year, when there are absolutely real issues in need of attention. If this Republic falls because some think it's far more important to blurt out various female body parts than work on cutting the deficit ... we're fucked.

Maybe you should tell that to your GOP buddies, who keep blowing off any real efforts at cutting deficits or creating jobs in favor of trying to regulate vaginas without even being able to say the word.

But I wasn't aware that Michigan's state legislature had been around for 225 years.

I never once heard you calling for any of that decency or decorum when Cheney was yelling "Go fuck yourself!" at Pat Leahy, or when a representative yelled "You lie!" at the President, interrupting his State of the Union address.

Probably different when they do it, right?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 4:37 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

I believe only lesbians like Niki12 should be allowed to serve in combat, posthumously.

Happy now?

Quote:
China’s Population Police Force Mother to Abort Baby at Seven Months

the woman, identified as Feng Jianmei, “was beaten and dragged into a vehicle by a group of Family Planning Officials while her husband, Deng Jiyuan, was out working. The officials asked for RMB 40,000 in fines from Feng Jianmei’s family. When they did not receive the money, they forcibly aborted Feng at seven months, laying the body of her aborted baby next to her in the bed.” (A graphic and disturbing photograph of the mother lying next to her murdered baby is posted HERE with the WRWF report.)

On June 11 WRWF reported that its office had received an emergency e-mail from China the prior week detailing the plight of another woman who was in danger of undergoing a forced abortion at the hands of Chinese officials. “At least a dozen family planning officials broke into the home of Cao Ruyi, five months pregnant with her second child, and dragged her to the hospital for a forced abortion,” reported the human rights group. “Her husband, Li Fu, was beaten on the way to the hospital and told that if he and his wife did not consent to a ‘voluntary’ abortion, his wife would be forced to abort.”

The abortion was only averted, and Cao Ruyi released, after the family paid a fine of approximately $1,500 (U.S.) for a “social compensation fee” demanded by the Chinese officials, who, WRWF reported, demanded an additional $25,000 from the couple so that the mother could continue with the pregnancy.

http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=667

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/11718-china%1As-pop
ulation-police-force-mother-to-abort-baby-at-seven-months

That's what Commie jews like Nicovich12 want for YOU in USSA.... Jews like Niki12 hate women and hate YOU. Awaken from your slumber Browncoats, and join the Rebellion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 6:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PIRATENEWS:
I believe only lesbians like Niki12 should be allowed to serve in combat, posthumously.

Are you jealous because she's braver than you are?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 10:11 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

There is nothing even remotely offensive about the word 'vagina' even in the way it was used, which was rhetorical more than anything.

It's a disgrace.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Jack: The male counterpart to misogyny is "misandry."

And now you know.

But, seriously, did the article HAFTA get into calling into question the manliness of these guys? It uses "manly men" so derisively and then also calls the senators spineless. And while in this case the male senator clearly has no ability to debate - whatsoever - and no respect for his female peers, but by using such broad terms the article reveals some kind of unfair opinions about EVERY guy. Worse is that "funny" little list calling a vagina a rape slash. Really? REALLY?

Do the authors even want male allies, or do they just want to alienate every guy around them in a 100 yard radius? I mean, I get wanting to do things for yourself, and having the chip on your shoulder about it, mine's about the size of a mortar launcher. But turning away allies on the basis of gender is just inefficient and unwise, and hell, I'll even say bigoted. The lady who wrote that article, and the ones who wrote the list, they're bigoted. And while I sympathize with them, fighting bigotry with more bigotry is just ugly business.

Dammit!!!! I knew that BYTE! Andros (Male).... That's what I get for finally getting bored of reading "Word Power Made Easy" in the crapper and replacing it with reading my brother's hand-me-down Game Informer Magazines.....

Thanks for putting me straight.

I agree with the rest of what you said. I respect that a lot of women today want to work. I also respect that in today's economy, most families can't get by without both parents working, which really is a shame. It's why our kids are so messed up compared to previous generations and just seems to be getting worse.

There's nothing wrong with being a housewife (or husband, for that matter). My bro's wife is a pharmacist. After she has her first kid, he'll be the one staying at home, and I think he'll make a great stay-at-home dad. Though she tends the gardens, he's the one who did all the work making them for her. He is the "cook" in the family. I'm sure she's great with kids too (or he wouldn't have married her), but my bro was made to raise kids.

I'm just a few small steps away for providing the opposite environment myself. The castle is 3/4's built already, at only 32 years old. I'll find my non mysandrous woman who takes pride at keeping a clean home and tending to the children and my kids are going to be as well rounded and amazing as my youngest two brothers who grew up in the same situation and went to college for free for academic and sports scholarships.

The women you speak of are likely bitter and jaded and whether it was their fathers relationship with their mothers or something more personal with men of their own, they've experienced horrible acts from bad males and, in their new positions of power, put their impotent hatered for those men on ALL men.

Sure... My mom wasn't ideal, but I grew up one day and realized that as flawed as she was, everything she ever did (even the jealous and hateful things) was out of love or the need for love. I've been burned more than once by girls in the past as well. But I'm also adult enough to admit that I've hurt a lot of women myself over the years.

It's the Human Condition....

I don't hate women. I love women.

I just have ZERO time or tolerance for THOSE types of women.

I actually LOVE a self-confident, powerful woman who knows what she wants and knows how to get it. The EXACT OPPOSITE of the ones who write articles like that, trying to force their hatred of men on other women who might have had similar experience and buy into it. It's an eminence front. It's childish lashing out and passive aggressiveness. Those women aren't powerful, and really, they don't deserve to have a voice in public at all anymore than any man who would fling the same shit from the other side. The only difference these days is that it's laughed at (at best) or even illegal for a man to talk that way about women in a public forum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:32 AM

Quote:
It's why our kids are so messed up compared to previous generations and just seems to be getting worse.

Eh, the kids are fine. Every generation there's some kind of terror that kids are screwed up slackers listening to devil music and worshiping satan. The whole blame the youngest generation thing is kinda getting old; social decay is the result of corruption in the system, not every single generation of kids.

Kids do better if left to their own devices really, about all they need is food, a bed, a toilet, and some degree of safety. They don't need two parents around, or rather judging by previous history, one parent around while the other works themselves into an early grave.

In all honesty, the bad economy actually appears to have one good outcome in that it's taught some of this generation how to actually save money and hustle for jobs. Which appears to have been a dying artform over the last 30 years - the mortgage crisis was caused predominantly by mid-thirty year olds with young families, who appear to have no money sense at all.

Quote:
non mysandrous woman who takes pride at keeping a clean home and tending to the children

Good luck. Most people don't praise themselves for the successes of others, they go out and seek personal fulfillment of their own. Man, woman, doesn't matter.

Also, genetics is pretty random, you're probably not only going to have just sons.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:35 PM

Quote:
Those women aren't powerful, and really, they don't deserve to have a voice in public at all anymore than any man who would fling the same shit from the other side. The only difference these days is that it's laughed at (at best) or even illegal for a man to talk that way about women in a public forum.

Yeah, no man would EVER be allowed to say such things in public, right? He'd be fired immediately, if not arrested. Why, if Rush Limbaugh ever called any woman a slut or a whore, he'd... well, he'd still be on the air, where idiot dittoheads just like you would still be lapping up every misogynistic thing he said...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:46 PM

Well, the thing is, Rush and company will have their detractors and their supporters, and if anyone crosses a line that their supporters don't like, they'll hemorrhage that support (and the money that support and audience brings in). It's less of a direct thing than this house leader censoring these two women indefinitely on what's probably purely a political spin issue, but in a way it's similar.

I wouldn't say trying to censor or silence the other group is okay, no matter how disagreeable their statements are. But I'm also not sure we can say one side or the other gets away with detestable statements scot-free.

Which is the beauty of free speech - you're free to say what you want, but you always risk making someone want to pound your face in for saying it. That's just the way society works, humans just aren't all that tolerant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 6:23 PM

Good for you Byte, for being mostly around peers and children who are alright. I only am allowed to hang out with 4 of my long time friends because the rest have OD'd or are lifer's in prison.

Make no mistake, I'm no Alex P Keaton cardigan wearing dude who had two doting parents and two loving sisters growing up. I think about the fact that I'm alive and not in prison every day and I am greatful that I didn't just follow down that path like a Disney lemming 8 or so years ago.

The kids aren't alright....

And that's not just an offspring song....

The bad economy means shit for 99% of people.... people are only not spending because most of them spend 20% of their income paying interest rates and don't want to spend anymore.... .as soon as the economy gets better, people will be spending money they don't have for shit they don't need.

This is hardly even a recession, let alone a REAL 30's DEPRESSION....

If there are no penalties, there is no lesson's learned.

I AM THE ANOMALY......

Maybye you are too.... I'm sure in a pool of over nearly 7 billion people in the world there is more than one.....

I wasn't born this way...

I had some drastic lifestyle changes for the negative based off of bad decisions in my past and I did what I swore I would if life ever "gave me lemonades"....

I did it....

A kid with 2 married parents working all the time and raised by others is just as bad off as divorced parents like mine were.

I thank "Dark Matter" that my brother is "normal".

I'll make a great uncle and teacher, and those kids will love hanging out with Uncle Jack and fishing and learning survivalism things, but I'd never be able to be a husband or a father because I had no role models for that behavior.

To marry a girl would be unfair to her... to have children with her after the fact would be an abomination....

I should think that somebody with your sensibilites might take a second look at your own opinions about things when confronted with this honesty. You're talking with a guy who is grateful that he's never had children, not because of the financial burden, but because I wouldn't have the first idea about what to do with them since I was never taught.... Human "instinct" only goes so far....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:46 PM

Quote:

I AM THE ANOMALY......

Not really. Humans are all pretty much the same.

Quote:
I should think that somebody with your sensibilites might take a second look at your own opinions about things when confronted with this honesty.

...? Are... You saying I'm dishonest?

Quote:
You're talking with a guy who is grateful that he's never had children, not because of the financial burden, but because I wouldn't have the first idea about what to do with them since I was never taught.... Human "instinct" only goes so far....

But, I do understand this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:39 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I actually LOVE a self-confident, powerful woman who knows what she wants and knows how to get it. The EXACT OPPOSITE of the ones who write articles like that, trying to force their hatred of men on other women who might have had similar experience and buy into it. It's an eminence front. It's childish lashing out and passive aggressiveness. Those women aren't powerful, and really, they don't deserve to have a voice in public at all anymore than any man who would fling the same shit from the other side. The only difference these days is that it's laughed at (at best) or even illegal for a man to talk that way about women in a public forum.

Sounds like you like women - as long as they know their place. You've really been painiting a very ugly picture of yourself, lately.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:01 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

To me, he's become even more irrelevant than Raptor, who is at the very least, entertaining. Given I didn't know Six before he appeared this time around, it's the only picture I have of him, and it seems to reflect someone so caught up in his own situation and his anger that he's not even rational. His posts are all long rambling rants which have little to do with the subject of the thread and more to do with showing us how he's an upstanding guy (who owns his own home, etc.) who has been screwed by I'm-not-sure-what. I pretty much ignore him now, given he's so out there and has nothing to say but a long diatribe about whatever HE isn't interested in (it often comes around to that, if you've noticed) and how HE this and that and so forth--most everything seems to be wrapped around his own situation and his own anger at the world, he doesn't have much to say to me that's of consequence.

Has it occurred to anyone, back on the original topic, that, for all the claims of "censorship" from the right, what happened in this instance is actual, verified, GOVERNMENT-sponsored cenorship? That's kind of the pertinent point; that the legislators with POWER can silence other legislators who say things they don't like, exclude them from representing their constituents on an issue which affects some half of those constitutents? Where are the righties screaming about that censorship?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:36 AM

Quote:
Has it occurred to anyone, back on the original topic, that, for all the claims of "censorship" from the right, what happened in this instance is actual, verified, GOVERNMENT-sponsored cenorship? That's kind of the pertinent point; that the legislators with POWER can silence other legislators who say things they don't like, exclude them from representing their constituents on an issue which affects some half of those constitutents? Where are the righties screaming about that censorship?

That is objectionable. My feelings on the source article and what specifically the congresswomen said are complicated, but I've probably explained that adequately and am now willing to explore this side of the argument.

But I struggle with saying anything about it that hasn't already been said. Is there a specific angle about this censorship you would like to discuss?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
Has it occurred to anyone, back on the original topic, that, for all the claims of "censorship" from the right, what happened in this instance is actual, verified, GOVERNMENT-sponsored cenorship? That's kind of the pertinent point; that the legislators with POWER can silence other legislators who say things they don't like, exclude them from representing their constituents on an issue which affects some half of those constitutents? Where are the righties screaming about that censorship?

That is objectionable. My feelings on the source article and what specifically the congresswomen said are complicated, but I've probably explained that adequately and am now willing to explore this side of the argument.

But I struggle with saying anything about it that hasn't already been said. Is there a specific angle about this censorship you would like to discuss?

The worst part is, that wasn't even the first time THIS MONTH that the Michigan legislature had silenced any and all dissent by legislative decree.

And not one right-winger will raise a peep in objection to it, because they're only silencing the people that right-wingers want permanently silenced in the first place.

Where is Wulfie in this? Where is Rappy? Where is their beloved Tea Party?

Nowhere, that's where. That's because they approve of and openly endorse such behavior.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 20, 2012 10:36 AM

Quote:

The worst part is, that wasn't even the first time THIS MONTH that the Michigan legislature had silenced any and all dissent by legislative decree.

Did not know that.

Not too surprising. Bad trend.

Do we know what the other incidents were, are they related in some way? All about this abortion debate, or on other topics, say of a christian interest, or against the house majority party line?

All censorship is unacceptable but I'm wondering specifically what kind of authoritarian douchebags they are. The force religion down your throat kind? The corrupt and getting paid behind the back kind? The party shill kind?

It occurs to me the insurance industry may have a dog in this fight, in that they may not want to have to cover contraceptives due to the cost and also due to that not being an easy claim to deny.

Also, I'm suddenly wondering were Frem is. Michigan is his turf and I'm surprised he hasn't commented yet. Has anyone seen him recently?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:26 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Interestingly, Byte, I was just wondering about Frem myself today. I hope he's okay.

Mike, I too would like to know more about what else they've been doing (tho' it'll probably just piss me off), if you'd pass it along.

I got MY in-box "spammed" today (tho' nothing like as insanely as Anthony did!):

Quote:
Niki,

Michigan's Republican House Speaker James Bolger and Majority Leader Jim Stamas are eager to regulate vaginas, so long as they don't have to hear about them.

Last week, they silenced Reps. Lisa Brown and Barb Byrum for wanting to speak out about women's reproductive health.

For saying the word "vagina," Brown was barred from speaking on the House floor. Byrum was barred before she even got the chance to give a speech!

Join us in demanding that they apologize to Lisa Brown and Barb Byrum -- and allow them to speak again on the House floor. Click here to sign.

It is unacceptable that Republicans have used bullying tactics to shut down debate about important issues. It's happened in Wisconsin, Michigan, and around the country.

With your help, we can publicly shame Michigan's Republican leaders and make others think twice before silencing debate in the future.

We'll inform Michigan media about thousands of people demanding an apology -- and run online ads shaming Bolger and Stamas publicly.

Sign the petition demanding that Stamas and Bolger apologize! Then pass this to your friends.

What a difference between that and the insane stuff that Anthony got. Fascinating.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:53 PM

There was some stuff where the Democrats tried to object via the accepted parliamentary process for doing so, and were shouted down and a "roll call" vote was taken in about 3 seconds to end the session so they couldn't object.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#47807043

And now the GOP is saying that women legislators are like children, and needed "a time out".

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/20/mich-lawmaker-on-silencing-femal
e-colleague-its-like-giving-a-kid-a-timeout/

Quote:
Michigan state Rep. Wayne Schmidt (R) recently compared prohibiting two Democratic women legislators from speaking to punishing a child.

“It’s like giving a kid a timeout for a day,” he told Lansing radio host Patrick Shiels. “You know, hey, timeout, you wanna comment too far, you spoke your piece. We’re gonna let these other people have their dissenting comments, and then we’ll get back to business.”

The group Progress Michigan on Wednesday slammed Schmidt for the remark, saying it “only draws more attention to the inherent disrespect women serving in the legislature are unnecessarily encountering.”

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 21, 2012 5:32 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Omigawd, what can you say about that?!?! How INSANE...and how clearly it shows just how bold men on the right have become in showing their true nature!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 21, 2012 5:56 AM

Yeah, an indefinite ban is almost exactly like a temporary time out, only not temporary.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 21, 2012 7:57 AM

Now settle down, ladies, or I'll have to give y'all a li'l time-out. I know y'all are prone to hysteria and the vapors and all, but don't go sassin' me now, ya hear? Just lie back and enjoy it, and let the men do all the hard thinkin'.

That is the GOP position on the issue. Actually, they only have one real position: Missionary.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 21, 2012 8:03 AM

Both sides are fairly condescending to each other, so I can't really get offended by them calling the women childish when Niki's article called them childish in return. That's just the usual pissing fight.

But, abuse of power is something I can get angry about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:13 AM

MAL4PREZ

Byte, the thing is, this is not an even situation, where each side has done the same. Far from it! This is an issue that effects WOMEN, since we have vaginas and men don't. And yet, input from women is being systematically silenced by men. This is not the first event of this kind. Haven't you been paying attention?

I respect your right to not take this personally, but I view it very much differently, and I think your argument is pretty short-sighted. Even if that legislator was not speaking for her constituents (which she was - it's her job) she still has a very good reason to take this personally. Damned right this is personal for every woman in this country. These men are trying to take control of our own bodies away from us, and they aren't even allowing women a voice in the debate. It's damned well ridiculous, and many things besides. The issue is not the word, it's the misogyny.

Historically, governing people without allowing them representation has led to a lot more extreme reactions than using a medical term in public.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:16 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

The conservatives want to hug women against their will.

Some women take that personal.

ETA - Not that I equate it to hugs, but a hug is a very personal violation to Byte, so she may understand that even the *potential* that she may be hugged against her will by the government is enough to take personal offense.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:49 AM

I'm not sure how pointing out that both sides call each other childish means that I have abruptly reneged on my disapproval of the house leader's actions, which I have been voicing from the very beginning of this thread and which my mixed feelings about the inappropriateness of the statements from Lisa Brown have very little to do with.

I don't take it personally, and there's really not anything anyone can say to make me take this personally, because it simply can not be personal for me due to my being sterile, asexual, and androgynous. You all may take it as personal as you want, but don't expect me to join in on that or to lose my objectivity just because I also happen to be female. There is only so much about the biological processes of normal women that I can understand or particularly want to understand.

I can stand with you on pro-choice, and I can stand with you against the draconian methods of the house leader here, but anything further is ultimately beyond my ability to offer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 21, 2012 12:04 PM

Quote:
ETA - Not that I equate it to hugs, but a hug is a very personal violation to Byte, so she may understand that even the *potential* that she may be hugged against her will by the government is enough to take personal offense.

Well, sure, that is why I am pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I suddenly expect all of you to become as strongly, emotionally, and violently anti-hug as I am.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 21, 2012 12:58 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
ETA - Not that I equate it to hugs, but a hug is a very personal violation to Byte, so she may understand that even the *potential* that she may be hugged against her will by the government is enough to take personal offense.

Well, sure, that is why I am pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I suddenly expect all of you to become as strongly, emotionally, and violently anti-hug as I am.

Hello,

Someone touching you against your will, Byte? That's a topic I can get behind and feel very personal about.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:10 PM

...?

Perhaps I owe you more of an apology than I thought. It is clear I have screwed up in some way. I'm sorry.

I never meant to suggest I represent all women, or that I need help fending off hugs, or that you should take my weird quirks personally.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 3:31 AM

"Pretty much".... as in generally....

Blame it on mental defects if you'd like, but I'm so afraid of commitment that I won't even upgrade my 8 year old cellphone with a company I LOVE (T-Mobile) because I don't want to get off the month-to-month thing. I'm so freaking adverse to credit that I will do nearly ANYTHING to avoid being in anyone's pocket even an inch. Even with friends and family, I try to be the one to do favors first so if I ever need one I'm not going to be obligated to them after asking them for a favor.

Say what you will about most of humanity, but I don't think that this is "normal" behavior for most humans... especially most Americans.

I wasn't saying you were dishonest about anything.... Don't go jumping to conclusions.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

I AM THE ANOMALY......

Not really. Humans are all pretty much the same.

Quote:
I should think that somebody with your sensibilites might take a second look at your own opinions about things when confronted with this honesty.

...? Are... You saying I'm dishonest?

Quote:
You're talking with a guy who is grateful that he's never had children, not because of the financial burden, but because I wouldn't have the first idea about what to do with them since I was never taught.... Human "instinct" only goes so far....

But, I do understand this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 3:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BYTE: You may have already got past this discussion... I really don't have time to read all of the posts in this thread... but you seem to think it is bad form to make the discussion about abortion rights personal.

I know you have issues with all things personal, so let me just say that you're wrong: The FIRST thing that a group does when it wants to discriminate against another group is it DEHUMANIZES them. The only way to counter that dehumanization (aside from grabbing some Uzis and preparing for genocide) is to put things back in the realm of the personal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 4:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I actually LOVE a self-confident, powerful woman who knows what she wants and knows how to get it. The EXACT OPPOSITE of the ones who write articles like that, trying to force their hatred of men on other women who might have had similar experience and buy into it. It's an eminence front. It's childish lashing out and passive aggressiveness. Those women aren't powerful, and really, they don't deserve to have a voice in public at all anymore than any man who would fling the same shit from the other side. The only difference these days is that it's laughed at (at best) or even illegal for a man to talk that way about women in a public forum.

Sounds like you like women - as long as they know their place. You've really been painiting a very ugly picture of yourself, lately.

I'm sure I have been Mark, but certainly not in the way you took any of that quote.

I love a Dominant Alpha-Female who embraces her sexuality and shows no shame in it. The type that knows she can get whatever she wants without even having to ask for it. The type that, sadly, I can't afford to maintain at this juncture in my life. The type that Hall and Oates warned you about.....

Any bad side any of you see of me here is a unique perspective that nobody in my life: family, friends or coworkers, would ever suspect any of this stuff. I'm generally liked anywhere I go, and I'm really my only critic, and a brutal bastard of a critic at that.

All of that said, thinking I have any desire to be with a "woman who knows her place" couldn't be further from the truth. I've dated plenty of great girls that were prone to submissive tenancies or downright submissive from the start. To me, being in a relationship like that is as boring, unfulfilling and pointless as sitting in a freshly painted room for two hours and watching the walls for 2 hours until they were ready for a 2nd coat of paint. (Just multiply that 2 hours by about 50,000 and you'll get a "silver anniversary" out of it....

I love women for sure.... Unfortunately, the only ones that really do it for me leave Mrs. Havisham and her protege Estella in the dust.... (Great Expectations reference for those of you who read the Cliff's Notes and forgot)

I guess, here's your answer to the other thread Kwick.....

The women I find to be sexually attractive are the most extreme drug. It's hard not to do Cocaine after having indulged occasionally in my youth, but to know a woman who's kiss alone is more toxic than the nose candy and then trying to deny the urge to fall deeper into that path....... How do you prevent that?

That's a REAL question for you... Especially, since you're an atheist, if nothing really matters... how do you prevent an urge so strong that you're afraid you might succumb to it and lose everything you have in a night to that desire?

I don't overindulge in drinking and pot (when I used to smoke) because I'm an alcoholic or a pot-head... I do it to numb myself and put the reins on the dragon.... Some days I can go without any indulgence, but most I need some help.... some excessive help. The only reason I'm posting here while drinking today is because I can't do home improvement while drinking like I could do an online project I was involved in for the previous 4-5 years that ate up a ridiculous amount of my time and satisfied my OCD brain activities enough to keep it all at bay.

Some of the women I've "known" are

scary, and some of them are downright evil and without conscience. I don't know what's more addictive..... Their beauty and attitude, or the ability to just let go around them and be just as evil and without conscience for the short time we're together?

Sure, my rational conscious mind would love to get into another vanilla relationship and settle down with kids and a dog and a white picket fence... and it also hates what I've become. But even if that rational conscious mind is in control 23 out of 24 hours of the day, it doesn't hold a candle to the other hour.....

If anything, Mark, I think that I may have shown what a stand-up-guy I am for doing whatever future liver-damage I can to myself to keep myself as far removed from this kink I can and to not get into a "real" relationship. Many other men would "fake" it and date and mislead a girl that had no idea about his dark side and his taboo desires. I've been down that road before, and I've broken girls hearts over it, even though they had no idea why I was breaking up with them. I've never forgotten a single name of a girl I've temporarily wrecked, and although I hope they've forgotten me by now, those are the crosses I'll have to bear on my soul for the rest of my life.

I guess the real question to an outsider would be, why don't I find somebody who is dominant enough to rule me without ruining me?

That's a great question.....

Unfortunately, that woman is too weak for me, and I'll get bored of her too.

The real question actually is, why do I do everything I can to destroy myself, even to the point of only really enjoying sexual encounters when a woman is fulfilling that basic need? A woman who will stop at nothing to revel in my ruination?

I'm the most successful self-hater I know.

So Mark... I'm sure that post doesn't "heighten" your opinion about me in the least, but at least it writes history correctly......

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 6:16 AM

I actually kinda hear you here Jack, I know a lot of guys who dig the bad girls too. The ones who look at Faith from buffy and thing Hells yeah. I can get the fear of commitment when it comes to girls like that.

As someone who sees romance, love, and marriage in a very negative light, you won't have me saying you're a bad guy for seeing it that way too. Frankly, I think you're being kinda smart here, considering the type you're into - especially because I get the sense that most of the women who are like that don't really want marriage or domesticity either. You're both reducing the hurt you take and the hurt you dish out by being cautious.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 6:19 AM

Quote:
BYTE: You may have already got past this discussion... I really don't have time to read all of the posts in this thread... but you seem to think it is bad form to make the discussion about abortion rights personal.

I know you have issues with all things personal, so let me just say that you're wrong: The FIRST thing that a group does when it wants to discriminate against another group is it DEHUMANIZES them. The only way to counter that dehumanization (aside from grabbing some Uzis and preparing for genocide) is to put things back in the realm of the personal.

By taking it personal, this appears to mean reacting by dehumanizing them right back. An escalating fight where nothing ever gets resolved, no talking happens, no understanding is reached, and the hate each group carries for the other side leads to yet more extreme reactions and measures.

I remain objective to fight against that inevitability. To try to prevent this misunderstanding from getting worse. Talking to folks like AURaptor and trying to understand their position, while at the same time making clear my own views, and also clarifying the views of others.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 6:33 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I just want to say that, when it comes to both sides being childish, there is a vast difference between someone writing an article you view as childish and a state legislator with the power to do so viewing his fellow legislators as "childish" and using that power to silence them. I'd be willing to bet they've never called a male representative who speaks up "childish", nor given them a "time out". This sort of thing is, from what I've seen, exclusively done from male points of view TO females, and that's one of the things we need to change. Many men still haven't accepted women as equal human beings, and until they do, nothing will change...in fact it's going backwards at this time in our history, with the right feeling more and more emboldened to not only speak their prejudice but ACT on it.

Men can be as childish as anyone--sometimes even moreso. And if it comes to that, I think silencing an elected official "indefinitely" for saying a word and thinking of it as giving a child a time out is about as immature a thing as anything else. Just sayin'.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 6:39 AM

Quote:
there is a vast difference between someone writing an article you view as childish and a state legislator with the power to do so viewing his fellow legislators as "childish" and using that power to silence them.

I apologize. After reviewing the article a second time, it appears that the article called them "spineless ninnies," not "childish." Rather, you were the one who called me childish, and I projected that onto the article.

However, I still find myself unable to be bothered that one side tosses around insults when the other side also does so.

Quote:
I think silencing an elected official "indefinitely" for saying a word and thinking of it as giving a child a time out is about as immature a thing as anything else. Just sayin'.

And now apparently you are calling them childish for them calling these women childish, so my original point stands.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 6:43 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

How about if we just call it wrong?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 6:52 AM

Quote:

How about if we just call it wrong?

I've been saying that the house leader silencing these women has been wrong all along, so sure.

The rest of the thread has been about examining both sides in detail.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 6:57 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

That's very interesting. Are you taking whatever I post as directed at you or something, Byte? It confused me that you said I'd called you "childish", so I went through the whole thread. What I found was "In other words, what I've been trying to impart all along is that for a bunch of Republican male legislators to indefinitely censor a legitimate representative for simply using the word "vagina", especially given they are legislating around just that, and given the extremely serious and wrong actions around the issue itself, is unconscionable and, well, stupid, childish, mysogynistic and a perfect representation of their mentality." That had nothing to do with you, it's very clear I was saying it about "Republican male legislators". Very confusing.

And again, tho' you'll probably take offense, your statement was, to me, passive-aggressive. To say I'd used the word (and to believe (?) I called you that), so you'd projected it onto something else, pretty much negates any "apology". In essence, you're still shifting the blame to me, not expressing regret for something you wrote. Maybe you can't see that, but that's how it comes across.

And no, I didn't call them childish for them calling these women childish: I said they were being immature for TREATING women like children. There's a vast difference.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 6:57 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

All right.

Forcing exclusion of the word 'vagina' from a debate about women's bodies is wrong.

Silencing a representative is wrong.

Comparing her to a child is wrong.

And taking control of a woman's body from her is wrong.

What does the other side have to offer?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 6:59 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well said, Anthony, and I agree with all of it. It's just plain wrong. There is no defense, in my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 7:20 AM

Quote:

And again, tho' you'll probably take offense, your statement was, to me, passive-aggressive. To say I'd used the word (and to believe (?) I called you that), so you'd projected it onto something else, pretty much negates any "apology". In essence, you're still shifting the blame to me, not expressing regret for something you wrote. Maybe you can't see that, but that's how it comes across.

I apologized about misinterpreting the article, I don't apologize for YOU calling me childish or passive aggressive. In fact, the carefully maintained emotional distance I've been trying to cultivate after my emotional deluge earlier this month is rapidly evaporating, and anger is starting to touch my heart again.

Quote:

And no, I didn't call them childish for them calling these women childish: I said they were being immature for TREATING women like children. There's a vast difference.

You'll have to explain it to me then, because I see no difference whatsoever.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 7:22 AM

Quote:

What does the other side have to offer?

I am not sure what you are asking. Are you asking me to play devil's advocate? Or are you asking a loaded question to imply that I *AM* the other side when I'm not?

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Well said, Anthony, and I agree with all of it. It's just plain wrong. There is no defense, in my opinion.

I fail to understand how pointing out that you guys do this kind of stuff too is in any way defending what the house leader did.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 7:34 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Well said, Anthony, and I agree with all of it. It's just plain wrong. There is no defense, in my opinion.

I fail to understand how pointing out that you guys do this kind of stuff too is in any way defending what the house leader did.

Hello,

I don't think you did defend the house leader. But you did mention a dispassionate approach that allows you to understand the other person's position.

So what does the other side have to offer? I'd like to examine their position for its validity as well.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 7:45 AM

Quote:

So what does the other side have to offer? I'd like to examine their position for its validity as well.

The problem here is that neither side is sound, and neither side actually has the moral high ground. Which is what happens when a debate becomes too intensely personal.

But you are still being unclear. Do you mean you want me to explain what is wrong about the congresswomen's actions? Haven't I already been exploring that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 8:18 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

You believe that neither side has the moral high ground, which is interesting to me.

I feel that the side trying to protect the right to manage their own bodies has the moral high ground. I believe this is the case because people should have the right to manage their own bodies as a point of personal liberty.

I also believe that asking someone who opposes this liberty why they are so interested in your body is valid. I also believe likening such intrusion into personal liberty to an act of rape is an apt metaphor, particularly because this intrusion involves taking control of another person's reproductive organs.

Perhaps you can explain again why you feel this might not be the case, because I have overlooked the dispassionate argument to the contrary.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 8:45 AM

Quote:
I feel that the side trying to protect the right to manage their own bodies has the moral high ground. I believe this is the case because people should have the right to manage their own bodies as a point of personal liberty.

I also believe that asking someone who opposes this liberty why they are so interested in your body is valid. I also believe likening such intrusion into personal liberty to an act of rape is an apt metaphor, particularly because this intrusion involves taking control of another person's reproductive organs.

I would agree with this... If it didn't cause harm to someone else's life.

This is basically pitting authoritarian censorship and attacks on free will and killing abortion doctors against outrage censorship, attacks on unborn free will, and killing the unborn. So the only thing I can actually agree with is that managing their bodies in this way is NECESSARY and they have to be allowed to do so. I can't actually agree that it's GOOD. As a result, I tend to see this whole issue as rather grey.

But, neither the congresswomen nor the house leader have ever had abortions as far as I can tell, so this is beside the point.

I am told that I should take all this as a very personal attack on myself simply because I have a vagina. I prefer to make up my own mind about whether or not I'm being attacked. The end result of that is that I feel some women are being attacked, and have some interest in supporting them in obtaining what is necessary, but do not myself feel attacked. So I do not take this personal.

And because I do not take this personal, I see bad behaviour here that I don't really approve of on both sides.

When one side calls another childish, I can't really sympathize with either side. When one side suggests a ban on vasectomies as a counterpoint to a ban on abortion, whether it is meant seriously or not, I can't really sympathize with either side. When one side asks why the other side is so interested in her personal anatomy, when her counterpart suggested banning vasectomies for men, I can't really sympathize. If the men were to start talking about their personal anatomy I would not sympathize with them. When the men propose a ban on abortion, I do not sympathize with them. When the men silence the women congresswomen, I do not sympathize with them. And when snarky one-sided articles are posted about this, I do not sympathize.

This is only my opinion and feelings on this, so I recognize other people feel differently and are free to do so. They are also free to reject me for not being pro-choice enough if they so wish. But I do not accept them telling me how I *should* feel on the basis of my gender.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 9:04 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:

I would agree with this... If it didn't cause harm to someone else's life.

Hello,

This would imply that you do not agree with this.

From what I can see, the only reasons to not agree with it are because A) you consider the unborn to be independent living entities with their own rights and that B) you consider the rights of this unborn person to supercede the rights of the host mother.

These are the two criteria which must be met, as far as I can tell, for you to not agree. Am I mistaken on any particular?

Quote:
This is basically pitting authoritarian censorship and attacks on free will and killing abortion doctors against outrage censorship, attacks on unborn free will, and killing the unborn. So the only thing I can actually agree with is that managing their bodies in this way is NECESSARY and they have to be allowed to do so. I can't actually agree that it's GOOD. As a result, I tend to see this whole issue as rather grey.

In viewing this dispassionately, you have concluded that people must have the rights to manage their own bodies. Given that this is your conclusion, then even if you do not see abortion rights as 'good' you would certainly see something that contravenes Necessary rights as 'bad.' Is this not so?

Quote:
But, neither the congresswomen nor the house leader have ever had abortions as far as I can tell, so this is beside the point.

This statement is illogical. These people are in the position of deciding the fate of all human beings in their territories. Such is the nature of a representative government. Given that this is the case, requiring them to share every experience of a myriad constituency in order to make law or even debate it is not reasonable.

Quote:
I am told that I should take all this as a very personal attack on myself simply because I have a vagina. I prefer to make up my own mind about whether or not I'm being attacked. The end result of that is that I feel some women are being attacked, and have some interest in supporting them in obtaining what is necessary, but do not myself feel attacked. So I do not take this personal.

This statement is logical. Nobody can tell you how you are allowed to feel. Hence, you can not tell the female representative debating this issue that she should NOT take it personally, just as no one can tell you that you MUST take it personally.

Quote:
When one side calls another childish, I can't really sympathize with either side. When one side suggests a ban on vasectomies as a counterpoint to a ban on abortion, whether it is meant seriously or not, I can't really sympathize with either side. When one side asks why the other side is so interested in her personal anatomy, when her counterpart suggested banning vasectomies for men, I can't really sympathize. If men were to start talking about their personal anatomy I would not sympathize. When the men propose a ban on abortion, I do not sympathize. When the men silence the women congresswomen, I do not sympathize. And when snarky one-sided articles are posted about this, I do not sympathize.

Sympathy is unnecessary in a dispassionate debate. It is possible to achieve conclusions absent of sympathy, and I believe those conclusions are clear.

Quote:
But I do not accept them telling me how I *should* feel on the basis of my gender.

Nor are others likely to accept that they can't have feelings about this merely because they have not personally experienced an abortion.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 9:09 AM

Quote:
From what I can see, the only reasons to not agree with it are because A) you consider the unborn to be independent living entities with their own rights and that B) you consider the rights of this unborn person to supercede the rights of the host mother.

These are the two criteria which must be met, as far as I can tell, for you to not agree. Am I mistaken on any particular?

You are correct, to a degree, about A. I'm willing to recognize that a lot of pregnancies are unsuccessful, and that a fertilized egg is not inherently immediately a person. But at the same time, I do have some protective inclinations towards life in general, whether or not it is fully formed or complicated. I feel sorry for bacteria sometimes, I do not kill insects or spiders, I am vegan and feel sorry for the plants I eat.

You are incorrect about B. I do not feel the rights of the unborn person supercede the rights of the mother. That is why I am pro-choice. But that does not mean that aborting the unborn sits well with me.

Quote:
Given that this is your conclusion, then even if you do not see abortion rights as 'good' you would certainly see something that contravenes Necessary rights as 'bad.' Is this not so?

Not necessarily. While in this particular instance I can agree it's bad, there are some things that might be done in the pursuit of necessary rights that might also be bad, and acting to counter them would not itself be bad.

Like if someone were to try to bomb a pro-life rally in retaliation for pro-lifers bombing abortion clinics, that would be bad, even if by destroying the opposition to pro-choice women could secure necessary rights.

Quote:

This statement is illogical. These people are in the position of deciding the fate of all human beings in their territories. Such is the nature of a representative government. Given that this is the case, requiring them to share every experience of a myriad constituency in order to make law or even debate it is not reasonable.

Wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that abortion is a separate issue from a congresswoman getting censored and the bad behaviour I saw exhibited on either side of that particular incident.

Quote:
Hence, you can not tell the female representative debating this issue that she should NOT take it personally, just as no one can tell you that you MUST take it personally.

[...]

Nor are others likely to accept that they can't have feelings about this merely because they have not personally experienced an abortion.

True. I do still think it's a better tactic, but I don't really expect anyone else to embrace it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 22, 2012 9:13 AM