Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Privately-funded groups are permitted to have exclusionary membership requirements. If someone wants to be a member of a group that will not have them, that is none of my concern. It only becomes my concern when that group is receiving public funds, or is extending its exclusionary membership practices to members of the public with whom the group interacts. Outside of those scenarios, I do not care and neither should anyone else. Do not like it? Do not be a member of that group. Push on down the road.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If the march is organized around advancing the rights of women, then only the Pro-Life position is consistent with that goal.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Not because it is taking a particular stand on the issue of abortion, but because it errs on the side of more freedom for women, not less.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion, it is literally the right of a women to choose for herself. The Pro-Life position literally advocates for less rights for women. Now, it is up to each woman to reconcile her feelings about abortion with her feminism.
Totally sounds like a religion, and you make it sound like the pro-life women are heretics who have spoken out against the church.
You make it sound like they are reconciling something with their God.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
However, it would not be consistent with the goal of advancing the rights of women to allow a group who wants to restrict the rights of women to participate in an official capacity, just because that group is comprised of women. Not only would that be antithetical to the goal, it would also be sexist.Those groups would not be welcome to participate either for similar reasons. Your religious beliefs do not make you exempt from following laws you do not like. You cannot march for LGBT rights, while supporting the desire of people to opt out of the laws that protect LGBT people. I mean, you are welcome to try, but that stupidity is not going to be indulged by almost anyone.
If 40% of women are not to have their voices represented in this movement, then don't pretend it is the voice of the female sex.
If a gay person is excommunicated from having their voice heard because they cut against the grain of what other people believe, then don't pretend the LGBT demographic is in any way a "community" with a common set of interests and values.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Here's an article detailing the Xhale screecher for anyone wondering.https://www.dailywire.com/news/39839/screaming-vape-shop-employee-fired-man-who-frank-camp
"Furgeson, who was wearing a "Trump 2020" shirt and a "Make America Great Again" hat" -snip
Sounds like a set up.
Here is what I find interesting about this little b*tchflakes hissy fit: he gets on the phone with someone at one point over this. Presumably someone higher up the chain than him. He is clearly hostile to the guy even while on the damn phone with his boss.
Was whoever was on the other end of the phone just not bothered by an customer being treated that way? The correct response from the boss should have been "hey snowflake, sell the man what he wants". This doesn't occur and it's only upon threat of showing the recording to the cops and media does the employee finally sell him something.
Makes me wonder if this employee has behaved this way in the past? If so, it's quite clear he was not fired over his actions, but rather over his actions being recorded and then put on display for the world.
Move Over ‘Friends,’ Millennials Now Find ‘Seinfeld’ Problematic
No Seinfeld for you!
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yes, they are permitted to have exclusionary membership. We all agree they should be permitted to do that. Surtur and I have been over this with you twice right now and you're still acting as if we're saying something that cuts against that principle.
"We acknowledge the group in question is not doing anything wrong, but allow us to share all of the things we find wrong with what they are doing." Seems really consistent.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Surprisingly woke Freudian slip considering that half of humans conceived are female and it's not just the male babies the pro-life position is advocating for, I agree 100%
Then you agree that the Pro-Life cause is not exclusively about advancing the rights of women and therefore, has no place at a march for advancing the rights of women.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Really? Because I know a woman in my Christian org on campus whose birth mother gave her up for adoption. It's a rather sensitive issue for her that she wouldn't have had any freedom if her mother had instead chosen to terminate her life for which she is very grateful.
Likewise, had her mother terminated her pregnancy, she would not have developed consciousness, and would not care. So what? That is an improper appeal to emotion in place of support, not an argument.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Reconcile her abortion with her feminism? You make feminism sound like a religion where instead of a woman having her own relationship with God or going to confession to confess her sins with God, she instead has her relationship with the feminist ideal to which she must honor through her own special relationship that's between her and feminism.Totally sounds like a religion, and you make it sound like the pro-life women are heretics who have spoken out against the church.
You make it sound like they are reconciling something with their God.
Women are not monolithic. There is not a single feminist perspective. When a woman has a conflict between say, reproductive freedom and religious belief, she has to reconcile those things herself. That is the exact opposite of dogma.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Oh I see, so if you don't rigidly conform to every single thing those pushing identity politics ask for for a group, you are a filthy heretic and must be excommunicated from the church of social justice.If 40% of women are not to have their voices represented in this movement, then don't pretend it is the voice of the female sex.
If a gay person is excommunicated from having their voice heard because they cut against the grain of what other people believe, then don't pretend the LGBT demographic is in any way a "community" with a common set of interests and values.
No, the voices of Pro-Life women are represented in this organization with regard to advancing the rights of women. They are not, however, allowed to use an group, organized around advancing the rights of women, to advocate for curtailing the rights of women. They can participate, they can march, they can advocate for equality until the cows come home. What they cannot do is use the march to advance their agenda of taking rights away from women, because that is antithetical to the purpose of the march.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"We acknowledge the group in question is not doing anything wrong, but allow us to share all of the things we find wrong with what they are doing." Seems really consistent.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then you agree that the Pro-Life cause is not exclusively about advancing the rights of women and therefore, has no place at a march for advancing the rights of women.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Women are not monolithic. There is not a single feminist perspective. When a woman has a conflict between say, reproductive freedom and religious belief, she has to reconcile those things herself. That is the exact opposite of dogma.
I agree they aren't a monolith and that's my fundamental issue with the women's march. They call themselves that, implicitly claiming to represent all women, but they really aren't. They are not the voice of the female sex, they are the voice of a select few of them with a particular political interest.
That's my point, they shouldn't act from a position of moral authority as if they are the voice of women, as if they are this inclusive group in which women are united. Because they aren't.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, the voices of Pro-Life women are represented in this organization with regard to advancing the rights of women. They are not, however, allowed to use an group, organized around advancing the rights of women, to advocate for curtailing the rights of women. They can participate, they can march, they can advocate for equality until the cows come home. What they cannot do is use the march to advance their agenda of taking rights away from women, because that is antithetical to the purpose of the march.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
****'s sake there are other argument's than a legal argument Adam. Nobody is making a legalistic argument here.
If an organization is not doing anything wrong, then what businesses is it of yours? Why do you feel the burning need to have an opinion about it? March for Life has its own exclusionary policies too. No one gives a ****.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Oh I see... so if something also helps men then it has no place at a women's march. I guess we should get rid of all the intersectional stuff in it that's focused on racial issues because there are also men who are minorities right?
You could argue that some women who have abortions are African-American, so a Pro-Life group should be a featured partner in a march for Black Lives Matter too, and it would be just as irrelevant.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Except if you hold a certain view **** you apparently, you're the female version of an uncle tom.I agree they aren't a monolith and that's my fundamental issue with the women's march. They call themselves that, implicitly claiming to represent all women, but they really aren't. They are not the voice of the female sex, they are the voice of a select few of them with a particular political interest.
That's my point, they shouldn't act from a position of moral authority as if they are the voice of women, as if they are this inclusive group in which women are united. Because they aren't.
They do represent all women. They support the constitutionally-guaranteed right of all women to make their own reproductive choices free of government interference. They support that right for Pro-Choice women, and they support that right for Pro-Life women.
Pro-Life women, on the other hand, do not want any woman to have a choice. They want to decide for all women, and they want to use government to enforce it. That is not a pro-woman cause, that is a pro-birth cause, as evident by their desire to roll back the rights of the former to achieve the latter.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I don't think the point was they were marching for pro-life. I think the point was they happened to be a pro-life group that existed prior to the women's march that agreed with a lot of the marches other objectives and wanted to support it.
And they still can support it. Their organization just cannot be a partner with the march if they want to roll back the rights of the group the march is trying to advance.
Democrats Introduce Bill To Eliminate Electoral College
^Same side that's in favor of ranked choice voting.
Originally posted by Surtur
Democrats Introduce Bill To Eliminate Electoral College^Same side that's in favor of ranked choice voting.
Wait...what's wrong with ranked choice voting?
We need that.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's much better than popular vote.We don't have to do a hold-your-nose and vote thing. It's possible that everyone's second choice was Gary Johnson and Gary Johnson would be the president right now. 🙂
Okay but then they should avoid saying dumb shit like :
"Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office. "
Originally posted by Surtur
Okay but then they should avoid saying dumb shit like :"Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office. "
What they really mean is, "We don't like the fact that we live in the United STATES of America where the presidential vote is decided by both population by state and a minimum of 2 votes by state. We are mad that our dude lost and your dude won. So we want a system that would favor our dudes in the future."
Originally posted by Surtur
Brave new world: Gay man impregnates transgender partner who identifies as male
Actual title should be, "A man and woman, who love each other and are in a long-term relationship, are going to have a baby."
Because that's really what happened.