realitykeeper wrote: » One preson`s progress is anothers person`s regress. Conservative values served society well. Liberalism will bring destruction.
Auntie Semite wrote: » Why? What do you know about it.. Are you sure it is safe? I know very little about it but I don't think there's anything wrong about worrying or having concerns about new technology and any potential negative effects.
realitykeeper wrote: One preson`s progress is anothers person`s regress. Conservative values served society well. Liberalism will bring destruction.
[Deleted User] wrote: » And a nonsense position based on nothing at all that is too. There is no evidence whatsoever that sex is for procreation only. There is plenty of evidence it is for more than that. Even in terms of evolution it makes no sense. There are animals where sex is only for procreation so they have a near 1:1 ratio between copulation and conception. When they have sex - babies happen basically. Not so for us. Precisely because sex is _not_ just for procreation we evolved away from a 1:1 ratio there and much if not most sex does not result in conception at all. That can be a misleading statement. What exactly does "tiny minority" mean? For example look how prevelant homosexuality is in our culture. There are homosexuals every where - it is talked about a lot - represented in the media a lot. How many people are _actually_ homosexual however? The % is very low. 1% of a population seems a small number. When you have 5 million people or 50 million people however then the words "tiny minority" start to lose coherency. It is still a lot of people. There is that vague but intentionally ominous word "encouraged" again that I pulled up in my last post but you simply ignored me. What do you _actually_ mean by this? What kind of "encouragement" are you under the impression is being implemented _exactly_? Also do you believe it to be a mental illness on any actual basis - or just because you like the phrase? How are you defining mental illness exactly? What attributes of transgenderism are you using to make the definition given fit? The same can be said about many things from Abortion to Cosmetic Surgery. There are always people who regret the choices they make and suffer even to the point of suicide from their regrets. Hell people even make career choices they regret enough to eventually commit suicide over it. That does not indict - even a tiny bit - the things they themselves regret. We should of course have supports for such people in our society where possible. To help people cope with decisions they have made which they regret. But to take their regret and pretend it is in any way a relevant argument against the thing they regret is pure desperation on your part.
baby and crumble wrote: » Thank you so much for proving my entire point. Why is she (and legally she is now a SHE) high risk? Just because she’s trans? Oh, and if you’re a health and social care professional and this is how you treat your clients you are, frankly, a disgrace.
realitykeeper wrote: » Conservative values served society well.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Well they served you well if you were white and straight and christian. Not so much for the rest.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » You don't have to look very hard at the history of the last 150 years or so on our own island to see how deeply damaging 'conservative values' were to society and the lives of millions of people oppressed, damaged, incarcerated, enslaved, sold, raped, or even killed because of them.
super_furry wrote: » Haha, you see it's funny because the person who's defending Gemma is self identifying as an anti-semite. Classic. Now do your routine about George Soros, Zionism and how the Holocaust was a hoax.
Auntie Semite wrote: » Who said I identified as an Anti Semite? It's a joke name. There are many things I admire about Israel for example and I fully support the right to a Jewish homeland.. I wish to go there some day.. Fascinating country... Can you say the same?
aloneforever99 wrote: » Not to mention male.
Auntie Semite wrote: » This is an extremely Western centric view and displays a mindset of Western superiority/chauvinism. Do you realise there were several massive Islamic empires which dominated the regions from Asia to Eastern Europe for many hundreds of years? China had successive empires over millenia. The history of the world is not all about the West.
Auntie Semite wrote: » Conservative values haven't really 'conserved' anything have they. As for killing millions of people, tens of millions (some estimate up to one hundred million) were butchered, starved to death, liquidated in the name of leftist values in the 20th century alone.
randd1 wrote: » With the exception of the idea's of free enterprise and private ownership, most of those values were oppressively conservative. They sought to preserve national identity and used religion, be it state or deity based, and the concept of national pride to do so, things conservatives are noted for. They were conservative in the administration of wealth, education and health programs, which helped enormously contribute to the poverty, control and death of these regimes. They were conservative in the way they were slow to change to the world moving on around them. They were extremely conservative in their attitude to women, homosexuals and minorities, many of whom suffered. The idea that the leftist values, or right wing values, are inherently wrong is stupid as democracy only seems to work when both are in play and counteract the excesses of the other. For a functioning democracy you need both. Go too far left or too far right, it ceases to be either left or right and the results in exactly the same thing; a psychotic, murderous, oppressive ideology in which the State (and by State, usually a dictator) sees the masses as scum to be controlled, useful for working, fighting and dying and not much else. The only thing that would denote a left or right would be the command structure under the dictator.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » well i'm open to correction on this but i'm pretty sure you were not endorsing islamic empires with your post. My post was western centric because that is where we all (i presume) live. that is our frame of reference. I notice you didn't actually dispute what i said.
Auntie Semite wrote: » Who could dispute the crimes of Western empires? They are clear for all to see. However the same ultimately brought innovation and prosperity for many. Also you could hardly say that a 17th century white male Russian peasant was 'privileged' nor a British coal miner, nor an Irish peasant. For most of the history of Western hegemony the number of privileged 'white males' was miniscule.. Most spent their entire lives in back braking work for a pittance and lived in penury without any political voice or power. Your post also shows how the left have completely abandoned class politics for racially based identity politics where the 'White man' has become the symbol of oppression. Ironically many of those pushing this narrative are the hyper capitalists (former enemies of the left) Soros, Google, Media conglomerates etc
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Privilege is relative. White, christian, heterosexual males were more privileged than those who did not have those attributes. White man is the symbol of oppression because they were the ones doing the oppressing. Or do you deny that?
baby and crumble wrote: » If you do not have explicit confirmation from her that she engages in the risky activity that that report discusses then to assume she does so just because she’s a member of an at risk community doesn’t mean she engages in those behaviors. I’m a member of an at risk community, being gay, but that’s doesnt mean I engage in those activities.
Auntie Semite wrote: » Yes I deny that absolutely. My and possibly your ancestors for many hundreds of years were barely eking out a living and suffering under extreme oppression themselves. The Han Chinese were oppressing the non Han for a very long time. The bantuswere oppressing those they conquered. The khmer in Cambodia the list goes on and on. The idea that white people have some kind of monopoly over oppression is a complete fiction, a denial of history and as I said already a highly Western centric view of the world.
skooterblue2 wrote: » Please tell me about my white Christian heterosexual privilege. I really want to know about it because I have stayed away from drugs, got an education and live with my neighbours in peace.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » I have already said it is a western centric point of view. Forget the white bit then. Just men in general.
Auntie Semite wrote: » The vast majority of men throughout Western history were virtual slaves. No political power, no property ownership, serfdom, lifetime obligation to their chief, Lord etc Compelled against their will to fight and die in wars. Have you ever heard of Droit du seigneur? Whereby a lord had the 'right' to have sex with a man's wife on her wedding night. This was at onetime fairly widespread. One could hardly call a man(or woman obviously) under this system 'privileged' Again the idea that men in general held some form of privilege is a complete fiction. A tiny elite of men (and Women) held this privilege and the rest were equal in their serfdom
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Part of your privilege from an irish perspective is that you were able to have sex without it being a criminal activity. You have never been subject to discrimination because you were christian. You were never banned from voting because you were a man. Can i stop explaining this to you or are you going to play dumb?
aloneforever99 wrote: » Have you ever wondered if you had been denied a job or a promotion because managers were scared you were going to get pregnant? Ever been denied access to an abortion? Have you ever been made fun of, bullied, harassed or beaten up because you were holding hands with your partner? Or because of the colour of your skin? Have you or your kids ever been forced to go to a school run by a religious order whose ethos you don't agree with because there's no other school for miles around? If the answer to those questions is no, that's your privilege.
Auntie Semite wrote: » In Ireland and the UK only property owning men (a minority) had the right to vote.
