Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Quotas for Female Politicians in Ireland

Options
1…7891012

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Reward wrote: »
    Its fairly obvious that the women that were up for votes were hand picked. You cant just wander in off the street.

    How is this not an accurate discription of a fraud carried out by labour gov feminists?

    How is it so obvious? It's not to me?

    Can you explain it please?


  • Options
    #333
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Ickle Magoo, we had a deal, my sources are feminists - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056124012


  • Options
    #334
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Reward wrote: »
    Ickle Magoo, we had a deal, my sources are feminists - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056124012

    That link shows up as not found, not another shortened link is it?

    still waiting for an answer to my question, I'm confused how it is so obvious that Labour can hand pick radical feminists to run, guarantee their election, then have a shortlist to promote to Shadow Cabinet afterwards?

    You must be popular with your bookies :)


  • Options
    #335
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Reward wrote:
    Jacqui Smith claimed on one radio interview that 80% of prostitutes were under the control of another (sex slaves)

    Do you know where she got those figures from or are you suggesting she plucked them out of thin air for the specific aim of causing mischief?
    Reward wrote:
    and was likely a front to criminalise men that use the consensual sex trade.

    Source? Credibility is lost when words/phrases such as "likely", "could", "possibly" and "it's probable" are used because they are peddling fact under supposition.
    Reward wrote:
    So that's the 'huge success' that allowed Jacqui Smith and now Harriet Harman, to claim that 'thousands' of women were being trafficked, and to push a Bill through Parliament. So much for evidence-based policy: I would feel happier if they just said that they found prostitution disgusting and wanted to outlaw it for our own moral good. At least that would be honest. This is simple deception, a fraud on the public.

    You seriously think two politicians colluded for the purposes of radical feminism to outlaw prostitution? And you think that's a credible stance to take? You don't think it could be connected to the issues associated with prostitution, the inherent secrecy and lack of support offered to prostitutes or the campaigning by charities and women's groups? Or is that just more radical feminists with nothing else in mind other that to put a dampener on poor guys trying to have a good time?

    "Now" Harriet Harmen? You are now claiming that from the opposition benches Harmen is proposing to outlaw prostitution - that is indeed a remarkable feat. Can we also conclude that by glut, you actually meant two?

    And your link re the guardian is broken (I suspect it's well out of date) and the libertarian link is to an article on schools - not sure that's the angle on prostitution you really want to take. I have a hunch that perhaps copy and pasting from other sources rather than presenting your own arguments is causing more issues than it solves?


  • Options
    #336
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Reward wrote: »
    Its fairly obvious that the women that were up for votes were hand picked. You cant just wander in off the street.

    How is this not an accurate discription of a fraud carried out by labour gov feminists?

    As requested

    Labour feminists wage gap fraud

    Very basic explanation of how it works. Wage gap fraud is international. The family wage is counted as the main workers wage alone and when the other adult in the family choses not to work, their share of the family wage is recorded as zero. In the case of the secondary adult chosing part time work, their part time wage is counted as their only income and the main workers is counted as theirs alone. Men and women make different choices and men are mich more likely to be the main taxpayers and women the non taxpayer and part time worker. (it would be interesting to see how much the gap works in favour of women if we counted the family wage as what it really is).

    The other gaps are explained by different work/lifestype choices (women have more flexibility) and the glass ceiling meme is debunked by the fact that women women do make choices that are similar to men, they often out earn them for the same work.

    The difference is then presented to the public as proof of a conspiracy against women, politicians can swing votes, certain political organisations can recruit, fund raise, fear monger and legislate against men on the strength of this deception by promising to fix this conspiracy to oppress by an unseen hand.

    More here..

    "Radio 4’s flagship, the Today programme, has fallen for a common misrepresentation of the gap in pay between men and women.
    Or is it a misrepresentation? It depends on who you are talking to, as various bodies interpret this key statistic in various ways.

    Introducing an item on Today on July 29, Sarah Montague accepted at face value the assertion by the Women and Work Commission that women are paid, on average, 23 per cent less than men. But the Office of National Statistics quotes a figure of 12.8 per cent, just over half as much.

    And if that isn’t confusing enough, the Equality and Human Rights Commission believes the gap is 17.1 per cent.

    These differences matter, so it would be nice to achieve a common basis for estimating them. Until we do, journalists should beware of accepting whatever figure is thrown at them. Government bodies with different objectives can easily come up with different figures – and may honestly believe they are right.

    Earnings comparisons are best made on the basis of median, rather than mean, earnings. This is because the salaries at the top of the scale are often high enough to distort the mean. On measures of “average” salaries, most people earn less than average.

    Both the ONS and the Women and Work Commission, which is part of the Government Equalities Office, do use the median. (The EHRC, just to be awkward, uses the mean – of which more later.)

    So why the difference between the ONS and the GEO? The ONS only counts full-time work, whereas the GEO includes part-time work, three quarters of which is done by women. This increases the apparent gap in pay between the sexes.

    Which is right? The Statistics Authority cogitated over this in a report published in June. Neither measure is satisfactory, it admits, but it does come down in favour of not combining the two, as the GEO does. Its recommendation is to present the two estimates, for full-time and part-time employees, separately.

    It publishes rather a striking table (Table 2 in the UKSA’s note) that actually shows that women working part-time earn 3.4 per cent more than men in median hourly earnings. This isn’t a figure you’ll find the GEO or the Women and Work Commission quoting very often.



    Where does all that leave us? Of those in full-time work, women earn 12.8 per cent less than men. Women in part-time work earn fractionally more than men, but less than full-time men or full-time women. When full- and part-time work are combined, the preponderance of women in part-time work produces the 22.6 per cent gap headlined by the GEO and accepted without question by Today.

    So what about the rogue figure of 17.1 per cent quoted by the EHRC? It uses mean earnings rather than median, justifying it by saying that women are over-represented at one extreme of the distribution and men at the other, which results (it says) in gaps calculated from the median understating the size of the problem.

    It then goes on to claim, remarkably, that for women working part time, the gap is 35.6 per cent. This dizzying figure is achieved by comparing part-time women with full-time men – a comparison hard to justify on any rational basis. As the Statistics Authority remarks, this estimate “needs particularly careful explanation and justification if it is not to mislead”. (Translation: it’s misleading.)

    The gender pay gap is a jungle, where journalists should not venture without careful preparation and a trusty guide. Discussions are going on between ONS and GEO to determine how the results should be presented in future, and we may see some results when the 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings is published in November.

    But somehow I think it’s going to take a lot of persuasion to get the equality-wallahs to abandon the high estimates to which they are so attached. 35.6 per cent? Whew!"
    http://www.straightstatistics.org/ar...ngle-out-there

    Labour feminist Harriet Harman has been engaging in wage gap fraud, and has been asked by the Office of National Statistics not to use their research to mislead the public.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8096761.stm

    Different statistics produced by different organisations are now feminist wage fraud?

    You've said
    How is this not an accurate discription of a fraud carried out by labour gov feminists?


    When all your post says is that the usual "lies, damn lies and statistics" applies, and that one female Labout Politician has manipulated those statistics in the interest of her beliefs.

    Nowhere do you suggest that the production of the statistics, which do show a pay gap, is influenced by radical feminists.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Stheno wrote: »
    How is it so obvious? It's not to me?

    Can you explain it please?


    The pool is limited to women, labour women, not female members of the Bolshoi Ballet or women off the street, there is a vote to fill the seats out of this pool.

    73% of these women that got seats were feminists so what happened was that there was a glut of feminists, women that are committed to a gynocentric ideological belief system thats responsible for many frauds, that few people identify with, in the labour party.

    To much feminism and political correctness in gov is the reason that the far right are making ground in UK and Sweden. People buy it initially feminism because it sounds all fine and nice on paper, in practice I don't believe that it can stand on its own feet outside of the protection of womens studies.


  • Options
    #338
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Reward wrote: »
    The pool is limited to women, labour women, not female members of the Bolshoi Ballet or women off the street, there is a vote to fill the seats out of this pool.

    73% of these women were feminists so what happened was that a glut of feminists, women that are committed an ideological belief system and women, not people, in the labour party.

    Again, you're not reading your own sources, which themselves assign a feminist ideology (with limitations) to 73% of the women who were in Labour at the time (think it was 2001)

    How does that relate to now?

    And Labour is never going to appoint any non MP to it's Shadow Cabinet, after they have been democratically elected of course :)


  • Options
    #339
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Stheno wrote: »
    Again, you're not reading your own sources, which themselves assign a feminist ideology (with limitations) to 73% of the women who were in Labour at the time (think it was 2001)

    How does that relate to now?

    And Labour is never going to appoint any non MP to it's Shadow Cabinet, after they have been democratically elected of course :)


    How it relates now is irrelevant. Labour feminism is a failure that highlighted the dangers of feminists in power and the corrupt and misandric agenda of political feminism and the fact that extremists run the movement while moderates sit there saying "not all feminists are like that". In my opinion, when feminists like that get into power, and sell lies and myths about sex trafficking, domestic violence, rape and wage gap to the real world and the real world publicly corrects them its a good thing but as a consequence, too much PC feminism in gov sends a percentage of the electorate to the far right and can IMO can reflect badly on women in politics to some and it certainly reflects badly on feminist women in politics.

    Quotas arent democracy.


  • Options
    #340
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Reward wrote: »
    How it relates now is irrelevant.

    /sigh, it's the irrelevant argument again, yet again you refuse to debate a point and consider it to be irrelevant.
    Labour feminism is a failure that highlighted the dangers of feminists in power and the corrupt and misandric agenda of political feminism and the fact that extremists run the movement while moderates sit there saying "not all feminists are like that". In my opinion, when feminists like that get into power, and sell lies and myths about sex trafficking, domestic violence, rape and wage gap to the real world and the real world publicly corrects them its a good thing but as a consequence, too much PC feminism in gov sends a percentage of the electorate to the far right and can IMO can reflect badly on women in politics to some and it certainly reflects badly on feminist women in politics.

    /sigh, it's the IMO argument again with no valid sources or links to back it up.


  • Options
    #341
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Do you know where she got those figures from or are you suggesting she plucked them out of thin air for the specific aim of causing mischief?



    Source? Credibility is lost when words/phrases such as "likely", "could", "possibly" and "it's probable" are used because they are peddling fact under supposition.



    You seriously think two politicians colluded for the purposes of radical feminism to outlaw prostitution? And you think that's a credible stance to take? You don't think it could be connected to the issues associated with prostitution, the inherent secrecy and lack of support offered to prostitutes or the campaigning by charities and women's groups? Or is that just more radical feminists with nothing else in mind other that to put a dampener on poor guys trying to have a good time?

    "Now" Harriet Harmen? You are now claiming that from the opposition benches Harmen is proposing to outlaw prostitution - that is indeed a remarkable feat. Can we also conclude that by glut, you actually meant two?

    And your link re the guardian is broken (I suspect it's well out of date) and the libertarian link is to an article on schools - not sure that's the angle on prostitution you really want to take. I have a hunch that perhaps copy and pasting from other sources rather than presenting your own arguments is causing more issues than it solves?


    Yep, sex trafficking myths, lies and hysteria has been the justification to criminalize prostitution in Sweden, close the lap dancing clubs in sweden, the the consensual sex trade on craigs list. Sex trafficking myths.

    You, dismiss information on political grounds. If its critical of radical feminism, the sources are bad. I never said the move was out law prostitution, the prostitutes are to get counselling, criminalising the men that use prostitutes was the goal.

    I'll repost all those links for you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Stheno wrote: »
    Different statistics produced by different organisations are now feminist wage fraud?

    You've said




    When all your post says is that the usual "lies, damn lies and statistics" applies, and that one female Labout Politician has manipulated those statistics in the interest of her beliefs
    Nowhere do you suggest that the production of the statistics, which do show a pay gap, is influenced by radical feminists.

    Irrelevant. I never posted feminist produced wage gap stats in the first place, I posted a sorry about a feminist being reprimanded for misrepresentation of genuine stats, your fallacy, that the sources are incorrect because they don't conform to that goal you just created is being used over and over here for pages and pages, the over reliance on logical fallacy and intellectual dishonesty of many feminists is another good reason to be careful about quotas. I will post the story about wage gap again, and you can demonstrate in a way that works how I am wrong and the radical feminists wasn't misrepresented for lying to the public about wage gap.

    Being a feminists doesn't mean that you have to think lock step with and defend extremists. If you were policing your movement and not protecting the liars and extremists, feminism wouldn't be so vulnerable to criticism.


  • Options
    #343
    PAULWATSON
    Registered Users Posts: 589 ✭✭✭PAULWATSON


    Quotas for female politicians, no thankfully people have sense enough not to vote for women, that is the so called "democracy" that you profess to care so much for.

    Or come to think of it, maybe they would introduce "girly days" each year where all women get the day off to go shopping and get looked after, after all women are so special!


  • Options
    #344
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    PAULWATSON wrote: »
    Quotas for female politicians, no thankfully people have sense enough not to vote for women, that is the so called "democracy" that you profess to care so much for.

    Or come to think of it, maybe they would introduce "girly days" each year where all women get the day off to go shopping and get looked after, after all women are so special!



    Here is a article about the introduction of a two tiered legal system in UK, women as a group have a "different experience" from men so they shouldn't be punished as harshly for the same crimes, apparently.

    Feminist instigated chivalry for female criminals, they want a totalitarian feminist state, not democracy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7995844/Judges-told-be-more-lenient-to-women-criminals.html


    "Judges told: 'be more lenient to women criminals'
    Judges have been told to deal less severely with female criminals than men when determining how to sentence them".

    Look at the slight of hand -

    "Female criminals are more likely to have mental health or educational difficulties and to have parenting responsibilities, while a lower proportion will have committed violent crimes than men, according to new guidelines".

    Criminals in general are more likely to "have mental health or educational difficulties".
    Both both men and women can have parenting responsibilities and both can not.
    And the last statement, how about if we said that a lower proportion of *X race* will have committed Y crime and therefore members of Z race shouldn't be punished as harshly for the same crimes?


    That said, people do vote for women but men tend to chose long careers in politics more often than women, feminists in gov are the problem, not women in general.


  • Options
    #345
    PAULWATSON
    Registered Users Posts: 589 ✭✭✭PAULWATSON


    Reward wrote: »
    Here is a article about the introduction of a two tiered legal system in UK, women as a group have a "different experience" from men so they shouldn't be punished as harshly for the same crimes, apparently.

    Feminist instigated chivalry for female criminals, they want a totalitarian feminist state, not democracy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7995844/Judges-told-be-more-lenient-to-women-criminals.html


    Disgusting article.

    What is it anyway, I would say to all women, know your place in life.

    Why are there no women drivers in formula 1 for example, I'll tell you why. They cannot make the grade. End of story, and if you want to make a show of someone, get the best female driver you can find and give her a season of racing, if she lasts that long.


  • Options
    #346
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    PAULWATSON wrote: »
    Disgusting article.

    What is it anyway, I would say to all women, know your place in life.

    Why are there no women drivers in formula 1 for example, I'll tell you why. They cannot make the grade. End of story, and if you want to make a show of someone, get the best female driver you can find and give here a season of racing, if she lasts that long.



    Sorry bud, I wont be engaging in misogynist commentary with you. To me, feminist idiocy and lies are a problem, not women in general.


  • Options
    #347
    PAULWATSON
    Registered Users Posts: 589 ✭✭✭PAULWATSON


    Reward wrote: »
    misogynist commentary.


    Also known as stating the facts.


  • Options
    #348
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    PAULWATSON wrote: »
    Also known as stating the facts.


    Yeah I agree with you in a way, I'm just taking exception to the delivery, women tend to make different choices and that results in different outcomes, there are exceptions of course (I went to school with a female F1 driver), its the insane, illogical ideology that denies that reality, spreads misandry and lobbies for special laws for women that bothers me. I don't think that there should be quotas in gov any more than there should be quotas in F1.


    Also, most feminists will declare information that they don't like as invalid if so much as a t isn't crossed (look at the pages of repetition of that fallacy here), same goes for anything thats misogynist. And misogyny empowers feminist rhetoric, even the misogyny that they create themselves.


  • Options
    #349
    Silverfish
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,696 Mod ✭✭✭✭Silverfish


    PAULWATSON wrote: »
    Disgusting article.

    What is it anyway, I would say to all women, know your place in life.

    Banned for trolling.


  • Options
    #350
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Reward wrote: »
    the the consensual sex trade on craigs list

    Craig's list? Wut?
    Reward wrote: »
    I'll repost all those links for you.

    Don't bother - the continuous regurgitation of reams of cut and pastes from other forums, blogs and articles makes for extremely disjointed and vague responses to the questions you were asked to answer instead choosing to ignore others questions and cherry-pick replies that you can crow-bar in more plagiarised sound-bites.

    Until you are prepared to do more than continually chant the small section of links and quotes you have picked elsewhere and can both support the claims being made and make intelligent and considered replies in your own words, there is little point in attempting rational discourse with a wall of cut and paste.


  • Options
    #351
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Craig's list? Wut?



    Don't bother - the continuous regurgitation of reams of cut and pastes from other forums, blogs and articles makes for extremely disjointed and vague responses to the questions you were asked to answer instead choosing to ignore others questions and cherry-pick replies that you can crow-bar in more plagiarised sound-bites.

    Until you are prepared to do more than continually chant the small section of links and quotes you have picked elsewhere and can both support the claims being made and make intelligent and considered replies in your own words, there is little point in attempting rational discourse with a wall of cut and paste.


    Craig's list consensual prostitution was targeted for a smear campaign with hysterical claims about rampant slavery and pedophilia by feminist groups in the US. That section of Craigs list in the US at least is now gone, which will no doubt increase risk in the industry. Ill ignore your coming demand for sources on this story which you will deem invalid regardless.

    You are so funny and dishonest, you demand sources, and are now attacking them on the grounds that they are copied and pasted here from the original source (bbc, guardian etc) repeatedly setting new goal posts and dictating and new arbitrary standards. If I found a way of publishing articles from the bbc, guardian and wherever else that didn't involve c/p here, you would just move the goal posts again. These standards of thinking are IMO why feminists need quotas, 1000 times no.

    Being a feminist doesn't mean that you have to blindly attack and suppress criticism of extremist feminist fraud, deception and misandry, unless you support the extremism that is.


    You told me that you would answer my thread called "How we have been stereotyped" over in the "gentleman's lounge". Once I had posted my sources, can you keep your word?

    I will repost my source on the trafficking fraud and the UK for you using only the guardian and will exclude the coverage of the same guardian article that appeared on the libertarian blog, and you can have go at setting a new goal post.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Guardian coverage of sex trafficking fraud that was carried out by labour gov. feminists and headed by Jacquie Smith and Harriet Harman (with collusion from the anti-sex right no doubt).



    Inquiry fails to find single trafficker who forced anybody into prostitution


    The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution in spite of hundreds of raids on sex workers in a six-month campaign by government departments, specialist agencies and every police force in the country.

    The failure has been disclosed by a Guardian investigation which also suggests that the scale of and nature of sex trafficking into the UK has been exaggerated by politicians and media.

    Current and former ministers have claimed that thousands of women have been imported into the UK and forced to work as sex slaves, but most of these statements were either based on distortions of quoted sources or fabrications without any source at all.

    While some prosecutions have been made, the Guardian investigation suggests the number of people who have been brought into the UK and forced against their will into prostitution is much smaller than claimed; and that the problem of trafficking is one of a cluster of factors which expose sex workers to coercion and exploitation.

    Acting on the distorted information, the government has produced a bill, now moving through its final parliamentary phase, which itself has provoked an outcry from sex workers who complain that, instead of protecting them, it will expose them to extra danger.

    When police in July last year announced the results of Operation Pentameter Two, Jacqui Smith, then home secretary, hailed it as "a great success". Its operational head, Tim Brain, said it had seriously disrupted organised crime networks responsible for human trafficking. "The figures show how successful we have been in achieving our goals," he said.

    Those figures credited Pentameter with "arresting 528 criminals associated with one of the worst crimes threatening our society". But an internal police analysis of Pentameter, obtained by the Guardian after a lengthy legal struggle, paints a very different picture.

    Continued here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails





    Oh no, I used the c/p function to publish the story here, so by Ickle Magoos high standards of "logic" and debate, none of it ever happened!


    Despite popular delusions, being a feminist doesn't mean that you have to blindly suppress criticism of extremist fraud, lies and misandry through logical fallacy, IMO if you do suppress criticism of radical extremism, you most likely are "like that"


  • Options
    #353
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    I know what Craigslist is - because I've actually researched the topic and I'm not just copying and pasting from elsewhere leading to me not even being able to name them correctly. I'm also not so blinded to the general media highlighting child prostitution and people trafficking that I don't also associate their name with the numerous negative press they have drawn;

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/295705
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/08/craigslist-underage-prostitution-allegations


    I'm also aware that 17 attorney generals were combining forces to take legal action against Craigslist - perhaps you could tell us all how many were radical feminists? My limited knowledge of the legal fraternity would tell me it would be impossible to do so without some evidence of wrong-doing just as taking the decision to self-censor would not have been taken by Craigslist unless the criticisms could not be defended.

    NB It's not your sources that are copy and pasted, they just don't work - it's your posts. There are a raft of bizarre unnecessary phrasing, grammatical inconsistencies, repetitive and crassly cobbled rebuttals that were they in your own words would wholly relate to the points being made to you and repetition would be unnecessary as they could be said in a hundred different ways.

    I said I would not respond to your thread until you answered all the questions being posed to you and supplied legitimate sources for the specific claims you have made - I am still waiting for those conditions to be met....and I hardly need add, I require that done in entirely your own words, free from the copy and paste regurgitatory plagiarism you are so fond of.
    Reward wrote:
    Oh no, I used the c/p function to publish the story here, so by Ickle Magoos high standards of "logic" and debate, none of it ever happened!

    If you wish to be taken seriously and for other posters to engage with you then flooding the thread with the same few copied articles does you no favours - much like the comment above which is worthy of nothing more than a disgruntled 12 yr old.


  • Options
    #354
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I know what Craigslist is - because I've actually researched the topic and I'm not just copying and pasting from elsewhere leading to me not even being able to name them correctly. I'm also not so blinded to the general media highlighting child prostitution and people trafficking that I don't also associate their name with the numerous negative press they have drawn;

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/295705
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/08/craigslist-underage-prostitution-allegations


    I'm also aware that 17 attorney generals were combining forces to take legal action against Craigslist - perhaps you could tell us all how many were radical feminists? My limited knowledge of the legal fraternity would tell me it would be impossible to do so without some evidence of wrong-doing just as taking the decision to self-censor would not have been taken by Craigslist unless the criticisms could not be defended.

    As for "evidence" of legal wrong doing, see misandric, fraudulent and exaggerated feminist claims about trafficking and pedophilia.

    NB It's not your sources that are copy and pasted, they just don't work - it's your posts. There are a raft of bizarre unnecessary phrasing, grammatical inconsistencies, repetitive and crassly cobbled rebuttals that were they in your own words would wholly relate to the points being made to you and repetition would be unnecessary as they could be said in a hundred different ways.

    I said I would not respond to your thread until you answered all the questions being posed to you and supplied legitimate sources for the specific claims you have made - I am still waiting for those conditions to be met....and I hardly need add, I require that done in entirely your own words, free from the copy and paste regurgitatory plagiarism you are so fond of.



    If you wish to be taken seriously and for other posters to engage with you then flooding the thread with the same few copied articles does you no favours - much like the comment above which is worthy of nothing more than a disgruntled 12 yr old.


    The anti porn and prostitution lobby are made up of feminists and the religious right. To say that an attorney that is representing the interests of either of these groups might not be radical feminist or Christian themselves and that if it cant be proven that all attorneys that represent the interests of the anti porn and prostitution lobbies are radical feminists (or Christians) themselves means that the anti porn and prostitution lobby is not made up of radical feminists and the religious right, is entirely fallacious.

    Your second point, that my posting the sources that I have been asked for makes the information invalid or your position stronger, is yet another fallacy. "If you don't post sources for me , the information is invalid, if you do, the information is invalid".

    You are just repeatedly setting arbitrary standards and moving goals in an attempt to silence criticism of radical feminist fraud, if you were capable of tolerating a voice or article that is critical of radical feminist extremism and moving on, this thread wouldn't be in the mess it is in.

    Quotas for people like you? 1000 times no.

    "Feminism is dying not from a backlash but from an orthodoxy that cannot tolerate real discussion...and never could".
    Wendy McElroy of ifeminists.com




    Can you now explain for the board without personal attack, correcting spelling or grammar, setting yet another arbitrary goal post or any other fallacies how the information in the guardian is invalid?

    And can you answer my "how we have been stereotyped" thread, as agreed.


  • Options
    #355
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    honestly at this stage this thread reads like it should be in conspiracy theroys where who know we may find out that radical feminists are actually lizard men womyn.


  • Options
    #356
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    honestly at this stage this thread reads like it should be in conspiracy theroys where who know we may find out that radical feminists are actually lizard men womyn.

    Well, it reads like any thread where criticism of radical feminist extremism isn't tolerated and there is a difference between an investigative journalist at the Guardian uncovering an actual conspiracy and publishing conspiracy theories about lizard people, as you well know.

    This thread is a testament to the inability of radical ideologues to tolerate dissent and the weakness of arguments that depend entirely on rhetorical tricks.

    Minority fundamentalists and radical extremists should have little or no place in secular governments religious, feminist or otherwise.


  • Options
    #357
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Reward wrote: »

    This thread is a testament to the inability of radical ideologues to tolerate dissent and the weakness of arguments that depend entirely on rhetorical tricks.

    Couldn't have put it better myself.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #358
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    K-9 wrote: »
    Couldn't have put it better myself.

    Only my argument relies on valid sources, the ideologue's relies on rhetorical tricks, so that's just you projecting the characteristics of the other sides argument, onto me, another type of logical flaw..


    and I'm still waiting for Ickle Magoo to back up her assertion that the Guardian article on labour feminist sex trafficking fraud is invalid, without trying to use a rhetorical trick in place of a logical, fact based argument and comment on the "how we have been stereotyped thread" as agreed.

    And then you all wonder why people decide that feminists and even women in general cant be trusted, are dishonest, illogical etc..


  • Options
    #359
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Reward wrote: »
    and I'm still waiting for Ickle Magoo to back up her assertion that the Guardian article on labour feminist sex trafficking fraud is invalid

    Beyond pointing out the invalid link provided, I haven't suggested the Guardian article is an invalid article - I presume that must be yet more of your grabby-grabby cross-assertions? It is just a piss-poor attempt to qualify your specific statements about radical feminism and labour politicians and your continued ignorance has already pointed out clearly and concisely here, here, here and here among the many others.

    If you can show a full and detailed link between the two rather than resorting to and relying on asinine denial of the antecedent then there wouldn't be any objections to make - we would all have to accede it was commonly accepted, proven and, indeed, public knowledge that all female labour politicians were in fact rabid extremists and radical feminists working solely for and being driven by their rabid extremism and radical feminism - rather than democratically elected politicians serving the interests of their electorate and merely carrying out the duties their office, party and thus political manifesto bestow on them.
    Reward wrote: »
    And then you all wonder why people decide that feminists and even women in general cant be trusted, are dishonest, illogical etc..

    As for the above, I'll also state now; I will not be entering into discussion with you again on this or any other thread. The level of debate and discussion you have proffered has been truly appalling - there is no intelligent wit, no quality of forethought, no point of originality, nothing beyond thinly veiled misogyny hidden behind general postulation and tin-foil hat infantile nonsense. The entire basis for your arguments consist of a fallacious, ill-thought out conveyor-belt of plagiarism - hoping that proof by verbosity would ensure the objectors lost the will to challenge further, if not the will to live - all the while skirting around and dancing over any and all of the substantial objections raised. If you wish myself or, I'd imagine, most other posters to enter into dialogue with you I would suggest you raise your game by quite a considerable margin because your performance thus far has been less than woeful.

    Best of luck :cool:


  • Options
    #360
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Beyond pointing out the invalid link provided, I haven't suggested the Guardian article is an invalid article - I presume that must be yet more of your grabby-grabby cross-assertions? It is just a piss-poor attempt to qualify your specific statements about radical feminism and labour politicians and your continued ignorance has already pointed out clearly and concisely here, here, here and here among the many others.

    If you can show a full and detailed link between the two rather than resorting to and relying on asinine denial of the antecedent then there wouldn't be any objections to make - we would all have to accede it was commonly accepted, proven and, indeed, public knowledge that all female labour politicians were in fact rabid extremists and radical feminists working solely for and being driven by their rabid extremism and radical feminism - rather than democratically elected politicians serving the interests of their electorate and merely carrying out the duties their office, party and thus political manifesto bestow on them.



    As for the above, I'll also state now; I will not be entering into discussion with you again on this or any other thread. The level of debate and discussion you have proffered has been truly appalling - there is no intelligent wit, no quality of forethought, no point of originality, nothing beyond thinly veiled misogyny hidden behind general postulation and tin-foil hat infantile nonsense. The entire basis for your arguments consist of a fallacious, ill-thought out conveyor-belt of plagiarism - hoping that proof by verbosity would ensure the objectors lost the will to challenge further, if not the will to live - all the while skirting around and dancing over any and all of the substantial objections raised. If you wish myself or, I'd imagine, most other posters to enter into dialogue with you I would suggest you raise your game by quite a considerable margin because your performance thus far has been less than woeful.

    Best of luck :cool:




    Ickle Magoo, you have used 1000s of words and multiple pages denouncing my sources with personal attacks and fallacies and little else. See your quote above which like all the others is little but setting goal posts, personal attacks, projection and now you are calling providing sources plagiarism, it just a barrage of lies in place of integrity.

    I am simply asking you to back up your claims that these sources (on labour feminist quotas, BBC, Guardian, hard statistics, Stern Review etc) are invalid with something fact and logic based and without resorting to insults and fallacies.

    You could have the integrity to acknowledge that the sources are valid but admit that you support quotas and radical women in politics anyway, if thats what you believe, and we could agree to disagree, you could have used honesty and intregrity 7/8/9 or whatever it is pages ago to reach an agreement with me, instead you chose repetitive fallacies and harassment.

    I ask you again to please demonstrate how the sources that I have used are invalid using facts and logic as opposed to personal attacks and other logical fallacies starting with Nick Davies exposure of the Labour feminist sex trafficking fraud in the Guardian.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated

    Once you acknowledge how my sources are valid we can move forward look at other gov quotas around the world and see if they have been designed by feminists and benefit mostly feminists, or not as you contend.

    We can also discuss if a feminist politician by definition will be ideologically biased towards one group, and harbour misadrist and mythical beliefs about an other, or not as you contend.


    Or just scuttle the debate because your fallacies are failing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Reward wrote: »
    Well, it reads like any thread where criticism of radical feminist extremism isn't tolerated

    Really?

    I have no time for radical feminism which states all men are rapists, all men are oppressors, all sex is rape in some form, that all porn is evil and I have no time for radical feminism which is misogynistic as I have men in my life how are fathers, brothers, lovers, sons, friends whom I love and I do not have any regard for radical feminism which is separatist, if we want to make the changes which are needed then we need men to understand the issues and to support the changes and to speak to each other about the issues.

    So often in this forum radical misogynistic speratist feminism is criticised.
    The problem is when people seem to think that the above is the only type of feminism or that the discussion of the fringe overtakes the thread.

    This thread was about quotas here in Ireland not anywhere else, but well done on derailing it completely and hogging the thread.


Advertisement