A
archangel
Guest
KarlMarx said:Most people haven't heard of it. Of course, the basic idea SOUNDS so nice. After all, who would want to be thought of as being in FAVOR of discriminating against women? The problem is that in order to achieve the goal, we would have to give up our rights as a free people, and our sovereignty as a nation.
I think this illustrates my soon to become famous Theory of Socialist Tricks.
Here it is.... You can apply this scenario to just about anything, be it radical feminsts' definition of rape, the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act etc. I believe that, if you apply this to recent news stories, you will see a common pattern.
So here is my Theory of Socialist Tricks .
Socialist Trick #1 - take a commonly used term for an evil e.g. "torture", "discrimination", "racism", "oppression", then redefine it to fit your worldview. However, when you use the term, don't tell the masses your definition, let them instead believe that your definition of the term is the same as commonly understood one. Also, feel free to alter, amend and otherwise change your definition to fit changes in events.
Socialist Trick #2 - use a noble sounding goal e.g. "equal rights", "freedom", "liberation", to justify your actions (also known as "the ends justifying the means"). This noble goal must include items from your actual agenda e.g. taxpayer funded abortion, racial preferences for college admissions etc.
Socialist Trick #3 - combine your twisted definition of a commonly understood word from Socialist Trick #1, contrast it with your noble sounding goal from Socialist Trick #2, to not only justify your actions, but to get the masses to agree with you, believe that you are looking out for the common good and to embarrass your opposition should they complain.
Example:
Most people understand that the term "rape" is defined as "sexual intercourse by forcible means". But the radical feminists have a much broader definition of the term, which includes dirty jokes, staring, lewd remarks, having certain religious beliefs, being pro-life, a wife having sex with her husband, or heterosexual intercourse in general, as well as sexual intercourse by forceful means.
So, when radical feminists use the term "rape", most people assume they mean only "sexual intercourse by forcible means". So when radical feminists claim that most women have been victims of rape, the masses automatically assume that most women have been forced to have intercourse. Now the masses believe that there is a huge problem, when in fact, there isn't.
This now allows the radical feminists to propose, endorse, campaign for and get Congress, school boards, state and local governments to pass laws and policies which discriminate against men, use taxpayer dollars to educate the masses to the radical feminist worldview, and to get taxpayer dollars to implement key goals of the radical feminist agenda.
Now, they've achieved their intended goals but couched them in a mantle of nobility (after all, these measures are to prevent RAPE!!!!!). If anyone disagrees with them, then the feminists only need claim that their opposition is in favor of RAPE (the masses assume the commonly used definition is being used), when in fact, the feminists actually mean things that include, among other things, Constitutionally protected rights.
I will never have sex "with that woman again" rape is bad way bad! I will always be celibate from this day forward! Thank you Karl!!!!!! :spank3: