Slut Or Not??

[Big Fitz]

I'm sorry, your undeserved self righteousness set off my psychological toxicity alarms. Say that again, with less dangerous levels of undeserved purity or piety? I'll put on my protective gear if you can't.

When I find folks who refuse to either educate themselves, or learn from reality, I also hear the Tocsin, as well...the "psychological toxicity alarms."


In "The Death of Feminism," Dr. Phyllis Chesler wrote

1. Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American…proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth.



a. This rigid intolerance as exercised by the movement, unfortunately, has driven away women who choose motherhood over high-powered careers, women who are American patriots, many religious women, women who do not identify themselves primarily in terms of sexual preference, and women who oppose abortion, pornography and prostitution. The outside-the-mainstream feminists hold abolitionist views about pornography, prostitution, trafficking, and sexual slavery; viewing freedom as a universal value; in short, are conservative.


I owe you one, Fitzy.

You want a fight and you want me to stand in for everything you hate about liberals. I get it.

I'd rather have a talk about my actual views rather than the ones you fill in for me.

Unfortunately, I don't think you're interested in being that honest.

Too bad. I like talking with people who are different from me.

I don't see a desire to 'fight' as much as a zeal to defend truth. One of the absolutely most dispicable phrases in the english language is "It's all good", for it is patently false.

 

[Big Fitz]

Who determines when promicsuity has been reached?

Me

The Ed Meese definition of pornography. "I know it when I see it." It is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[Dragon]

However, churches and religious organizations, which Georgetown is the latter

No, it's a university, not a religious organization. The fact that it's OWNED by a church doesn't make it one.

 

[Katzndogz]

Religious colleges ought to make up their minds if they want secular students or not.

Secular students ought to decide if they want to abide by the host's rules or not when they go to that house.

If what democrats want is to give everyone the right to tell someone whose religion they don't like to take a hike, I'm okay with that.

Secular institutions can require oaths that all religious belief is disavowed and religious institutions can demand conversion.

 

[Sky Dancer]

When I find folks who refuse to either educate themselves, or learn from reality, I also hear the Tocsin, as well...the "psychological toxicity alarms."


In "The Death of Feminism," Dr. Phyllis Chesler wrote

1. Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American…proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth.



a. This rigid intolerance as exercised by the movement, unfortunately, has driven away women who choose motherhood over high-powered careers, women who are American patriots, many religious women, women who do not identify themselves primarily in terms of sexual preference, and women who oppose abortion, pornography and prostitution. The outside-the-mainstream feminists hold abolitionist views about pornography, prostitution, trafficking, and sexual slavery; viewing freedom as a universal value; in short, are conservative.


I owe you one, Fitzy.

You want a fight and you want me to stand in for everything you hate about liberals. I get it.

I'd rather have a talk about my actual views rather than the ones you fill in for me.

Unfortunately, I don't think you're interested in being that honest.

Too bad. I like talking with people who are different from me.

I don't see a desire to 'fight' as much as a zeal to defend truth. One of the absolutely most dispicable phrases in the english language is "It's all good", for it is patently false.

Truth would be you ask me my views and you share your own. You don't quote some editorial and expect it to apply to me, or have me answer for ALL liberals or people whose politics lean left.

PC wants a fight, and is determined to demonize anyone with left leaning politics.

We aren't all alike.

 

[Si modo]

However, churches and religious organizations, which Georgetown is the latter

No, it's a university, not a religious organization. The fact that it's OWNED by a church doesn't make it one.

I never said it did. And, if you had quoted my post, you would know that.

Georgetown is run by a religious organization. As such, they are already exempt from following some employment laws, for example. The SCOTUS has ruled on this several times, and just this year, they did again.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land; Obamacare is not.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Religious colleges ought to make up their minds if they want secular students or not.

Secular students ought to decide if they want to abide by the host's rules or not when they go to that house.

If what democrats want is to give everyone the right to tell someone whose religion they don't like to take a hike, I'm okay with that.

Secular institutions can require oaths that all religious belief is disavowed and religious institutions can demand conversion.

I wouldn't characterize the democratic platform as saying anything like this.

 

[Sky Dancer]

When lies like this come from you about the left, I sure as shit am. And if a woman chooses a traditional role and spurns your desire to expand acceptable perversion or immorality or even well deserved equality because it's what they want, your side lambastes them and calls them all sorts of names and subjects them to hard core mockery.

Again, your ideological self-righteousness is ill deserved and even more poorly shown by it's very activities.

As far as I'm concerned, I have NO problem with a woman preferring to stay home and raise her children instead of working. I do not put down women who make this choice. I emphasize that it be a choice, not the only option for women.

I support men who wish to be stay at home dads too.

Who is it you want me to take a beating for? I haven't done any of the things you say all leftists do.

You are projecting an ideological righteousness that I don't have, but you do.

Do women who want equal pay for equal work deserve to be called
"feminazi's"?

Usually the 'equal pay' argument is equal. The difference found is usually directly related to pregnancy in any differences. makes perfect sense really. If a man was able to take off for pregnancy, they'd end up with a similar discrepancy in pay.

If this is true about you, you need to be an anti hypocrisy advocate to the left when they do commit these 'intellectual sins' frequently, and not defend the lie that the left is about individual freedom and choice.

I don't follow what you're accusing me of. What is it you think I've lied about? I'm about individual freedom and choice.

 

[BluePhantom]

In the meantime, maybe your cohort, PC can let me know all about those 100 million human beings I've killed..

I will take this one. You personally, perhaps no one. But PC was directing that toward liberals in general. So let's put her claim to the test. In the last century the United States alone has been involved in several wars under liberal control. Let's have a look at the casualty estimates of those actions and count it up:

Occupation of Haiti (Wilson): 434
World War I (Wilson): 23,598,518
North Russia Intervention (Wilson): 2,884
Siberian Expedition (Wilson): 700
World War II (Roosevelt): 73,106,559
Korean War (Truman): 4,004,002
Occupation of Dominican-Republic (Johnson): 5,927
Vietnam War (Johnson): 2,952,846
Operation Uphold Democracy (Clinton): 201
Bosnian Intervention (Clinton): 96,669
Operation Noble Anvil (Clinton): 4,897
Libya Bombing (Obama): 260

Total: 103,773,897 in estimated liberal led casualty count in actions regarding the United States alone let alone military actions in the rest of the world where we were not involved.

So it appears PC's claim was accurate.

United States occupation of Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
North Russia Intervention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American Expeditionary Force Siberia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Korean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1965
Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bosnian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Uphold Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Odyssey Dawn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dragon]

Just to recap on some of the arguments raised above:

1) Single people are not a protected class under equal opportunity laws. Any employer may fire someone for getting pregnant while unmarried, it's just that most don't. (Provided they do the same for men who father children out of wedlock that is -- gender discrimination IS illegal, but discrimination against the unmarried is not.) Thus, the fact that Catholic institutions have this policy is not evidence of a First Amendment waiver.

2) A religious institution is one that is engaged in religion. If a religious institution founds a corporation (profit or non-profit) for a nonreligious purpose such as education or medicine, that institution is not a religious institution. It's a non-religious institution that is owned by a religious institution. This is just as true as that Google's acquisition of YouTube does not turn YouTube into a search engine company.

3) Consequently, the Catholic Church ITSELF is protected by the First Amendment and may, to a degree, violate requirements of the EEOA, especially in terms of refusing applicants for jobs on a basis of religious discrimination or gender discrimination. Institutions that are owned by the Church, but that are not religious in their purposes and activities, are not so protected and must comply.

 

[Sky Dancer]

In the meantime, maybe your cohort, PC can let me know all about those 100 million human beings I've killed..

I will take this one. You personally, perhaps no one. But PC was directing that toward liberals in general. So let's put her claim to the test. In the last century the United States alone has been involved in several wars under liberal control. Let's have a look at the casualty estimates of those actions and count it up:

Occupation of Haiti (Wilson): 434
World War I (Wilson): 23,598,518
North Russia Intervention (Wilson): 2,884
Siberian Expedition (Wilson): 700
World War II (Roosevelt): 73,106,559
Korean War (Truman): 4,004,002
Occupation of Dominican-Republic (Johnson): 5,927
Vietnam War (Johnson): 2,952,846
Operation Uphold Democracy (Clinton): 201
Bosnian Intervention (Clinton): 96,669
Operation Noble Anvil (Clinton): 4,897
Libya Bombing (Obama): 260

Total: 103,773,897 in estimated liberal led casualty count in actions regarding the United States alone let alone military actions in the rest of the world where we were not involved.

So it appears PC's claim was accurate.

United States occupation of Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
North Russia Intervention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American Expeditionary Force Siberia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Korean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1965
Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bosnian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Uphold Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Odyssey Dawn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see. I've killed 100 million human beings because I'm a democrat. Got it. Oversimplify decades and decades of complex history.

I don't suppose it matters which wars I didn't support. Try me for war crimes. I'm liberal. Come and get me. It doesn't matter I wasn't even alive for many of those wars. I see how her mind works.

 

[Si modo]

Just to recap on some of the arguments raised above:

1) Single people are not a protected class under equal opportunity laws. Any employer may fire someone for getting pregnant while unmarried, it's just that most don't. (Provided they do the same for men who father children out of wedlock that is -- gender discrimination IS illegal, but discrimination against the unmarried is not.) Thus, the fact that Catholic institutions have this policy is not evidence of a First Amendment waiver.

2) A religious institution is one that is engaged in religion. If a religious institution founds a corporation (profit or non-profit) for a nonreligious purpose such as education or medicine, that institution is not a religious institution. It's a non-religious institution that is owned by a religious institution. This is just as true as that Google's acquisition of YouTube does not turn YouTube into a search engine company.

3) Consequently, the Catholic Church ITSELF is protected by the First Amendment and may, to a degree, violate requirements of the EEOA, especially in terms of refusing applicants for jobs on a basis of religious discrimination or gender discrimination. Institutions that are owned by the Church, but that are not religious in their purposes and activities, are not so protected and must comply.

[Emphasis added] The SCOTUS says otherwise.

They are big fans of the Constitution, though.

 

[High_Gravity]

Why all this bad talk about sluts?

 

[BluePhantom]

I see. I've killed 100 million human beings because I'm a democrat. Got it. Oversimplify decades and decades of complex history.

I don't suppose it matters which wars I didn't support. Try me for war crimes. I'm liberal. Come and get me.

Try re-reading the first line of my post

 

[Sky Dancer]

I see. I've killed 100 million human beings because I'm a democrat. Got it. Oversimplify decades and decades of complex history.

I don't suppose it matters which wars I didn't support. Try me for war crimes. I'm liberal. Come and get me.

Try re-reading the first line of my post

You and your pal want any liberal to stand in for your vitriol. I'm right here. I'm listening. Tell me all about it.

Tell me what you expect me to do for you for having opposite political positions on some issues.

What makes more sense to me, is to take even ONE of those wars and examine it closely for what forces, what causes and conditions allowed that war to occur.

You are making up a story that doesn't really exist, IMO. Let's examine something in more detail and perhaps we may both learn something new.

Otherwise, all it looks like it that you want to take a dump on my head because I'm a "liberal" or "leftist" without having an honest discussion of ONE particular position about ONE choice the US has made.

 

[Big Fitz]

As far as I'm concerned, I have NO problem with a woman preferring to stay home and raise her children instead of working. I do not put down women who make this choice. I emphasize that it be a choice, not the only option for women.

I support men who wish to be stay at home dads too.

Who is it you want me to take a beating for? I haven't done any of the things you say all leftists do.

You are projecting an ideological righteousness that I don't have, but you do.

Do women who want equal pay for equal work deserve to be called
"feminazi's"?

Usually the 'equal pay' argument is equal. The difference found is usually directly related to pregnancy in any differences. makes perfect sense really. If a man was able to take off for pregnancy, they'd end up with a similar discrepancy in pay.

If this is true about you, you need to be an anti hypocrisy advocate to the left when they do commit these 'intellectual sins' frequently, and not defend the lie that the left is about individual freedom and choice.

I don't follow what you're accusing me of. What is it you think I've lied about? I'm about individual freedom and choice.

That the left is about freedom and choices. It's about ideological collectivism. Nearly 2 centuries of history back that up.

 

[Si modo]

I see. I've killed 100 million human beings because I'm a democrat. Got it. Oversimplify decades and decades of complex history.

I don't suppose it matters which wars I didn't support. Try me for war crimes. I'm liberal. Come and get me.

Try re-reading the first line of my post

You and your pal want any liberal to stand in for your vitriol. I'm right here. I'm listening. Tell me all about it.

Tell me what you expect me to do for you for having opposite political positions on some issues.

What makes more sense to me, is to take even ONE of those wars and examine it closely for what forces, what causes and conditions allowed that war to occur.

You are making up a story that doesn't really exist, IMO. Let's examine something in more detail and perhaps we may both learn something new.

Sky, Blue Phantom has shown no signs of vitriol toward you.

This thread is not about you.

 

[Big Fitz]

In the meantime, maybe your cohort, PC can let me know all about those 100 million human beings I've killed..

I will take this one. You personally, perhaps no one. But PC was directing that toward liberals in general. So let's put her claim to the test. In the last century the United States alone has been involved in several wars under liberal control. Let's have a look at the casualty estimates of those actions and count it up:

Occupation of Haiti (Wilson): 434
World War I (Wilson): 23,598,518
North Russia Intervention (Wilson): 2,884
Siberian Expedition (Wilson): 700
World War II (Roosevelt): 73,106,559
Korean War (Truman): 4,004,002
Occupation of Dominican-Republic (Johnson): 5,927
Vietnam War (Johnson): 2,952,846
Operation Uphold Democracy (Clinton): 201
Bosnian Intervention (Clinton): 96,669
Operation Noble Anvil (Clinton): 4,897
Libya Bombing (Obama): 260

Total: 103,773,897 in estimated liberal led casualty count in actions regarding the United States alone let alone military actions in the rest of the world where we were not involved.

So it appears PC's claim was accurate.

United States occupation of Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
North Russia Intervention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American Expeditionary Force Siberia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Korean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1965
Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bosnian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Uphold Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Odyssey Dawn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see. I've killed 100 million human beings because I'm a democrat. Got it. Oversimplify decades and decades of complex history.

I don't suppose it matters which wars I didn't support. Try me for war crimes. I'm liberal. Come and get me. It doesn't matter I wasn't even alive for many of those wars. I see how her mind works.

No, your ideology has. It's the same as saying "Christians are responsible for X millions of death." I haven't personally killed anyone, but yet I am often to blame for believing in a faith who's history has.

So, am I guilty for the deaths of all those people? Am I supporting it all or have the desire to continue such bloodshed? I'm accused of that all the time. I'm just playing by the rules others apply 'legitimately', and your defense of those same people who apply those rules.

 

[Katzndogz]

Why all this bad talk about sluts?

It's premature. If we legalized prostitution sluts would be unlicensed whores.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Try re-reading the first line of my post

You and your pal want any liberal to stand in for your vitriol. I'm right here. I'm listening. Tell me all about it.

Tell me what you expect me to do for you for having opposite political positions on some issues.

What makes more sense to me, is to take even ONE of those wars and examine it closely for what forces, what causes and conditions allowed that war to occur.

You are making up a story that doesn't really exist, IMO. Let's examine something in more detail and perhaps we may both learn something new.

Sky, Blue Phantom has shown no signs of vitriol toward you.

This thread is not about you.

This thread is a "dump on liberals" rant. No one here willing to take the time to have an honest discussion.