"Evil? Which evil things are you talking about?"
The social evils like when being given a chance to rewrite the FBI's rape definition, DELIBERATELY & with intent, NOT including rape by envelopment, all so they could keep on pretending that women don't rape men.
Or how about there representatives going to places like the United Nations in an attempt to change anyone from disagreeing with them into a crime known as "virtual violence", as a way to utterly destroy free speech for nayone disagreeing with them?
Or how about feminist groups attempting to change the laws so men are guilty until proven innocent in alleged rape cases?
These examples aren't bad, they aren't naughty, they aren't misunderstood, they are categorically, by the book examples of evil. These examples are the kind of evil science fiction writers once wrote novels about & people laughed & said things like "this could never happen in real life, no body would stand for it." Notice what all these things have in common? They are all designed to punish a perceived out-group for crimes against a perceived I-group, keep this in mind because it becomes important later on.
"Religious words like evil freaks me out; it implies there's an intention for doing bad"
There is an intention, a specific one: The benefit of ones own in-group versus everyone else. It's why all collectivist ideologies are inferior to individualist ones. A collectivist ideology can justify fucking over 100% of individuals in a demographic to "save" the collective of that demographic & do so on a regular basis.
"And early feminism really did fight for the right for universal voting, fair pay and other basic rights as far as the history I've read about my continent and country."
Except they didn't: Those are all prime examples of things you think feminism did but was done by others. universal suffrage wasn't achieved by feminism, in fact the suffragists vanished the second their in-group got the vote, long before poor people, people who couldn't read & black people got the vote.
Not a single fair pay acts across the globe was introduced by feminism.
"Whether or not you deported criminals had it the same way in your history"
Us deported criminals had suffrage long before you did & guess what: Feminism wasn't involved there either. Oh and just as an FYI Australia wasn't founded by deported criminals, Botany Bay was.
The social evils like when being given a chance to rewrite the FBI's rape definition, DELIBERATELY & with intent, NOT including rape by envelopment, all so they could keep on pretending that women don't rape men.
Or how about there representatives going to places like the United Nations in an attempt to change anyone from disagreeing with them into a crime known as "virtual violence", as a way to utterly destroy free speech for nayone disagreeing with them?
Or how about feminist groups attempting to change the laws so men are guilty until proven innocent in alleged rape cases?
These examples aren't bad, they aren't naughty, they aren't misunderstood, they are categorically, by the book examples of evil. These examples are the kind of evil science fiction writers once wrote novels about & people laughed & said things like "this could never happen in real life, no body would stand for it." Notice what all these things have in common? They are all designed to punish a perceived out-group for crimes against a perceived I-group, keep this in mind because it becomes important later on.
"Religious words like evil freaks me out; it implies there's an intention for doing bad"
There is an intention, a specific one: The benefit of ones own in-group versus everyone else. It's why all collectivist ideologies are inferior to individualist ones. A collectivist ideology can justify fucking over 100% of individuals in a demographic to "save" the collective of that demographic & do so on a regular basis.
"And early feminism really did fight for the right for universal voting, fair pay and other basic rights as far as the history I've read about my continent and country."
Except they didn't: Those are all prime examples of things you think feminism did but was done by others. universal suffrage wasn't achieved by feminism, in fact the suffragists vanished the second their in-group got the vote, long before poor people, people who couldn't read & black people got the vote.
Not a single fair pay acts across the globe was introduced by feminism.
"Whether or not you deported criminals had it the same way in your history"
Us deported criminals had suffrage long before you did & guess what: Feminism wasn't involved there either. Oh and just as an FYI Australia wasn't founded by deported criminals, Botany Bay was.
These two examples you show are not strong fighting issues for mainstream feminism, it's very narrow. It's like blaming all fishes for being scary because some of them are sharks. And are you referring to the religious nations that went to the UN to try to get laws against people disagreeing with them, what does that have to do with feminism? Or are you referring to some case I haven't heard of?
Well I agree that one must be skeptical towards what you call collectivist ideologies, but skeptical or critical is different from hysterical and paranoid. All ideologies have the danger of creating group mentality, which leads to narrow-mindedness and lack of empathy towards opposition. But your shouting "evil, evil!" just proves you have fallen into the same trap as them, it's the same psychology behind all movements and ideologies.
And you didn't get my point about evil at all, you dodged it and answered something completely different.
Are you judging the history of the world by one country? My country never had laws against poor and black people voting. You shouldn't be so focused on America, America is a joke, it was inhabited mostly by either indebted or über-religious people fleeing Europe - hence Americas everlasting debt problems and religious fanaticism. And they call it people who would seek religious freedom and new opportunities, what a joke. Just like how Australia has been inhabited by deported criminals with tendencies of misogyny and racism, it had a huge impact on your culture and way of thinking. Maybe they weren't the only ones to settle, sure, but it still influence the way you guys are today. I've met plenty of Australians in my life, obnoxious bunch the lot of them.
Cheers mate.
Well I agree that one must be skeptical towards what you call collectivist ideologies, but skeptical or critical is different from hysterical and paranoid. All ideologies have the danger of creating group mentality, which leads to narrow-mindedness and lack of empathy towards opposition. But your shouting "evil, evil!" just proves you have fallen into the same trap as them, it's the same psychology behind all movements and ideologies.
And you didn't get my point about evil at all, you dodged it and answered something completely different.
Are you judging the history of the world by one country? My country never had laws against poor and black people voting. You shouldn't be so focused on America, America is a joke, it was inhabited mostly by either indebted or über-religious people fleeing Europe - hence Americas everlasting debt problems and religious fanaticism. And they call it people who would seek religious freedom and new opportunities, what a joke. Just like how Australia has been inhabited by deported criminals with tendencies of misogyny and racism, it had a huge impact on your culture and way of thinking. Maybe they weren't the only ones to settle, sure, but it still influence the way you guys are today. I've met plenty of Australians in my life, obnoxious bunch the lot of them.
Cheers mate.
"These two examples you show are not strong fighting issues for mainstream feminism, it's very narrow."
Except they are EXACTLY examples of mainstream feminism. Mainstream feminist groups lobbied for a group of feminists to get the chance to change those FBI laws. Mainstream feminist groups fought for those women to represent them at the UN conference, in an attempt to change the laws so their personal offense would be deemed "cyber violence" or "virtual violence" which is straight up and down mainstream feminism.
You can't then turn around and say "oh well that's not real feminism": That is what is known as the "no true Scotsman" argument. You are going to have to accept that they are in fact the mainstream & they are unquestionably evil acts.
"Well I agree that one must be skeptical towards what you call collectivist ideologies, but skeptical or critical is different from hysterical and paranoid."
It's not paranoia when they are demonstrably, objectively attempting to remove legal rights from people, which is what has happened & what is continuing to happen. At that point it's not paranoia, it's just an accurate portrayal of reality.
"But your shouting "evil, evil!" just proves you have fallen into the same trap as them, it's the same psychology behind all movements and ideologies."
Except I'm not shouting evil, I'm demonstrating it to you: Do you or do you not consider denying people legal right of protection under the law, to be evil? Do you or do you not consider draconian language policing & silencing of any dissenting opinion to be evil? Because they both categorically are evil act & they are being instigated by feminism as a mainstream ideology.
"Are you judging the history of the world by one country?"
No I'm judging the history of the western world on the objective history of the western world.
"My country never had laws against poor and black people voting."
Actually you did: In fact right up until 1995 Norway government under the Immigrant directorate to Norway's was issuing faulty information to black ball as many immigrant votes as possible by giving them blatantly false information.
"Just like how Australia has been inhabited by deported criminals with tendencies of misogyny and racism, it had a huge impact on your culture and way of thinking."
Except it wasn't. You can't just attempt to make up history as you go along: Especially given how obviously misinformed you've been.
Except they are EXACTLY examples of mainstream feminism. Mainstream feminist groups lobbied for a group of feminists to get the chance to change those FBI laws. Mainstream feminist groups fought for those women to represent them at the UN conference, in an attempt to change the laws so their personal offense would be deemed "cyber violence" or "virtual violence" which is straight up and down mainstream feminism.
You can't then turn around and say "oh well that's not real feminism": That is what is known as the "no true Scotsman" argument. You are going to have to accept that they are in fact the mainstream & they are unquestionably evil acts.
"Well I agree that one must be skeptical towards what you call collectivist ideologies, but skeptical or critical is different from hysterical and paranoid."
It's not paranoia when they are demonstrably, objectively attempting to remove legal rights from people, which is what has happened & what is continuing to happen. At that point it's not paranoia, it's just an accurate portrayal of reality.
"But your shouting "evil, evil!" just proves you have fallen into the same trap as them, it's the same psychology behind all movements and ideologies."
Except I'm not shouting evil, I'm demonstrating it to you: Do you or do you not consider denying people legal right of protection under the law, to be evil? Do you or do you not consider draconian language policing & silencing of any dissenting opinion to be evil? Because they both categorically are evil act & they are being instigated by feminism as a mainstream ideology.
"Are you judging the history of the world by one country?"
No I'm judging the history of the western world on the objective history of the western world.
"My country never had laws against poor and black people voting."
Actually you did: In fact right up until 1995 Norway government under the Immigrant directorate to Norway's was issuing faulty information to black ball as many immigrant votes as possible by giving them blatantly false information.
"Just like how Australia has been inhabited by deported criminals with tendencies of misogyny and racism, it had a huge impact on your culture and way of thinking."
Except it wasn't. You can't just attempt to make up history as you go along: Especially given how obviously misinformed you've been.
No, guy, you just saying it doesn't make it so D:
What? I just googled it, the old law defined rape as "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will", while the new law defines it as; “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
Which - from what I read - made some hysteria from people who claims this new definition makes it impossible for women to rape men unless the women insert her finger or an object in the mans anus without consent. Which scholars has since cleared to be a misunderstanding of the definition, as the new definition doesn't state that the penetration has to be done by the perpetrator. But the old law was clearly much more one-sided. Besides what the feminist group wanted to change was that the old definition sometimes had been used by local police to not see raping of drunk and/or sleeping victims as rape as there were no force involved(the victim was too drunk or drugged to resist) - that was their motivation, they had no outspoken intention of excluding male victims or female perpetrator - and in the end it was FBI that articulated the new definition and not the feminist group.
Off course it's not evil. Evil is a term with no root in reality, it is rooted in religious concepts. Since I am not religious it makes absolutely no sense to me to call certain people or movements evil - unless it's meant poetic, metaphoric etc. The term only dehumanize others, when you call feminist organisations and individuals evil then you are giving them a quality which does not exist, and which is not human. Maybe you're religious and believes in evil, but if so then that delirium should be dealt with in therapy sessions; any religious person should keep their belief in invisible friends or unseen dark forces out of an objective debate.
Please show me some links to the case you are referring to, where Norwegian government is issuing faulty information, as I couldn't find anything about it on google, and I've never heard of it.
You didn't even react to me calling your nationals racists, it's the historical part that upset you. I guess you agree with me that racism is a huge problem down under?
If it's just a myth or highly exaggerated, the whole deported criminals thing, then it's still much more sensible than believing in evil forces, I'll continue to believe in the myth for good measures
skål!
Which - from what I read - made some hysteria from people who claims this new definition makes it impossible for women to rape men unless the women insert her finger or an object in the mans anus without consent. Which scholars has since cleared to be a misunderstanding of the definition, as the new definition doesn't state that the penetration has to be done by the perpetrator. But the old law was clearly much more one-sided. Besides what the feminist group wanted to change was that the old definition sometimes had been used by local police to not see raping of drunk and/or sleeping victims as rape as there were no force involved(the victim was too drunk or drugged to resist) - that was their motivation, they had no outspoken intention of excluding male victims or female perpetrator - and in the end it was FBI that articulated the new definition and not the feminist group.
Off course it's not evil. Evil is a term with no root in reality, it is rooted in religious concepts. Since I am not religious it makes absolutely no sense to me to call certain people or movements evil - unless it's meant poetic, metaphoric etc. The term only dehumanize others, when you call feminist organisations and individuals evil then you are giving them a quality which does not exist, and which is not human. Maybe you're religious and believes in evil, but if so then that delirium should be dealt with in therapy sessions; any religious person should keep their belief in invisible friends or unseen dark forces out of an objective debate.
Please show me some links to the case you are referring to, where Norwegian government is issuing faulty information, as I couldn't find anything about it on google, and I've never heard of it.
You didn't even react to me calling your nationals racists, it's the historical part that upset you. I guess you agree with me that racism is a huge problem down under?
If it's just a myth or highly exaggerated, the whole deported criminals thing, then it's still much more sensible than believing in evil forces, I'll continue to believe in the myth for good measures
skål!"Which - from what I read - made some hysteria from people who claims this new definition makes it impossible for women to rape men unless the women insert her finger or an object in the mans anus without consent. Which scholars has since cleared to be a misunderstanding of the definition, as the new definition doesn't state that the penetration has to be done by the perpetrator."
Except it's not, it's not classed as rape, it's being classed as "forced to penetrate." So far this law has not been challenged in court, so what "scholars" may think is entirely immaterial since how it will be determined is on the basis of the statute law, which won't be determined until it actually happens. The fact is that the group in question deliberately didn't add rape by envelopment even when requested to do so. The only reason NOT to do so was because doing so would take away one of feminisms threat porn narratives that women don't rape: That is pure evil.
"Off course it's not evil. Evil is a term with no root in reality, it is rooted in religious concepts."
Actually no, the definition of evil is "profoundly immoral and malevolent." Denying a group legal protection certainly qualifies, as does attempting to silence dissenting opinions.
"Please show me some links to the case you are referring to, where Norwegian government is issuing faulty information, as I couldn't find anything about it on google, and I've never heard of it."
Really? Because it was a pretty major scandal in the 90's. To the point where Britain's Operation Black Vote ended up getting involved. You'll have to take a look at your public record, as it was in all your news papers & I know Aftenposten Interactive had a piece on it.
Except it's not, it's not classed as rape, it's being classed as "forced to penetrate." So far this law has not been challenged in court, so what "scholars" may think is entirely immaterial since how it will be determined is on the basis of the statute law, which won't be determined until it actually happens. The fact is that the group in question deliberately didn't add rape by envelopment even when requested to do so. The only reason NOT to do so was because doing so would take away one of feminisms threat porn narratives that women don't rape: That is pure evil.
"Off course it's not evil. Evil is a term with no root in reality, it is rooted in religious concepts."
Actually no, the definition of evil is "profoundly immoral and malevolent." Denying a group legal protection certainly qualifies, as does attempting to silence dissenting opinions.
"Please show me some links to the case you are referring to, where Norwegian government is issuing faulty information, as I couldn't find anything about it on google, and I've never heard of it."
Really? Because it was a pretty major scandal in the 90's. To the point where Britain's Operation Black Vote ended up getting involved. You'll have to take a look at your public record, as it was in all your news papers & I know Aftenposten Interactive had a piece on it.
OH MY GOD
OH MY GOD
Literally the former definition of rape was that IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR MEN TO BE RAPED
do you understand?
Now it is possible in black letter law that men can be raped! Jesussss
OH MY GOD
Literally the former definition of rape was that IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR MEN TO BE RAPED
do you understand?
Now it is possible in black letter law that men can be raped! Jesussss
Matthew-lane, after a series of increasingly unimpressive answers, has now deigned to go "shut up shut up don't wanna hear it lalala!" in a corner.
So for public benefit, the answer to the thing below will be posted here.
"Well I hope so! Female rapists deserve to be outed! /rolls eyes.
And can we stop assuming all women ever are evil devilbeasts as per your wild guesses and do some research and find the actual stated reasons why such change did not happen? Because it happened in America!!! Which is what we are discussing!!! Remember that little agreement? Look at that damn reach.
I mean, if you can mention UK, I can mention certain women related atrocities in the Middle East and Nigeria, no? So let's keep in within fucking context."
So for public benefit, the answer to the thing below will be posted here.
"Well I hope so! Female rapists deserve to be outed! /rolls eyes.
And can we stop assuming all women ever are evil devilbeasts as per your wild guesses and do some research and find the actual stated reasons why such change did not happen? Because it happened in America!!! Which is what we are discussing!!! Remember that little agreement? Look at that damn reach.
I mean, if you can mention UK, I can mention certain women related atrocities in the Middle East and Nigeria, no? So let's keep in within fucking context."
"Literally the former definition of rape was that IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR MEN TO BE RAPED"
Which is the same as the current UK definition & the version that feminists modified & refused to add rape by envelopment to, because they knew doing so would move stats from "forced to penetrate" to "raped" & that would increase the amount of female rapists.
Which is the same as the current UK definition & the version that feminists modified & refused to add rape by envelopment to, because they knew doing so would move stats from "forced to penetrate" to "raped" & that would increase the amount of female rapists.