• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New rule: If you don't have a vagina...

radcen said:
I do not know if she said it, but it is a common sentiment and I have heard it... virtually verbatim... many times. The thread is about the sentiment, not the messenger.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks for the clarification. It would surprise me if Maddow herself made that claim, though i'm not terribly familiar with her. I would lose respect for her if this quote could be confirmed.

I have been the recipient of the claim that i am incapable of being a feminist because i am a man, that i am incapable of understanding feminism in virtue of my penis. This is, of course, ridiculously stupid. The same convoluted logic would purport that baboons understand themselves better than we can understand them, that male gynecologists are less qualified than their patients, and that male genitalia somehow prohibits the brain from processing information on feminism.

What i don't understand is what it's like to live as a woman, what that experience is like. That experience might inform feminism, but it does not define it.

This quote takes that to a whole new level, suggesting that we cannot pass any laws that deal with vaginas in any way, which seems even more absurd.

I would qualify it as overshoot. If i'm right, and according to my *fancy* diagram, after some time, we should stop hearing garbage like this :

107ad0754eff88061cea1fddd24ab82a.jpg
 
_Sal said:
well since he won't reveal, it's moot
Click to expand...

That means you have no idea, doesn't it? FWIW, Donald Trump did, in fact, pay taxes. He paid property taxes and he paid sales taxes. I don't know if he paid income tax or not but since the NYT has seen his stolen tax returns and didn't say he hadn't paid taxes the possibility he didn't seems slim. The NYT would have had an orgasm reporting Trump paid no taxes but instead they had to go with that maybe, perhaps, he didn't have to.

So, the point isn't moot. The point is Donald Trump isn't in the list of people who pay no taxes.
 
Patrickt said:
That means you have no idea, doesn't it? FWIW, Donald Trump did, in fact, pay taxes. He paid property taxes and he paid sales taxes. I don't know if he paid income tax or not but since the NYT has seen his stolen tax returns and didn't say he hadn't paid taxes the possibility he didn't seems slim. The NYT would have had an orgasm reporting Trump paid no taxes but instead they had to go with that maybe, perhaps, he didn't have to.

So, the point isn't moot. The point is Donald Trump isn't in the list of people who pay no taxes.
Click to expand...
oh my god, it was a little joke because the opening was there, a bit of levity, I had no idea you were a Trumpster or I never would have gone there

my apologies, seriously
 
Absentglare said:
Okay, thanks for the clarification. It would surprise me if Maddow herself made that claim, though i'm not terribly familiar with her. I would lose respect for her if this quote could be confirmed.

I have been the recipient of the claim that i am incapable of being a feminist because i am a man, that i am incapable of understanding feminism in virtue of my penis. This is, of course, ridiculously stupid. The same convoluted logic would purport that baboons understand themselves better than we can understand them, that male gynecologists are less qualified than their patients, and that male genitalia somehow prohibits the brain from processing information on feminism.

What i don't understand is what it's like to live as a woman, what that experience is like. That experience might inform feminism, but it does not define it.

This quote takes that to a whole new level, suggesting that we cannot pass any laws that deal with vaginas in any way, which seems even more absurd.

I would qualify it as overshoot. If i'm right, and according to my *fancy* diagram, after some time, we should stop hearing garbage like this :
Click to expand...
What you describe is what I call "Been there, done that syndrome", the notion that one cannot possible know anything about what they have not experienced. It is a premise that I reject.

I'll explain a bit: Of course experience means something. Of course experience gives a unique perspective that one without experience doesn't have. But, experience is not the 'be all and end all' of knowledge. Experience is also prone to emotion, and emotion clouds judgment. Sometimes lack of experience, looking in from the outside, allows for an unemotional objectivity that is missed by the person with experience.
 
radcen said:
View attachment 67209020


Ok, fair enough. Then if you don't have a penis you don't get to make laws relating to them. And if you're something other than white/black/Latino/Asian, etc., then you don't get to make laws relating to what you are not. And if you're not gay or straight or whatever you don't get to make laws relating to what you are not. And so on and so on.

Be careful what you wish for. Precedents can be dangerous.
Click to expand...

What about women who don't have vaginas? Are they excluded, too?

I ask, because apparently, showing The Vagina Monologues is offensive to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom