March for women. A message from Conservatives

[whichphilosophy]

Just out of curiosity, why do you think you are qualified to state, "what this protest is about"?

Specifically, what makes you think you have an accurate handle on what it was "about" for the 5 million people who participated in it?
You, a person who can't even figure out why _I_ went when I told you, in writing, multiple times?

Why do you think you should be a credible source?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you for real?

Post 301, 303, asks you why you are making up reasons
307 predicts you
308 tells you why I did not march for hijabs
In 316 you claim, “I would agree with a person's statement why they went and that is up to them.” But then you proceed in eviscerating this promise throughout the rest of the thread.
Post 336 explains how annoying are your repeated assertions that you know why people went to the march
373 talks of my reasons and reminds you, “I don't actually care one iota what you think we "should have" marched about, since you can't even figure out what we _did_ march about. Your kind of thinking is part of the problem.”
374 reminds you that this has been about all women’s rights for a very long time.
379 gives more details to add to those given in 373
380 tries to put it in crayon for you
386 addresses your derail into trade unions where you claim they are who _really_ advocates for women!
394 points out how little you reveal you know of the speeches, and explicitly states how much they meant to me on my march (NOTHING, since again, I didn’t hear them until two weeks later)
400 reminds you _again_ that 5 million people had 5 million reasons to go. And reminds you again that the speeches you keep harping on were not what drove me to go.
409 from LordKiran points out how tedious and transparent is your game of trying to get people to say _your_ answer. Obvious that you are not actually trying to find out why women went, you’re trying to tell them why they went.
419 answers you _again_ why I went, why I went on Jan 21
430 is Ravensky predicting you to a tee.
438 I point out to you _again_ that what you call the meaning of the march turns out to not be true for people at the march. So, you’re wrong. You’re just flat wrong.
448 I remind you that Angela Davis and Hylton and whoever CANNOT be the reasons for the march because of the 5 million people there, NONE of them even knew those people would be there, let alone who they were and what their history is or what they’d say. I CANNOT be true that they were the reason for anyone to go because we decided to go _before_they_did_.


So then in post 451, you lose your memory again and repeat, “Why did you go?”


I roll my eyes. Go re-read the thread. I have no expectation that my telling you a tenth time will obviate the need for an eleventh, so I am moving on without you. So sorry you couldn’t keep up.

I cannot decide if you are deceitful, stupid, deluded or trolling.
I just can't tell why you keep asking me the same question again and again no matter how many times I answer you.

I have no expectation that my telling you a twelfth time will obviate the need for a thirteenth.

You mentioned

Your really can't figure that out from the information available? Really?

Some are policies that the new government (President, House, Senate) have vowed to pursue.
There's a story about a straw and a camel's back.

That could be anything.

I assume on abortion laws which I think should not get changed.
Immigration?
?
?

As it was a global march on world issues did anyone protesting about human rights violations against women in the Middle East?

Out of all the things I wrote, that bolded one is the only one that made it through your reading comprehension filter?
Fascinating. No wonder you have no idea.

I can ask what it is about but I have no right to suggest any restrictions in the rights of protest.
I would not be keen on changing abortion laws. I do encourage people to think on any choices they make but it gets complex when the law intervenes.

 

[whichphilosophy]

As in........ unsubstantiated,,,, false etc.

He got elected and that is what the protest is about. I don't think however democratic system will not be overturned on this occasion.

Is there a word you're having a problem with? Should I translate to Russian?

- - - Updated - - -

Indeed. They need to just be honest. It absolutely happens and happened. They just don't _care_. Be honest, twizzle.

So no proof is needed, all one has to do is accuse. Welcome to the new USA.

There is proof. There are accusations and testimony. Testimony is evidence.

Evidence and testimony in themselves do not necessarily constitute proof. The court has to evaluate (weigh) the evidence. Or the reader can weigh the evidence against other reports.

 

[blastula]

What court? We don't need a court to determine what happened.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

whichphilosophy, can you provide any examples of people participating in the women's march and not being able to say why?

You didn't see any babies at the march?

 

[whichphilosophy]

From: https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/b...orters-really-care-about-middle-eastern-women

But despite the worldwide demonstration of collective resistance to racism, to Islamophobia and to misogyny, some people remained undeterred.

On Twitter, there was an abundance of right-wing men suddenly showing concern for the rights of women in the Middle East.

As well as failing to grasp the concept of mutual exclusivity, they attempted to discredit the massive popularity of what could be an enduring movement at home.

I'm glad you mentioned this.
What is wrong with pointing out the fact that Muslim women were silent on this global march when it came rights of the oppressed women in Middle Eastern countries.

Do you think Muslim women will be marching alongside gays and transgenders in Middle Eastern countries, Indonesia and Somalia
The Western press has remained silent on this.

None of the Muslim marchers said a word about it. Not a single word as in thundering silence.

Are you suggesting that only right wing men are capable of noticing something that it is obvious.
This may not be mentioned in most media but that does not mean people are unable to see beyond the hype and see the elephant in the room

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH3qzCQBavU

See at 42 which is worse than Trump said.

(I am not sure I agree with her comments on Sharia Law but she mentions persecution of women in some Islamic states and other parts of the world)

I don't normally quote this person but she is reading a Muslim Brotherhood plan for the USA including one group which she claims was advising the White house.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inJi-2IrrLg

I am checking one document called the Black Flag of Rome. If this is genuine it is a blue print written in 2014, which mentions an alliance between Islam and left wing and other organisations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

True. If part of the reason some people marched was to express the view that we should impeach Trump because of his behavior toward women, what's the problem with that whichphilosophy?

If you want to remove Trump then do it the democratic way, ballot box.

Impeach Trump for what EXACTLY ?

4 years is an awful long time to get rid of him.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What court? We don't need a court to determine what happened.

A court is nonetheless based on rationality and common sense. Rational people will judge from the evidence not accept what is told to them. Democracies allow debate where the evidence can be thrashed out.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If you want to remove Trump then do it the democratic way, ballot box.

Impeach Trump for what EXACTLY ?

4 years is an awful long time to get rid of him.

It's called the term of an elected President, like him or not.

 

[Angry Floof]

What court? We don't need a court to determine what happened.

True, but you need to mention courts here and there if you want to appear to be concerned about quality of evidence and pretend you use real methods for examining evidence. Then you don't actually have to use any method, which is great if you don't actually have one anyway, and you have no clue how critical thinking works, and you're not interested in learning any of that. BRILLIANT.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What court? We don't need a court to determine what happened.

True, but you need to mention courts here and there if you want to appear to be concerned about quality of evidence and pretend you use real methods for examining evidence. Then you don't actually have to use any method, which is great if you don't actually have one anyway, and you have no clue how critical thinking works, and you're not interested in learning any of that. BRILLIANT.

By implication you would need to do this in an unbiased way for you are exercising objectivity to try to avoid any human failings of subjective bias.
I used this definition.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/critical_thinking
the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

 

[Angry Floof]

True, but you need to mention courts here and there if you want to appear to be concerned about quality of evidence and pretend you use real methods for examining evidence. Then you don't actually have to use any method, which is great if you don't actually have one anyway, and you have no clue how critical thinking works, and you're not interested in learning any of that. BRILLIANT.

By implication you would need to do this in an unbiased way for you are exercising objectivity to try to avoid any human failings of subjective bias.
I used this definition.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/critical_thinking
the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

And what method(s) in particular do you use to mitigate your subjective biases and misperceptions?

 

[Arctish]

Is there anything specific that you would march for?

Are you for real?

Post 301, 303, asks you why you are making up reasons
307 predicts you
308 tells you why I did not march for hijabs
In 316 you claim, “I would agree with a person's statement why they went and that is up to them.” But then you proceed in eviscerating this promise throughout the rest of the thread.
Post 336 explains how annoying are your repeated assertions that you know why people went to the march
373 talks of my reasons and reminds you, “I don't actually care one iota what you think we "should have" marched about, since you can't even figure out what we _did_ march about. Your kind of thinking is part of the problem.”
374 reminds you that this has been about all women’s rights for a very long time.
379 gives more details to add to those given in 373
380 tries to put it in crayon for you
386 addresses your derail into trade unions where you claim they are who _really_ advocates for women!
394 points out how little you reveal you know of the speeches, and explicitly states how much they meant to me on my march (NOTHING, since again, I didn’t hear them until two weeks later)
400 reminds you _again_ that 5 million people had 5 million reasons to go. And reminds you again that the speeches you keep harping on were not what drove me to go.
409 from LordKiran points out how tedious and transparent is your game of trying to get people to say _your_ answer. Obvious that you are not actually trying to find out why women went, you’re trying to tell them why they went.
419 answers you _again_ why I went, why I went on Jan 21
430 is Ravensky predicting you to a tee.
438 I point out to you _again_ that what you call the meaning of the march turns out to not be true for people at the march. So, you’re wrong. You’re just flat wrong.
448 I remind you that Angela Davis and Hylton and whoever CANNOT be the reasons for the march because of the 5 million people there, NONE of them even knew those people would be there, let alone who they were and what their history is or what they’d say. I CANNOT be true that they were the reason for anyone to go because we decided to go _before_they_did_.


So then in post 451, you lose your memory again and repeat, “Why did you go?”


I roll my eyes. Go re-read the thread. I have no expectation that my telling you a tenth time will obviate the need for an eleventh, so I am moving on without you. So sorry you couldn’t keep up.

I cannot decide if you are deceitful, stupid, deluded or trolling.
I just can't tell why you keep asking me the same question again and again no matter how many times I answer you.

I have no expectation that my telling you a twelfth time will obviate the need for a thirteenth.

My money's on trolling.

 

[LordKiran]

You know what makes for an enjoyable activity while a video buffers? Reading 20-odd pages of people trying to explain their basic ideological tenants to WP and then flipping out when he proves incapable of processing the information into understanding.

 

[Rhea]

Just out of curiosity, why do you think you are qualified to state, "what this protest is about"?

Specifically, what makes you think you have an accurate handle on what it was "about" for the 5 million people who participated in it?
You, a person who can't even figure out why _I_ went when I told you, in writing, multiple times?

Why do you think you should be a credible source?

I can ask what it is about but I have no right to suggest any restrictions in the rights of protest.

Way to dodge the question. We are not talking about whether you restrict the march. We are talking about you trying to define the march, and trying to do so contrary to those who were at the march. We're talking about the fact that you are being given answers that you refuse to acknowledge and that you are claiming to know what the march was about, despite being the opposite of an authority on the subject.


So I'll ask again. Try answering _this_ question this time, not a new one that you made up.


Just out of curiosity, why do you think you are qualified to state, "what this protest is about"?

Specifically, what makes you think you have an accurate handle on what it was "about" for the 5 million people who participated in it?
You, a person who can't even figure out why _I_ went when I told you, in writing, multiple times?

Why do you think you should be a credible source?

 

[Rhea]

In an astonishingly accurate example of prescience, I wrote, 250 posts ago,

Why did you go?

You're saying you talked to people at the march and they didn't know why they went? Do you think perhaps they knew but you failed to receive the data in conversation? I ask this because I've had several people ask me why I went, and IMMEDIATELY after me telling them in clear concise language reasons A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H, they proclaim that Reason Q is stupid.

You _sure_ you're not one of those?

Yup, he's one of those.

 

[Rhea]

You know what makes for an enjoyable activity while a video buffers? Reading 20-odd pages of people trying to explain their basic ideological tenants to WP and then flipping out when he proves incapable of processing the information into understanding.

LOL This made me chuckle.

Although I will note that despite my use of colors and font sizes, my blood pressure remains low and healthy.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Oh dear

You couldn't make it up.

The Women's Global March has no time for Civil rights of Muslims around the world.

According to who? All the MUSLIM women I know who participated in the march thought the rights of Muslim women were pretty damn important, and they made sure I and everyone else in their lives knew about it. I supported them, and I still do.

Are you here to tell me that they don't really care about it after all? How do I mansplain it convincingly to THEM that they're wrong about what they actually believe?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That's the fallacy of composition right there. You're assuming that, since there is no single reason that everybody is marching, that everybody is marching for no reason. Individual people have their own experiences and views that resonate with the general theme of women's rights. Some just want people to recognize that there's an undercurrent of things being taken for granted as OK that they don't agree is OK. That, by itself, is enough to get people thinking. I'm sure most women in the march are also pissed off that Trump and Pence are in power, and are marching purely as a warning to the new administration not to marginalize women's reproductive freedoms. They are making a visible display of their numbers to remind people that they don't like being told what to do with their bodies. And that's effective too. Notice that I'm not linking you to any page with a bullet list of grievances, but the point is still getting across. That's how protests work sometimes, and your resistance to that mode of communication isn't doing you any favors.

People will protests for a reason.

People will protest for MANY reasons.

A single person may protest for a hundred reasons, and a hundred people may all protest for the same reason.

But the same hundred people won't always have the same hundred reasons. And you don't get to claim they have "no" reasons just because they don't all share the same list of grievances.

However when individuals cannot say exactly why they protest

Except INDIVIDUALS can, and do, which has been pointed out to you repeatedly. What individuals can't do is say exactly why EVERYONE ELSE is protesting. Neither can you, obviously, although you keep trying to pretend that you can.

Newsflash: most of the signs and sentiments at the march were NOT for removal or impeachment. It was to advocate that particular issues not be dismissed or catered to a minority. It was to show how many people feel about the executive and legislative actions about particular issues.

It was not to remove by undemocratic processes (even though those non-ballot-box methods are certainly part of our system, just like executive orders are) and it was not to remove by unAmerican processes, either.

Please keep up.

Is there anything specific that you would march for?

Because my tolerance for stupidity is apparently way higher than Rhea's:

We were advocating for issues that we want our government to pay attention to. Among those are "Women's Rights are Human Rights" on a global scale. Among them were sex trafficking, LGBT rights, equal pay, freedom from assault, rape and marriage slavery; reproductive rights, education, racial equality, economic equality

In fairness, she didn't give you a whole lot of detail and didn't wax poetical about all the reasons why she personally went. Also in fairness, when I pointed to the website that explained some of the reasons for the march, she didn't explicitly tag that post as relevant to her reasons.

That being said: we BOTH know that you understand perfectly well what her reasons are. You're not a moron, you're just clinging to a moronic point for rhetorical purposes, trying to digging little philosophical mud ditches trying to get Rhea to slip into one of them so you can argue against her more efficiently. The thing is, this is just a conflict-avoidance strategy: you never actually get around to making a coherent point, you just come off looking like a jackass for repeatedly asking leading questions like a prosecutor on Law and Order. This is NOT how honest dialog works, and you're giving people the impression that you're not trying to find out WHAT THEY THINK, you're trying to find out WHY THEY'RE WRONG.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

4 years is an awful long time to get rid of him.

It's called the term of an elected President, like him or not.

Nixon's second term didn't last four years. Funny how that happens sometimes...

 

[whichphilosophy]

By implication you would need to do this in an unbiased way for you are exercising objectivity to try to avoid any human failings of subjective bias.
I used this definition.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/critical_thinking
the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

And what method(s) in particular do you use to mitigate your subjective biases and misperceptions?

That's the difficult part. I try to double check the data and sometimes assume the viewpoint of the other person. Another thing is to simply try to look at the information just based on the data alone. Fixed ideas can be a barrier using subjectivity instead of objectivity is also something to be careful of. Face to face meetings with people are also useful (which I do at work for instance).

This could start off as an interesting thread. Even I can learn something.

- - - Updated - - -

It's called the term of an elected President, like him or not.

Nixon's second term didn't last four years. Funny how that happens sometimes...

As in Watergate.