March for women. A message from Conservatives

[whichphilosophy]

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?

I've worked for 3 Arab companies in the Middle East over several years. So I have some idea of Islamic viewpoints. Also I have worked with Sharia Law in contracts and employment and I have no problem with Sharia Civil law providing it complies with the existing laws of the UK etc.

Muslim women have much better rights in the US than in the country they or their parent left, though there are many issues. Why are they not campaigning for women's rights back in the Islamic world?? So far no answer or, let me see, it was not a global march.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Protesters are not wrong for protesting and its not my business what they wish to belief except for the purpose of debating.My only point is the silence of the rights of women in the Islamic world. Is this a taboo question, forbidden knowledge.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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?

I have not right to restrict the free expression of people around the world.

I am allowed to ask what the protest is about why not?
The march is about a lot of things

My question is why is everyone so far silent on why there is no protest of women's lack of rights in the Islamic world.

I worked in the UAE for a number of years. It is considered progressive. It does not stone women rape victims for adultry any more; they just go to jail for a few years.
UAE courts have upheld the husbands right to hit his wife but as long as they are not injured.

So why is this being stonewalled with thundering silence?? One Atheist ex Muslim received worse comments about her than Trump made in 2005. I quoted this earlier. I quoted this. In fact she said the same thing.

I am not a source I am a questioner. Isn't democracy also about raising queries to strange inconsistencies or are we subject to political correctness?

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Get the other guy annoyed. That will shoot his blood pressure up and your's down. It works.
You can use red next time if you like and if possible highlights on certain words. The size is okay (kindergarten size).

 

[PyramidHead]

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.

Protesters are not wrong for protesting and its not my business what they wish to belief except for the purpose of debating.My only point is the silence of the rights of women in the Islamic world. Is this a taboo question, forbidden knowledge.

Because not every protest is about everything.

And that's just assuming you're right that none of the millions who marched were carrying signs about the treatment of women in the Middle East. How could you possibly know such a thing?

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Protesters are not wrong for protesting and its not my business what they wish to belief except for the purpose of debating.My only point is the silence of the rights of women in the Islamic world. Is this a taboo question, forbidden knowledge.

Because not every protest is about everything.

And that's just assuming you're right that none of the millions who marched were carrying signs about the treatment of women in the Middle East. How could you possibly know such a thing?

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...Guiding+Vision+&+Definition+of+Principles.pdf
We believe that all women’s issues are issues faced by women with disabilities and Deaf women.
As mothers, sisters, daughters, and contributing members of this great nation, we seek to break barriers
to access, inclusion, independence, and the full enjoyment of citizenship at home and around the world.
We strive to be fully included in and contribute to all aspects of American life, economy, and culture

and

We recognize that to achieve any of the goals outlined within this statement, we must work
together to end war and live in peace with our sisters and brothers around the world. Ending war means
a cessation to the direct and indirect aggression caused by the war economy and the concentration of
power in the hands of a wealthy elite who use political, social, and economic systems to safeguard and
expand their power.


And

https://www.womensmarch.com/womensday/

We unite with the International Women’s Strike on March 8th and we observe Strike4Democracy’s Day of Planning on Friday, February 17th as we gather our friends, families, neighbors and coworkers and make plans to stand up for economic justice, affirmatively building community, and supporting local, women- and minority-owned businesses.

If you are right then there is censorship for it is clearly an international organisation even if it avoids Middle Eastern issues. Is this to curry favour with Muslim groups in their unprecedented alliance with gay groups and leftists inc marxists

 

[PyramidHead]

You're doing it again. The march did not originate with that organization and most of the people who marched probably had no idea it existed. The final word on why people marched comes from the people themselves, not from a webpage. Again, it's a right/left thing. I don't really expect you to get that people can spontaneously gather from the bottom up rather than following a rubric imposed from the top down.

 

[Rhea]

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?

I have not right to restrict the free expression of people around the world.

I am allowed to ask what the protest is about why not?
The march is about a lot of things

My question is why is everyone so far silent on why there is no protest of women's lack of rights in the Islamic world.

I worked in the UAE for a number of years. It is considered progressive. It does not stone women rape victims for adultry any more; they just go to jail for a few years.
UAE courts have upheld the husbands right to hit his wife but as long as they are not injured.

So why is this being stonewalled with thundering silence?? One Atheist ex Muslim received worse comments about her than Trump made in 2005. I quoted this earlier. I quoted this. In fact she said the same thing.

I am not a source I am a questioner. Isn't democracy also about raising queries to strange inconsistencies or are we subject to political correctness?

So again, you have no answer on why your claims that the women's march "was about" this or "wasn't about" that should be taken seriously.

You have no credibility on saying it _wasn't_ about muslima in the middle east. It could have been for many people, and you wouldn't know.

So to your question,

why is everyone so far silent on why there is no protest of women's lack of rights in the Islamic world.

They aren't silent and there was a protest.
You are not a credible source to claim I'm wrong. Because you weren't there, you aren't listening, you don't listen and in all likelihood it was right in front of your face but you didn't want to see it. Probably someone showed you a sign, even, but you gaslighted yourself and it no longer exists, just like your crazy opinion that I haven't told you why I went.

That's what I see. You're wrong and you don't know it. And nothing can be done for you. Like the jitterbug.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I have not right to restrict the free expression of people around the world.

I am allowed to ask what the protest is about why not?
The march is about a lot of things

My question is why is everyone so far silent on why there is no protest of women's lack of rights in the Islamic world.

I worked in the UAE for a number of years. It is considered progressive. It does not stone women rape victims for adultry any more; they just go to jail for a few years.
UAE courts have upheld the husbands right to hit his wife but as long as they are not injured.

So why is this being stonewalled with thundering silence?? One Atheist ex Muslim received worse comments about her than Trump made in 2005. I quoted this earlier. I quoted this. In fact she said the same thing.

I am not a source I am a questioner. Isn't democracy also about raising queries to strange inconsistencies or are we subject to political correctness?

So again, you have no answer on why your claims that the women's march "was about" this or "wasn't about" that should be taken seriously.

You have no credibility on saying it _wasn't_ about muslima in the middle east. It could have been for many people, and you wouldn't know.

So to your question,

why is everyone so far silent on why there is no protest of women's lack of rights in the Islamic world.

They aren't silent and there was a protest.
You are not a credible source to claim I'm wrong. Because you weren't there, you aren't listening, you don't listen and in all likelihood it was right in front of your face but you didn't want to see it. Probably someone showed you a sign, even, but you gaslighted yourself and it no longer exists, just like your crazy opinion that I haven't told you why I went.

That's what I see. You're wrong and you don't know it. And nothing can be done for you. Like the jitterbug.

It's very clear what the Women's march represents itself to be. I quoted from the website. There were no protests against ill treatment of Women in the Middle East. If there were I would be surprised and would like to hear of this.

The reason I mention this is I am checking 2 documents

The Black Flag of Rome seemingly from ISIS mentioning how Islam can infiltrate left wing and civil rights groups. I have this one which is quoted on website and is obtained from one website direct.

Another document not in my possession yet is I understand issued by the Muslim Brotherhood. I believe it says the same. One of the groups under it is Muslim Student's Association (MSA) I found out about this by chance.

I may be wrong but I am checking.

Regards,




- - - Updated - - -

You're doing it again. The march did not originate with that organization and most of the people who marched probably had no idea it existed. The final word on why people marched comes from the people themselves, not from a webpage. Again, it's a right/left thing. I don't really expect you to get that people can spontaneously gather from the bottom up rather than following a rubric imposed from the top down.

This is spread through the MSA, twitter, email and the internet. People are not telepathic.

 

[PyramidHead]

So again, you have no answer on why your claims that the women's march "was about" this or "wasn't about" that should be taken seriously.

You have no credibility on saying it _wasn't_ about muslima in the middle east. It could have been for many people, and you wouldn't know.

So to your question,

why is everyone so far silent on why there is no protest of women's lack of rights in the Islamic world.

They aren't silent and there was a protest.
You are not a credible source to claim I'm wrong. Because you weren't there, you aren't listening, you don't listen and in all likelihood it was right in front of your face but you didn't want to see it. Probably someone showed you a sign, even, but you gaslighted yourself and it no longer exists, just like your crazy opinion that I haven't told you why I went.

That's what I see. You're wrong and you don't know it. And nothing can be done for you. Like the jitterbug.

It's very clear what the Women's march represents itself to be. I quoted from the website. There were no protests against ill treatment of Women in the Middle East. If there were I would be surprised and would like to hear of this.

The reason I mention this is I am checking 2 documents

The Black Flag of Rome seemingly from ISIS mentioning how Islam can infiltrate left wing and civil rights groups. I have this one which is quoted on website and is obtained from one website direct.

Another document not in my possession yet is I understand issued by the Muslim Brotherhood. I believe it says the same. One of the groups under it is Muslim Student's Association (MSA) I found out about this by chance.

I may be wrong but I am checking.

So what you're suggesting is, ISIS and/or the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrated a women's rights march, which prominently lobbied for abortion rights, contraceptive availability, sexual freedom, and a host of other things that Islamists oppose, in order to make sure they didn't also march for the rights of Muslim women. And they were able to prevent all women who marched everywhere in the world from protesting against the treatment of Muslim women. This is where I get off.

- - - Updated - - -

You're doing it again. The march did not originate with that organization and most of the people who marched probably had no idea it existed. The final word on why people marched comes from the people themselves, not from a webpage. Again, it's a right/left thing. I don't really expect you to get that people can spontaneously gather from the bottom up rather than following a rubric imposed from the top down.

This is spread through the MSA, twitter, email and the internet. People are not telepathic.

With the exception of those who know the motives of each individual protester that took part in the march, of course.

 

[Angry Floof]

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.

Are you telling us that this is your complete understanding of critical thinking skills??

And "an interesting thread"? Really? This topic has been more than merely interesting for centuries in academia and science, and there is an abundance of evidence for that all over the internet. It's strange in this day and age for someone to take their ignorance of a subject and willfully protect it from any actual information from the real world getting in and infecting the purity of zero knowledge. Even Christians google "critical thinking 101" from time to time.

A couple more questions. I'm curious as to how far this goes.

What methods of science do you think are best at mitigating personal bias on the part of scientists and why?

What is "falsification" in science and why is it useful?

Of course, after reading this post, you might just go google for answers, but I'm also wondering how long the belief that you already know everything you need to know on any issue and that you already have all the best tools for determining falsehoods will continue.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

It is an easy and obvious explanation - the protest issues were not approved by whichphilosophy, who does get to tell women when to protest, what to protest about, and who is allowed to protest and who is not.

 

[Toni]

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?

It is an easy and obvious explanation - the protest issues were not approved by whichphilosophy, who does get to tell women when to protest, what to protest about, and who is allowed to protest and who is not.

And then judge them for it, whatever it might be.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Why are they not campaigning for women's rights back in the Islamic world??

Why do you keep asking that as if they're not?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

My only point is the silence of the rights of women in the Islamic world.

Women who don't live in the Islamic World don't focus on the problems of the Islamic World. Muslim women DO, but even then a large part of their focus is what's happening in the world they actually live in.

Again: People keep pointing out to you that the rights of women in Muslim countries actually IS an issue for many of the protestors. How is it that you keep missing this?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So again, you have no answer on why your claims that the women's march "was about" this or "wasn't about" that should be taken seriously.

You have no credibility on saying it _wasn't_ about muslima in the middle east. It could have been for many people, and you wouldn't know.

So to your question,

why is everyone so far silent on why there is no protest of women's lack of rights in the Islamic world.

They aren't silent and there was a protest.
You are not a credible source to claim I'm wrong. Because you weren't there, you aren't listening, you don't listen and in all likelihood it was right in front of your face but you didn't want to see it. Probably someone showed you a sign, even, but you gaslighted yourself and it no longer exists, just like your crazy opinion that I haven't told you why I went.

That's what I see. You're wrong and you don't know it. And nothing can be done for you. Like the jitterbug.

It's very clear what the Women's march represents itself to be. I quoted from the website.

Yes, "the" website. There couldn't possibly be more than one website devoted to the women's march.

There were no protests against ill treatment of Women in the Middle East.

I just told you that there were. Why do you keep saying this?

Besides, the "sister marches" in Saudi Arabia and Niger didn't march specifically to address the rights of women in Washington D.C.. Why would you expect the reverse to be true?

The reason I mention this is I am checking 2 documents

That's confusing... you just said there were no PROTESTS against it. Now you're saying there are no DOCUMENTS mentioning it.

Those are two separate things.

This is spread through the MSA, twitter, email and the internet. People are not telepathic.

Yeah, and people in a movement don't all go to the same websites either. The only thing all those protestors had in common was the agreement to a time and place to protest whatever their issues were.

From the very same website, incase you missed it:
"As of this moment, there are some 600 sister marches scheduled to happen in more than 75 countries around the world this weekend — with some already underway. Activists will march in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, South Korea, Colombia, Iceland and elsewhere. There are well over 2 million people predicted to participate. "

Most of the women in those countries don't even speak the same language, how in the hell are you assuming they were all on the same page about what the march was supposed to be about?

 

[laughing dog]

Most of the women in those countries don't even speak the same language, how in the hell are you assuming they were all on the same page about what the march was supposed to be about?

Because he is a man. And they are just people who are incapable of knowing for themselves what they believe and what motivates them - people who need to be told what to think and what to do and how and when to do it. You know what people those are - women.

 

[Derec]

Good news everyone!
Linda "Cockroach" Sarsour has finally been given a Sye Ten Atheist treatment.


Don't know who the African chick is supposed to be, although she might be Nigerian given the colors in her hat.

P.S.: Those eyes, dayum!

 

[whichphilosophy]

Good news everyone!
Linda "Cockroach" Sarsour has finally been given a Sye Ten Atheist treatment.


Don't know who the African chick is supposed to be, although she might be Nigerian given the colors in her hat.

P.S.: Those eyes, dayum!

The Women's march was supposed to be an international march, but apart from one or two muted events places like Saudi (a few women in a room) there was no real protest against the treatment of women in radical countries in the Middle East and Africa.

I don't think the video is representative of her but she does make some asinine comments on her tweets.

 

[lpetrich]

The Women's march was supposed to be an international march, but apart from one or two muted events places like Saudi (a few women in a room) there was no real protest against the treatment of women in radical countries in the Middle East and Africa.

But if they did, then we should be taking care of our problems before we take care of anyone else's, right?

- - - Updated - - -

No, I Will Not Be Watching HBO’s Confederacy and Neither Should You – Waking Writer shows a black woman with big glasses.