Prominent feminist and journalist Julie Bindel has openly called for putting all men in concentratio - General

[QUOTE=Zyler;48670300]Putting half the population in fucking prison camps and denying them their human rights is not 'segregating society', [b]it's putting half the population in fucking prison camps and denying them their human rights[/b]. Human rights are inalienable rights given to every individual on this planet, you don't get to pick and choose what human rights to give people, you have all human rights or none of them as they are inalienable rights by definition.[/QUOTE] No, you can actually pick and choose what human rights to give people, that's exactly how prison works, because those humans have broken the law they loose certain human rights until they are released, if they even get released. She has not used the word "prison" or "camp" or "concentration" in her statement. She made a statement that can be alliterated to a concentration camp, a zoo (of men), a library (of men), a prison, a country for men run under a form of dictatorship. She has however not made a statement that specifically describes any of those specifically, what she's said does not exists, we can only draw parallels. The only thing that you can factually say is that she wants to segregate men from women and allow women to take the men out of the segregated area and into where the women are. That men would not be able to move freely in all of society, only in their own segregated society and under the restrictions of a woman when allowed into the society of women. [QUOTE=Eric95;48670331]dude dgg why are you shitting up this entire thread just arguing semantics so what if "concentration camps" wasn't completely correct. nobody cares about that[/QUOTE] Your post made me think over my life, I will now stop posting because you just said that you don't care. Oh wait, I'm having a discussion with someone about human rights.

Dgg, you're picking a strange hill to die on.

[QUOTE=dgg;48670338]No, you can actually pick and choose what human rights to give people, that's exactly how prison works, because those humans have broken the law they loose certain human rights until they are released, if they even get released. She has not used the word "prison" or "camp" or "concentration" in her statement. She made a statement that can be alliterated to a concentration camp, a zoo (of men), a library (of men), a prison, a country for men run under a form of dictatorship. She has however not made a statement that specifically describes any of those specifically, what she's said does not exists, we can only draw parallels. The only thing that you can factually say is that she wants to segregate men from women and allow women to take the men out of the segregated area and into where the women are. That men would not be able to move freely in all of society, only in their own segregated society and under the restrictions of a woman when allowed into the society of women.[/QUOTE] That's because they are criminals and there are provisions for criminals that are covered under human rights. If you put half the population of the human race in a prison for no reason, when they have committed no crime, you are breaking human rights doctrine, end of. You'd need to create an entirely new version of international human rights law to accommodate this, one that would allow vast sections of society to be imprisoned based on what organs they were born with or what gender they identify as.

[QUOTE=Zyler;48670300]This is right about the point you need to step back and realize why people are disagreeing with you, then realize why you were wrong and slowly back away. You were already wrong right at the beginning when you said that it was factually inaccurate comparing the treatment of human beings as suggested by Julie Bindel as synonymous with concentration camps, now you're just digging yourself a bigger hole by backpedaling and continuing to argue what you were already wrong about to begin with.[/QUOTE] I already laid myself completely flat about being wrong. Backpedaling is trying to look like you weren't wrong. This discussion is about human rights, not about concentration camps. [editline]13th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;48670361]That's because they are criminals and there are provisions for criminals are covered under human rights. If you put half the population of the human race in a prison for no reason, when they have committed no crime, you are breaking human rights doctrine, end of.[/QUOTE] Well see, the thing is that in this situation it would be written in the law that being a heterosexual male require that you are put into a segregated society and only allowed to walk outside it under the power and surveillance of a woman. It wouldn't be "for no reason", society would have agreed that all men should be segregated. Laws change, what was once a criminal act that would strip you of some human rights has later become legal, in this case being a heterosexual male would be "illegal".

[QUOTE=dgg;48670368]I already laid myself completely flat about being wrong. Backpedaling is trying to look like you weren't wrong. This discussion is about human rights, not about concentration camps.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure it's about concentration camps/prisons/zoos, unless you aren't suggesting that everybody else but you has misinterpreted 'put all men in a zoo' as a major breach of human rights? Otherwise you're moving the goal posts of your argument and making no sense whatsoever. What is your actual argument? Do you think that people are sensationalizing the proposal of 'put all men in a zoo' to not mean 'put all men in a zoo' or are you complaining that 'put all men in a zoo' does not mean 'put all men in concentration camps' or 'put all men in a prison'?

[QUOTE=Zyler;48670382]I'm pretty sure it's about concentration camps/prisons/zoos, unless you aren't suggesting that everybody else but you has misinterpreted 'put all men in a zoo' as a major breach of human rights?[/QUOTE] If you still haven't caught on to the fact that I'm not talking about a zoo then you haven't read my posts and arguing further with you is fucking useless because you're basing yourself on something I have long since clarified. "like a zoo" is not "a zoo", I have since elaborated heavily on that, if you haven't bothered reading and just assumed what I'm talking about then there is no reason to continue.

[QUOTE=dgg;48670338]No, you can actually pick and choose what human rights to give people, that's exactly how prison works, because those humans have broken the law they loose certain human rights until they are released, if they even get released. She has not used the word "prison" or "camp" or "concentration" in her statement. She made a statement that can be alliterated to a concentration camp, a zoo (of men), a library (of men), a prison, a country for men run under a form of dictatorship. She has however not made a statement that specifically describes any of those specifically, what she's said does not exists, we can only draw parallels. The only thing that you can factually say is that she wants to segregate men from women and allow women to take the men out of the segregated area and into where the women are. That men would not be able to move freely in all of society, only in their own segregated society and under the restrictions of a woman when allowed into the society of women. Your post made me think over my life, I will now stop posting because you just said that you don't care. Oh wait, I'm having a discussion with someone about human rights.[/QUOTE] You're completely arguing over semantics in which things were vaguely veiled behind "niceties". There's no such thing that's different from a concentration camp and by defending this (Which you are, despite your misgivings and denial about what the woman has said.) you are advocating for stripping the male gender of their autonomy and livelihood.

How is putting half of the human population in camps not "nazi level shit"??????? and if you really think that none of the stuff would happen when you try to forcibly move a large demographic, lmao. education would be retooled to make it look like it's ok to segregate to the other half the population, not to mention to make men feel like that's how it should be and always will be. laws would be rewritten to make men the lowerclass, to make them be treated shittily. like if you just look at how segregation worked in the US, it was done in a way to make African Americans feel insignificant and not "normal" compared to whites. Education, entertainment, all of it was done to where sure they were allowed to "live" and have an "education" and have "jobs" but all of it was nearly pointless since it was so shitty compared to what whites had. They weren't living and were denied their basic rights. It wasn't "separate but equal" it was "Separate and shittier". No matter what way you slice it, that's how you get an entire demographic to be trampled on, to be rounded up into camps, or to just "segregate them". You have to retool society. They're not going to get a real education, or have a real job, they won't have any of their fundamental human rights, and to argue otherwise is to be bullshitting yourself.

[QUOTE=dgg;48670368]I already laid myself completely flat about being wrong. Backpedaling is trying to look like you weren't wrong. This discussion is about human rights, not about concentration camps. [editline]13th September 2015[/editline] Well see, the thing is that in this situation it would be written in the law that being a heterosexual male require that you are put into a segregated society and only allowed to walk outside it under the power and surveillance of a woman. It wouldn't be "for no reason", society would have agreed that all men should be segregated. Laws change, what was once a criminal act that would strip you of some human rights has later become legal, in this case being a heterosexual male would be "illegal".[/QUOTE] But it would be a breach of human rights as it is written today, which is written the way it is the protect human beings from being abused by dictatorial governments and criminal organizations under the perjury of international law. We accept human rights as being the inalienable rights afforded to every individual because no one should be unnecessarily killed, imprisoned or have their freedoms and/or quality of life restricted.

[QUOTE=Keyblockor1;48670401]You're completely arguing over semantics in which things were vaguely veiled behind "niceties". There's no such thing that's different from a concentration camp and by defending this (Which you are, despite your misgivings and denial about what the woman has said.) you are advocating for stripping the male gender of their autonomy and livelihood.[/QUOTE] How am I advocating for anything by arguing about what human rights would exists in a segregated society? How am I advocating for extreme feminism by against people twisting a persons words into being even worse than they are? [QUOTE=Zyler;48670404]But it would be a breach of human rights as it is written today, which is written the way it is the protect human beings from being abused by dictatorial governments and criminal organizations under the perjury of international law. We accept human rights as being the inalienable rights afforded to every individual because no one should be unnecessarily killed, imprisoned or have their freedoms and/or quality of life restricted.[/QUOTE] It wouldn't be unnecessary because the entire population had decided that segregating males would be right thing to do. This is the same way it's not unnecessary to imprison a person for smoking weed, because by law it's illegal. Whether one agrees or not with that law it doesn't matter until the law is removed. Likewise if such a law was put in place, that all men would be segregated it would be "the right thing to do" until the law said otherwise, and the law can only change as people view things differently.

[QUOTE=dgg;48670414]How am I advocating for anything by arguing about what human rights would exists in a segregated society?[/QUOTE] Because in a segregated society, in order to segregate a portion of the population you would have to trample over all of their human rights. It's what happened in the US post slavery. It's not hard to fucking figure out.

[QUOTE=Bragdras;48669086]That's not feminism, that's some sort of nazi-like level hatred for men. This chick's gone bananas.[/QUOTE] Quite literally a [I]feminazi[/I]. [QUOTE=dgg;48669324]:words: :words: :words:[/QUOTE] Dude... stop. Just stop.

[QUOTE=dgg;48670398]If you still haven't caught on to the fact that I'm not talking about a zoo then you haven't read my posts and arguing further with you is fucking useless because you're basing yourself on something I have long since clarified. "like a zoo" is not "a zoo", I have since elaborated heavily on that, if you haven't bothered reading and just assumed what I'm talking about then there is no reason to continue.[/QUOTE] What is your actual argument? Are you arguing that somebody has been misrepresented here? Do you think that the proposal of putting 50% of the human population in 'a form of containment facility designed to cut them off from the outside world while denying them what we consider to be the inalienable human rights given to every individual' is not synonymous with a 'prison', 'zoo' or 'concentration camp'?

Don't feed the troll, folks.

[QUOTE=dgg;48670414]How am I advocating for anything by arguing about what human rights would exists in a segregated society? How am I advocating for extreme feminism by against people twisting a persons words into being even worse than they are?[/QUOTE] There are sounds coming out of your mouth (or letters coming out of your keyboard) but no actual intelligible words can be found. What is your argument? What are you actually arguing? What do you believe?

[QUOTE=dgg;48670338]Your post made me think over my life, I will now stop posting because you just said that you don't care. Oh wait, I'm having a discussion with someone about human rights.[/QUOTE] Ugh, dude. I never said I don't care. I'm saying the topic that people care about regarding this video doesn't have anything to do about whether what she's describing is literally a concentration camp or not. And you're just arguing about that. Even though the idea is absolutely crazy to begin with, all you're doing is discussing whether the words that people are using to describe it are valid. Why does it matter if it's literally a concentration camp when the concept of forced segregation for half of the human race is so incredibly horrible anyway? One could even argue that it'd be even worse than concentration camps based on pure volume what the fuck are you even trying to say? do you actually have an opinion in this, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? you're literally just arguing semantics. jesus fucking christ

[QUOTE=dgg;48670165] You really like grasping at that one example I gave, [I]like[/I] a zoo, not actually a zoo. You're trying to twist and turn more shit out of it than I ever said. I also said [I]like[/I] a prison but I guess that doesn't give you enough to work on. Even [I]dictatorship[/I]. [/QUOTE] hold the fucking phone, you said this [quote]Throwing all men into a zoo, excluding them from society[/quote] Not "like" a zoo, but INTO A FUCKING ZOO.

[QUOTE=Zyler;48670434]There are sounds coming out of your mouth (or letters coming out of your keyboard) but no actual intelligible words can be found. What is your argument? What are you actually arguing? What do you believe?[/QUOTE] I believe that people are putting words into Julie Bindels mouth and making her sound even worse than she is. I believe that Julie Bindels is a fucking nutjob and that her (and any) extreme feminist views are dumb. I believe that people are assuming things about her statement that are far worse than what she's suggested and that whilst she's a manhater she does not wish to put men into a concentration camp, but rather a segregated society. I have otherwise only been defining the amount of human rights that would be affected in such a segregated society, I have not made any claims that such a segregated society is not breaching human rights nor that it is not a dumb fucking idea. [QUOTE=bdd458;48670445]hold the fucking phone, you said this Not "like" a zoo, but INTO A FUCKING ZOO.[/QUOTE] Good catch, I didn't even notice that because I meant to write something else. So to clarify then, I meant "into something like a zoo".

[QUOTE=dgg;48670463]whilst she's a manhater she does not wish to put men into a concentration camp, but rather a segregated society.[/QUOTE] why the hell does this matter

[QUOTE=dgg;48670463]I believe that people are putting words into Julie Bindels mouth and making her sound even worse than she is. I believe that people are assuming things about her statement that are far worse than what she's suggested and that whilst she's a manhater she does not wish to put men into a concentration camp, but rather a segregated society. I have otherwise only been defining the amount of human rights that would be affected in such a segregated society, I have not made any claims that such a segregated society is not breaching human rights nor that it is not a dumb fucking idea.[/QUOTE] So your argument is that, when talking about the proposal of putting 50% of the population in a 'segregated society' where their rights are highly restricted and they are not allowed to leave, it is sensationalist to talk about this proposal as a plan to 'put all men in prison', 'put all men in concentration camps' or 'Throwing all men into a zoo, excluding them from society' (which is literally what you said). There already exists a place that is segregated off from the rest of society and wherein the citizens of said segregated society have their human rights restricted and they are not allowed to leave, [b]it's called a prison or a concentration camp.[/b] It doesn't matter if you call prisons or concentration camps a 'segregated society', when your 'segregated society' carries the exact same definition as a prison or concentration camp then it is not sensationalist to call it a prison or a concentration camp.

[QUOTE=Eric95;48670481]why the hell does this matter[/QUOTE] It doesn't, and that was never the discussion, the discussion went over to being about human rights. bdd458 claimed that they would be stripped of all their human rights, I argued back that they would not be stripped of all human rights, but they would have few left. Then that went back and forth and escalated into this. But everyone is jumping in at different places without knowing the context and you get all sorts of different branches in the discussion and it becomes a mess.

[QUOTE=dgg;48670499]It doesn't, and that was never the discussion, the discussion went over to being about human rights. bdd458 claimed that they would be stripped of all their human rights, I argued back that they would not be stripped of all human rights, but they would have few left. Then that went back and forth and escalated into this. But everyone is jumping in at different places without knowing the context and you get all sorts of different branches in the discussion and it becomes a mess.[/QUOTE] Removing any human rights is removing all human rights, you don't get to pick and choose what human rights to follow. If you break the law, you break the law. If you shoplift from my store, you don't get to argue that "I might've shoplifted, but I didn't break into your house and shoot your dog so I broke ONE law but I didn't break EVERY SINGLE OTHER LAW THAT EXISTS". The law is a piece of paper, if you do one of the things it says not to do on that piece of paper you are breaking the law, there's no "I broke THIS law but I didn't break THESE OTHER laws". You broke the law. The international law of human rights is a piece of paper, if you break any of the human rights you break all of them. Human rights are the inalienable rights of all people, all people have those rights and all those rights must be upheld in order to upheld human rights. I know it sounds like I'm restating the obvious, but your entire argument is completely nonsensical and you're arguing twenty different things. [QUOTE=dgg;48670463]I believe that people are putting words into Julie Bindels mouth and making her sound even worse than she is. I believe that Julie Bindels is a fucking nutjob and that her (and any) extreme feminist views are dumb. I believe that people are assuming things about her statement that are far worse than what she's suggested and that whilst she's a manhater she does not wish to put men into a concentration camp, but rather a segregated society. I have otherwise only been defining the amount of human rights that would be affected in such a segregated society, I have not made any claims that such a segregated society is not breaching human rights nor that it is not a dumb fucking idea.[/QUOTE] There are at least 3 different arguments here, pick one and stick to it or at least let us go through them one at a time instead of waffling on.

The entire fucking act of segregating a portion of a population comes from taking away their human rights, or diminishing them to the point where they don't matter along with de-personifying that population group. That is a fact, the act of segregation eliminates human rights; some of the bigger examples being segregation in the United States, the Jewish and other minorities in Europe circa WWII, and the Tutsi in Rwanda. There are many other examples, such as the Armenians; especially in 1915. Any time a portion of a population is segregated or discriminated against their fundamental human rights, all of them, are eliminated or diminished to the point where it doesn't matter (ie "Life". They may be alive, but are not truly living). There is no arguing this, this is one of the very few capital T truths of life.

[QUOTE=Zyler;48670525]Removing any human rights is removing all human rights, you don't get to pick and choose what human rights to follow. If you break the law, you break the law. If you shoplift from my store, you don't get to argue that "I might've shoplifted, but I didn't break into your house and shoot your dog so I broke ONE law but I didn't break EVERY SINGLE OTHER LAW THAT EXISTS". The law is a piece of paper, if you do one of the things it says not to do on that piece of paper you are breaking the law, there's no "I broke THIS law but I didn't break THESE OTHER laws". You broke the law. The international law of human rights is a piece of paper, if you break any of the human rights you break all of them.[/QUOTE] I agree, legally the person no longer has "human right", that does not deny the fact that the person still has human rights, it still has individual human rights, but it doesn't have all of them that is legally required to have what you would classify as "human right". Not having all human rights does not stop the person from having the human rights it does. It just means it doesn't have enough to truly say that the person has human rights. And I know, everyone will think that sounds retarded or whatever because I'm using the same type of word to describe the same thing, it sounds contradictory or whatever. Again, I've never been claiming that they would have been been treated humanely, equally or in a good way. But yes, they do have human rights, but they do not have what you legally classify as "human right", because they don't have enough rights, but they still have the rights they have, they are still treated to some extent like humans, but they aren't treated equally, like fully worthy humans, they are treated like lesser humans, they are being oppressed. I've been against the black and white view on the case, but I haven't disagreed with the fact that they lack human rights.

[QUOTE=dgg;48670572][b]I agree, legally the person no longer has "human right", that does not deny the fact that the person still has human rights, it still has individual human rights, but it doesn't have all of them that is legally required to have what you would classify as "human right".[/b] Not having all human rights does not stop the person from having the human rights it does. It just means it doesn't have enough to truly say that the person has human rights. And I know, everyone will think that sounds retarded or whatever because I'm using the same type of word to describe the same thing, it sounds contradictory or whatever. Again, I've never been claiming that they would have been been treated humanely, equally or in a good way. But yes, they do have human rights, but they do not have what you legally classify as "human right", because they don't have enough rights, but they still have the rights they have, they are still treated to some extent like humans, but they aren't treated equally, like fully worthy humans, they are treated like lesser humans, they are being oppressed.[/QUOTE] No, that's not how it works. The law must be upheld for the law to exist, if the law is not upheld it does not exist. If you change international human rights law from what it is, it is not international human rights law anymore, it is your bastardized version of it. [QUOTE]they are still treated to some extent like humans, but they aren't treated equally, like fully worthy humans, they are treated like lesser humans, they are being oppressed. [/QUOTE] Human rights are the rights applied to all humans, if you do not apply the same rights to everybody they are not human rights by definition. They are not 'human rights', they are 'rights that only apply to some humans'. Human rights are rights applied to all humans, that's why they're called human rights and if they didn't apply to all humans they would not be human rights. [quote]I've been against the black and white view on the case, but I haven't disagreed with the fact that they lack human rights. [/QUOTE] If you 'lack' human rights, you do not have human rights. Human rights are the inaliebable rights given to all humans, that isn't a black-and-white view, that is the literal definition of human rights.

[QUOTE=dgg;48670463]I believe that people are putting words into Julie Bindels mouth and making her sound even worse than she is. I believe that Julie Bindels is a fucking nutjob and that her (and any) extreme feminist views are dumb. I believe that people are assuming things about her statement that are far worse than what she's suggested and that whilst she's a manhater she does not wish to put men into a concentration camp, but rather a segregated society. I have otherwise only been defining the amount of human rights that would be affected in such a segregated society, I have not made any claims that such a segregated society is not breaching human rights nor that it is not a dumb fucking idea. Good catch, I didn't even notice that because I meant to write something else. So to clarify then, I meant "into something like a zoo".[/QUOTE] What she's saying is bad and so are your posts.

[QUOTE=Zyler;48670601]No, that's not how it works. The law must be upheld for the law to exist, if the law is not upheld it does not exist. If you change international human rights law from what it is, it is not international human rights law anymore, it is your bastardized version of it. Human rights are the rights applied to all humans, if you do not apply the same rights to everybody they are not human rights by definition. They are not 'human rights', they are 'rights that only apply to some humans'[/QUOTE] Well yes exactly, how else would you segregate half of the entire population through extremist feminism? The way the law is written would need to be changed because the population believes all men should be legally segregated. [QUOTE=Bridger;48670614]What she's saying is bad and so are your posts.[/QUOTE] Thanks

[QUOTE=dgg;48670615]Well yes exactly, how else would you segregate half of the entire population through extremist feminism? The way the law is written would need to be changed because the population believes all men should be legally segregated.[/QUOTE] What the hell are you even talking about? I'm saying, in this topsy-turvy world you're suggesting, there would be no human rights because the definition of human rights is that it applies to all humans, if you changed the international law so that human rights didn't exist, that wouldn't mean that the definition of human rights would change, it would mean that human rights wouldn't exist. What are you actually arguing? From what you're saying it is not sensationalist to suggest that 'removing all human rights in order to segregate half the population into prison camps' means 'removing all human rights in order to segregate half the population into prison camps'. You don't have an argument anymore, you've just backpedaled 180 degrees and ended up agreeing with me.

[QUOTE=Zyler;48670625]What the hell are you even talking about? I'm saying, in this topsy-turvy world you're suggesting, there would be no human rights because the definition of human rights is that it applies to all humans, if you changed the international law so that human rights didn't exist, that wouldn't mean that the definition of human rights would change, it would mean that human rights wouldn't exist.[/QUOTE] Of course human rights would exists, but the human rights would be different, as would the world itself. This segregation is happening in the made-up world that Julie Bindel is envisioning where such a thing would be possible, and obviously the women would consider themselves humans and have human rights by law. Human rights had to be made up and written at some point, more rights may have to be added in the future to adapt, but just like you can add on to it you can also detract from it, but it needs to be something the world agrees with.

dgg, this is quite possibly the most inane, franking slightly psychotic argument you've ever had. it doesn't matter that you started trying to argue semantics, you are inadvertently defending the insanity of the idea of locking all men away by implying it "isn't that bad" You might not be intending to, but your posts are coming off that way, you have a bad habit of making long rants that are super confusing and obscure your original point so badly that nobody can tell what you're saying.