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

[QUOTE=dgg;48670636]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.[/QUOTE] If you didn't apply human rights to all humans, they wouldn't be human rights anymore. Human rights wouldn't exist anymore because we wouldn't have inalienable rights that applied to all humans. They wouldn't be 'different' they would be gone entirely, zippo, vamoose, gone. And this completely ignores the whole point of your original argument, if Julie Bindel's proposal requires removing or 'changing' human rights to not be human rights anymore in order to put half the population in prison camps, isn't it NOT sensationalist to say that what she's proposing is an entirely totalitarian regime comparable to that of nazi germany? The only way your argument makes any sense is if you genuinely believe that there is a way of segregate half the human population into prison camps that would NOT violate all international human rights laws, just that it's not the way that Bindel has suggested.

[QUOTE=Rahkshi lord;48670642]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.[/QUOTE] No, I have only been arguing against the idea that they would be stripped away of [B]all[/B] human rights in this made-up silly segregation. bdd458 even brought up a good example with afro americans in the 60's which I think would be a similar matter as this. Afro americans in the 60's had some human rights, but they were not considered humans because they didn't have all of them; they were treated as inferior humans. This segregation would cause the same sort of situation but with males. Anyone that thinks of that as defending it assumes way too much right away.

[QUOTE=dgg;48670663]No, I have only been arguing against the idea that they would be stripped away of [B]all[/B] human rights in this made-up silly segregation. bdd458 even brought up a good example with afro americans in the 60's which I think would be a similar matter as this. Afro americans in the 60's had some human rights, but they were not considered humans because they didn't have all of them; they were treated as inferior humans. This segregation would cause the same sort of situation but with males. Anyone that thinks of that as defending it assumes way too much right away.[/QUOTE] Being stripped of any human right is being striped of all human rights. If you break the law, you are breaking the law. Let me explain this another way. The International Human Rights Law isn't a list of laws, it is a single law that says 'you must do all of these following things' and then a list of things that human beings should be able to do. Under this system, not doing any of the things listed would be breaching the one law, it doesn't matter how many things you breach or how exactly you do it, there is only 1 single law and if you breach it, you breach it. Here's another example, you shoplift from a store and you get caught by the police. It doesn't matter if you shoplifted a shoe or a flat screen television, you still shoplifted, it isn't possible to 'partially' shoplift or 'maybe, sorta' shoplift or 'just' shoplift. You either shoplift or you don't, you either break the law or you don't, you either remove all human rights and set up a totalitarian regime that puts half the population in prison camps or you don't.

[QUOTE=dgg;48670663]No, I have only been arguing against the idea that they would be stripped away of [B]all[/B] human rights in this made-up silly segregation. bdd458 even brought up a good example with afro americans in the 60's which I think would be a similar matter as this. Afro americans in the 60's had some human rights, but they were not considered humans because they didn't have all of them; they were treated as inferior humans. This segregation would cause the same sort of situation but with males. Anyone that thinks of that as defending it assumes way too much right away.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying you are defending it, I'm saying you LOOK LIKE YOU'RE DEFENDING IT because of of the weird obtuse way you argue your points. this is not the first time everybody has completely misinterpreted your point in an argument before. step back and wonder if this argument of semantics is worth the three page essay you wrote that can easily be mistaken as defending segregating men for not being "that bad"

Definition of feminism.[QUOTE]fem·i·nism ˈfeməˌnizəm/Submit noun the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.[/QUOTE] This woman is not a feminist. She is an attention whore.

African-Amiericans during the segregation period in the US did not have their human rights though, what "rights" they had were diminished to where it was absolutely pointless and they only had them in fucking name. It's a simple fucking fact. The act of segregation itself strips a population group [I]entirely [/I]of its human rights (ALL OF THEM) by diminishing them to the point where it doesn't fucking matter, that they only have them in name.

I don't even know what this thread is about anymore.

[QUOTE=Zyler;48670647]If you didn't apply human rights to all humans, they wouldn't be human rights anymore. Human rights wouldn't exist anymore because we wouldn't have inalienable rights that applied to all humans. They wouldn't be 'different' they would be gone entirely, zippo, vamoose, gone. And this completely ignores the whole point of your original argument, if Julie Bindel's proposal requires removing or 'changing' human rights to not be human rights anymore in order to put half the population in prison camps, isn't it NOT sensationalist to say that what she's proposing is an entirely totalitarian regime comparable to that of nazi germany? The only way your argument makes any sense is if you genuinely believe that there is a way of segregate half the human population into prison camps that would NOT violate all international human rights laws, just that it's not the way that Bindel has suggested.[/QUOTE] We had human rights before the 1900s despite not being applicable to all humans, it is more than possible and has already been done. I think your other point there is pretty good, but like I said here: [QUOTE=dgg;48669502]Ok, hold on, I think I've jumped the shark a bit here. First of all reading up on the definition of concentration camps they exist in much more lenient ways than how the germans did them, I honestly did not know, so not much to say there, just wrong. They basically exist as prisons as well...[/QUOTE] I don't think it's on the levels of nazism because that was about eradicating them, not confining them, which was the vital difference. I am all for the idea that her dreamland is bonkers and violates human rights, I was just against the initial comparision I got from "concentration camp" which is the holocaust, sending people in to slave and die. Her idea is violating human rights but without the intention of having them die from sickness, starvation and slave work. So yes, I completely agree with you, minus the nazi-levels. Thanks for clarifying though, made me think more about it as well.

[QUOTE=dgg;48670706]We had human rights before the 1900s despite not being applicable to all humans, it is more than possible and has already been done. I think your other point there is pretty good, but like I said here: I don't think it's on the levels of nazism because that was about eradicating them, not confining them, which was the vital difference. I am all for the idea that her dreamland is bonkers and violates human rights, I was just against the initial comparision I got from "concentration camp" which is the holocaust, sending people in to slave and die. Her idea is violating human rights but without the intention of having them die from sickness, starvation and slave work. So yes, I completely agree with you, minus the nazi-levels. Thanks for clarifying though, made me think more about it as well.[/QUOTE] The difference is comparable to running somebody over with your car and leaving them to bleed out on the roadside instead of turning around to finish the job. It is not hyberbole to compare ideas of which calibre can only be compared to the greatest crimes of history to the greatest crimes of history. If there was any other similar example of imprisoning a such a large number of people that did not lead to mass ritualistic slaughter then I'd agree with you, but unfortunately when you segregate 50% of the population and put them into prison camps then that sort of thing tends to happen.

[QUOTE=Rahkshi lord;48670683]I'm not saying you are defending it, I'm saying you LOOK LIKE YOU'RE DEFENDING IT because of of the weird obtuse way you argue your points. this is not the first time everybody has completely misinterpreted your point in an argument before. step back and wonder if this argument of semantics is worth the three page essay you wrote that can easily be mistaken as defending segregating men for not being "that bad"[/QUOTE] Of course it's worth it, I'm learning stuff in the process, like finding out the broader definition of concentration camps, I wouldn't have done that if I didn't post in the first place. Although I find it annoying that people get the wrong idea I have been more than clear enough, but if people don't take the time to read through all my shit (and I don't blame them one bit) and then jump in and have the wrong idea, then no shit Sherlock. If people just stop at the first sign of "I don't agree with this" and don't read on because they want to criticize, then of course they'll think I'm saying something I'm not. It's no different than how people read the headline and respond to that. Certainly I have said some wrong things and I have laid flat on that. [QUOTE=Zyler;48670718]The difference is comparable to running somebody over with your car and leaving them to bleed out on the roadside instead of turning around to finish the job. It is not hyberbole to compare ideas of which calibre can only be compared to greatest crimes of history to the greatest crimes of history.[/QUOTE] I think it is because the one is about control (Julie Bindel) and the other is about eradicating (Hitler). Like I've said before, sure there are a lot of things to make alliterations to, but I don't think the image concentration camp gives to most is the right one, because it implies genocide. Prisons and zoos are closer to what she's describing, and I think the imagery of all men being put in a zoo is more than powerful enough.

[QUOTE=dgg;48670734]Of course it's worth it, I'm learning stuff in the process, like finding out the broader definition of concentration camps, I wouldn't have done that if I didn't post in the first place. Although I find it annoying that people get the wrong idea I have been more than clear enough, but if people don't take the time to read through all my shit (and I don't blame them one bit) and then jump in and have the wrong idea, then no shit Sherlock. If people just stop at the first sign of "I don't agree with this" and don't read on because they want to criticize, then of course they'll think I'm saying something I'm not. It's no different than how people read the headline and respond to that. Certainly I have said some wrong things and I have laid flat on that.[/QUOTE] Alright. [QUOTE]I think it is because the one is about control (Julie Bindel) and the other is about eradicating (Hitler). Like I've said before, sure there are a lot of things to make alliterations to, but I don't think the image concentration camp gives to most is the right one, because it implies genocide. Prisons and zoos are closer to what she's describing, and I think the imagery of all men being put in a zoo is more than powerful enough.[/QUOTE] This is an argument of semantics, not any actual point of contention. I compare Bindels suggestion to Nazi Germany because it is the only instance in recent history of a mass segregation of a large section of society into concentration camps that is similar to the scale that Bindel is suggesting. Also, it is a hallmark of history that whenever a large subsection of the population has had their human rights removed and have been put into concentration camps, there have always been ritualistic mass killings, to the point where it is seen as an inevitability of the process of dehumanization and breaching of human rights involved in the inhuman incarceration of large segments of society. People would be killed under this model of societal restructuring, it is impossible for massive amounts of people to not be killed because they won't follow the new laws and restrictions blindly and would be killed while trying to revolt or because they didn't move quickly enough into the camps. A conflict of this scale, assuming there is an entity powerful enough to enforce segregation, would lead to a scale of death in the millions, larger than any war in this century so far or indeed most centuries before it.

You guys are literally arguing how horrible a nightmarish situation would be. Seems kinda pointless when at the end of the day youre still in a living hell

The guy in the video making arguments seems a bit dumb too. He seems to forget people like Peirs Morgan, Donald Trump, and Alex Jones are also often on prominent news stations, but no one acts like they are the leader of whatever they are talking about.

[QUOTE=dgg;48670734] I think it is because the one is about control (Julie Bindel) and the other is about eradicating (Hitler). Like I've said before, sure there are a lot of things to make alliterations to, but I don't think the image concentration camp gives to most is the right one, because it implies genocide. Prisons and zoos are closer to what she's describing, and I think the imagery of all men being put in a zoo is more than powerful enough.[/QUOTE] In practice, there is little difference.

Imagine being as big of a cuck as dgg, but being too deep in your arguement to back out [highlight](User was banned for this post (""cuck"" - Orkel))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=dgg;48670734]Of course it's worth it, I'm learning stuff in the process, like finding out the broader definition of concentration camps, I wouldn't have done that if I didn't post in the first place.[/QUOTE] Except you can learn without shitting up the entire thread by arguing semantics. Seriously, the level of social ineptitude you've demonstrated here is borderline concerning.

[QUOTE=Rahkshi lord;48670642]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.[/QUOTE] Yea but dgg also said they can be checked out like books, to be raped. Dgg has already pointed out that human males are not humans.

the only thing being eradicated here is her career, any real trace of dignity, pride, and legitimacy this person has left, if there was any to begin with.

[QUOTE=dgg;48669595]Dude, seriously? Are you this black/and white in how you view the world? They still get to eat what they want, they still get to work with what they want to, they still get to own and live in their own houses, they still get to socialize, they still get access to TV and entertainment in general (minus porn). They live like humans, but with many restrictions, like people living under a dictatorship. They're oppressed, they have lost certain rights, they're segregated, but they are in no fucking way stripped down of all their rights. Fucking come on, seriously.[/QUOTE] And this is where I'm not even going to keep skimming your posts.

Imagine calling yourself a feminist in 2015 when fuckheads also call themselves that. Its time to move onto a new word. People like MaxofS2D are feminists, no one wants to be a max do they?

[QUOTE=dgg;48670734] I think it is because the one is about control (Julie Bindel) and the other is about eradicating (Hitler). Like I've said before, sure there are a lot of things to make alliterations to, but I don't think the image concentration camp gives to most is the right one, because it implies genocide. Prisons and zoos are closer to what she's describing, and I think the imagery of all men being put in a zoo is more than powerful enough.[/QUOTE] It will never cease to amaze me when people say that a person meant something else when they sent something. "She meant to say prison but she actually said concentration camp, it was just an oopsie of hers." No, she said concentration camp and the only logical conclusion is that she meant concentration camp.

[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;48671729]Imagine calling yourself a feminist in 2015 when fuckheads also call themselves that. Its time to move onto a new word. People like MaxofS2D are feminists, no one wants to be a max do they?[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but I wouldn't even want to be French. I'd rather be made fun of for burgers and obesity than baguettes and wine.

can you still see light in that hole youve dug dgg

[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;48671729]Imagine calling yourself a feminist in 2015 when fuckheads also call themselves that. Its time to move onto a new word. People like MaxofS2D are feminists, no one wants to be a max do they?[/QUOTE] Correlation =/= Causation

man op you've sure been hard at work with these clickbait antifem threads lately so this is pretty much it for you, huh, this is your life [editline]a[/editline] i mean, look at this: [img]http://i.imgur.com/aVVz9O5.png[/img] holy moly dude. yowza!

[QUOTE=dgg;48669441]Because they still have human rights, they still work, live and eat like normal human beings, but they are segregated from all females and non-heterosexual males unless granted permission by them. They have [B]less[/B] human rights, they are treated in in-humane ways, but they still have human rights, but they have less. They live life within a closed society, they still provide themselves as usual, they still work and whatnot, but with less people.[/QUOTE] Are you just some neo-nazi or something? You're statements reek of closeted facism.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;48672173]man op you've sure been hard at work with these clickbait antifem threads lately so this is pretty much it for you, huh, this is your life [editline]a[/editline] i mean, look at this: [img]http://i.imgur.com/aVVz9O5.png[/img] holy moly dude. yowza![/QUOTE] You have been twice as hard at work vs this random anime poster than others. If anything you are the cause of this vs anyone else. I call or a ban on the racist vs jewish users.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;48672173]man op you've sure been hard at work with these clickbait antifem threads lately so this is pretty much it for you, huh, this is your life [editline]a[/editline] i mean, look at this: [img]http://i.imgur.com/aVVz9O5.png[/img] holy moly dude. yowza![/QUOTE] I've noticed this too. OP is quite the shit stirrer. I would just report all his threads and see if anything sticks.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;48672173]man op you've sure been hard at work with these clickbait antifem threads lately holy moly dude. yowza![/QUOTE] I have to ask, I just have to If someone posted an equal number of feminist articles, would you say the same thing? Would you degrade and attack them too? Probably not is my guess

[QUOTE=dgg;48669644]Oh look an edit.[/QUOTE] Are you seriously that petty? :v:.