• Violence Against Women Act gets only gets 7 Republican Senators supporting it versus 53 Democrat.
    165 replies, posted
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39448810]I don't understand why they can't include all race and gender groups (trans, bi, straight) under one act, and possibly rename it to something that doesn't 'provoke' the ignorant, "American bills only do what is described in their title!", types. Well, transsexual is straight considering how MTF is female and FTM is male, but you get my point, right?[/QUOTE] The issue is that different races and genders don't experience the same problems, and when they do they don't experience them to the same magnitude (in the context of VAWA) When you have a nail to pound in you get a hammer, that doesn't mean the hammer will also work for screws
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39450210]The issue is that different races and genders don't experience the same problems, and when they do they don't experience them to the same magnitude (in the context of VAWA) When you have a nail to pound in you get a hammer, that doesn't mean the hammer will also work for screws[/QUOTE] A hammer can work for screws too if you hit it hard enough, same for forcing equality into laws and bills. Even if other groups don't experience the same problem, or don't experience it as much as the people the bill intended to aid, it wouldn't mean much if all of those other groups are included, just to eliminate straw graspers using technicalities to disenfranchise others, and to promote legal equality. The same amount of resources are going to be used to carry out whatever the bill had in mind regardless of whether there are more people affected by it or not, since those left out should and probably would, eventually, get a bill passed for their benefit regardless. The problem I see with it is that the more you want to push through at the same time, the larger the opposition is going to be from the other side, and then there is a higher risk of some heinous bullshit getting added in the fine print so the public would have to take the good with the bad. Equality means removing or amending laws that are exclusive of certain groups, even if including them would only mean a change on paper.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;39446670][IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FZLChf2Cwyc/UN0pMqAsnII/AAAAAAAAMTs/0hIgiw4LyPU/s1600/2035_10151196413036275_1408173545_n.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Getting home runs in that park must be pathetically easy, I wouldn't want to see a game there.
I don't know enough about to bill to know if whether its inclusion of men and minorities/immigrants is just superficial or not, but I'll be optimistic and not make myself look like an idiot by blindly thrashing at it.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39450210]When you have a nail to pound in you get a hammer, that doesn't mean the hammer will also work for screws[/QUOTE] Yes, but we also don't need to buy a new hammer for every variation/color/size of nail. Also: [url]http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/additional/large/ec5f_gam_hammer_parts.jpg[/url] Analogies are fun. Also U.S.S.R is a ninja because I was re-reading some stuff on the pages, and in response to kopimi I'm not really making an actual argument at the moment, I've mostly just been responding to things other people have said that I disagreed with. You guys also seem to have the impression that I disagree with the VAWA, which is false, I just think that it can do/be better. as I posted earlier: [QUOTE=soulharvester;39446296]Also I think the VAWA has done great things, I just don't like the fact that the title itself makes it seem like it's predisposed to protect women over men, whether or not that's the actual case in the actual wording. I also think that the language shouldn't be so "Specific" so as to exclude people by default, based on gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=soulharvester;39446296]I'm sorry I had no idea that my gender or ethnicity automatically gave me a job and puts gas in my car. does being a female also automatically make you a victim? does throwing an insult at a colored person automatically make you a racist? You're the problem with this country, you boil down issues to "Lol we shouldn't have to help them they have it great, we only have to help the colored pplz". People shouldn't be prioritized because of their gender or ethnicity, that's not how equality works, and it's not how you set up a "fair" system. I'm not saying we shouldn't give help to areas that are poorer because they're mostly colored, or filled with "gangsters" and the like, quite the opposite. I just think that it undermines their efforts if they include language in their policies that specifically targets the "Latino" community in an area. I'm saying it shouldn't include language that specifically singles them out, I'm proposing that the language is MORE equal. I also won't deny that males have the privilege of being male, but I'll laugh in your face if you deny that being a women comes with it's own privileges, I'm not going to argue whether those advantages are equal because then you're just arguing semantics and it'll go on forever and solve nothing. People aren't "equal" period, You'll never find two people that are completely "equal" to each other, that doesn't mean we can't treat them equally. Also I think the VAWA has done great things, I just don't like the fact that the title itself makes it seem like it's predisposed to protect women over men, whether or not that's the actual case in the actual wording. I also think that the language shouldn't be so "Specific" so as to exclude people by default, based on gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. edit: Divorce Courts. Also I never said that straight white males don't have benefits, or "privilege", I just think that it shouldn't be a valid reason to exclude them from services designed to help people. It's like reverse racism/sexism, in a way.[/QUOTE] sorry dude, this just feels like feel-good stuff from r/mensrights that doesn't actually say anything people are still attacking you for your pro-MRA stance because it blindly ignores certain social conditions in most of the world
[QUOTE=overpain;39447231]It's like the darwinism ; Strongest one survives, weak ones dies. The point is, conservative ones gives everyone an equal chance.[/QUOTE] one would have thought that part of what it means to be human is to have empathy and compassion, and try to help others when you can especially considering our society that we have built up throughout our existence as a species, the fact that we record history and can learn from mistakes of others generations ago, and our ever-expanding knowledge of how the universe works which gave us the ability alter our surroundings that's way beyond anything that other species can achieve but nah fuck it, let the hungry starve, and the weak ones die that's how the rest of nature works, so why should we try and rise above that, even if we can
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39450641]sorry dude, this just feels like feel-good stuff that doesn't actually say anything people are still attacking you for your pro-MRA stance because it blindly ignores certain social conditions in most of the world[/QUOTE] Which societal conditions am I ignoring, exactly?
[QUOTE=soulharvester;39450667]Which societal conditions am I ignoring, exactly?[/QUOTE] look back to your earlier posts in the thread
[QUOTE=overpain;39447505]It's only your own decisions that matter.[/QUOTE] this is not how life works in reality; there are so many things that are not in your power to control which can have a great effect on your life and where you end up
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39450677]look back to your earlier posts in the thread[/QUOTE] no no no no no, you're saying I'm ignoring societal conditions, give an example, be specific.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;39450699]no no no no no, you're saying I'm ignoring societal conditions, give an example.[/QUOTE] how about the scholarship rate discrepancies that you just spent two pages talking about and provided no sound defenses of?
[QUOTE=soulharvester;39450667]Which societal conditions am I ignoring, exactly?[/QUOTE] He's making the point that Men's Rights Activists tend to focus exclusively about the injustices bestowed upon men by whoever the fuck, while most women around the world have to deal with stuff that is much worse. While I agree that we should attempt to fix it all at once without really prioritizing, many don't, and a lot of MRAs don't really acknowledge, or even put down the problems of others, regardless of those other's problems are much larger than their own. That's why they aren't very well liked, as far as I know. [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] An example would be the entire, "rape vs. false rape" debate, where even if falsely reported rape is really, really, rare, MRAs tend to exaggerate it and that in turn discredits real rape victims.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39450718]how about the scholarship rate discrepancies that you just spent two pages talking about and provided no sound defenses of?[/QUOTE] You mean the one where maxof3D came in and said "70% of scholarships go to white males" and I pointed out that the statistics he showed not only had nothing to do with gender, only race, but also that 61.8% of the undergraduate population was white, which made the "discrepancies" seem much more reasonable (though still far from perfect).
[QUOTE=soulharvester;39450769]You mean the one where maxof3D came in and said "70% of scholarships go to white males" and I pointed out that the statistics he showed not only had nothing to do with gender, only race, but also that 61.8% of the undergraduate population was white, which made the "discrepancies" seem much more reasonable (though still far from perfect). [/QUOTE] not when you consider how many scholarship programs there are to specifically help minorities. There are countless minority scholarship programs and whites still come out ahead. That makes a 10 percent discrepancy more profound, not less.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;39450769]You mean the one where maxof3D came in and said "70% of scholarships go to white males" and I pointed out that the statistics he showed not only had nothing to do with gender, only race, but also that 61.8% of the undergraduate population was white, which made the "discrepancies" seem much more reasonable (though still far from perfect).[/QUOTE] If 62% of the undergraduate population is white, and 70% of the scholarships go to people who are white, then doesn't show that the scholarship distribution edging on over representation of white people?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39450797]not when you consider how many scholarship programs there are to specifically help minorities. There are countless minority scholarship programs and whites still come out ahead. That makes a 10 percent discrepancy more profound, not less.[/QUOTE] [quote]“Since the dawn of history the negro has owned the continent of Africa – rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud. With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.”— Charles Darwin[/quote] Not here to sound racist at all. But I think this quote is fitting. Also, there is a higher percentage of whites. Might have overlooked that [IMG]http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/images/data/dist_race_ethn.gif[/IMG] If 70% of the people are white. Doesn't it make sense 70% of scholarships go to whites?
[QUOTE=overpain;39447231]It's like the darwinism ; Strongest one survives, weak ones dies. The point is, conservative ones gives everyone an equal chance.[/QUOTE] Not really, you could be the strongest individual but you'd be fucked if you came up against a group with diverse strengths and weaknesses. Survival of the fittest group, not the fittest unit. Social darwinism often hilariously oversimplifies things
[QUOTE=Valnar;39450824]If 62% of the undergraduate population is white, and 70% of the scholarships go to people who are white, then doesn't show that the scholarship distribution edging on over representation of white people?[/QUOTE] Actually if you're only counting private scholarships caucasion students receive(d) about 76% of the total. However my point wasn't so much that it wasn't flawed (it is, if you're goal is total equality there), but that he claimed it was white males getting 70% of scholarships, as opposed to just "whites", which is a totally different claim. I'd be very happy if someone could actually acquire statistics that include gender acceptance as well, I didn't have any luck finding any earlier. edit: Going out for a bit, hopefully we'll have some more interesting questions and thoughts to discuss by the time I've come back, see ya then.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;39450858]Not here to sound racist at all. But I think this quote is fitting. Also, there is a higher percentage of whites. Might have overlooked that [IMG]http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/images/data/dist_race_ethn.gif[/IMG] If 70% of the people are white. Doesn't it make sense 70% of scholarships go to whites?[/QUOTE] "not to sound racist but i think this extremely racist and inaccurate quote from a south carolina governor falsely attributed to charles darwin to lend it some authority that essentially says black people are inferior to whites and benefited greatly by being enslaved by white europeans is quite fitting. also i'm going to ignore everything you just said about minority scholarships and remind you that most people are white, hopefully that settles this debate."
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;39446670][IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FZLChf2Cwyc/UN0pMqAsnII/AAAAAAAAMTs/0hIgiw4LyPU/s1600/2035_10151196413036275_1408173545_n.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] this pretty much points out the problem perfectly.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;39450858]Not here to sound racist at all. But I think this quote is fitting. Also, there is a higher percentage of whites. Might have overlooked that [IMG]http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/images/data/dist_race_ethn.gif[/IMG] If 70% of the people are white. Doesn't it make sense 70% of scholarships go to whites?[/QUOTE] Well, you're racist then? This misquote is basically saying black people are lazy and they owe all of their success to white people. [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] it's literally from stormfront, a totally racist white nationalist community [URL]http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t811772/[/URL] like, just read through that and think about this; you are agreeing with that and it's pretty disgusting. I don't care about these stupid scholarship numbers or anything, when the debate gets to this point it's just pointless to continue because you're a bigot.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;39450858]Not here to sound racist at all. But I think this quote is fitting.?[/QUOTE] If you have ever have to preface something with "Not to sound racist/otherwise offensive" you should just stop right there.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39451065]Well, you're racist then? This misquote is basically saying black people are lazy and they owe all of their success to white people. [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] it's literally from stormfront, a totally racist white nationalist community [URL]http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t811772/[/URL] like, just read through that and think about this; you are agreeing with that and it's pretty disgusting. I don't care about these stupid scholarship numbers or anything, when the debate gets to this point it's just pointless to continue because you're a bigot.[/QUOTE] that is not where I found it. It's more pertaining to this argument, They didn't have success because they didn't reach for it. Even disregarding the quote, it still stands that 70% of americans are white, with the 70% scholarship rate. that's perfectly fine
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;39450858]Not here to sound racist at all. But I think this quote is fitting. Also, there is a higher percentage of whites. Might have overlooked that [IMG]http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/images/data/dist_race_ethn.gif[/IMG] If 70% of the people are white. Doesn't it make sense 70% of scholarships go to whites?[/QUOTE] cool dude thanks for reinforcing the wedge that disadvantages a lot of people
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39451235]cool dude thanks for reinforcing the wedge that disadvantages a lot of people[/QUOTE] It's not reinforcing, you dolt. It's pointing out that it exists.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39451235]cool dude thanks for reinforcing the wedge that disadvantages a lot of people[/QUOTE] What do you mean by this, if 70% of the population is white. Of course 70 percent of scholarships should go to whites, this graph isn't about the graduation rates, just population.
[QUOTE=Ridge;39451275]It's not reinforcing, you dolt. It's pointing out that it exists.[/QUOTE] V "not to sound racist but i think this extremely racist and inaccurate quote from a south carolina governor falsely attributed to charles darwin to lend it some authority that essentially says black people are inferior to whites and benefited greatly by being enslaved by white europeans is quite fitting. also i'm going to ignore everything you just said about minority scholarships and remind you that most people are white, hopefully that settles this debate."
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;39451173]that is not where I found it. It's more pertaining to this argument, They didn't have success because they didn't reach for it.[/QUOTE] Yo this is wack-ass racist bullshit and it's also patently untrue. There were many large, wealthy empires in Africa like the Malinese and Ethiopian empires which flourished until the age of European Colonialism, when they were destroyed and the people subjugated. "Black people didn't have any civilization until white people arrived and helped them" is just an awful, racist, historically oblivious viewpoint used by awful, ignorant people to justify the horrors that Africans were subjected to at the hands of European colonialists and you should be ashamed for not knowing any better. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;39451173]Even disregarding the quote, it still stands that 70% of americans are white, with the 70% scholarship rate. that's perfectly fine[/QUOTE] Except if you had actually read the thread you'd see that 62 percent of undergraduates are white, not 70 percent. [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;39451275]It's not reinforcing, you dolt. It's pointing out that it exists.[/QUOTE] yo posting racist as all hell bullshit like that quote he posted, just out of the blue, is absolutely reinforcing ignorance and discrimination
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39450480]I don't know enough about to bill to know if whether its inclusion of men and minorities/immigrants is just superficial or not, but I'll be optimistic and not make myself look like an idiot by blindly thrashing at it.[/QUOTE] United States v. Morrison "The Court majority ruled that VAWA exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause." The U.S governmemt was already sued for it, in 2000. This is a good summary of what is wrong with it. [url]http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with-the-violence-against-women-act/254678/[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.