OMG Obama won! Take THAT republicans!

College Confidential Community
81

<p>why wouldn't I say it to your face. and you still are a bigot. Bigot.</p>

<p>Of course I don't ignore it, but don't agree with it and to take a Black president as a big surprise means that you embraced the racism. As for women they still don't deserve the right to vote, theres a reason the constitution didnt allow them to do so, and it was for a good reason.</p>

<p>Like I said its the recognition of the racism which allows it to be accepted and exist.</p>

<p>Your right a few Blacks have ran, but they were fully black and not half. It took a man that is black and white for the whites in America to accept him. It was a ease in stage and a great opportunity to prey on white guilt.</p>

82

<p>What exactly was the "good reason" that women weren't allowed to vote?</p>

83

<p>You have been reported for violation, Dr Horse.</p>

<p>And women still don't deserve the right to vote? </p>

<p>Wow.</p>

84

<p>I simply believe Men and Women are compliments to one another. They each have their parts and duties.</p>

85

<p>So even if a women is much smarter than man she can't vote. How can they run for office then? I think you just can't stand other people having the same privileges as white males. Get over yourself integration is going to happen whether you like it or not. Just because someone is black, a woman or slightly different doesn't make them any less capable than the great Dr. Horse. I feel like your just a cynic because it is easier to curse the world and say your above it than to accept change.</p>

86

<p>That is far from libertarian, Dr. Horse. It is using the levers of government to dictate and control the rights of individuals, making some sub-human and able to be controlled by the political will of others. It allows you to cast others as bigots, as you have me, while exemplifying within your own views the manifestation of that very charge.</p>

<p>You are saying that YOU know what role each individual should have, regardless of what that individual's inner purpose is. What you preach is Communism concentrated in the hands of a few, whereby the government represented by those few dictates the role of each individual. </p>

<p>Despite propaganda to the contrary, progressivism is rooted in getting government out of the way of peoples' rights. Sometimes it overuses the powers of government to achieve that end, but throughout our country's history we have slowly progressed toward that universal equality. Homosexuals are next. We would never manifest the true intention behind the nation's principles by holding some individuals back.</p>

<p>Perhaps you should graduate from college before engaging in this level of discourse. Your consistent improper grammar and your inability to mentally digest juxtaposing view points is more consistent with passionate religious extremism than reasoned intellectualism that is a hallmark of education. I'm not saying you are a religious extremist, I'm just saying that the level of reason and ability to balance opposing worldviews compell parallels.</p>

87

<p>if you have read this thread nbnyc you would have realized, that I am not a bigot like applejack and yourself. I don't like or embrace any type of racism. I simply believe in the Us constitution that came out of the constitutional convention. Only the Bill of Rights 1-10, nothing after. If we look at that document there is not even a mention of slavery and women are put in their place. Again Racism was not embraced in this document until later amendments, which I find unneeded and unconstitutional by the 10th.</p>

<p>All men should have the same privileges as all other men, just not women, because they are not men and are different forms of humans. I don't care if men are any different, a man with a IQ of 3 should have the same rights as a man with a IQ of 170. I see no reason to limit the man with the lesser. All men are equal.</p>

<p>See again you say "integration is going to happen", in that you have just admitted that you feel that it hast already happened or will happen but shouldn't yet, I believe it never happened and has always been.</p>

<p>I am very much a cynic, which is why I am a Capitalist and even more then that an American. America was founded to be a nation of cynic's, America was based on this very idea, one of privatization and limited public sector. In this situation I am glad not to accept change, as doing so goes against the American Ideals. In all honestly I am sick of hearing the word change, because there was no need for it even dating back to the 1700's.</p>

88

<p>All men are not equal, all men should have fair rights, don't mix these up.</p>

89

<p>
[quote]

That is far from libertarian, Dr. Horse. It is using the levers of government to dictate and control the rights of individuals, making some sub-human and able to be controlled by the political will of others. It allows you to cast others as bigots, as you have me, while exemplifying within your own views the manifestation of that very charge.</p>

<p>You are saying that YOU know what role each individual should have, regardless of what that individual's inner purpose is. What you preach is Communism concentrated in the hands of a few, whereby the government represented by those few dictates the role of each individual.</p>

<p>Despite propaganda to the contrary, progressivism is rooted in getting government out of the way of peoples' rights. Sometimes it overuses the powers of government to achieve that end, but throughout our country's history we have slowly progressed toward that universal equality. Homosexuals are next. We would never manifest the true intention behind the nation's principles by holding some individuals back.</p>

<p>Perhaps you should graduate from college before engaging in this level of discourse. Your consistent improper grammar and your inability to mentally digest juxtaposing view points is more consistent with passionate religious extremism than reasoned intellectualism that is a hallmark of education. I'm not saying you are a religious extremist, I'm just saying that the level of reason and ability to balance opposing worldviews compell parallels.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't believe its far from libertarian at all. Libertarianism accepts a minimal government, The Us constitution out of the constitutional convention, is widely accepted by the vast majority of Libertarians as acceptable. Whereas the constitution of today is not, this is due to restrictions and regulations seen in the subsequent amendments. An example of such is the 13th amendment, well that makes government bigger as it need to enforce the idea of no slavery. So it is not accepted, and I don't accept it either. Minimalist. </p>

<p>It is the Libertarians belief that government should only be used when absolutely necessary. Woman's rights were such a case and seen to be one quite early in American History. I mean simply look at the woman's liberation movement and see the destruction done by it. Look at the current state of America and other westernised society's with woman's rights, and this state can be derived from woman's liberation. Its almost pathetic what has happened to the nuclear family, and on top of that with liberated woman the rates of divorce, std's, suicide, mental and physical health compilations and sexual disorders are all up drastically. The rates of children growing up healthy and unbroken are quite low, and I can go forever. There's a simple reason why Children who come from a tight Nuclear Family tend to be healthier, happier, smarter and more successful then from those who don't. In cultures where they still have these ideals we see them the children becoming the new frontier, and leaving the majority of the American born children behind. Everybody can admit those that the majority of the Jewish population are quite successful, they pretty much run every sector world wide. The Jewish tradition knows the place of women, and they know the importance of a strong nuclear family and thus we can see the results. The same is very true for many Asian and Middle Eastern cultures. The founding fathers foresaw this problem and made sure it was in check when the constitution was created. Americas more prosperous time were way before woman's liberation and they are gone as we can see on a global scale. It all comes down to how children are raised.</p>

<p>I know what communism is, quite well actually and what I am preaching is not that. I think you need a lesson in the subject matter. Here are some quotes which sum it up nicely

[quote]

"Marxism and Feminism are one, and that one is Marxism."
—Heidi Hartmann and Amy Bridges,
The unhappy marriage of Marxism and Feminism. Chapt. 1.</p>

<p>** "Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism."**
—Toward a Feminist Theory of the State,
Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press Page 10.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I also believe it was Marx who wrote in the communist manifesto:
"Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity. All are instruments of labor."</p>

<p>Sorry I never went to college just graduated from university and now am a graduate student of computational economics. Next time try and actually make some sense when you try and debate me.</p>

90

<p>As a Jew a take offense to most of what you just said. Just because orthodox Jews don't respect women does not mean that all Jews don't respect women. In fact I have yet to run into a successful Jew who is orthodox. You are making a pretty big leap with that statement. Most of the Jewish mothers I know have jobs, vote and are very opinionated. Now I see why you "win" every debate. You pull garbage relations out of nowhere. Just because one person says that Marxism and feminism are related doesn't make it true. Just because you blindly follow anything that can help your argument with listening to how ridiculous you sound. Your arrogance is why the world hates Americans. Just because you can say it doesn't make you right. Stop holding onto the past and join the rest of us in the 21st century.</p>

91

<p>Its almost pa*thetic what has happened to the nuclear family, and on top of that with liberated woman the rates of divorce, std's, suicide, mental and physical health compilations and sexual disorders are all up drastically. The rates of children growing up healthy and unbroken are quite low, and I can go forever. *</p>

<p>Even if this was undeniably true, correlation does not imply causation. You should know that.</p>

92

<p>
[quote]

As a Jew a take offense to most of what you just said. Just because orthodox Jews don't respect women does not mean that all Jews don't respect women. In fact I have yet to run into a successful Jew who is orthodox. You are making a pretty big leap with that statement. Most of the Jewish mothers I know have jobs, vote and are very opinionated. Now I see why you "win" every debate. You pull garbage relations out of nowhere. Just because one person says that Marxism and feminism are related doesn't make it true. Just because you blindly follow anything that can help your argument with listening to how ridiculous you sound. Your arrogance is why the world hates Americans. Just because you can say it doesn't make you right. Stop holding onto the past and join the rest of us in the 21st century.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Im glad you have taken offence, does everybody always need to play that card. It was more a compliment actually. If you have yet to run into a successful orthodox Jew, you have not been to Boston or NYC. I still stand by my words, that all Jews, just not orthodox are successful for those reasons. I've been to Israel and still feel the same way, in fact I thought of these ideas while in Israel and parts of Asia. As I saw the difference between Western and eastern cultures.</p>

<p>I didn't say that just one person said Marxism and feminism were true, I showed 3 literary examples and then showed what Marx wrote himself in the communist manifesto. If this is still my opinion, and not true when Marx said it himself, then I don't know what to say because you are unreasonable.</p>

<p>Hippo, I do know that. But I have come to the conclusion that it has to be the cause or possibly oral contraception.</p>

93

<p>Dr. Horse, you're making quite a mischaracterization of the Jewish culture. Yes, they're very successful generally, but not because their women "know their place."
For instance, of my (many) Jewish friends (living in a suburb of NY how can I not know so many Jews), one's mother is a doctor, another has a PhD in Math, another is an accountant, another a psychiatrist and so one and so forth. These are all very successful jewish women who are all also still married and have raised good children, all of whom are at the top of our class at our school. </p>

<p>To say that women gaining equal rights as men has caused the destruction of the nuclear family is silly. And besides, men can always pitch in and help with the chores that have long been traditionally female in nature.</p>

94

<p>That is fine, but there is a difference between the standard western culture and that of the Jewish culture. Those Jewish mothers may be very successful, which is fine. But the trick is, is that they became successful before or after they raised their children. When the Children were born either the woman or man seized their careers in the interest of the family, in most cases it was the woman, as it is only nature, that women are more nurturing then men. These women follow their religion which is quite strict on the raising of Children. The westernised cultures, don't have or do this, this we see all the problems. I live in NYC and know many many Jews, and the story is literally the same for all of them. Children will be as good as the foundation they came from. A foundation of a broken home is not a strong or good one. Simply look at the Abortion and Divorce rates of the Jewish Population. Now look at the White, Hispanic and Black.</p>

95

<p>I belong to an orthodox synagogue. I attend one of the top private schools in NYC (mostly Jewish). Most of these mothers have successful jobs. I can see how a strong family can aid a child's development but the mother doesn't have one job. That's a little unreasonable. My mother has been very successful while raising me so I don't think it has to be one or the other.</p>

96

<p>Comon guyz. Can we please stop with this thread? "Women shouldn't have the right to vote." Seriously?</p>

97

<p>Well Cali, on the numerous IQ tests I've taken, my score has always been 156 +/- 3. To be a retard id need a 70. So I'm sorry to say that im 88 points above what you claim. A retard from a public university that can pretty much out debate anybody on this forum, including those from the top schools. Something is wrong here, no?</p>

98

<p>You actually believe you're out debating people on this forum, Dr Horse? That's hilarious. The depth of delusion is truly mind boggling.</p>

<p>If you, in fact, are in graduate school, you should have learned by this point proper grammar, when to capitalize words and when not to capitalize words, and proper spelling. You, in fact, have the grammatical proficiency of an 8th grader. So, do not blame me if I mistook you for having the equivalent in education. </p>

<p>Also, if you actually graduated from a university (we call that "college" in the U.S., but you knew that already), then you would have probably taken an introductory communications course as part of a core curriculum that would have taught you that your arguments are fundamentally flawed.</p>

<p>You attribute causation where there is no evidence thereof. For example, </p>

<p>Jewish people are successful. Jewish women are subjugated to men in orthodox Judaism. Therefore, Jewish people are successful because Jewish women are subjugated.</p>

<p>There is no proof of correlation, and ample proof to refute your claim. </p>

<p>Yet, you are convinced you're right. </p>

<p>Perhaps, the deeper truth is that the nuclear family no longer serves a fully industrialized culture and the freedom that human nature seeks. Now that we are through our cultural adolescence, it is undermining that particular family structure.</p>

<p>Biologically, we are hard wired to bear children when we are young and raise them when we are over 60 and have the life experience and personal satisfaction to be able to pass wisdom down. Our current society, obsessed with the nuclear family structure, expects children (meaning anyone under, say, 50 when you think in terms of mental maturity) to raise other children. </p>

<p>The nuclear family is highly ineffective for an advanced society (though its efficiency worked well for an industrializing one). The causation you assert, however, is fundamentally wrong. Restricting the rights of women by force of government (which would require a Communist-style of government control to inhibit the free expression of human nature. Yes, I know that Communism is not intrinsically restrictive like that, but in our primitive society that is how it has been manifest) is not the answer. The answer lies in restructuring the family. </p>

<p>Humanity seeks a more perfect union and you're just trying to hold onto centuries past. Find a solution for the 21st century that empowers all.</p>

99

<p>Since there is much talk about economy, I would like to point out that communal childrearing has the fiscal and qualitative advantages of
(i) economies of scale by adult input into a larger system
(ii) advantage by specialization of adult roles in their relative advantages
and
(iii) dependency reduction.</p>

100

<p>Absolutely. I think part of the problem is that our current consumptive economy thrives on family dissolution.</p>

<p>The more people living independently, the more refrigerators must be purchased, the more homes must be purchased, and the more income must be generated.</p>

<p>Families that share resources between generations would require significantly fewer things, yet would liberate younger adults to pursue their highest freedom without inhibition. It's a new concept of economy that we need for this new era.</p>