formerly33

Your editor is going to fix this later, right?

I married the Twins back in '12, but that didn't last long. Why do you ask?

You'll have to specify whether said man would be wrong if there were women there if you want an answer to this question. :3

http://www.gifcrap.com/g2data/albums/TV/Darth%20Vader%20dancing.gif

Just tuned in to discover we're up by 3 after 6 and my boy has a double and a homer. Way to go! CWSBU

Glad you edited that last bit because the differences between the original and the second version seem to imply that maybe you do get the analogy after all. But nope, I don't think it was misguided and out of context. I won't argue with you on it because, to be honest, any analogy could be easily chalked up to misguided and out of context. If you want to take it that way ... whatever.

Um, wait a minute. Because we've acknowledged that much of the criticism she comes under is due to misogyny, we no longer believe people can criticize her without being misogynistic? Cripes. Stop overgeneralizing. You know, I don't even try to twist everything back to sexism. Nor does ChiTown. But since you really seem to want me to, by all means, I can do that. I really can. What if the Clintons in general came under undeserved criticism because Hillary didn't fulfill a traditional first lady's role (or, since the criticism started before then, a potential first lady's role)? Wouldn't that kind of make null the argument that because Bill came under criticism, too, then obviously it's not sexist to criticize Hillary? Or how about this: what the hell does Bill's competency have to do with Hillary's, and vice versa? Do you really think that a woman is incapable of doing anything without the levelheaded input from her male counterpart? Oh, or this (taken from the article that sums up your views exactly): Yeah, and even though it's not morally wrong for a woman to wear a miniskirt, eyeliner, or drink, if she gets raped, it's her own fault because she reached a point where she felt like she couldn't catch a break from men, so she decided to do whatever the hell she felt like doing. Now I know the rape was horrible and she didn't deserve it, but c'mon, if she'd only shown a little concern over taking actions which could exacerbate the problem, it wouldn't have happened. She asked for a preventable situation. Hopefully she learned her lesson. You do realize that's what you sound like, right?

No, I'm pretty sure ChiTown lost you when she dared to disagree with you. I'm not sure what's up, but it seems like that's pretty much what you do these days. Maybe you've always done that and I just overlooked it before. I don't know. Obviously every presidential nominee is going to get flak, but the flak this woman gets ... unbelievable. But you're ready to ignore the misogynistic aspect of this situation because you decided too many people blame it all on misogyny. That makes sense. It really does.

Why?

That's the first time I've heard a conservative come even close to admitting that the gender of the POTUS has any correlation to the gender in control of everything. Progress. Oh, and no. 67 on her list of vices: our greatest presidents have all been men.

Wait a minute ... you're not actually implying that ridiculous and how to's don't go hand in hand, are you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcFvtWpuqpI

Talking about our buttons and Sanos of the future?

Phone trouble, Aggies?

I can't believe the deal people are making over this. Sure, it might feel nice to get in a jab at Trump's wife after things he's said about women, but doesn't the very act of attacking a man via his wife, little caring how the latter party takes it, stem back to viewing women as the property of man? Behaving in a like manner to Trump doesn't solve any issues, imo ... just a thought.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-im_CKn9PPI8/T0dtSJ0lUFI/AAAAAAAAAzY/0vIyQ9SYpt4/s1600/abe-simpson-gif.gif

But this is a completely different topic, isn't it? Isn't comparing this to ISIS the same as comparing your average conservative Christian to, say, Westboro Baptist? We don't need to wait for Westboro Baptist to decide something's wrong with homophobia, do we? Shouldn't we address separate issues separately?

Hosken? Bombo? Disco Dan? That really you? Also, which one are you?

Yeah ... I've heard it's tout.

French.

Obviously I can see where you're going with that. The thing is, it's not just Christians who are against abortion or gay rights, so to say, "This is all because of Christians" is just plain stupid and, to be honest, close minded. To be honest, I'm sure I, too, am guilty of doing it myself - I know I am. But it's just not true, and I'm trying to knock it off. Once again, supporting abortion or gay rights doesn't mean you can't be Christian or Muslim or any other religion you choose to follow. This is a lot like saying atheists can't have morals. These kinds of conclusions are mostly made by people on the far, far right and far, far left. I get more annoyed with people on the left, partly because they claim to be more open minded, but mostly because I find myself on the left side of the spectrum and hold these people to a higher standard - or have learned to not expect much from people on the far right. Or both.

No, of course it doesn't make you a bigot. However, since when do we need to be the model of perfection before we can talk about issues that bother us? Although I'm sure I don't stay consistent in my condemnations, I think we really do agree on this subject - except, of course, when it comes to the wording. On that I still disagree with you - not so much for myself or because I think wording is as important as intent, but rather because I feel it's damaging to merely say Islam/Muslims. You've already felt the repercussions of the misunderstanding this causes. I feel like at this point you're just being stubborn and don't want to accept that maybe you were saying it wrong (that may even be too strong - perhaps poorly would be a better word). I confess, I was wrong in my assumptions about your intent. Nonetheless, I'm sure you'd still insist that you're right and I'm wrong. And honestly, making statements like that gets you nowhere. Anyway, arguing about how to phrase something is kind of pointless ... I feel like at this point we should just agree to disagree and move on.

So ... if you mean oppressive Islam, why don't you say it? I could do without the insinuation that I don't have a genuine conviction for peace and human dignity. Furthermore, I know there are many Muslims who feel the same way. Are they just feigning the right attitude because they don't believe the very thing they've chosen to rest their faith in is the root of the problem? It really just sounds like the people on the far, far left who say you can't be gay and Muslim, that you either have to be one or the other. Like one gay Muslim said, that's between him and God, not for mere humans to decide. Why does everything have to be so black and white?

No, I don't think that is comparable to saying the same about racism, etc. My reason for saying this is because all racism is bad - ALL. Not all Islam is bad. Heck, you know there are liberal Muslims ... and that's probably wording it poorly because of course there are liberal racists. Hmm ... well, there are progressive, even gay Muslims. It's harmful to categorize them alongside the rest - it's just too broad. I do agree with you, however, that Islam needs mass reform. Progressive Muslims are just the beginning of a trend in that direction. However, lashing out in anger about the system is simply not going to help things - and Denmark is evidence of this and what can be done better.

Okay ... I'm going to start over again. I was being immature. I see no need for a PM. The difference between you and me is that you think, quote, "Islam can be practiced with peace and love." I, however, believe Islam can be practiced with violence and hatred. If you go all out and blame Islam, then you are essentially blaming anyone who practices that faith, even though I know that's not your intention. I have a really hard time just laying the blame on Islam. History has shown that no matter their religion, people can (and will) take it and come to their own conclusions about it. There are people who will try to use religion to justify (or condemn) all their actions, be they good or bad. People are afraid of deity, so it's easy to get people on the bandwagon/make them think they're doing what God wants them to do. Still, that's not all bad. It can inspire many wonderful things. The root of the problem isn't really religion, imo. Neither is it Islam. It's people. If you disagree with that, I'd be more than happy to listen to your explanation as to why.