Jack the Lad: "how do we really know what happened at Auschwitz etc.?"

Why am I not surprised at this contribution from Jack, nor at the link to notorious frootloop conspiracy site Rense.com?

Yes, Jack the Lad, it is your absolute right to believe whatever you choose.

However, having read your link and those similarly inclined, I prefer the approach taken by these guys.

http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/html/eng/aktualnosci/news_big.php?id=563

And Boaz, you really are beginning to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

>>Those who ran the death camps were completely deprogrammed from their culture.. you should know this<<

That's really your total answer to everything, isn't it?

If a priest is convicted of kiddy-fiddling, in your opinion he's been "deprogrammed from his culture" of being a Christian.

When Crusaders hacked to pieces the population of Jerusalem in 1099, they were "deprogrammed from their culture" of being Christians, right?

When Catholics and protestants of Northern Ireland spend decades bombing the cr*p out of each other, and blowing up innocent civilians in restaurants and pubs, they were presumably also "deprogrammed from their culture" of being good Roman Catholics and Protestants, right?

But at the same time, you would obviously have us believe that if you are Japanese, you must perforce be driven by "Japanese Military culture", or if you are Muslim, by that single verse, Sura 9.29

I have mentioned this before, and I am highly likely to mention it again, but this smacks very much of double standards, if not wilful blindness.

TRTL.. behind your comment seems to be the assumption that the only way other people are 'hurt' is by physical_violence? Or did I misunderstand?

Then you seem to be of the view that society must cater for ALL types?
How can that be? If you have established social norms...and someone decides to go against them.. why should such be accomodated? Is it not possible that for one to go against the established norms, it can 'hurt' the society as a whole ? Imagine if some dillbrain felt it was ok to have public sex.. dare I say with an animal! err.. something tells me 'society' will draw a very quick 'line' on that one.

Of course that's an extreme example, but it makes the point. You might counter "that's illegal" but what about nudity? who does that 'hurt'?
yes..its illegal in public places but how does it 'hurt' people ?
I think your argument is a bit weak there.

On the subject of gender identity. Fox reported a 2nd grade boy who wishes to dress like a girl at an American school. This has divided the school into 'pro/con'. Can a 2nd grade child be allowed to cross dress and does this not 'harm' in ways you may not think ?

The very nature of 'soceity' involves norms. Anything challenging those norms is a threat.

PELICAN.. you said 'feminism' grew out of inequality. I both agree and disagree. Mary Wolstencroft was a victim of a tyrannical father.. yes, she had a very 'inequitable' life. But the then projected HER inequality onto the whole of society..and suddenly we have 'suffragettes' some of who became terrorists threatenting to blow up the English parliament.
In Virginia USA prior to the Civil war. Researchers ferreted out data from a large number of wills and various public records and made some deductions about Women's status.
Seems to me that women and men saw each other as 'complementary' rather than competitive in those times. So.. 'inequality' can only be valid when using the same criteria for both, and that in itself might not be culturally appropriate.

Not meaning to sound childish, but I think it's your argument that sounds weak, and it I suspect that you know precisely what I mean, but you're exaggerating a stance of common sense to the extremist level. 'Beastiality'? Come on. You're being deliberately obtuse and exaggerating.

Or, put another way, if I were to use the tactic you just used, I'd say that if we were to adopt your approach, what's to stop someone from saying 'what's expected' of women is merely to be chattel to men and keep quiet.
Or how about the notion that 'what's expected' of men is to be something strong and conservative like a blacksmith or builder. None of these arty farty types.
Or what about the exclusive brethren hmm? What's expected of them is to have women never cut their hair and nobody should use computers or televisions.
To step outside this role means excommunication and being shunned.

If exaggeration is the only tactic you're employing to rebut me, "I think you're argument is a bit weak there."

Anybody can exaggerate a stance. I could extrapolate it to you being a Nazi fascist. Of course, this would be a foolhardy exaggeration, but heck, I didn't try to bring in beastiality.

I said that provided I'm not hurting anyone, and I treat others with respect, then I should be able to do as I please. 'Treat with respect' is a keyword and common sense is required.

And just to clarify why your beastiality argument appears wilfully ignorant (because you seem to repeat it whenever something outside your narrow view of acceptable sex is brought up) I'm going to reiterate some of the satirical sarcastic responses to attacks on gay marriage I posted in a thread here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6997#106264

4. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

7. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

What an interesting precis of feminism, Boaz. It ranged all the way from the ill-informed to the incorrect. For most of it I wasn't even sure what you were talking about.

For a start, Mary Wolstencraft didn't "start" feminism, if that's what you're suggesting. She was important, but like the rest of the civil rights movements, it arose out of a thousand different dawning days. Either way, it is clear from what you've said that you have no idea what A Vindication on the Rights of Women might possibly say. It is nothing to do with her father. It is a reasoned plea for women to have access to education.

Moreover, the idea that she "projected" her idea on to the suffragettes is ludicrous. For a start, the desire and fight for suffrage is universal - once you conceive of democracy, people want to vote, and will fight for that right.

For another thing, that some married couples were (and indeed are) happy is irrelevant to the aims and intentions of feminism. It is not a matter of competition between men and women. In those days, it was a matter of developing a legal system that granted women the same rights as men. In fact, one study found that in the happiest couples both partners identify as feminists. Which makes sense - both partners are most fully themselves. (Clearly this is not for you, Boaz.) Feminism is not about women trying to be men, it is about ensuring that society gives both sexes access to the same rights and responsibilities as citizens. Who cooks and who fixes bridges is your business.

Someone else suggested that you make things up as you go along. Your ideas about feminism seem to come from the old "if it was really about equality, why don't they call it equalism" school. Can I suggest that you do some reading, even if just on Wikipedia, to try and get slightly deeper understanding of where feminism came from and where it might be going.

As for this: "The very nature of 'soceity' involves norms. Anything challenging those norms is a threat", why can't anything challenging those norms be a challenge? A challenge to grapple and tussle with, a challenge to be met.

You raise a good point about nudity. Why is it illegal to be naked in public? (In fact, is it illegal to be naked in public?) Is it, in fact, a ridiculous rule? Who are we trying to protect?

In my view, a maturing society should be constantly be striving to be more free, more itself, more open. You, Boaz, should be just as free to put yourself in a gender box as the local trannie is to step out of hers.