Posts by Susan Price30

Of course, we all share the same fundamental rights. But we can't just turn a blind eye to the fact that women's rights aren't being fully respected in certain areas—to varying degrees, depending on the situation—nor can we ignore how many women have faced violence. The government isn't talking about general human rights here; they are focusing specifically on this one area that needs fixing so that everyone in life can actually enjoy equal human rights, regardless of their age or gender.

Honestly, I’d go as far as saying this was just someone "grasping at straws"—or maybe it was just trolling, one or the other. It’s hard to believe an adult wouldn't find something like this to be completely self-explanatory.

silentridge3 said:Not at all, actually quite the opposite. There isn't any "subjective impression" here (or whatever "what others have commented" refers to), because there is a National Strategy written down in black and white, an official government document:

The Feminist National Strategy, also known as the "National Policy for Gender Equality".

1) Promotion of Women's Human Rights and Gender Equality 2 and gender equality
2) Creating equal opportunities within the labor market
3) Improving the implementation of gender-sensitive upbringing and education
4) Balancing the participation of women and men in political and public decision-making processes
5) Eliminating all forms of violence against women
6) Promoting international cooperation and gender equality outside of the US
7) Further strengthening institutional mechanisms and implementation methods

This strategy contains two clearly unconstitutional points (1 and 5), so there really isn't any room for "subjectivity or interpretation" here. Point 1 explicitly focuses on promoting the rights of only one gender (which is, by definition, gender discrimination against the other), and Point 5 basically cements this whole feminist idea that women are exclusively and solely the victims.

It's as clear as day. Over the next five years, the government is implementing a gender-discriminatory strategy under the cynical title of "National Policy for Gender Equality."

By the way: there is no such thing as "women's human rights"; there are only and exclusively "human rights," which exist independently of gender, age, religion, nationality, and so on.

So now the government is considered "femi-nacist" simply because it specifies the rights of any group that was historically viewed as vulnerable? (Especially in societies that weren't exactly pioneers in protecting human rights or believing in democracy). Perhaps this code should emphasize protecting the rights of heterosexuals, since they were also "vulnerable and persecuted" throughout history by homosexuals.

Please, don't even talk to me anymore 🙏...thankfully, I've never had the chance to encounter someone this extreme in real life.

The point is, it seems you don't even grasp (or perhaps you just refuse to accept) that this article—just as the headline states—supports gender equality by ensuring certain legal protections for women, who, let's face it, have been continuously disenfranchised throughout history.

And really, what else is there to discuss? Nothing.

hiddeneagle3 said:Thanks for the links. So, I guess silentridge3 is actively using and defending a term popularized by Rush Limbaugh. And all three links pretty much confirm the term is used as a slur.

True, but after he publicly mocked and insulted AIDS victims he apologized and stopped using that offensive label for feminists in the USA too.

And right before that, after calling Gloria Steinem, Susan Sarandon, Christine LaHood, and several others "famous femi-nacists," his "loyal audience" just stopped taking him seriously.

hiddeneagle3 said:Thanks for the links. So, I guess silentridge3 is actively using and defending a term popularized by Rush Limbaugh. And all three links pretty much confirm the term is used as a slur.

Actually, the second link even illustrates how someone who might use that slur would react.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...erm=feminazism

What? Naomi Wolf says that women don't have true equality with men? >

That stupid feminazi bitch! She should shut up before they notice...

😁

Equality either exists or it doesn't.

In America, it simply doesn't. Under our current system, men are treated like second-class citizens...

By making such exclusive generalizations, you're just echoing what everyone else has already said 😁—trying to pass off a subjective feeling as absolute truth and be it all.

And again: it isn't that society or the law is "wrong," rather, perhaps your own interpretation is falling short...😉

silentridge3 said:Well, I guess I do have the right, and I’d argue the term actually makes perfect sense.

I mean, how else would you even categorize an ideology or a specific drive that insists on the "superiority of women"—which, if you look at how they handle everything from child custody disputes to those totally nonsensical quotas—or this whole idea regarding the "inherent value of women," like the notion that women are exclusively victims while men are just inherently violent?

The mods and everyone else on this thread have already agreed that such a thing isn't allowed. lol.

But hey, you clearly know best... just like how you've so masterfully studied and interpreted all those gender equality laws and everything else.

The topic is excellent, and some of these comments are truly phenomenal.

Yeah, that's why Primitive locked her down right from the start.

Sean Cook2 said:silentridge3's numbers are just as arbitrary and subjective as his definitions—he knows they're wrong, yet he keeps recycling them.

Exactly.

Twisting objective and legitimate terms is one thing, but the blatant insults are another—calling anyone "femi-nazis" certainly doesn't sound like a compliment to me.

I can only imagine how this topic will go if he's the one opening it... someone who uses that kind of terminology and logic. Honestly, I'm surprised he didn't get a perfect score for insisting on his points so hard, both in the original thread and here, regardless of how much he complains about the rules regarding certain things.

silentridge3 said:You’re spreading the lie that these radicals should be called feminists.

When you look at the struggle for actual systemic and constitutional equality for men (for instance, during divorce proceedings, or under the state strategy, or when dealing with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and things like that), it wouldn't make sense to label the deviant behavior of certain women or a deviant system as feminism, since that isn't what feminism is. So, maybe it’s helpful to have a specific term that refers exclusively to that deviant behavior and that deviant system. That term is feminacism, which is a distinct concept from feminism.

Sure, but you don't have the right to label anyone a "feminacist," nor is such a term legitimate (or even makes sense), much like how the bolded claim of "female fascism=Nazism (given how extreme that concept is, and how the word 'fascism' is used as a trendy way to shame people on certain subreddits—wow, what a miracle) is intended to discriminate based on gender (men, lol). If that were the case, I assume it would have been legally prohibited long ago.🤣

To me, this whole topic seemed pretty foolishly (illogically) framed from the start, filled with pretty stupid comments that probably should have been locked ages ago. Instead of moving it to a different subforum, we're stuck with this illogical thread and moderation actions everywhere... for example, the OP has spent more time banned than actually participating in the thread.

Didn't the Kukuriku Coalition announce something similar back home before they suddenly went quiet recently?😕

I guess they're just waiting to enter that 'paradise on Earth' known as the European Union.😍

rowdyowl said:Hold on. Their numbers aren't actually increasing or taking up more space. They're just becoming more visible. 🤷

On another note, there was a time when people literally had to hide in the woods, or even worse—spend their lives locked away in institutions (and I say that without a hint of irony, since homosexuality was "treated" in mental hospitals until the start of the last century). But how can anyone claim they are becoming "more visible" if most of society (like in France, for instance) feels that certain rights are subjective because they somehow threaten or diminish the rights of someone else —for example, the basic rights of children abandoned by parents who, upon being adopted by same-sex partners, face additional social stigma or even contempt from their peers, especially considering these are extremely vulnerable members of society. Why should the gay lobby be considered "more important" or louder than advocating for the rights of those children, for example?

And is it actually desirable and the only right way to consider the voice of the majority of voters on certain vital (political, specifically!) issues, because ultimately, that is the whole idea of democracy.

OK, personally, I think people should be allowed to adopt even if they can have biological children themselves (and please, don't twist my words here, you know what I mean).

As for the protests, regardless of who organizes them: IGNORE. You get these guys showing up saying we should hold our parade to show, I don't know, what? You tell them: go ahead and have your parade, just don't block everyone else. Don't allow them to shut down the streets and then grant them total media coverage. What's the point? I couldn't care less who is for or against what. Don't we have smarter things to be outraged about?

It's clear to me that some people don't have many deep moral dilemmas—as long as it doesn't affect them directly, in the sense that they don't give a damn about anyone else's business... but isn't all of this indirectly about you too? Because tomorrow, once the US becomes a full member of the EU, it follows logically that these kinds of things will start affecting every single citizen and voter in the US. And who knows, maybe you'll even have the chance to vote in a referendum on these types of questions, and we'll just be watching you on the BBC or wherever. 🙂

Richard James2 said:I don't know the political landscape in France all that well, but I am absolutely certain that this much of an uproar wouldn't even remotely surface if they hadn't first engaged in some blatant "Parent A and Parent B" brainwashing to warp people's perception of reality. Now, looking at the most recent data, support for adoption has dropped by about 6% since the start of the François Hollande era (with those supporting marriage equality sitting at roughly 15%), while about 66% of French citizens are calling for a referendum. They haven't earned that kind of pushback; pretending this is some sudden, shocking surprise is just plain delusional.

It’s also pretty fascinating to see how people outside of religious circles are reacting to this. You've got an entire wave of psychologists, philosophers, lawyers, and intellectuals joining the fray, along with about 12,000 mayors and registrars demanding the right to conscientious objection when asked to perform these marriages—a right you don't even have in Canada, for instance. Even some homosexuals have weighed in, specifically those organized under the plus gay sans mariage association, which the broader LGBT community is now accusing of being homophobic. 😁

Now, look. The fact that something becomes legal because of a policy decision made by democratically elected bodies is something that deserves respect. Personally, the idea of John and Jack signing a piece of paper doesn't mean much to me in the grand scheme of things. However, I view adoption as an issue that will remain subject to debate until the end of time. Let's be real: the state isn't necessarily driven by noble or altruistic motives when it comes to altering social structures. We aren't naive enough to pretend laws are born from deep philosophical contemplation; they are products of political maneuvering and financial interests. That is why I believe it is vital to leave room for public discourse and, as much as possible, the input of independent experts. We need to avoid reaching that Canadian level of intolerance where people are effectively gagged under the threat of legal sanctions. Honestly, that kind of suppression worries me far more than the mere legalization of any specific practice, and it looks like we are heading straight for it.

Btw, this could probably be merged with the current topic.

Interesting. And I assume those 66% demanding a referendum are doing it precisely because they DON'T want this law to pass—otherwise, why would they be shouting for a vote or hitting the streets by the hundreds of thousands?

God save the Q....urm France.😛

"Quote:"

I fail to see why we bother giving any attention to either side. We should simply ignore them both.

Why bother ignoring it? The fight for marriage equality is clearly just one step toward a much larger objective—pushing boundaries through legislation and other means to facilitate things like adoption. You can't simply look the other way when there's more to the story. The rights of children.So, what exactly are we looking at here in terms of potential manipulation or simply ignoring those "guy rights"—specifically regarding adoption laws?

There is this ongoing push to introduce the idea—and in some cases, the actual practice—of priests giving blessings to same-sex unions within churches like the Episcopal Church. Yet, fundamentally, this stands against the core tenets of any established church, as no official religious institution recognizes such unions.

There are fundamental rights like liberty and human dignity—things that are essentially guaranteed to everyone here in the West—but then there is this supposed "right" to pursue alternative parenting styles for adopted children. Isn't it true that such approaches can be used to exert long-term influence over society as a whole? Some might argue that this is a negative development.

Besides, recent social studies in several countries have already extensively reported on the challenges faced by children being raised in same-sex households, such as... with their sexual identityTo begin with, this alone—though even this first part is more than enough to cause serious concern...

rowdyhawk10 said:I notice, Susan Price30, how you mentioned here: "if it aligns with the original and true interpretation of Islam"...
I would point out that this "true" interpretation seems to serve a certain Catholic woman quite well. 🙄

Just for your information, not every ancient opinion from ten or more centuries ago is true, regardless of how much you might want it to be. It isn't the same thing to formally express something that merely resembles Islam and is frozen in time, if it actually runs contrary to the spirit of Islam and the Sunnah of Muhammad. I won't get into a theological debate about why that is, especially not with you, but it’s pretty obvious to me why you want such interpretations (which are essentially wrong) to be considered "true." The Muslim world today suffers a bad reputation precisely because of these loud-mouthed fools who misinterpret and misapply Islamic norms, and who happen to be a tiny minority in our society. They might seem sincere to you, but to me, they are just fools—and I say that with all due respect. Actually, they are worse than fools. But fine, go ahead and call me a corrupt coward if that makes you feel better. I suppose they are exactly what makes you happy, since you support them by calling them "sincere"? To me, they are nowhere near Islam, just as those who support them are far from us... even further than you are.

For those who aren't aware... ancient documents are often used to justify the systemic mistreatment of women in the 21st century, along with many other inhumane acts we've all witnessed, like the shelling of the Buddha Monuments in Afghanistan, and various other atrocities committed by others under the guise of Islam. Just a few days ago, a 12-year-old girl (Malala) was shot in the head simply because she advocated for girls' education. The attackers were the Taliban. Are they the "sincere" ones who are better than a "corrupt" person like me? Are those "sincere" types more desirable to you than a coward like myself? Whatever. I'll say it again: in my view, humane atheists are certainly closer to God than such "Muslims" and their defenders. Of course, I am not referring to atheists who are malicious or envious, but rather to the humane and good people among them.

I honestly doubt you could ever know that, simply because you don't know me well enough to start guessing what I—or anyone else here—actually thinks. So, please, just post the pathetic stuff.🙂 Anyway, I just wrote exactly what was on my mind... and I didn't say any of that stuff above.

Sure, let's just say I'm a corrupt coward if that makes you feel better. And I assume they make you much happier, since you insist on calling them "sincere"? To me, they are nowhere near Islam—just like those who support them are nowhere near us. In fact, they're even further away than you are.

Because throughout all these discussions over the years, you have never once—not even when asked directly—clarified which school of Islam you actually represent. Everyone else has.

If that is the case. Sufism.I haven't seen any mention of that mystical movement—the one that faces such intense pushback from official Islam—anywhere else. At least, I’ve certainly never come across it myself.

For those who aren't aware... old documents are often used to justify beliefs regarding genitalia. Harassing women. In this 21st century, when we have all been forced to witness so many other inhumane acts... Think about the shelling of the Buddhas in Afghanistan.There are countless other atrocities committed by people acting under the banner of Islam, both past and present. Just a few days ago, a twelve-year-old girl, Malala, was targeted. Shot in the head simply because she stood up for girls' education. The Taliban are the aggressors. Are they truly the "sincere" ones, somehow superior to a corrupt man like me? Are those so-called "sincere" types more desirable than a coward like myself? Regardless, have it your way.

I'm not quite sure how any of this relates to what you wrote or to what Jason Clark7 is complaining about.

post

When you were calling others out for their supposed "distorted interpretations," I assume you weren't referring to the examples listed above. It doesn't seem like Jason Clark7 or anyone else on this forum is presenting themselves as some local Taliban sympathizer or an extremist from Afghanistan, yet you persist in trying to paint them that way.

rowdyhawk10 said:Golden Boy told a user, "you're a fascist."
I never called you a fascist.

I suppose even my 12-year-old daughter could explain the difference. Interestingly enough, neither you nor Susan Price30 bothered to file an appeal regarding the fact that Joe hasn't received a single warning, despite having
stated multiple times that "Islam is a fascist ideology."🙄

Sure, but then you went even further by calling out specific people here and dragging innocent individuals into the context of a 'fascist ideology.' And that was your only 'argument.'

rather than through regressive displays of faith or injustice, such as how some people express it here. Regards

Their interpretation of Islam isn't "regressive" if it aligns with the original and authentic understanding of Islam (specifically the Quran). Personally, I’d much rather deal with that than see people acting like cowards by "borrowing someone else's feathers" and pretending to be something they aren't—which is exactly what others are doing. At least the first group is honest and uncorrupted.

And in this context, comparing atheists to them just highlights that same cowardice and corruption...

but in my opinion, that doesn't diminish his right to express that view.

yet even that right isn't unlimited or unconditional, because the core question in the opening post was why he's allowed to promote the views of the majority of Muslims from Canada as being... quote: 'fascist methods'—anywhere or in any context?

if we also factor in the trolling seen in the other example, where he was spreading completely false information regarding the alleged 'Islamic stance' on certain Christian doctrines, then maybe we can finally conclude that thank heavens the Religion subforum has a new moderator (or an administrator supervising the subforum) who actually knows how to spot trolling (or trolls) when it's happening...🙏

I see over in the Religion forum that rowdyhawk10 says Jason Clark7 should apologize to steelskipper5...
I don't see why Jason Clark7 should have to apologize.

🤣 because of the constant calling out (among other things) across various threads, the "settling of scores" with people instead of addressing their ideas, and all that other stuff, we filed a complaint before, which is why he was removed from moderation.

bluemason3 said:I am.
There was a time when it was serious enough that the Pope actually ran things.
Nowadays, thanks to secularism in the West, it’s much less pronounced since we don't really have religious states anymore.

Whenever people start demanding a single leader, things get potentially dangerous. It doesn't matter if it's a religion, politics, or any other ideology.

Turning off your own brain and ditching critical thinking just to follow someone else is narrow-minded and dangerous. Throughout history, that's always been a recipe for disaster. Pluralism doesn't lead to conflict or war; that requires a homogenized force, a charismatic leader, and followers with their brains washed.

That ideology up there goes by the same name: anarchy.

Maybe everyone is staying quiet because only rowdyhawk10 had the guts to introduce you all to this, risking some backlash just to honestly present the truth? So, I didn't "sneakily plant" anything! Any even slightly learned Muslim knows this. It's exactly what gives us perspective for the future and brings us closer together.

So, what you're saying is that I believe I hold the only true and correct interpretation when it comes to matters of Islam? 🙂

That’s exactly what I was getting at, and honestly, that's where the real issue lies. It makes you wonder: if a Jehovah's Witness walked into a Religion class and claimed their take on Christian doctrine was pulled straight from the Second Vatican Council, would anyone actually take them seriously? The Council? Nothing more to add. Hopefully the moderators—assuming they have even a basic grasp of these matters—will make the call, because honestly, I haven't been following all these threads... but from what I can see, other Muslims have been viewing your interpretations as an unofficial version for quite some time now.

Let me repeat myself: did @shady ever actually claim to be Sunni? Did he state that everything he says is spoken in that capacity, or did he simply clarify that these are his own personal opinions? Most schools would certainly allow for an individual perspective; after all, this isn't a madrasa or some religious community organization. This is a secular forum..

Based on our forum's usual lingo, wouldn't you call a lot of this "trolling"? Or am I wrong?

For instance, posts linked from that specific thread on the forum clearly fall under that category—it's either blatant trolling, done intentionally, or he simply doesn't realize he's being such a troll. In both cases involving those two, it was definitely the latter.

Doesn't Religion aim to eliminate something like this, or at least scale it back?

bluemason3 said:That’s a dangerous and harmful perspective.

Are you speaking for yourself, or on behalf of someone else?

Actually, it's quite the opposite. Unlike New Age movements—where basically anything and everything goes—every religion maintains its own specific doctrine to protect itself from wrong interpretations or heresy. That is precisely why religions exist; they aren't all the same.

I’m quoting from this same thread where nobody bothers to distance themselves (maybe adding a disclaimer that it's just a personal view or interpretation), but instead they flat-out claim their opinion is the official Islamic stance. It isn't.

Why I think the ban was undeserved. Basically, moderator Brenda Cook4 stated in this post that one serious concept (in this case: Islam) cannot negate another concept (in this case: Christianity) so I explained that such is the Islamic stance. I pointed out that Christians, under church influence, have developed a mistaken view regarding sanctity, which is why they are bothered by the views on Mary and Muhammad found in Islamic tradition. Yet, this was punished as trolling.

So it’s no wonder someone gets angry or "makes a scene" over such blatant and perfidious misrepresentation. Personally, I don't see the issue.
(Either it's intentional misrepresentation, or the person is genuinely unaware of what they are saying or writing; in either case, perhaps there should be some way to monitor this for the sake of discussion quality and to protect all other forum members.)

Jason Clark7 said:Even a high-priced attorney couldn't have defended rowdyhawk10 better—bravo. 👏

Could we perhaps see some actual evidence of this constant badgering? What exactly constitutes "badgering," and in what way can it be equated to "the methods of fascist ideology," other than in the minds of those who simply want to insult a fellow forum member? If I used the term sectarian, I provided an explanation. Why is there silence regarding my questions, and why can no one produce specific posts of mine that are supposedly "similar to the methods of fascist ideology"?😕

Brenda Cook4 said:In what sense are you interpreting the law? The law guarantees freedom of worship, not a ban on "heretics." What does "revising dogma" have to do with anything here? And who exactly is doing the "revising" if someone just expresses an opinion? Look, even the Catholic Church has its clear dogmas, yet not every Catholic agrees with everything said. That doesn't mean the Catholic Church is suddenly "under threat" or that it needs to "revise" its official stances on faith. Should the Catholic Church have to run every single thought by all other Christians, or would the moderators here just delete them, give them a partial ban, or what?

The term "a few Muslims" is being stretched incredibly thin here. Especially within Shia circles, there are methods used to mask one's true ideological identity—not necessarily to protect oneself from existential danger (which would make sense for anyone), but rather to sneak one's own ideology into others. It's not just about "a few Muslims"; it's also about the forum administration, which gives the strong impression of cracking down on those who undermine the official stances of the Islamic Community Institution while hiding behind the veneer of: "this is Islam, those are just rigid, frozen views." Yet, we've never been given an answer here as to why they stubbornly refuse to follow the rules of Islam 114—essentially, they are breaking their own forum rules regarding this topic just to dig at the official religious institution.

Just look at this: by this logic, they are attacking 200 million Shia followers. By that same standard, Catholics would probably have to treat Protestants the same way, with governments allowing some groups while banning others.

As for the main topic, this has been answered plenty of times (including in this thread): these interpretations belong to the Hanafi legal school, and any other views should be noted as such. Did rowdyhawk10 clarify that this was just his personal opinion? Did he explain *why* he interprets it that way? In what way did this actually "threaten" the official stance of any religious community? 🤔

And all of that just serves to "justify" the idea that those with different perspectives—including my fellow Muslims—should be allowed to voice their own opinions. In the behaviors of fascist ideology. What exactly is the basis for this complaint?😕

That guy has been trolling on several different threads here lately. He even did the same thing in that major discussion about Christianity, pushing inaccurate—or as others call them, "sectarian"—interpretations of certain Christian doctrines, claiming his views were the truth. The Islamic perspective. Regarding that doctrine, it clearly wasn't the case. (If I recall correctly, the new Religion moderator gave him a warning and corrected him on that point.)

I'm here. What can I help you with?

Here are some specific misconceptions regarding Christianity—things like the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and similar concepts. It isn't our fault that you hold these non-Muslim misconceptions about holiness being something detached from true, sincere love.

Given my basic understanding of Islam, I can't bring myself to agree that what you're saying actually represents the Islamic stance on Christianity.

Before I say anything else, it feels like you're just using the Quran to subtly troll by labeling core Christian tenets as "delusions". One could certainly make a similar argument regarding delusions within Islam, though I don't see others discussing it in quite the way you do.

I assume trolling is trolling, whether it's a quick one-liner, a little jab here and there, or a massive 1,000-word rant. (That’s just a general observation, not necessarily related to this specific topic)

steelskipper5 said:What, you want a better thread than this one? ☕

Would it be better if he did it in a low, sneaky, or "cowardly" way instead?

I can't speak for everyone else, but people who play with their cards on the table seem a bit more honest to me. As long as they aren't insulting anyone, posting nonsense, or harassing people, I suppose you can 'yell' all you want. If that's just his style, his method, or his temperament...

(p.s. This isn't a personal question directed at you, so there's no need to reply—please don't. Just a comment on the repeated 'accusations' being made here.)