Thursday, 10 October 2013

Should laws be passed to suppress certain types of anti-feminism?

Surely this is an outrageous question? Didn't we fight wars in which millions of people died, fighting for the freedom to speak the truth as they saw it?

Apparently they died for nothing...

"not at all, it would go underground and people need to know it exists in order to oppose it and prevent it from growing. "

Hmm... yeah, that sounds comforting... so opposing feminism is the equivalent of belonging to some sort of dangerous cult... people don't even talk that way about the KKK and they killed people..

"MNL_1221 answered 1 month ago
We already have some books that suppress certain types of anti-feminism: namely, laws that prohibit job discrimination, sexual harassment, unfair treatment of rape victims (such as prosecutors asking a rape victim during a trial about her past sexual experience), and such."

So opposing feminism is the equivalent of sexual harassment or discriminating against job applicants? But they are right about the rape trials; it's a venue where a male is presumed guilty and the accuser given elevated status.

"However, because of the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech, I don't think you can pass laws preventing anti-feminists from expressing their opinion about women's place in the world. They are free to express their thoughts, and so are those who disagree with them."

Damn shame.

"That said, certain rules in certain organizations--Yahoo!, for instance--allow some organizations to censor speech that they find hateful. Also, the media has rules and laws concerning certain types of speech that may hurt or offend others."

But here's a loophole we can use to suppress free speech! Yay!

"However, speech meant to incite violence against others--such as calling for violence against women who don't "tow the line"--would be censorable and prosecutable. "

"speech meant to incite violence against males"... that's not worth mentioning. Heck, they deserve it! It's "*fabulous*", to quote Sharon Osbourne.

"Freedom of speech should not mean freedom to defame. "

Yes, it should.. if it's true. Truth must be an absolute protection. If Richard Nixon is a crook, and I'm arrested for saying that, then what freedom do I have?

"dark eyes answered 1 month ago
No. In their manner of getting their cause "out" they are inadvertently indicating the necessity of the feminist movement!

Because arguing against National Socialism is proof we need National Socialism!

"They're burying themselves. They cuss, they threat, they go around with this "she has that,I want it, too" attitude."

How dare they demand equality from an organisation that claims it is about equality! Don't they realise it's equality only when it benefits women?

"They want the rights of having a uterus, without having a uterus."

Strawman. I don't recall any man demanding the right have a womb. Except maybe in Life of Brian...

"They want to rid lower standards, affirmative action, then complain women are weak, emotional, etc... then complain we DON'T take the dangerous, deadly jobs! "

This paragraph is incoherent.

Yes, we want to rid lower standards of education for men,
Yes, we want to rid lower standards of healthcare for men,
Yes, we want to rid lower standards of justice for men,
Yes, we want to rid lower standards of social value for men.

We are right to complain when women want to be paid the same as a man doing a dangerous job, without taking the same risks. That's anti-capitalism at it's finest. Even communist countries gave the worst jobs some sort of incentives.

You know what they call forcing a group to do the dangerous stuff without rewards?


And so on and so on.

finally, check these three links:

Google Inc., YouTube LLC: Categorize the MRM as flaggable for terrorism/promoting hate on YouTube.

Colleges offer credit to students who enter ‘feminist thinking’ into Wikipedia

People are saying YES and doing their best to make it so that people like me will be silenced or imprisoned. Every mention of us will be controlled through wikipedia et al so that we will be defined by our enemies; or outright *erased*.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please try to avoid logical fallacies!