online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 1336 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/21/2009 3:16:29 PM

To me, this thread is looking more like a bigass case of SOME men's overgrown, overblown case of p*ssy/womb ENVY.



That's an illogical claim.

No one man here has said they wished to be able to birth a child.

Men have only two uses for a pvssy.

1- For their pleasure.
2-To procreate.

If you want to make the quantum leap from #1 to #2, as a basis for "consent" to make a baby, then you should all wear a sign 24/7...


That's not what womb envy is.

It's really shocking how openly misogynist some people can be.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 1297 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/21/2009 12:27:48 PM

chameleon: I'm not providing platitudes. I'm stating that the perpetuation of entitlement is what is breeding the injustices placed on men by females who aren't in charge of their own bodies. If less reliance were placed on entitlement for 18 years of a child's life because a woman makes a decision on her own, we wouldn't have the statistics we do for unwanted pregnancies in the first place - it would decline.



me:Leaving aside the fact that the important person in this equation is not the mother and not the father but the child...since you say this with such confidence, I'm assuming that you have evidence (beyond just what you think) to back up your claim that X would lead to Y?

Can you provide it please?


I'm assuming that means no--you are just assuming.

And again, the problem is that whatever anyone THINKS a woman's ethical choice SHOULD be, there are still living breathing babies to be considered....unless you want to just line up women who get pregnant and force them to have abortions.

Sometimes I think there are people would be content to see babies starve to death just so they can punish their mothers: "I'm sooooooo much better than you that I'm going to make your baby suffer just to prove it!"
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 1246 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/21/2009 3:27:53 AM

I'm not providing platitudes. I'm stating that the perpetuation of entitlement is what is breeding the injustices placed on men by females who aren't in charge of their own bodies. If less reliance were placed on entitlement for 18 years of a child's life because a woman makes a decision on her own, we wouldn't have the statistics we do for unwanted pregnancies in the first place - it would decline.


Leaving aside the fact that the important person in this equation is not the mother and not the father but the child...since you say this with such confidence, I'm assuming that you have evidence (beyond just what you think) to back up your claim that X would lead to Y?

Can you provide it please?
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 1239 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/21/2009 1:19:59 AM

No...she'd also be resourceful enough to see to the child's wellbeing without the need of anyone else's support, including that of the government. Pride doesn't enter into the equation - responsibility does. In fact, she'd have (and does have) those resources in place before that eventuality. That being said, it wouldn't come to pass and is a moot point - again because she takes more than one precaution to ensure she doesn't become pregnant in the first place. She's not a child at 26 and doesn't expect to rely on others for her choices in life. I can see the dilemma's faced by those who are underage and shouldn't be having sex in the first place because they are immature. Unfortunately, there are too many women who are of an age who should have the maturity to take charge of their life but expect others to take up the slack with an entitled mentality. I'm sorry, but if parents perpetuate the fact that women should expect someone else to be responsible for their decisions with their body, it's no wonder they become lazy when it comes to the various means of birth control. Of course, I have to always kick myself in the ass and remind myself that there just aren't that many intelligent, thinking people in this world as I would like to believe there are.


Again, with respect, you are seeing things as you think they should be ideally, rather than really getting into the question of what IS reality for many women and their children. I'm 43, have been sexually active since I was 16, and don't have a child. I made the active decision not to get pregnant during my marriage because I didn't think my ex-husband would be a good father. We can all trumpet about the decisions WE have made or particular individuals we know (like your daughter) might make. This isn't really the point. What IS the point is that there ARE numerous unwanted pregnancies and children who HAVE to be cared for, whether you or I or your kid create them or not, or whether we disapprove morally or ethically of the women and men who make them. We can't just wish them away--they ARE conceived, they ARE born, and once that happens, they DO have to be cared for, and THAT happens because both men and women have sex, sometimes irresponsibly and self indulgently. THAT reality is not avoided with "should have been" or "my child is better than that" or "gee that's really irresponsible" platitudes. So.....since that is the case, the question of distribution of resources and responsibility remains, and the theoretical example of a woman (who you assure us would never have a child out of wedlock) who wouldn't take money (due to her pride, although obviously she would never be in that situation to begin with, so her pride doesn't matter) isn't really very helpful, now is it?

The question is, whether or not a man who fathers a child should be automatically held responsible for sharing in the the responsibility of supporting that child.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 1232 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/21/2009 12:13:47 AM
Chameleon, that's great, and good for your daughter. BUT, your daughter is approaching this question from the position of "what I WOULD do" rather than "what a woman might HAVE to do." Realistically, if your daughter for some reason found herself with a child that she didn't have the resources to support (and leaving aside the possibility of YOUR support), would she sacrifice her child's well being on the altar of her own pride?

When it comes to the well being of a child, the answer doesn't always lie in the personal pride of the mother. It CAN take two people's resources to support a child in a way that provides the BEST for the child. When that's the case, a mother's prideful refusal to bring the father's support into the question CAN be more a detriment than an advantage.

With respect, this thread isn't about young women quite certain that they could never end up pregnant outside of marriage. Given the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy, would you (or your daughter) advocate the idea that raising a child in poverty (for the sake of its mother's pride) is the best option?
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 1229 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/20/2009 11:27:30 PM

I'm blonde and still not getting it so help me out here.

What "same, equal, at least equivalent reproductive rights under, in law" are you seeking if you say you have no desire to either force a woman to abort or force her to complete a pregnancy?

If you say it is all her choice then what's all the fuss about?


I'm brunette, and also not getting it.

If you don't want to interfere with a woman's reproductive rights, then what exactly is on the table here? What do you PROPOSE as a solution to this great iniquity that you are all identifying. Because if it doesn't involve interfering in women's reproductive rights, then all I'm seeing is a bunch of guys who would rather not be asked to pay child support.

If that's not it, then please clarify?
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 1223 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/20/2009 10:43:00 PM
ohwhynot: ^^^Well the abortion issue has underlay a lot of this thread. I said at one point much earlier that a lot of the same men who will cry foul at being asked for CS would equally be found, in their cups somewhere, weeping that some "evil" woman "killed" his child. But "life" and "humanity" (or HUMAN life) are two different things--to me the difference comes with CONSCIOUSNESS of life, and so aborting a zygote is not the same thing as killing (or even neglecting or abusing) a living, breathing, human being who is conscious of the harm being done to him or her. But, I think we are both operating from a position of compassion, however differently we might view the status of an embryo during early pregnancy.

But I agree, this is NOT really the issue. Abortion IS legal and Mr Evil isn't going to get his amendment, especially if he proposes it with "exceptions": if you want to argue for "right to life" than making exceptions for rape or incest completely defeats the argument--"LIFE" does not rest, for its legitimacy AS life, on the means by which it was created.

THIS thread, has in the main, been about mutual responsibility, once a HUMAN life exists, although there have been some who have SEEMED to argue for some kind of "right," for men, to force women to have abortions. Assuming that few people would REALLY consider THAT to be a good idea, it seems to me that once a child is born, there is nothing REALLY more reasonable than supposing that both its creators have some sort of MORAL responsibility when it comes to its care.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 1216 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/20/2009 10:00:32 PM

C'mon ladies, for pages and pages the good of the child has been the top topic, an abortion can't be good for the child. So let's see some more answers. Yes or no constitutional amendment abolishing abortion.


This is a cop out. You asked for an answer to your question, and then you failed to engage once you got one. You clearly have an agenda here which is to proselytize an anti-abortion choice stance, and so really getting into the nuts and bolts of abortion, as an issue--and something apart from your actual question--is probably useless. But, I'll just say that you are presupposing the status of a zygote or embryo as CHILD. In my opinion, this shows a flaw in the formulation of your question. Once a CHILD is actually BORN, its rights AS an actual CHILD, create a different set of issues from those that have to be considered when it's first conceived, or shortly thereafter.


I'm aware of that , just as i'm aware it was written by the same men , and their meaning was clear.
Just as the supreme court just revisited the second ammendment.
250 years , and they decided it means now, what it meant then.


No, actually, Jefferson (the principal author of the Declaration of Independence) wasn't at the Constitutional Convention, where the Constitution was written. The "Founders" aren't a monolithic group. In fact, many of them despised each other.

And the Second amendment is irrelevant to the present discussion.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 1212 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/20/2009 9:50:58 PM

You mean the same founders that wrote:
The right to LIFE , liberty and the pursuit of happiness ?
Ok , i'll point it out, it's the first word,
LIFE .... or were they talking about a board game ??


Rickey, That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. He was asking about constitutional amendments. While the introduction to the Declaration is meaningful and beautiful, it is a separate document to the constitution, has no force of law, and is irrelevant to the question.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 1207 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/20/2009 9:38:10 PM

Since most of the women on here feel so strongly on the subject. How many would support a constitutional amendment that would do away with Roe v. Wade? No more abortions!! That way we all know the child comes first!! CS would be in place to get that extra support from the dads. Recreational sex would be reduced to mostly those willing to be tied or snipped! The child would be cared for, everybody wins!!!!!!!!


As a woman (not speaking for all women of course), I vote no. First, since not all unwanted pregnancies are the result of recreational sex, this would deprive girls and women victimized by rape and/or incest of having abortions when those crimes result in pregnancy. Second, it would result in the creation of even more children that one or both parents aren't prepared to care for properly. Third, it would deprive women of an important avenue of control over their reproductive systems. And fourth, it would set a bad standard when it comes to future legislation or judicial decisions concerning privacy rights.

The founders set a model in their first ten amendments by using them to establish rights rather than withhold them. Constitutional amendments shouldn't be used, IMO, for reactionary purposes.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 125 (view)
 
Politically correctness
Posted: 11/20/2009 6:08:18 PM
All in the Family (is) was a brilliant sitcom that had political relevance because it was produced during a period of transition in which male, white householders (like Archie Bunker) were being forced to adjust to the fact that they were losing their traditional privileges AS white, male householders. Archie wasn't JUST a working-class bigot: he was repeatedly challenged in his attitudes by his son-in-law but ALSO his daughter, his neighbors, and EVEN his "submissive" wife. The show was less about his bigotry than about the challenges that provoked his bigoted responses. NOW the show remains funny and meaningful, but we no longer live in a society in which HIS (Archie's) assumptions remain prevalent. NOW we can laugh at racial stereotypes in a way that is allowed (in ways in which posters on this thread have provided many examples) simply BECAUSE the majority of Americans would reject Archie's attitudes out of hand: we no longer NEED someone like Archie to provide a lens for viewing the absurdity of his (character's) expectations and assumptions. SOME call that kind of social progress political correctness.

When I hear people complaining about "political correctness," what I REALLY hear are people who long for the good ole days when all kinds of bigotry were considered "normal." Well, it's not any longer considered OK to be racist or rampantly sexist--so? Why should it be? Either suck it up OR examine your own hate OR just say what you want and become the pariah that saying what you want might lead you to become. You ARE actually ALLOWED to be a bigot--but if most of the rest of us have left you behind, maybe the problem isn't THEM but YOU. Right-minded people DO find racism (for example) unsavory. Should they pretend otherwise just because a few people don't like being disliked for their attitudes?

If you can't get by as a heterosexual, white man in this world without feeling hard done by....well, you aren't suffering BECAUSE you are a heterosexual, white man.

(And btw, one should avoid, whenever possible, modifying a noun with an adverb.)
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 904 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 11:45:40 PM
~§~
Its logical its never been heard
Because...
... there is.... no.... case.

And they'd NEVER let it win even if there was an attempt. Public Law over Individual Rights.
^^^
Thats basic Law too


I actually misread your earlier post,and thought you were interpreting that position to argue against male responsibility. My bad, and my apologies.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 892 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 11:01:19 PM

Omission after the fact does not preclude intent.

You cannot plead Unintended Consequence to supercede.
Infact by Law its simply unrecognized.

"Unintended consequences are outcomes that are not (or not limited to) the results originally intended by a particular action. The unintended results may be foreseen or unforeseen, but they should be the logical or likely results of the action."

Once that consequence has ... "happened"... since only one party carries the child bodily... that person takes onus <<< by Law on the decision.

Regardless of that decision... as there is intent established by BOTH parties... BOTH parties are responsible for whatever that decision is.

When or if the situation is reversed and men are able to carry a child.
Same Laws will apply.

Its kinda like going guarantor on a loan... that when or if the person you signed for defaults... you're still responsible.
Committing the act of sex... is a contract that binds you


If you are referring to an actual judicial decision, I would like to have the case named (or a link), for I find that the gloss as provided could easily seem to contradict the actual wording, as supplied here (in clearly limited fashion).


"The unintended results may be foreseen or unforeseen, but they should be the logical or likely results of the action."


On the face of it, this would not seem to support the conclusions expressed in the gloss--I could be wrong, but again, I would like a named decision or link?
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 888 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 10:43:30 PM

You can't fix stupid.
If a woman can't carry an egg in her purse without breaking it, she should't have a child.
If she can't keep HER legs shut, or take one on the "chin" to prevent HER egg from becoming fertilized, or refuses to take secondary measures to prevent the outcome of insemination from the inevitability of a baby, then she's VOLUNTEERED to become a mother.
On her OWN.
No one FORCED the outcome of a baby but her.

Because she has the rights to do as she wishes, it should be only if she forfeits the rights to demand anything of the man if he is not in agreement.


Do you REALLY think that a man who orgasms inside a woman does this without an awareness that he might be fertilizing an egg? What is it that makes you believe that in THIS particular act, a man should NOT be accountable, equally to his sex partner, for the consequences of something that he does by free choice? Do you feel similarly about other "action leads to consequences" problems? If a man gets drunk with a woman, and they both, then, get arrested for drunk driving, do you think that the woman should go to jail but the man shouldn't? Should HE, and not SHE, walk away--privileged, by simply having sperm rather than ovaries? Do you feel that just because he is a man (and not a woman), HE should be immune from accountability for something that he does FREELY, by his own FREE WILL, fully aware of the potential consequences?

Abortion is a big freakin' deal--anyone who knows someone who has had one will affirm that it is both emotionally and physically traumatic. And believe it or not, the same kind of man who is likely to make a "man's" political issue of paying child support, is EXACTLY the kind of man who is just as likely to accuse a woman who aborts the product of their sexual experience of "murdering" his child. Men have the beautiful option of BOTH not wanting to be a dad when the problem faces them, AND, for years afterward, weeping over the fact that some "evil" woman "killed" his baby.


The fallacy that men PRODUCE babies. Building a strawman.


Honestly, please stop referring to the strawman fallacy (as you do over and over and over) unless you can actually find it within yourself to learn what it is.

If men don't produce babies, then pray tell us---who does it? Is it the great flying spaghetti monster? If not men, and if not the spaghetti monster, then Who? I understand that it is a cooperative enterprise, but seriously.... if not men, then WHO???

Unless it's actually strawmen.....damn, I'll watch the Wizard of Oz really differently now!
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 870 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:31:49 PM

A consent to sex by a man, is no more an agreement to make a baby, than consent by a woman to have sex, is an agreement to make a baby.


A consent to drive by a man, is no more an agreement to have an accident, than consent by a woman to drive a car, is an agreement to have an accident.

And yet, accidents happen, and we all know that when we get behind the wheel. And despite another car-analogy post, in SEX both people are active.

What is at issue here?

Say....there are THREE people involved in the accident created by only TWO drivers. If two irresponsible drivers smash, at the same time, into a passive third party, the ONLY party injured through no fault of its own is the third one. In determining what's "fair" and what isn't, the principal party whose fair-treatment should be priority number one is the one who didn't actually make the choice to drive in the first place.

Babies, like the third party smashed into by two irresponsible drivers, are helpless--unable to avoid the outcome of the crash.

Men who knock up women they wish they hadn't, producing babies they wish they hadn't (cuz they like orgasmed) can waaaaa all they want. Unless you really think it would be desirable to be able to force abortions on women who don't want them, either take the necessary steps to ensure that you don't fertilize an egg or suck it up.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 417 (view)
 
Liberal vs conserative
Posted: 11/17/2009 8:25:51 PM

15 other major economic powers? It amazes me how you simplify complex problems.

Let me ask you something, of those 15 powers, how many of them have an illegal immigration problem that is even HALF of the United States?


Talk about oversimplifying a problem! Illegal immigration is NOT the reason we don't have a universal health care system in this country. That's just a red herring that right wingers use to distract their core--because they don't want to stand there and actually say they care more for the profits of privater insurers than the health of American citizens.


Know why labor was outsourced? Because american workers were no longer satisfied to earn that low of a wage. Who told them this? Hmmmmz the unions perhaps? How many of those .09 cent an hour jobs would be fit for americans. When the cost of products go up to account for american labor, it's just the greedy corporations again padding their profits right?


What's your point?


Last i checked mexican's weren't STREEEAMING into norway to pursue the "norwegian" dream.


No, that would require a long ocean journey. Again, your point?

BTW, Mexicans come here because we share a border and opportunities are better here than there. Looking good to an impoverished Mexican is not really much of an accomplishment.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 6 (view)
 
No-one likes him except me
Posted: 11/17/2009 3:26:38 AM
AA, he's an unemployed guy who up and shifted (clearly easy--hourly job, rented apt., etc) and he is now living on benefits and sleeping in a van.

This woman is over 30. This prospect recommends itself?

Seriously?
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 3 (view)
 
No-one likes him except me
Posted: 11/17/2009 2:28:28 AM
What are they seeing? They are seeing a guy without a job, living on benefits in an Astrovan.

IMO, you can't answer the "Follow your Heart" question until you know what this guy will do. What DOES he do? I'm sorry, but if you leave an hourly paid job and an apartment, to live in a van (why? to go to you?), then you are a guy with no job who lives in a van. THAT is what your friends see. When he does better than that, they will see better than that.

Just make sure that you don't see things that aren't there.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 56 (view)
 
Are there women/men who wait as long as 6 mos. before sex?
Posted: 11/17/2009 1:10:09 AM

Different would indeed be lower than mine. LOL


Fair enough, it would be lower to you? I was speaking more universally. A man who decided to move on to someone more friendly wouldn't necessarily see himself as lowering his standards.


Some people don't quantify love based on how well someone performs in the sack. And others do.


No indeed. By itself, it isn't the measure. But in a long-term relationship, I maintain that a sparks-filled sexual relationship is an important ingredient. If you LIKE sex, and enjoy uninhibited enjoyment within a love relationship, then discovering that you have that in common is a wondrous thing. On the other hand, after six months, finding that you are trying to make sparks with a prude or someone sexually dysfunctional, I'm sure can be quite devastating. But since I wouldn't wait that long..... I can't know for sure how it would affect me....maybe I'd make allowances, but I'd prefer not to be in that situation, frankly.


 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 404 (view)
 
Liberal vs conserative
Posted: 11/17/2009 12:13:12 AM

So, when you're sick...classes are called off? No one fills in? You didn't have a backup plan for such occasions? Do you call each student individually beforehand and notify them class is cancelled? Just leave a note on the classroom/auditorium door? What if you're out for a week, or month? No classes? Do the students still get their credits?


I didn't refer to myself in my post, but when I'm sick, my classes don't meet. If I were out for an extended period with a chronic illness, sure, they would find someone to take my classes, but I would still receive my full salary for as long as I was ill and my replacement wouldn't come cheap--so clearly, the university would be financially damaged by my extended illness. It is in my employer's best interest to ensure that I have health care. Perhaps this lends itself to the nature of the problem being discussed here--obviously, if you CAN easily fill an employee's place and you DON'T have an obligation to continue paying someone when they are sick, then that affects the motive. That is why I referred to an ETHIC.


Also, it seems kind of "obtuse" that you would state a point or argument and then decide not to elaborate for fear of boring *me*. Almost rings of that elitist attitude. Pleae, bore *me*.


It wasn't obtuse, but perhaps it did come off as a bit ****y--my apologies. What I meant was that I object to a view of human beings as commodities--I find that to be reprehensible. Yes, if you treat your workers as nothing more than stamps on a timecard then the problem isn't a problem for you, as employer...ethically, or rather according to YOUR personal/professional ethic. If you consider yourself to have a responsibility of some sort to those who work for you, then the problem becomes more complicated than "can I pay X overtime to fill in for Y who is dying of cancer because s/he wasn't able to afford getting decent health care." That's all--I don't think it's complicated, myself.

The guy who sees his workers as stamps on a timecard--I couldn't date THAT guy--is all I'm sayin'.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 688 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 11:57:08 PM

Read this carefully, if women have the choice to have no responsibility while pregnant, men should to.

This does not necessary mean abortion, but the man having a burden of responsibility.

If women have the choice of no responsibility, so should men. end of story. No ifs or buts.


From your earlier posts, I take your description of women having the choice to have "no responsibility" as a reference to abortion choice: i.e, women have the choice to abort, but men don't have that choice when it comes to deciding whether or not a pregnancy completes. And so, your feeling is that men shouldn't be responsible for a child once born, since he didn't have the choice (as the woman could have) to end the pregnancy with abortion.

I see your point. And there's no way of rectifying this, unless you truly want to see a situation created by which a man can force a woman to have an abortion against her will. Is that a desirable scenario, to you? Think about it. Seriously? And if not that, then what is YOUR solution?

You are not going to find the fairness you seek, as according to your terms. BUT, is it any comfort to know that if you are an unwilling child-support paying father from afar, you are still never going to experience anything like the sense of responsibility towards this child you don't want as the woman laboring to deliver it, losing sleep to feed it, loving it, nurturing it, taking it to school, participating in childhood activities, worrying about its ethical code and moral values, seeing it through its adolescent angst, worrying when it's out at night, caring about its choices as it grows older, suffering through the agony of its illnesses, crying when it suffers...and perhaps mourning it? Does that help at all? Does that make your bank account feel any better? If you are remote from your child what you PAY will never come close to what its mother both pays and GIVES.

When a woman is pregnant, and considering abortion (if that's a possibility for her), the pregnancy is a pregnancy--not yet a living, breathing, child. But Once birth happens, there is a viable human being now in this world made by TWO people.

THAT infant is WHOLLY singular: it EXISTS and is SEPARATE from whatever resentment you might feel towards its mother. And once it is born, it is NOT simply the product of two people being irresponsible. IT has its OWN existence, and as a DISTINCT HUMAN BEING it is NOT morally responsible for the behavior of its parents. It is COMPLETELY, utterly vulnerable--incapable of taking care of itself, earning money, feeding itself, clothing itself, housing itself, teaching itself. YOU made it. The LEAST you can do is take some responsibility for ensuring that YOUR child isn't without food--even if it will never know your love.

GEEEEZ.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 267 (view)
 
Long vs short hair
Posted: 11/16/2009 11:14:47 PM
Most women live with their hair every day (lol), and know what works best for them! Some women look amazing bald. Some look extraordinarily sexy with short hair. Some look best with long hair. I, personally, like the way I look with long hair, but importantly, it's also easiest to manage--since I have curly hair, it's hard to DO a short 'do!

Women know best what their hair does best. We aren't all involved in an internal competition: "long vs. short hair."

BTW, we also all have our preferences about what we find attractive. I tend not to like long hair on a guy so much, myself. But it's not a moral judgment.

Peace.
:)
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 401 (view)
 
Liberal vs conserative
Posted: 11/16/2009 10:53:11 PM

This makes no sense whatsoever. If a person is ill, not able to go to work, they will be off work until they are able to return to work. If the company needs to substitute labor (i.e. hire temps, job rotation, overtime, etc.) to fulfill the production requirements of the person who is absent, they will. Whether it be a day, two days, a month, or indefinitely. Most companies budget absenteeism.


This seems deliberately obtuse to me. Not all jobs can be filled by temps. SOME actually require special SKILLS and/or advanced knowledge. There ARE people who can't be replaced, in the work they do, through the services of a temp agency or EVEN by internal job rotation or "overtime."

And when it comes to easily replaceable labor, there's also an ethic involved. But I won't bore you with that.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 87 (view)
 
Prove Me Wrong, PLEASE
Posted: 11/16/2009 9:37:32 PM
Rat, it's unclear to what extent your current dilemma derives from the model presented by your brother's decision to divorce his wife. You raise a lot of interesting questions, and I personally think that your inclination to really THINK about this is great. I have some thoughts--maybe they will be helpful and maybe not.

There is a lot of "common wisdom" out there that seeks to dictate or rather, organize male-female relationships: like

"Woman give sex for love, men give love for sex"
and
It is a primeval drive for men to impregnate women, it is what enables the survival of the species. It is natural and it is necessary.


Neither of these generalizations should drive YOUR behavior, and rejecting this kind of stuff won't prevent you from forming a relationship that is right for you, speaks to you, and fulfills you in a way PARTICULAR to you as an INDIVIDUAL. But first and foremost, NEVER accept the "conclusions" of evolutionary psychology when it comes to making decisions about your own sexuality (and what you will tolerate from others). Men are NOT compelled to have sex because of a "primeval drive." They, like women, have the capacity for REASON, which serves to regulate us in respect to our "primeval" urges or instincts or whatever you want to call them. Like women, men like to have sex because it is fun; anything else when it comes to legitimizing the male sex drive as somehow BEYOND and ABOVE personal control is just a BS excuse for sexual pressure and, in married men, adultery (and this evolutionary psychology nonsense can even be used to justify rape).

Every relationship develops according to its own dynamic. There is absolutely no reason for someone of your age (or mine for that matter) to feel pressured to have sex with a man you are getting to know before you want to--before you feel the kind of tie to a man that makes it something you WANT to share with him as the expression of a bond that YOU recognize.

Again, it's unclear how much you are affected by how your brother treated your sister-in-law. But I think it's important to remember that marriage is a very different thing from dating, and WITHIN marriage--where a sexual relationship as part of a loving relationship has presumably been established--the absence of sex is a very big deal in a way that it isn't in a young, dating relationship. You say your sister-in-law has a medical condition that prevented her from having sex with your brother, and while that makes his decision to divorce her easier to abhor, it is also, I'm sure, very difficult to imagine living out your life in a sexless marriage. This is NOT JUST because people DO like to have sex, although that's important--and one of the reasons for marriage is to be able to have uninhibited sex in a situation that both legitimizes it AND makes it emotionally and physically safe. It's also because once you HAVE established the kind of bond that YOU describe yourself desiring PRECEDING a sexual relationship, the sexual relationship itself serves to reinforce the relationship itself--because it IS a realization/physical manifestation of love for those who love each other.

In other words, whether or not there is a "reason" for it, being denied sex within marriage is difficult NOT to see as personal rejection...and I personally think that this is true EVEN WHEN there is a legitimate reason for its absence, for one way or the other the physical manifestation/realization of the LOVE union is gone. Of course, people TRULY in love and committed to each other have the ability to find ways to show sexual love even if they can't do it in the "traditional" way--there are any number of ways to HAVE "sex." But in relationships with little else REALLY binding the people involved (and the way you speak of your brother's marriage this might be the case), an absence of sex is clearly going to be destructive.

YOU say you would like to have the kind of romantic relationship that for you SHOULD contextualize its realization in sexual union--well that being so, it's not difficult to imagine how alienating it could be to then have that sexual union withheld. So while I think it sounds like you see a certain shallowness in your brother (both in his reasons for marrying and then in his decision to divorce his wife), perhaps you could TRY to understand his predicament. IF they had a shaky marriage to begin with (and he might, yet, have entered it with all good intentions), then it would be miraculous, indeed, if it could survive as a sexless (and yet legally and socially binding) relationship. He could, instead, have remained married and cheated....but expecting him to resign himself at 25 to an fulfilling marriage including a life without sex is a bit unrealistic. Or at least that is my view--others might disagree.

So no, you don't have to have sex before love, but for most of us, I think, romantic love without sex is difficult to sustain.....not because of "primeval" urges or whatnot, but because it symbolizes, manifests, and reinforces the love that we feel, and even reassures us that it is returned. (And it's really really fun.)
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 104 (view)
 
independent women fall the hardest
Posted: 11/16/2009 8:17:30 PM
Arabian Angel:
But what about the other type of independent woman, you know the one that became a product of society not out of her own free will, but the one that never chose that path but was forced to grow up before her time, the street smart one, the tough one, the one that had too much pride to accept help because she wasn't accustomed to receiving…I think she would be the one that would bring the work-face home, because unlike the other type of woman that chose her independence and sees it as an accomplishment , she doesn’t see it the same way, she sees it as part of her makeup.


margo:
If we have to hold onto independence for our survival are we truly independent? If what we call independence doesn't allow us to reveal who we really are to another person or see the person in front of us for who they actually are, which is my interpretation of the OP, wouldn't that make us chained (or dependent) to our view of ourselves and the world? A delusion of our own construction.
.....
I'm conscious that I'm writing this whilst sitting at my kitchen table in Toronto drinking coffee. I've faced some challenges in life, but they can't compare to the magnitude of some of the life and death or even just plain awful circumstances other people have faced in their life. So allow me to preface this by saying: I don't know sh!t from hardship.

Which isn't going to stop me from commenting *grins*. Arguably, we all are a product of the societies we were born into. Just some of us were born into an easier society and some were born into a world that has been torn apart by war for decades before they were ever conceived. It's the LSC factor (Lucky Sperm Club). How do we get through it? In the easier said than done category: By not being a victim of the circumstances of our lives, by choosing to rise to the challenges the circumstances of our lives presents.

As soon as one begins to argue for the limitation in their life, they have CHOSEN to be a victim of their circumstances.

Humans are funny creatures, it doesn't really matter whether we have come from hardship or not, we are each the centre of our own universe. The attributes or coping skills we value are part of how we see our identity; they are part of our make up. So no, I don't think it much matters if the grit that created the pearl was small or large because to each person, it is THEIR grit and THEIR pearl of accomplishment.

What would be true, or so it seems to me, is that some people have more "learning opportunities" or speed bumps to get over than others. People will define challenges differently depending on their circumstances, but they will each, individually, hold it in a similar way. Of course, people who are focused on the immediate needs of survival have little resources available to ponder if their choices are the wisest? most balanced? That type of personal growth navel gazing is a luxury.


I agree with a lot of this, margo, but I also think that there is a lot of difference between the kind of "independence" that has come at great emotional and physical cost--against the odds, as it were--and the kind that I know I have, which , at least from a social and financial POV, has come without the kind of MATERIAL difficulty that is experienced by a lot of women (and men). I live in a pretty "poor" part of the US, and I know many "fiercely independent" women (of the type that I suspect many men complain about) who KNOW that their circumstances can turn on a dime, and for them a failed relationship or a co-habitation gone wrong can have really disastrous material consequences (for themselves and, importantly, their children), of the sort that many other women (like myself) don't really have to worry about. It might be that knowing that DOES "chain them," but perhaps the alternative to those chains are potentially much worse ones.

I said in an earlier post that "independence" is not something that exists alone in any individual, unaccompanied by other personality characteristics. SOME financially "independent" women ARE deeply neurotic....about their independence and other things. It's not good to make a fetish of one's own personality traits (or flaws)--whether it's a woman doing it about her independence or a man (or a woman) doing it about "saying it like it is" or "not suffering fools" or rejecting social norms or really...anything you can think of.

But, as creatures with the capacity to learn, we are all products of our experiences. I personally think it's HEALTHY for people to be aware of their own vulnerabilities (whether they be financial or social or emotional) and guard themselves accordingly (and I don't think you would disagree with that). For some, that might mean making the decision to be extremely careful about really integrating someone else, to the extent that many men will throw their hands up in frustration over them and their damnable "independence." But if these oh-so-frustrating women HAVE had to pull themselves out of REAL hardship (whether poverty or an abusive situation or an estrangement from family, etc.), then their jealously guarded indepenced is actually a strength rather than a weakness....they are not so much chained as, in their own ways, liberated.

I know that you don't deny the importance of experience--and you do say that "personal growth naval gazing" is a luxury (with which I agree wholeheartedly--and I've spent a certain amount of time doing that myself!!). But I think we might differ a bit in where that takes us in thinking about this issue. Like me, most of the people here, I suspect, want to have a fulfilling and happy relationship. But there is no universal law that demands that everybody has to have one in order to be fulfilled or emotionally healthy or even happy. I know women my age or older who have spent the lion's share of their adult lives IN relationships, and yet are truly happier single and supporting themselves and their families independently (financially and emotionally) than they ever have been in a relationship (and some of the stories they tell curl my toes--and I thought MY marriage was fvcked up!). And while of course the romantic in me thinks that if they found that PERFECT man for themselves who would never hurt or use them their happiness would grow, I don't see their indifference to that possibility as hurting them or chaining them OR depriving them of their own happiness, as it is. For them the risk isn't worth the possible reward, and while I don't share that pessimism when it comes to my own life, I also don't see that as a failure or a delusion on their parts, because I don't think they are failing to SEE--they just see things (the fragile strings holding up their own lives) AND have seen things (the consequences of allowing those strings to be cut) that many other people don't have to.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Lou Dobbs quit because of left wing hatred.
Posted: 11/16/2009 7:00:25 PM
Well, I used to quite enjoy Lou Dobbs, but he lost his mind over the immigration issue and since then has pandered to xenophobia and bigotry like it's going out of style (if only). To me the last straw was his decision to pretend that the "birther" movement was even rational. John Stewart did a beautiful bit on that--Kitty Pilgrim doing a piece on HIS SHOW (when she sat in for him) totally exploding that whole charade, and him the next night saying "Why won't the administration address these concerns!"

I STOPPED WATCHING Lou Dobbs. My mom, who used to have a serious crush on the guy, STOPPED WATCHING HIM. Pretty much everyone I know has STOPPED WATCHING him, and given his time slot that is not good news for CNN. Now, CNN isn't the best of all possible news networks out there, but it does TRY to remain a NEWS network with a smattering of legitimate discussion/interview shows: when they can get people like Christiane Amanpour and Fareed Zakaria doing really informative panel shows, why would they hold on to someone as irrelevent in his ideas (and understanding of political issues) as Lou Dobbs? Dobbs has lost credibility with the thinking public--not because he's "right wing" on this thing or more "left" on that thing, but because he's turned into a reactionary old fart who panders to populist outrage rather than concerning himself with real issues and informative debate.

"Free speech" or not, CNN is under no obligation to retain the services of someone whose agenda (or just plain low thinking) hampers his professionalism. If Dobbs wants to be the next Glen Beck then he can go to an entertainment channel, like FAUX, and LIVE THE DREAM!
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 47 (view)
 
Are there women/men who wait as long as 6 mos. before sex?
Posted: 11/15/2009 12:41:03 AM
There's no right or wrong.... People have to do what's comfortable for them.

But...I personally can't imagine waiting anything like six months. If I'm dating someone for six months then I'm committed to him and probably in love with him...and to me, neither of those things is going to happen unless I'm also loving the SEX. What if you spent six months with someone and then discovered that sleeping with them was the pits?

Ugh!

And btw, Landra, while your timetable is your own and you are certainly entitled to it:

That would be at least 6 months. If a man can't deal with that, he's free to go find a woman with lower standards and relief himself.


DIFFERENT standards are not always the same as LOWER standards.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 5 (view)
 
cheated
Posted: 11/15/2009 12:20:30 AM
First, assuming that you are right and that she was with this other guy, I think that if it happened three years ago when you were broken up, that you are considering destroying a relationship that doesn't need to be destroyed. It's not pretty that she lied to you, but you seem more troubled with the idea that she was with someone else than over the fact that she lied. But, if you were broken up, you were broken up. If you want to make a stand because of the lie that's fair enough, but if you are going to end it because she was with someone else when she was "single," then....think about it.

I'd be hard pressed to imagine ending it with someone I loved, with six years of history behind us, because he slept with another woman while we were broken up.

Plus, there's a big difference between volunteering information and answering a question when you are (unfairly) put on the spot. If the lie came because you ASKED her if she'd been with anyone when you were broken up, then it's conceivable that she thought it was OK to lie because it really wasn't any of your business. We can quibble over whether a lie is ever justifiable, but I know that when men have asked me questions about my sex life outside the time period of my relationship to them, I have felt no obligation to tell them about things that aren't their business.

And, she might have just been trying to avoid causing you pain.

Second, you haven't told us whether you have been with anyone else during one of these break ups. Maybe you haven't, but if you have, check yourself for hypocrisy.

Third, speaking of hypocrisy, you give the impression that you are in this relationship right now....and yet you are here, according to your profile, for "dating." What's up with that?
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 10 (view)
 
bf has bad time management
Posted: 11/15/2009 12:06:19 AM
I think it's a big problem when a person can't be on time. Is he on time for work? Is it just when he's meeting you that he's late? If so, then I would see it as him thinking it's OK to show you this special lack of consideration, even though it makes you angry. It IS a sign of disrespect to make plans and then keep people waiting.

BUT, one could make the argument that his lateness is no worse than your yelling. From the little that I can see here, I would suggest that you consider taking some steps to learn to control your temper. Your boyfriend is an adult--you aren't going to change his behavior by screaming at him. I think people worry about things like being on time because they don't want to HURT the FEELINGS of the other person. You don't come off as hurt or upset by his behavior--just ANGRY.

People don't just have "bad tempers" that deserve to be tolerated..."cuz that's just how I am." It's not ACCEPTABLE to have a hot temper and scream at people, and while some people (like your boyfriend) might put up with it, it's never going to endear you to anybody. Work on yourself--maybe then you can find a boyfriend who treats you with respect.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 231 (view)
 
Long vs short hair
Posted: 11/14/2009 2:56:00 AM
I prefer men with short hair and have never been "attracted," at first glance, to men with long hair....except that the last man I was in love with had long hair. I know lots of men love long hair on a woman, but I doubt that means those same men couldn't easily fall in love with a woman with short hair (and vise versa). It's a thing, but it's not definitive. I am sure that most people can easily look past their "preferences" for someone who moves them in other ways.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 51 (view)
 
independent women fall the hardest
Posted: 11/14/2009 12:51:28 AM

She would not ask for help when needed, and refuse it if offered. She felt like she had to do it all by herself. She also became very suspicious of people, me included, like we were all trying to use her or take something for her. She eventually shut out me and others out her her life. Yes she has advanced her career. Yes she has aquired the things she wants. Yes she has raised her son and managed a career and a home. What hurts me the most is when she talks about all this then bemoans the fact that she had to do it all herself because she had no one to help her. She didn't have to, she chose to.


No personality trait stands alone in a given person (we're all complex). One can be "independent" and yet also be emotionally dysfunctional in any number of possible ways. On the face of it, the woman you are describing (in the quote above) doesn't strike me as a person who suffers from her independence--but rather, from her obsession with BEING "independent."

If someone asked me to describe myself, "independent" isn't the word that would spring to mind. And yet, clearly, I am "independent." I support myself, I take care of my own basic needs, and I'll be fine (on a superficial level) if I continue to remain single, although I probably won't be "happy" in the way I would like to be. Basically, I would expect ANY adult person, male or female, to be "independent."

Being NEUROTIC is something else altogether. I don't think that an independent person should NEED to feel threatened by allowing someone else to help them in ways that makes life easier and more enjoyable, and if they are threatened by that then it's not because of their "independence." Just because I CAN kill my own spiders (and there are people posting on this thread who KNOW how traumatic that is for me) doesn't mean that I wouldn't LOVE to have someone around to do that for me....and happily hand over the task. Just because I'm ABLE to take my car to the oil change place myself, doesn't mean I wouldn't LOVE to be with the kind of man who thinks that "car stuff" is HIS job. Allowing someone to BE a man in your life doesn't mean that suddenly you become helpless--it just means that you are in a relationship.

BUT, people (male or female) often work VERY hard (and especially getting by on a single income in a two-income world). And what that means for ME (as an "independent" woman) is that I have to think a guy is REALLY special in order for me to make the time to integrate him into my life. I don't make time for men I only kind of like. So the men I've met as I've become a BUSY woman with a demanding profession, to whom I have felt attracted enough to make REAL time for, have been few and far between (and I'm sure it works the same way in reverse). So yes, when I meet a man I really really like to the extent that I DO make that effort, I can "fall hard"--and that is exactly because they have been men for whom I CAN fall hard. If I was making time to date Tom, Dick AND Harry, the "falling hard" to "relative indifference" ratio would be much lower.

I reckon that there are tons of different reasons for the thing the OP is describing.... because there are so many different kinds of women who all consider themselves to be "independent." But having "independence" doesn't necessarily translate into any kind of emotional predictability, woman to woman--"independence" isn't a cookie cutter.

****

BTW, hubris is unwarranted overconfidence. When you are convinced that you can control the outcome of something despite the fact that chances are you can't--and then it's proven that you can't--that's hubris.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 135 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/13/2009 8:51:36 PM
Thanks alwayssmilin' and Krebby! Voices of calm are always welcome (and often singular)...he he.

On topic, Krebby, I think that your point about the proliferation of illegally owned weapons is a valid one, and I often tell my European and Canadian friends that while I agree with them in theory about the desirability of strict gun control, he situation in the US is too far gone for such a thing to now really be practicable here. Nevertheless, I don't think that means that the status quo is acceptable either. IN far too many states it's easy as pie to buy a gun without a background check (like at a gun show), and I can't understand, at all, why we can't HAVE some flexibility without then dealing with the problem of the slippery slope. Every time I turn around it seems that some state has lifted another regulation, and what scares the bejeezus out of me is the trend of lifting concealed weapon carry laws. IN Utah students are now allowed to carry guns to their classes on university campuses! I can't imagine working in that situation.

So when I get involved in this discussion, I confront the extreme pro-gun interpretation of the Second Amendment exactly BECAUSE (apart from the fact that I think it's misinterpreted) there is such an enormous lobby for a FREE for all. And that really does make me very nervous.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 130 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/13/2009 1:32:40 PM

No more debate with someone who has got no prior knowledge of Islam or the Koran and previously claimed that he never touched Islamic history and now claims that she is teaching it.


Good lord. I didn't say I had "never touched Islamic history." I said it isn't my RESEARCH FIELD. It's not the field I publish in.


First of all "Ulama" is a plural noun and it doesn't put "a" with it. The singular form is "Alim".


Thanks. Perhaps if I had GOOGLED FIRST for my information I wouldn't have made that error.

Nothing like a little blind, uncritical devotion....eh?
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 126 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/13/2009 10:53:34 AM

I don't think it is difficult to engage in it. Every point I make starts with a (-). You are just avoiding the things you have been asked about since you haven't done the research on your own and have googled things. :)


I answered your questions, I just didn’t line them all up in order. You repeatedly asked about context, I provided it. Your are pretending a knowledge you don’t have, which is glaringly obvious—for example, in your rejection of the map I provided.


As if I am going to believe some bloggers on the internet. lol. Please provide some evidence from REAL sources rather than Tommy's website.


You really don’t know Islamic history, do you?

The map I provided was a quick find—I used it because it presents a picture I already know to be true….because I know it…..because it’s common knowledge to anyone who has ever read a book (or even a chapter in a freshman-level textbook) about the early umma.

But fine:

Prof at University of North Carolina
http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/islam_map1.jpg

Fordham (from well-respected Medieval Internet Sourcebook (up to 656 rather than 661):
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/maps/islam1map.gif

FYI, the Umayyads will quickly extent this caliphate all the way to Spain in the West.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/maps/islam2map.gif

Or how about Princeton?
http://www.princeton.edu/~humcomp/map2.gif



Actions of people don't represent Islam. Koran represents Islam. If you have done some reseach of your own and are able to show me in context how the the Koran has directed these individuals to go about killing people, I am willing to listen to you. Otherwise, you are running around in a maize of circle by looking at other people's actions who have an "Islamic name" and whatever they say, you accept it.


There are Arabic names—not Islamic ones. The only Arabs I have mentioned are Muhammad and the first four caliphs following his death, all of whom were close associates of his. Please provide an EXAMPLE of me “running around in a maize of circle [wtf?] by looking at other people’s actions who have an “Islamic name” and whatever they say, you accept it.” Btw, is English your first language?


You don't learn about a religion by listening to other people. You learn it from the primary source of that religion as well as its history and I am afraid you haven't done any research in that field.


Thanks, but if you think that all there is to a religion is its sacred text—then you don’t know what you are talking about. PERIOD. Go tell a Pakistani ulama to ignore the hadith. And then tell him that he doesn’t understand Qur’an and you would prefer to debate with someone with a background in the subject.

And btw, I have made a point TWICE with which you refuse to engage: There is NO transcendent meaning to Qur’an or any other sacred text beyond people’s reading of and interpretation of it. YOU have the arrogance to believe that YOUR reading of Qur’an is THE MEANING of Qur’an, transcending any possible alternative interpretation: you’ve hit on a theme you favor—PEACE—and nothing is going to shift you. That does NOT make you an expert—it makes you an apologist.


As for Hasan, I haven't seen any evidence where he has mentioned anything of whether he has used the Koranic verses to justify his killings, so religion has no connection to what he has done so far unless you are going to prove it otherwise and show me where he has mentioned anything regarding being directed by the Koran to go kill people.


Since I have never argued that Hasan did this for religious reasons, why would I do that?


Koran doesn't have 20 million different versions and interpretations. There is only ONE Koran. The only way, you really know the interpretation of the Koran is to know the actual context as well as history of the verses and the situation the verses were revealed for.


I never said it had 20 million different versions and interpretations.

And btw, you are now contradicting yourself. YOU say the only thing that matters is Qur’an—and yet here you say that to interpret Qur’an properly, you need to know the HISTORY behind it? Except….You say that all that matters is Qur’an…..but....except....we need historical context.....but all we need is TEXT....no we need context TOOO......HEEEELLLLPPPP (I can hear you cry....)? Well, you reject (or rather, ignore) the historical context as I described it—are you going to pull some shiny new context out of your butt to prove YOUR interpretation of Qur’an is the valid one?

I’ll tell you what—how about YOU tell the HISTORY of Muhammad and the early UMMA using ONLY Qur’anic verses. NO exegesis—NO interpretation—JUST verse. Go for it!


Again, you read them without the actual context just like the rest of the people who do google searches and find verses without knowing the history. That's why, I prefer debating with someone who has got prior knowledge in the subject matter and knows the Islamic history and context of the verses, the time they were revealed etc.


I’m laughing. You know, I actually have BOOKS—and a doctorate in history which means I KNOW HOW TO READ. I teach the early history of Islam (and have for years) which means I don’t NEED to do google searches to get the basics when it comes to Muhammad’s activities in Arabia. And…none of this is like, DEEP. The basics of Muhammad’s life and the early umma’s growth are pretty well known. It’s not rocket science, as they say.

But who asked you to debate me anyway?
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 121 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/13/2009 5:33:01 AM

If you have a look here, everything in dark red and rust was united as the umma within Muhammad’s lifetime (the red) or within 29 years of his death (the death of the fourth caliph, Ali). ALL of the first caliphs, up to 661 (Muhammad died in 332) were CLOSE to him. Do you think, passionteman, that YOU know the Prophet’s intentions better than THESE GUYS?

Sorry, but that state didn’t grow to that size within three decades by flowers and kisses.


Correction: Muhammad died in 632, not 332.

(My apologies.)
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 120 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/12/2009 10:37:37 PM
Passionteman, your post is difficult to engage with because of your formatting problems. Plus, you are an apologist, and since I’m not and have no vested interest in this matter at all from a polemical or apologetic POV (pro-Muslim, anti-Muslim, or neither), I’m not sure how much point there is to any of this, especially since you insist on continuing to assign positions to me that I haven’t argued—as pointed out both by myself before and more recently by Mungojoe (and thanks for that MJ)

This whole discussion of Islam started because you insisted that Hasan could not have seen himself as participating in jihad when he killed those people at Ft Hood, because (you say) Islam doesn’t allow Moslems to do such things—it’s not Qur’anic. And yet, there is an element within Islam that sees things differently from you, and WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, those Muslims DO find justification for their actions IN the Qur’an AND in the actions of the Prophet during his lifetime. YOU might disagree with their interpretation of Qur’an, and fine—MANY AGREE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION. But YOUR adherence to your position doesn’t make those who see otherwise and THEIR interpretations disappear, which absolutely means that it is possible that by the time he killed those people, Hasan was influenced by an interpretation that does not conform to yours. And THAT is real—there really ARE very learned Muslims who interpret Qur’an in a way that you find WRONG and TWISTED.

So given these verses from Qur’an, for example:

[Sura 9:4] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.
[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[9:6] If one of the idol worshipers sought safe passage with you, you shall grant him safe passage, so that he can hear the word of GOD, then send him back to his place of security. That is because they are people who do not know.

SOME can interpret them to mean that pagans should be killed only if they violate a treaty with the Muslims. SOME can interpret them to mean that after the treaty expires the pagans are open season. Some can interpret them to mean that it’s great that the pagans now under attack can make a deal to get away. And SOME can interpret them to mean that since that DEAL involves promising to observe Salat (the Muslim prayers required as the Second Pillar) that this is a convert or die situation. (Seeking safe passage, btw, is NOT the same as finding refuge when you or your community is attacked—this is provided to those who ASK to come learn of Allah, which they are allowed to do and then go away again—coming and going=safe passage.)

Frankly, I don’t CARE which interpretation is RIGHT (according to Allah or the Prophet or whomever). The POINT is that like MUCH religious literature, what we have here is VAGUE enough to WORK for people who read it differently to one another. And again, there is NO transcendent meaning to ANY religious text BEYOND its interpretation. Text exists on a page—its MEANING is in how people READ it!

As for your requests for context:


Historically, how was force used to spread the Umma? 1. Are you suggesting that Muhammad collected his so few followers and started fighting the pagans of the time head on from the beginning to spread the Umma by attacking them and using violence? Or................

2. Are you suggesting that he used force when he was attacked by the pagans of the time and to defend himself and his followers, he used force?

- You need to make the point clear. There is only two options at the beginning. Either he used force and attacked them or he was attacked and he had to defend himself and save his followers and had to use force.


I ASSUMED that you knew something of the early history of Islam. Qur’an is NOT context, btw—it’s TEXT, which was created in a CONTEXT which helped to shape its content. No, I suspect you will say—the Qur’an is from Allah....as, for example:


First of all, the verses are not the teachings of the Muhmmad, they are messages to Muhammad, which means Muhammmad is the first to learn them and then he conveys the message to other followers.


Well sorry, but I don’t approach this as a believer. I don’t think that Muhammad got the messages forming Qur’an from Allah (via Gabriel), just as I don’t think Moses got the Ten Commandments from God or that Paul was filled with the spirit of Christ when he wrote his epistles. I have no doubt that Muhammad THOUGHT he was the final Prophet with a direct line to Allah, but such considerations do not inform MY position (and the text wasn’t fixed until after Muhammad’s death in any case). Thus, like ALL text, this one (Qur’an) was produced by men in a context in which their circumstances and agenda affected what they wrote.

Anyway, the CONTEXT in which Muhammad operated and the Qur’an was written was violent. Muhammad largely kept his messages to himself when he first received them. When he did begin to proselytize he was immediately considered a threat to the Quraysh (his own tribe) in Mecca (as keepers of the ka’ba), and in 622 (following the deaths of his wife and protector-uncle) he fled to Medina, where he was invited to become “moderator” between the various tribes there. Then, within two years of the hijra (this flight to Medina) Muhammad had produced the Qur’anic verses allowing for fighting the Meccans (22:39-40), and had begun attacking their trading caravans, which resulted in all out warfare between himself (from Medina, where he had created the early umma) and the merchants of Mecca. As part of this conflict, the Meccans unsuccessfully besieged Medina, after which Muhammad accused a tribe of Medina Jews of dealing with the Meccans, and despite their unconditional surrender, had all the men of the tribe (several hundred) beheaded and the women and children given into slavery (in some cases as wives of Muslims). In the case of the men, he pardoned a few who converted to Islam. Now we can quibble, I suppose, over whether that constituted compulsion to conversion—but what it doesn’t do is speak to a purely peaceful outlook. I think it rather reflects the spirit of Sura 9:4-5, which speaks to sparing those who observe Salat.

Yes, yes, yes...you will say....this was self-defense....except that the tribe of Banu Qurayza had surrendered? No, it was revenge.

Anyway, it’s during this period that we get:

Sura 2: 190: "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter."

Sura 2: 216: "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not."

Sura 8: 12-13: "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels: I am with you: give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them. This because they contended against God and His Apostle. If any contend against God and his Apostle, God is strict in punishment ... O ye who believe! When ye meet the unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day –unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own) – he draws on himself the wrath of God, and his abode is hell, – an evil refuge (indeed)! It is not ye who slew them; it was God."

Sura 61: 4-13: "Truly God loves those who fight in His cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure ... that ye believe in God and His Apostle, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the cause of God, with your property and your persons. That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to gardens beneath which rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in gardens of eternity. That is indeed the supreme achievement. And another, which ye do love–help from God and a speedy victory. So give the glad tidings to the believers."


When Muhammad returned to Mecca—this was after a period of treaty with the Meccans (which he achieved with a couple thousand troops at his back). And during the interval (628-30) he led expeditions both against the Jews of Khaybar (an independent community) and against an Arabian tribe living within the Byzantine Empire (unsuccessfully). He was building his umma. Then, in 630, he took Mecca with a force of several thousand, having previously actually negotiated terms for the forfeit of the treaty established in 628 (after hostilities between pro- and anti-Muslim groups in Mecca). Here he purged the ka’ba of all but one of its idols (the black stone)—destroying the holy relics of the “pagans” who were apparently such meanies to him—and it’s during this last period that we get Sura 9:4-5. From here, Mecca, he sent or led expeditions against a number of Bedouin tribes, and many submitted to his authority (many without converting to Islam)—some obviously in order to avoid being attacked by this now considerable military force. And in 632 he died

Following Muhammad’s death, the first caliph Abu Bakr (the Prophet’s closest companion and the second convert to Islam) became the first caliph. First putting down a series of revolts in Arabia, he began wars of conquest into Persia and Byzantium, dramatically expanding the umma, as Uthman and Umar (both also close associates of the Prophet) would continue to do after him.

Here’s a map of the early umma. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wT6pGzTlQt0/SUfr3722LDI/AAAAAAAAANY/s80cMfJH9hA/s1600-h/islam8.jpg

If you have a look here, everything in dark red and rust was united as the umma within Muhammad’s lifetime (the red) or within 29 years of his death (the death of the fourth caliph, Ali). ALL of the first caliphs, up to 661 (Muhammad died in 332) were CLOSE to him. Do you think, passionteman, that YOU know the Prophet’s intentions better than THESE GUYS?

Sorry, but that state didn’t grow to that size within three decades by flowers and kisses.

It is this umma, this vast Islamic state created by the early caliphs (and then increased even more by the Umayyad who took after Ali’s death in 661) that SOME radical Sunni Islamicists (like Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda) wish to recreate. And...it’s not hard to see how many Muslims COULD interpret attempts to prevent this as “attack” on Islam—after all, whether he was himself also unfairly persecuted at first, this is also how Muhammad seems to have seen efforts against his establishment of authority over other groups. And indeed, MOST (but not all) of Muhammad’s military campaigns during HIS life can be SEEN as provoked. And yet, he was someone to whom MOST of the people in his immediate vicinity EITHER submitted OR were seen to be provoking. MOST people think that when you sign an agreement under threat of violence (like the Treaty of 628), that agreement really has no moral standing.

One of the PROBLEMS is that however you or someone who disagrees with you INTERPRETS the Qur’an when it comes to violence, the EXAMPLE provided by the early growth of the umma is an EXAMPLE of growth mainly by conquest. It WAS both a political state and a religious community, BUT when you have ONE body representing BOTH things, with ONE figure operating as BOTH head of state AND head of religion, it’s extremely difficult to say “Oh, that was a political decision, it has nothing to do with the religion,” ESPECIALLY when every step of the way new Qur’anic verses legitimize the present POLITICAL decisions (like to go to war) being taken.

****

I actually really hate this discussion, and I’m not going to say any more about it. I have NO WISH WHATSOEVER to come off as an anti-Islamic, which I’m not, at all. I have no faith axe to grind, and no belief that Islam itself provokes people to violence. I also don’t think that Muhammad was evil or even particularly ruthless in his context...and beyond. As I said before Christians were being equally if not more brutal in forcing baptisms in Europe at that time, and unlike Muhammad and later caliphs they didn’t allow any of those that they conquered to submit but not convert. I merely object to your blithe assertion that no Muslim could interpret Qur’an to the end of justifying violence. Obviously, some Muslims DO find this justification in the Qur’an and in the early history of the umma and its spread, and I find it unnecessary and unhelpful to pretend otherwise.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 40 (view)
 
The Kids Hate You?
Posted: 11/12/2009 8:12:17 AM
^^^ I kind of agree with this. I was raised by a single mom and wouldn't have dreamed of showing hatred towards a man she dated....because there would have been consequences. I wasn't allowed to be rude or disrespectful or surly towards adults (except for her of course, to an extent--parents have to be a safe place right?) PERIOD, much less one of her friends.

LOTS of parents are ruled by their kids, and the tend to have pretty rotten kids. And, of course, lots of very rotten kids are rude to all sorts of random people....neighbors, teachers, strangers on the street....so why shouldn't they be rude to you? They are ..... RUDE kids.

OP, there's nothing you can really do if the kids hate you except continue to behave well, LISTEN to them (maybe find a common interest? Seriously, I think that can be hugely effective), and consider asking your gf why she allows her kids to behave badly.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 659 (view)
 
Very long hair on a woman is very femine and sexy, but few women have long hair
Posted: 11/11/2009 11:36:21 PM

Maybe because caring for long hair is a pain in the neck?


Not true. Short hair, unless it's REALLY short, is much higher maintenance than long. I wash, condition, spritz and go. If my hair was short I'd have to actually STYLE it. Who has time for that?
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Deleting past relationships, any regrets?
Posted: 11/11/2009 9:38:16 PM
I don't think there is any reason to destroy your things, and I think that anyone woman threatened by the fact that you keep these things (which are about YOUR past) is just too insecure and non-trusting. Sure, if you moon over pictures of old loves that is one thing, but just keeping a box of your old memories? What could be wrong with that?

Your past IS your past, and your past relationships are YOUR history--not just your ex-partners'. At some point you will be VERY happy to have these artifacts of YOUR life. To me it's very sad when one feels the need to destroy evidence of the past, just to cater to some possible insecurities of other people?

Only do it if you WANT to. Forcing yourself to destroy your life's souvenirs is....well, there's no good reason for it, IMO.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 12 (view)
 
on-again, off-again
Posted: 11/11/2009 8:36:25 PM
Why does it make you feel "icky"?

Is it because he was kissing another girl?
Is it because he was kissing a 21 year old, and you think that's too young for a 34 year old?
Or is it because you are insecure, as his older girlfriend, about him being attracted to someone so much younger than you? (In other words, what is more important here--her age or yours?)

I can honestly understand all three of these reasons for feeling icky, BUT, none of them are actually fair to him.

He was single at the time.
She wasn't jail bait and it's by no means UNUSUAL for a man in his thirties to be attracted to someone of 21.
And he is back WITH you, which suggests that he finds YOU attractive.

My suggestion is to try to maintain objectivity about this, and if your relationship continues you will eventually get over it. He didn't do anything WRONG, except for possibly by telling you about the kissing event (that--him telling--would perhaps be the ickiest thing of all to me).
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 112 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/11/2009 8:04:58 PM
passionteman

You are reading what you want to THINK I say, rather than what I say, so that you can then argue against it (this is called the strawman fallacy).

First and foremost, I have NOT said that Muhammad and later Moslems swooped around the world enforcing their beliefs on other people. What I DID say was:


Taking the sword to create and then extend the umma is exactly what Muhammad himself and the caliphs following him did, and both the Qur'an and the Hadith teach that a Moslem must be prepared to use violence in defense of persecuted Muslims and the umma.


Force WAS used to spread the UMMA--the community of Islam, which was both a political unit AND a religious community from the time of Muhammad. There is nothing in what I SAID about forced conversion—so please don't put words into my mouth. Yes, as long as people submitted to the authority of the Prophet and then the caliphate they weren’t, as a rule, forced to convert. Nevertheless the umma WAS extended by force.

Second, not only have I not said that that these early Muslims were going around forcing people to convert, I have ALSO not said that the Qur'an teaches Muslims to do this: CONVERT (as opposed to impose rule over) others by force. Both the Qur'an and the Hadith DO however contain passages by which Muslims are instructed to use the sword against those who stand between themselves AND their umma, who PERSECUTE Muslims, and who resist the leadership of the Prophet AND the spread of the umma—as it functioned in early Islam BOTH as the Islamic state [as caliphate] AND as the religious community, with ONE earthly head in the Prophet and then the early caliphs).

Now, I don't pretend to be an Islamic historian (I'm a specialist in the period of the Reformation in Europe—obviously, something quite different). Like other historians, I rely for my information on areas outside my research field on the scholarship of OTHER historians—experts in their fields. And my understanding is that there is something of a consensus among scholars of Islam (whether Muslim or not) that the Qur'an is internally contradictory (or, as some would say, “vague”) when it comes to the use of violence—as it is on other things (and as, too, is the Bible, for that matter, when it comes to many Christian teachings). There's more than one possible explanation for this, but the most reasonable one (it seems to me), and one widely accepted, is that as Muhammad adapted to the changing circumstances of his leadership of his growing community, so his teaching also underwent modification (and as a historian I don’t engage with the problem of whether or not this was a result of Gabriel’s messages to him from Allah—this, to me, is irrelevant).

So when, for example, faced by the power of the Meccan merchants against his stronghold in Medina and his followers there, Muhammad went on the attack and adjusted his teaching to meet that need. Similarly, his attitude towards the Jews of Mecca went from peaceful (when they agreed a covenant to allow his leadership in exchange for their rights within the umma) to aggressive towards some of them when they reneged on their agreements (to the extent that he even ordered and watched a massacre).

This is a position argued for by R. Firestone, in his book ‘Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam’ (Oxford University Press, 1999). Drawing from the work of Muslim scholars, Firestone argues that
the scriptural verses regarding war were revealed in direct relation to the historic needs of Muhammad during his prophetic mission. At the beginning of his prophetic career in Mecca when he was weak and his followers few, the divine revelations encouraged avoidance of physical conflict....After the intense persecutions that caused Muhammad and his followers to emigrate to Medina, however, they were given leave to engage in defensive warfare. As the Muslim community grew in strength, further revelations broadened the conditions under which war could be waged, until it was concluded that war against non-Muslims could be waged virtually at any time, without pretext, and in any place" (50).


An easy (and much accepted) outline of this development is provided by R. Bailey (“Jihad: The Teaching of Islam from Its Primary Sources: The Quran and Hadith”). Here the movement in Muhammad’s (Qur’anic) teachings from completely non-aggressive tolerance to warfare is traced through four stages.

(I’m going to provide a small selection of the relevant Qur’anic verses here, as reflecting each stage, rather than copy them all in for you. If you are interested and want to dispute them, you can look them up for yourself (and even search out Bailey’s article, to this end). I myself am content to rely on the expertise of those who really ARE scholars in this subject—and here I should also admit my reliance on the religious historian Samuele Bachiocchi, although unlike him I’m not interested in doing a comparison of the Qur’an in this respect with Christian teachings).

Stage One: Muhammad teaches against Retaliatory violence—Sura 73: 10-11 & Sura 52: 45-48
Stage Two: Muhammad allows for defensive fighting—Sura 22: 39-41; Sura 22: 58
Stage Three: Muhammad commands defensive fighting and promises the rewards of Allah—Sura 2: 190; Sura 2: 216; Sura 8: 12-13; Sura 61: 4-13
Stage Four: Muhammad commands offensive war—Sura 9: 5; Sura 5: 36-38

For example, and etc.

If you want context for these stages, I can provide it. But this post is already too long.

And all of this is then backed up and commented on in the Hadith (Traditions of Muhammad). We can get into that, but again I’d prefer to stop here. Please note, that none of this is from my OWN research (again, I’m not an Islamic scholar), but the stages identified by Bailey are not considered radical by other scholars.

As for jihad: Yes, the word means STRUGGLE or STRIVING. But just as the English words struggle and strive can mean many different things, so too is the case of the Arabic word.

For this I’ll just direct you to a translation of a small part of Hadith, vol. 4. Whether you like it or not, the Hadith is accepted as a teaching text in Islam.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/052.sbt.html

****

On another note, while I understand your position that a religion ITSELF and people’s interpretations of religious texts are two different things, nevertheless for the PURPOSE of discussing any individual Muslim’s engagement with his religious teachings, interpretations are important (and there is really no such thing as a religion BEYOND and ABOVE its interpretation). YOU might consider Islam to be strictly a religion of peace, but Muslims much more expert than you (I’m going to assume) interpret it differently to you (including some very learned violent jihadists), and THAT MATTERS. Personally, while I believe that Islam IS a religion of peace, clearly it is ALSO a religion that carries within it an easily-accessible justification for war and/or acts of violence (or violent jihad)—like other religions it is at times internally contradictory. But there is a widely adhered to theoretical approach according to which LATER teachings of the Prophet actually hold more weight than earlier ones, and according to this Muhammad’s growing tendency towards teaching an aggressive (i.e., violent) approach to establishment takes priority over his early insistences on non-retaliation. This, I feel, is due to the context in which Islam was conceived—an Arabian peninsula in which warfare between different Bedouin tribes was already endemic, AND a situation in which the Prophet was quite quickly placed under significant and violent pressure. But it is what it is—while Mohammed fought his way through Arabia, Christians were already committing horrific acts of violence against non-Christians refusing baptism that they conquered in western Europe, with little (if any) scriptural justification at all.

I find pretending that there is no basis for justifying violent jihad in the Qur’an and in the history of Islam just as problematic (when it comes to promoting real understanding) as pretending that this is ALL the religion is about.

 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 80 (view)
 
Is It Time to Secede Yet?
Posted: 11/11/2009 12:04:57 PM
^^^^ And others have addressed the ways you addressed them.

 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 385 (view)
 
Liberal vs conserative
Posted: 11/10/2009 11:07:15 PM

women luv obama...hate PUA's. totally schiz
Do they know how their prez was using NLP (neuro linguistic prog), pace and leading, anchoring,during his speeches last year, and still is? LOL
Easily led sheep, u know little of how easily you are manipulated. Same women who say, "that stuff won't draw me in", guess what? It drew you in, gullible sheeple, women are esp vulnerable. It's the ones who say they aren't, that most are.


What's PUA's?

Misogyny--another deal breaker.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 11 (view)
 
WHY NOT THE TRUTH ?????
Posted: 11/10/2009 11:05:11 PM
doublethink: Deliberately telling lies, knowing that you are lying, and yet believing your own lies.

I've never seen doublethink portrayed as well as in the Kevin Spacey movie, Recount (sadly, a true story).
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 383 (view)
 
Liberal vs conserative
Posted: 11/10/2009 10:58:38 PM

As for the health-care sniveling, I've worked hard, all my life, to pay for my own insurance. I've found the people crying for the government to step in are those who've thrown in the towel and given up on capitalism, because they don't have a skill anyone else is willing to pay $ for. I'll take heartless over shiftless, any day of the week.


And how about those who work their asses off in low paid jobs that don't offer benefits, and yet still can't afford to cover themselves and their children? Are they "shiftless" crybabies?

We all date to learn about one another, and one of the things we learn is whether we have compatible value systems. Our political views reflect our attitudes towards other people.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 107 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/10/2009 10:20:11 PM
passionteman--with regard to the part of your post directed at me.....

How does what I said I've heard on US news conflict with the BBC report? That's exactly what I heard reported on CNN, ABC, and MSNBC.

Reports I have heard is that al-Awlaki has been associated with Al Qaeda. That doesn't necessarily mean that the contact with Hasan was about threatening violence, but it does mean that the contact is being reported on major news sources. The question now, I would guess, is whether the contact of the messages is going to be released.....or whether this information will lead to other findings.

Now, btw, I'm reading (from the Wall Street Journal) that the pentagon is saying that the army was NOT informed that emails between al-Awlaki and Hasan had been intercepted by US Intelligence agencies. So clearly what we're getting about this is still very confused.

I'm no advocate of automatically accusing this guy of some kind of jihad (and jihad CAN mean a violent struggle even though it doesn't necessarily). But it's pretty clear that he had become increasingly devout in his faith recently, according to those who know him including his own imam. So I for one DO want to know if he was on some kind of spiral that took him to a place where he felt compelled to act as part of the larger jihadist movement, and I hope we find out.

*******

BTW, while I sympathise with your goal of defending the religion of Islam from ignorant assumptions that it is a religion of violence, it's no good pretending that there is no Qur'anic basis for using violence against those opposed to Islam or its spread. Taking the sword to create and then extend the umma is exactly what Muhammad himself and the caliphs following him did, and both the Qur'an and the Hadith teach that a Moslem must be prepared to use violence in defense of persecuted Muslims and the umma. And since these texts provide much of the primary teaching of Islam (the first being the teachings of Allah through his prophet), it's not weird or bizarre that it follows, for some, that these are teachings TOWARDS salvation, even though the call to violence forms a very SMALL part of a religious literature much more concerned with peace and social ethics.

But whatever these texts say (or however they CAN be interpreted), it's VERY CLEAR that there is a significant and very politicized Islamicist movement that DOES believe and teach that violent jihad is the duty of a "good" Muslim. The fact that most Muslims (and most non-Muslims) see this as a twisted **stardization of Islam doesn't change that.

It thus isn't beyond the realm of possibility that Major Hasan felt himself to be engaging in jihad in his attack. We just don't know yet, which is why I (for one) think it's dangerous and senseless to really speculate. I DO, however, want to KNOW, and I hope we don't end up having stuff hidden from us....for that would only add to the tendency in some to guess and make the kinds of assumptions that can only lead to worse conditions for the Muslims currently in our military, serving with honor and patriotism.

BTW, I don't call McVeigh a "Christian terrorist" because he seems not to have been very religious. I DO however call fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors "Christian terrorists." I'm not going to label Hasan in this way until I know more, but it won't surprise me if we find out he saw himself as committing an act of jihad. (It also won't surprise me if we find out that he's just a guy who finally snapped).
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 160 (view)
 
He lied about his age...only by two years....should i be concerned?
Posted: 11/10/2009 9:44:51 PM

Can any PoFfer categorically state that YES, they have dated someone who fudged their age, and YES it was a life alteringly horrible experience?


I don't know if I would call it life altering, but I definitely had an experience with an age-liar that has seriously affected my trust when it comes to online dating.

Soon after I joined this site I traveled to meet someone who I had talked to a lot. We met halfway between our towns and got (separate) hotel rooms so we could spend the day and evening together. He had claimed to be 41 and was 55 if he was a day (his pic was also about that same amount old and he didn't age well!). It was a TERRIBLE 8 hours, between sight-seeing and having dinner with this man who I didn't have the heart to just walk out on.

It was a lie much bigger than 2 years, but a lie it was, and for the life of me I wonder to this day if he just thought I wouldn't notice! And while again, I wouldn't call it life altering, it was, in its way, quite upsetting....(and expensive and time consuming for what--a fraud!).

I said before that I didn't consider the two-year lie such a BIG thing, if it's the only time he lies. I think after reading all these posts I've changed my position on that. Because apart from just the character issue (a lie is lying!!), the liar robs other people on a site like this of making THEIR decisions about who they want and don't want to date. This guy might not LIKE the fact that some women might not be attracted to him at his age, but surely it is the RIGHT of women to decide that for themselves?

Plus, now it seems he has lied again, so......
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 105 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/10/2009 8:57:07 PM

I got my info from the UK Telegraph ,The China daily and other foreign sources ,,,,don't really trust American news sources.....He will not be labeled a Terrorist by the authorities whether he really is or not, they are motivated by Politics not truth..Notice that the" Authorities" are already trying to downplay the religious factor and they haven't even really started an in depth investigation...how can they say what his motives were and they have yet to talk to him, but they sure are offering their "opinions" about it not being an act of Terrorism? How can they know? ...they should have said no comment ...their statements so early in the investigation are a good sign that the investigation wont really go anywhere...and in the end it will probably be just another Government cover up....


I have to say that I find it amusing that while rejecting the US press (which is your choice of course) you turn for "truth" (and presumably you mean less "biased" coverage) to a state-run newspaper in China and a newspaper in the UK that is so connected to the conservative party in England as to be known as the "Torygraph." If you want to claim that you are busily looking for untainted/unbiased news sources I'm afraid that you need to do better than the Telegraph and the Chinese Daily.

Anyway, I haven't seen the US media downplaying the possibility that Hasan was acting as a "terrorist." THEY can't actually make this call until the investigation runs its course, which is exactly as it should be. But it's unlikely that the authorities looking into this are providing things like Hasan's computer and phone records either to the editors of the Telegraph or a government-run Chinese newspaper, so how they can make this call at this point is beyond me. It seems as if some people here would prefer to indict Hasan AS a terrorist before all the evidence is in and has been examined. That kind of thing might happen in China (and...ahem...Gitmo), but it's not how we (supposedly) do things here.....

It IS on all the major American news sources that the army knew that Hasan had made contact with an individual known to be linked with Al Qaeda months ago, and did nothing about it. Of course, if this turns out to have damning legs, it's HUGELY embarrassing for the army authorities in question. But THIS is not being HIDDEN--and even if the army downplays it that can't keep investigative journalist from continuing to LOOK, unless the records are declared classified (the type of wall of silence that you would expect a gung-ho conservative to support). But in any case, whatever the truth of the matter, it's unlikely that the UK Telegraph (or similar) will have greater access to interpretive TRUTH (and the evidence needed to inform it) than a major American newspaper or network.

Yes, we need better investigative reporting in this country than we have, but even the best investigative reporters can't report WHAT HAPPENED without access to the EVIDENCE required to make that call.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 66 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/8/2009 2:23:07 PM

The Swiss have a militia army and the soldiers in Switzerland take their military rifles and ammo home with them. How many of our liberal friends in here think that the National Guard should take their military rifles and ammo home with them?


I think that would be HUGELY preferable to a situation in which any Jimbob Dumbass can buy similar weapons just because he's never been convicted of a felony.
 a bit nomadic
Joined: 6/14/2006
Msg: 64 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/8/2009 2:04:30 PM

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


It's not actually that complicated. The people have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of providing a well regulated militia necessary for the SECURITY OF THE STATE--not its destruction.

Yes, we have cynically pretended in this country that this means that every redneck from hell is allowed to arm himself as if he is preparing himself to go to war AGAINST the government (and all the big, bad ass, penis-substitute guns you can buy isn't going to help you win that war, guy).....

But that doesn't mean that this is what the founders intended.....cuz it isn't what the constitution says.....and being pretty smart guys they knew how to say what they meant.
 
Show ALL Forums