General Politics Thread

[invergowrie arab]

Surely gender identity is a social construct whilst gender is a physiological fact.

You are thinking of sex.

 

Gender can describe anything that is attributed male or female characteristics, indeed it is only very recently that it refers to anything other than grammar.

 

 

There's been countless studies been done on the differences between men and women and they're practically a different species once you get down to it. The most fundamental difference being the care based morality women have; and justice based morality men have.

shit the bed !!

[invergowrie arab]

Don't worry, you're safe in Invergowrie. Nothing would entice me to go there.

Thats fine because i intend to carry on doing nothing

[welshbairn]

 

shit the bed !!

 

Get in touch with your feminine side and clean it up then!

[Ad Lib]

If race is a social construct and I decide I am part of that race who are you to deny me that right?

I don't. One of the major criticisms I have of race as a social construct is that more than mere descriptive characteristics are attributed to it in terms of social, political and civil rights.

I think it unlikely, however, that you would freely and for benign motives, choose to identify as a race radically divergent from the one you presently identify with.

[Granny Danger]

You are thinking of sex.

 

That's as far as I can get these days.

[Ad Lib]

This coming from the guy who says anyone who disagrees with him on the issues relating to homosexuality is a homophobe. Talk about intolerance there.

Correction I call anyone who believes people who are gay are inferior or deserve less good civil rights than anyone else a homophobe. It is not intolerant to call homophobes homophobes. I do not propose to prevent you from being a homophobe. I simply propose to deny you the right to impose your views on society at large.

I take it gender is a social construct too?

Yes. It literally is. Gender is not the same as sex.

[invergowrie arab]

the infinite monkey cage is always worth a listen so here is the one on race http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06ybg84

[vikingTON]

There's been countless studies been done on the differences between men and women and they're practically a different species once you get down to it. The most fundamental difference being the care based morality women have; and justice based morality men have.

 

^^^ idiot found

[welshbairn]

I still want Fotbawmad to list the 6 civilisations ended by rampant homosexuality. I'd imagine it's a bit like the Chinese dynasties, all of which, according to the contemporary records, start with a kind and wise ruler who introduces justice and order and end with a depraved and cruel monster who allows injustice and licentiousness to flourish across the land. The records were all written by hacks employed by the incoming Emperors of course.

[Fotbawmad]

^^^ idiot found

I have three little words for you "prove me wrong".

[Ira Gaines]

I still want Fotbawmad to list the 6 civilisations ended by rampant homosexuality. I'd imagine it's a bit like the Chinese dynasties, all of which, according to the contemporary records, start with a kind and wise ruler who introduces justice and order and end with a depraved and cruel monster who allows injustice and licentiousness to flourish across the land. The records were all written by hacks employed by the incoming Emperors of course.

[invergowrie arab]

I have three little words for you "prove me wrong".

I'll bite.

This a stunning example of a miniscule amount of knowledge being a dangerous thing.

I think by "countless studies" you mean Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice.

Even a 16 year old doing the sociology module of Higher religious, moral and philosophical studies it was incredibly easy to debunk the shitty conclusions Gilligan comes to.

Her sample size of 50 women from homogeneous western culture to reach her conclusions is absolutely worthless in determining certain behaviors as being linked to X and y chromosomes and if anything actually strengthens the case for saying certain behaviours are attributable to gender norms of the particular society sampled. Don't take my word for it though serious sociologists have lined up to rip her conclusions up for arse paper.

[HaikuHibee]

No one is saying that "Judaism" is a race. Being a follower of Judaism and being a Jew are not the same thing.

 

 

Read the fucking link. Judiasm is central here. It is a core part.

 

Are Jews a Nation or a Religion?

 

Judaism can be thought of as being simultaneously a religion, a nationality and a culture.

Throughout the middle ages and into the 20th century, most of the European world agreed that Jews constituted a distinct nation. This concept of nation does not require that a nation have either a territory nor a government, but rather, it identifies, as a nation any distinct group of people with a common language and culture. Only in the 19th century did it become common to assume that each nation should have its own distinct government; this is the political philosophy of nationalism. In fact, Jews had a remarkable degree of self-government until the 19th century. So long as Jews lived in their ghettos, they were allowed to collect their own taxes, run their own courts, and otherwise behave as citizens of a landless and distinctly second-class Jewish nation.

Of course, Judaism is a religion, and it is this religion that forms the central element of the Jewish culture that binds Jews together as a nation. It is the religion that defines foods as being kosher and non-kosher, and this underlies Jewish cuisine. It is the religion that sets the calendar of Jewish feast and fast days, and it is the religion that has preserved the Hebrew language.

Is Judaism an ethnicity? In short, not any more. Although Judaism arose out of a single ethnicity in the Middle East, there have always been conversions into and out of the religion. Thus, there are those who may have been ethnically part of the original group who are no longer part of Judaism, and those of other ethnic groups who have converted into Judaism.

If you are referring to a nation in the sense of race, Judaism is not a nation. People are free to convert into Judaism; once converted, they are considered the same as if they were born Jewish. This is not true for a race.

 

Who is a Jew?

 

According to Rabbinic Judaism, a Jew is anyone who was either born of a Jewish mother or who converted to Judaism in accordance with Jewish Law. Reconstructionist Judaism and the larger denominations of worldwide Progressive Judaism (also known as Liberal or Reform Judaism) accept the child as Jewish if one of the parents is Jewish, if the parents raise the child with a Jewish identity, but not the smaller regional branches.^{[clarification needed]} All mainstream forms of Judaism today are open to sincere converts, although conversion has traditionally been discouraged since the time of the Talmud. The conversion process is evaluated by an authority, and the convert is examined on his or her sincerity and knowledge. Converts are called "ben Abraham" or "bat Abraham", (son or daughter of Abraham). Conversions have on occasion been overturned. In 2008, Israel's highest religious court invalidated the conversion of 40,000 Jews, mostly from Russian immigrant families, even though they had been approved by an Orthodox rabbi.

 

Rabbinical Judaism maintains that a Jew, whether by birth or conversion, is a Jew forever. Thus a Jew who claims to be an atheist or converts to another religion is still considered by traditional Judaism to be Jewish. According to some sources, the Reform movement has maintained that a Jew who has converted to another religion is no longer a Jew,^[76][77] and the Israeli Government has also taken that stance after Supreme Court cases and statutes. However, the Reform movement has indicated that this is not so cut and dried, and different situations call for consideration and differing actions. For example, Jews who have converted under duress may be permitted to return to Judaism "without any action on their part but their desire to rejoin the Jewish community" and "A proselyte who has become an apostate remains, nevertheless, a Jew". (p. 100–106).

 

Karaite Judaism believes that Jewish identity can only be transmitted by patrilineal descent. Although a minority of modern Karaites believe that Jewish identity requires that both parents be Jewish, and not only the father. They argue that only patrilineal descent can transmit Jewish identity on the grounds that all descent in the Torah went according to the male line.

The question of what determines Jewish identity in the State of Israel was given new impetus when, in the 1950s, David Ben-Gurion requested opinions on mihu Yehudi ("Who is a Jew") from Jewish religious authorities and intellectuals worldwide in order to settle citizenship questions. This is still not settled, and occasionally resurfaces in Israeli politics.

[THE KING]

Semantics , used by both sides to justify their arguments , (you said Jew , you said Israeli blah blah blah)

In the context of Israeli politics/ policy with Palestinians any mention of Jew,Jewish Israelis normally means Jewish people who support Israeli policy, it's that simple , people try any side track it with semantics and accusations of anti semitisim.

If Black people were taking about the old South Africa , and freely intermingled White, whites ,Afrikaans ,Europeans, no one would dare called they racists and try and use semantics to shut them up, because everybody knows to who and what they are referring to.

[THE KING]

From the EU working definition of Anti semitisim , which is the standard used most anti Racisim organisations.

One of the definitions...

"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."

[Fotbawmad]

I'll bite.

This a stunning example of a miniscule amount of knowledge being a dangerous thing.

I think by "countless studies" you mean Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice.

Even a 16 year old doing the sociology module of Higher religious, moral and philosophical studies it was incredibly easy to debunk the shitty conclusions Gilligan comes to.

Her sample size of 50 women from homogeneous western culture to reach her conclusions is absolutely worthless in determining certain behaviors as being linked to X and y chromosomes and if anything actually strengthens the case for saying certain behaviours are attributable to gender norms of the particular society sampled. Don't take my word for it though serious sociologists have lined up to rip her conclusions up for arse paper.

So why is there careers that have great imbalances between the men and women who are doing them? 

[jmothecat]

From the EU working definition of Anti semitisim , which is the standard used most anti Racisim organisations.One of the definitions..."Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."

Sounds far fetched but in my experience of leftist politics, many genuinely believe Israel shouldn't exist.

[Ad Lib]

So why is there careers that have great imbalances between the men and women who are doing them?

Because, as he said, behavioural differences are explained by the entrenchment of gender norms in the relevant society.

Like, he addressed this directly.

[dorlomin]

Fucking hell. What a thread. 

 

Well start with Hitler. Was everything he did legal? No, he was imprisoned for treason, the highest crime in most states. His SA were involved in constant, low level civil unrest including violence, arson and murder up to and after his rise to power. Hilter abolished the Reichsrat, violating the enabling act, his seizure of the presidency after the death of Hindenburg was another violation of the enabling act. The act itself was unconstitutional. Also at no point was any act passed or Fuhrer directive issued that allowed the deliberate killings of the holocaust. The camps were legal as far as the fictitious system of the Reich went, but the deliberate murder was not. Oh and the Night of the Long knives, all the killings and arrests were extra judicial. Post war the surviving executioners were sentenced for murder. 

 

The Commano Order and the Kommisar Order were both judged illegal after the war. There is very strong evidence the senior officers knew these orders were illegal and this was used as part of the Nuremberg judgements on the following of illegal orders. 

 

It is typical of the half truths peddled as facts on this issue. It does not really affect the "zionism\labour" discussion but hopefully someone has learnt something. 

[dorlomin]

I have three little words for you "prove me wrong".

I have two little words, Russell's teapot. 

 

You have to build a case for a conclusion not issue a conclusion and expect others to have to disprove it.