[Daniel.]

Still like him

[Epic.]

'Oooh! WOMAN BEATAHH!'

Anyway I don't see why this affects him as a housemate so still looking forward to him

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Epic.

'Oooh! WOMAN BEATAHH!'

Anyway I don't see why this affects him as a housemate so still looking forward to him

It doesn't

[Jordan.]

Gross

[Greg!]

He didn't even say anything that bad. If a gal hit me id hit her back and knock ha out!

[Elliot]

Literally all I care about when it comes to this topic is assuming equality with responsibility or assuming equality while also eradicating the responsibility. Moral progress like this is a slow burner and long track, and I don’t want any sick double standards to slip thru the cracks, is all

Ok and back to big brother..

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Elliot

Literally all I care about when it comes to this topic is assuming equality with responsibility or assuming equality while also eradicating the responsibility. Moral progress like this is a slow burner and long track, and I don’t want any sick double standards to slip thru the cracks, is all

Ok and back to big brother..

Unfortunately there's alot of double standards .
Nobody should hit someone unless they've been violent to them or utterly disgusting .

[y.winter]

hit BACK - which tbh for the sake of the argument, is valid enough.

I can't say I like the Cameron I see in the video, but implying that he supports hitting a woman solely for being a bitch and removing the part of "if she beats him first" - is a reach from reachland.

[Pink Panther]

Originally Posted by y.winter

hit BACK - which tbh for the sake of the argument, is valid enough.

I can't say I like the Cameron I see in the video, but implying that he supports hitting a woman solely for being a bitch and removing the part of "if she beats him first" - is a reach from reachland.

Exactly removing that part is manipulative and misleading...

[JoshBB]

"hit BACK" really is the key word here. I'm honestly shook this descended into a full on feminism debate

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

"hit BACK" really is the key word here. I'm honestly shook this descended into a full on feminism debate

I'll leave Elliot & Niamh to it , i've said my bit already .

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

I'll leave Elliot & Niamh to it , i've said my bit already .

Think I must've scrolled past. Care to summarise?

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Think I must've scrolled past. Care to summarise?

I basically said double standards exist sadly.

I don't see a problem with self defence . It's not fair to hit someone and not expect them to retaliate especially when we all know most men WOULDN'T lay a finger on a woman anyway . Not everyone is a violent thug as some would like to believe .

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

I basically said double standards exist sadly.

I don't see a problem with self defence . It's not fair to hit someone and not expect them to retaliate especially when we all know most men WOULDN'T lay a finger on a woman anyway . Not everyone is a violent thug as some would like to believe .

I basically said the same, that self-defense is okay did you quote the wrong post or something?

[Elliot]

The thing is I’m sure I probably agree with you niahm but you’ve misunderstanding what I’m saying... my only point is it’s not equality if you want to consist detrimental double standards, like men not being allowed to hit women but the contrary being allowed. By definition it’s then not equality, and an entirely different beast to what I thought feminism was?
But yeah like at the above this stuff will probably fall into place so it doesn’t matter too much. My only worry are the double standards

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Elliot

The thing is I’m sure I probably agree with you niahm but you’ve misunderstanding what I’m saying... my only point is it’s not equality if you want to consist detrimental double standards, like men not being allowed to hit women but the contrary being allowed. By definition it’s then not equality, and an entirely different beast to what I thought feminism was?
But yeah like at the above this stuff will probably fall into place so it doesn’t matter too much. My only worry are the double standards

I never said that though, clearly no one should be hitting anyone, male or female

[Elliot]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I never said that though, clearly no one should be hitting anyone, male or female

Well then ur debating something that I don’t even disagree with, I just phrased it weird, sorry ig..?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Elliot

Well then ur debating something that I don’t even disagree with, I just phrased it weird, sorry ig..?

Well no, I disagreed with a statement you made earlier which I quoted, I didn't comment on the hitting thing at all

[Elliot]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well no, I disagreed with a statement you made earlier which I quoted, I didn't comment on the hitting thing at all

Yeah I worded it weird sometimes I’m not the best at articulating things
I was talking about the double standards, you thought I meant equality was something men owned, which I don’t believe

[crashandburn]

Elliot I think you're making a lot of valid points and I respect your opinion even though I don't agree with everything. You're definitely coming from a good, well-intentioned place.

But I think you're getting caught-up in details instead of worrying about the big picture. Sometimes details are important. Sometimes they just distract from the issue.

Regardless of what your opinions are I respect them more than that silly buffoon Cameron.

He's socially awkward, no life experience at all, clearly doesn't know how to interact with others or talk about anything that makes him remotely uncomfortable - lacking maturity and the mentality to deal with the real world.... yet somehow thinks he's in a valid position to know how the country should work. Sure, Jan.

[y.winter]

So basically we can change the title of this thread to "OK falsely implies that Cameron supports violence against women, but he doesn't actually"

End of drama. We can move on?

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by y.winter

So basically we can change the title of this thread to "OK falsely implies that Cameron supports violence against women, but he doesn't actually"

End of drama. We can move on?

the title is fine it's not like it's biased

[DouglasS]

If he’s defending himself of course. There are videos of women hitting and attacking men or other women and the boyfriend rightfully steps in to protect his girlfriend and smacks her. Hitting an aggressive racist woman that is attacking a family member is perfectly okay

[Robodog]

The big difference is between equal opportunities (yay) and equality of outcome (boo) :

Feminism used to be about fighting for equal opportunities and removing barriers that prevented women from attaining top spots. Now that has been achieved (eg - female prime minister, head of met police, CEOs etc), feminism has since morphed into demand for equality of outcome.

Equal opportunities means everyone competes on a level playing-field, and the best people rise to the top, based on individual efforts and merit - regardless of their gender (or any other social category).

This is freedom.

Equality of outcome means judging people according to gender (or any other social 'group') and then forcing equal representation. This means people getting jobs based on 'box-ticking' and can even result in people not getting jobs simply because if their 'social category' is already 'over-represented'.

This is social engineering.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example : Presenter Jon Holmes being sacked from the BBC due to his skin colour -

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ow-show-sacked


QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE: “If we are now openly giving jobs to people based on the colour of their skin, surely that is only emphasising just the kind of social division that the equality that I was brought up to embrace strives to eliminate?” he writes.

“So what if – and I know this is radical – but what if everything and every job in all walks of life was open to everyone equally, and we all just agree that everyone’s the same, by which I mean – you know – ‘human’?”

.

[Elliot]

Originally Posted by Robodog

The big difference is between equal opportunities (yay) and equality of outcome (boo) :

Feminism used to be about fighting for equal opportunities and removing barriers that prevented women from attaining top spots. Now that has been achieved (eg - female prime minister, head of met police, CEOs etc), feminism has since morphed into demand for equality of outcome.

Equal opportunities means everyone competes on a level playing-field, and the best people rise to the top, based on individual efforts and merit - regardless of their gender (or any other social category).

This is freedom.

Equality of outcome means judging people according to gender (or any other social 'group') and then forcing equal representation. This means people getting jobs based on 'box-ticking' and can even result in people not getting jobs simply because if their 'social category' is already 'over-represented'.

This is social engineering.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example : Presenter Jon Holmes being sacked from the BBC due to his skin colour -

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ow-show-sacked


QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE: “If we are now openly giving jobs to people based on the colour of their skin, surely that is only emphasising just the kind of social division that the equality that I was brought up to embrace strives to eliminate?” he writes.

“So what if – and I know this is radical – but what if everything and every job in all walks of life was open to everyone equally, and we all just agree that everyone’s the same, by which I mean – you know – ‘human’?”

.

I think the argument is there are societal barriers that even with the equal opportunity would never be fufilled by certain groups. Like for example the situation in America for a lot of black communities, where a lot of these communities are unable to break through economically, and it is believed to be because of systemic and socialtal prejudice and barriers. It’s an involved debate but I think the baseline idea is that equal oppurntity isn’t justice to these groups