The Women’s March in Danger.

[Drodinger]

and yet the marches were a great success and very satisfying for all who participated.

go figure

no really, go figure where you went wrong.

The (current) womens rights marches are not pushing for a plethora of subjects atm, at least as a whole. Some might be pushing for more, but that's something you would need look at individually. The collective aim, as of this moment, is a statement to protect the rights and individuality of women, a statement to forestall the potential abuse by an individual who does not have the greatest track record in regards to this issue.

To this extent, using the people who participated as evidence that all people would support the movement, would be to deny the existence of those who didn't. Of course the vast majority of people who participated would be satisfied, otherwise they wouldn't have participated in the first place. Instead, you would need to preform a scientific sample of on the values and morals of all those who value women's rights, and proportionally rationalize for each issue the those who agreed against those who dissented.

[Great Minarchistan]

Yes, I am Argentinian. And that's how I know that, if they go through a traumatic enough dictatorship, societies learn. We've had three decades of democracy, without a single successful coup and with a political system that, despite its many glaring flaws, takes human rights very seriously.

Wrong.

Brazilian's dictatorship was one of the worst in Latin America, worse than Perón's. Yet people still don't care since we got a political crisis and an economical crisis. People simply don't trust democracy anymore and remember of the "golden military times". What affects the possibility of a coup isn't the brutality of the last one, but yes the size of the current crisis.

Answering to your last bit, constitutional and parliamentary monarchies actually take human rights more seriously than democracies do.

[Cuatro]

.

[Blernovo]

Disagreeing with a pro lifer is not flaming.

You are calling someone a Dumbass, how is that NOT flaming?

I never called her dumb.

[Hammer Britannia]

You are calling someone a Dumbass, how is that NOT flaming?

I never called her dumb.

Maybe you shouldn't have used the words "Intelligent Woman" with quotes then.

[Alvecia]

You are calling someone a Dumbass, how is that NOT flaming?

I never called her dumb.

If you want to discuss your personal issues with Moderation, could you take it to the Moderation forum?
Please and thank you.

[Aelex]

And no, equal treatment for LGBT people is not "special treatment".

And yet the "equal treatment" they ask for is special treatment.

[Liriena]

Yes, I am Argentinian. And that's how I know that, if they go through a traumatic enough dictatorship, societies learn. We've had three decades of democracy, without a single successful coup and with a political system that, despite its many glaring flaws, takes human rights very seriously.

Wrong.

Brazilian's dictatorship was one of the worst in Latin America, worse than Perón's. Yet people still don't care since we got a political crisis and an economical crisis. People simply don't trust democracy anymore and remember of the "golden military times". What affects the possibility of a coup isn't the brutality of the last one, but yes the size of the current crisis.

Peron's government wasn't a dictatorship, and I wasn't even talking about him in the first place.

Also, [citation needed] for "people simply don't trust democracy anymore and remember of the 'golden military times'". How widespread is this sentiment?

Answering to your last bit, constitutional and parliamentary monarchies actually take human rights more seriously than democracies do.

[citation needed]

[Liriena]

And no, equal treatment for LGBT people is not "special treatment".

And yet the "equal treatment" they ask for is special treatment.

No.

[Proctopeo]

And yet the "equal treatment" they ask for is special treatment.

No.

Such an amazing, excellent response. I am stunned by your eloquence, truly.

[Hammer Britannia]

And yet the "equal treatment" they ask for is special treatment.

No.

Great bloody response mate.

[Aelex]

No.

Yes. :^)

[Great Minarchistan]

Wrong.

Brazilian's dictatorship was one of the worst in Latin America, worse than Perón's. Yet people still don't care since we got a political crisis and an economical crisis. People simply don't trust democracy anymore and remember of the "golden military times". What affects the possibility of a coup isn't the brutality of the last one, but yes the size of the current crisis.

Peron's government wasn't a dictatorship, and I wasn't even talking about him in the first place.

Also, [citation needed] for "people simply don't trust democracy anymore and remember of the 'golden military times'". How widespread is this sentiment?

Answering to your last bit, constitutional and parliamentary monarchies actually take human rights more seriously than democracies do.

[citation needed]

1. Peron was a dictator. Stop to create lies out of thin air.

2. Great enough to see people asking military intervention in every demonstration. Our militar candidate for 2018 elections has been rated with a 10-20% vote intention too.

3. Most European monarchies had a great freedom of speech. And to leave eurocentrism, Brazilian monarchy was even more open and democratic than European's.

[AsReil]

> No violence
> No arrests

https://www.facebook.com/fox12oregon/vi ... 468878701/

Sorry if you don't see the real life as it is, honey

Say, honey, that video was uploaded seventeen hours ago. Wasn't the Women's March several days ago?

The report doesn't have to be made and presented on the same day the event happens in order to be credible?

[AsReil]

And yet the "equal treatment" they ask for is special treatment.

No.

Spectacular refutation!
It's okay to admit you're wrong, you know; it shows you truly care about your cause and see that it, just like everything else, isn't pure-perfect

[Liriena]

Say, honey, that video was uploaded seventeen hours ago. Wasn't the Women's March several days ago?

The report doesn't have to be made and presented on the same day the event happens in order to be credible?

But how do I know that it happened during the Women's March?

[Luminesa]

*** Warned for flamebaiting ***. Now knock it off or find yourself on vacation.

Disagreeing with a pro lifer is not flaming.

I've disagreed with many people on this website, many of whom have been respectful toward me and my differences. Even those with whom I have gotten in some VERY heated discussions with, I've managed to find other ways to agree with them, and to discuss things with them in a way that was constructive and interesting, mostly. You are obviously not capable of showing respect towards someone who disagrees with you, or of demonstrating that you can agree with someone on some topics even if you cannot agree with them on one particular topic, if you're calling them a 'dumb***' and lowering yourself to simply questioning their intelligence due to an ideological disagreement. Essentially this means you're not worth an argument, because if you are so insecure in your argument that you have to call someone else names, to try and gain an upper hand of some sort, they have no reason to debate you. You just pulled a Plaxico Burress and shot yourself in the foot, and proved that you're not capable of a mature, constructive debate, and so I do not have any necessity to defend myself and my views. Have a nice day and God bless.

[Liriena]

No.

Yes. :^)

No.

Since you made the claim without evidence, I dismiss it without evidence. :3

No.

Great bloody response mate.

No.

Such an amazing, excellent response. I am stunned by your eloquence, truly.

No.

Spectacular refutation!
It's okay to admit you're wrong, you know; it shows you truly care about your cause and see that it, just like everything else, isn't pure-perfect

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Aelex made a claim without substance, and I dismissed it as such. Why waste my time treating an empty claim seriously?

[Ashmoria]

and yet the marches were a great success and very satisfying for all who participated.

go figure

no really, go figure where you went wrong.

The (current) womens rights marches are not pushing for a plethora of subjects atm, at least as a whole. Some might be pushing for more, but that's something you would need look at individually. The collective aim, as of this moment, is a statement to protect the rights and individuality of women, a statement to forestall the potential abuse by an individual who does not have the greatest track record in regards to this issue.

To this extent, using the people who participated as evidence that all people would support the movement, would be to deny the existence of those who didn't. Of course the vast majority of people who participated would be satisfied, otherwise they wouldn't have participated in the first place. Instead, you would need to preform a scientific sample of on the values and morals of all those who value women's rights, and proportionally rationalize for each issue the those who agreed against those who dissented.

it was a wildly successful event. what more could anyone want?

[Aelex]

No.

Since you made the claim without evidence, I dismiss it without evidence. :3

Yes. You're the one claiming that asking for privileges is somehow "equal treatment". You've given no argument to support that claim of your. Therefore, I'm the one in position to dismiss it. :^)

[Liriena]

Say, honey, that video was uploaded seventeen hours ago. Wasn't the Women's March several days ago?

The report doesn't have to be made and presented on the same day the event happens in order to be credible?

Read the caption:

The Portland Police Bureau was quick to respond as protesters blocked traffic in the downtown area Wednesday afternoon. bit.ly/2j6l4qR

The video is not from the Women's March. It's from yesterday. Great Minarchistan either failed to read his own source properly, or they tried to lie to our faces.

[Luminesa]

The problem with a broad spectrum platform, is that it invites descent among the rank and file. One of the foremost issues with polarization of ideology, is that people assume that "if you're a liberal, you believe in this, this, and this, if you're a conservative, you believe in this, this, and this" While for some, this may be true, but for the vast majority, people fall on a spectrum an all issues. A liberal individual might be Pro-Choice, but Anti-Immigration, a conservative individual might be be against Climate Change, but be an advocate for the Women's Rights Movement, and anywhere in between an ever single issue.

So while it might be ideologically sound for the polar few to consolidate on an inclusive platform, ranging through all the diverse issues, the reality is, is that it will alienate those who might otherwise be with the issue. For example, when African individuals were petitioning for the 15th Amendment, they were initially in collaboration with many notable women of the era, who were petitioning for the same issue, though in relation to gender. However, as the petition grew more traction, the African leaders distanced themselves from the women leaders, since they want to ensure their issue was first and foremost, and would be able to be passed. In if you don't know how the 15th Amendment turned out,.... well, uh... go back to school?

That is the problem with today's polarization, when you pick sides and disavow the rest, you force people to choose between the better of two choices, and problem that should never exist in a democratic society.

So it would be far better, if the platform was to be as concise as possible, to draw in the greatest crowd of supporters, and to push for a single issue, regardless on how the majority or the minority feel about other issues. A travesty to some, but a necessity to the cause.

This person. I like them and their post.

[Cannot think of a name]

No.

Spectacular refutation!
It's okay to admit you're wrong, you know; it shows you truly care about your cause and see that it, just like everything else, isn't pure-perfect

Are you cats under the impression that this was a response to an argument worthy of the Algonquin Round Table? Make real arguments get a real argument. You can't just throw a penny in the machine and then whine that it didn't give you a Coke.

[Liriena]

No.

Since you made the claim without evidence, I dismiss it without evidence. :3

Yes. You're the one claiming that asking for privileges is somehow "equal treatment". You've given no argument to support that claim of your. Therefore, I'm the one in position to dismiss it. :^)

Actually, you're the one who suggested that asking for equal treatment amounted to asking for "special treatment" in the first place.

If you're going to be smug, be smug about being right, not about telling a bold lie. And to that effect, I would love to read your explanation (with a healthy amount of supporting, truly representative and non-cherry-picked evidence, I'd hope) as to how the equal treatment we LGBT people in general want is somehow "special treatment". :3

[AsReil]

Peron's government wasn't a dictatorship, and I wasn't even talking about him in the first place.

Technically, it was an elective democracy. props to you

Also, [citation needed] for "people simply don't trust democracy anymore and remember of the 'golden military times'". How widespread is this sentiment?

err... you can't provide statistics or proof of an opinion? Especially such a specific opinion.

Answering to your last bit, constitutional and parliamentary monarchies actually take human rights more seriously than democracies do.

[citation needed]

Democratic:

Rule of Law - Democracy and Human Rights. Democracy is one of the universal core values and principles of the United Nations. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the principle of holding periodic and genuine elections by universal suffrage are essential elements of democracy.

Monarchical:

In the United Kingdom, the Human Rights debate reflects an enduring struggle between the people and the Crown. The Crown reflects a belief in privilege and prerogative born of its hereditary status.[ii] Against this view, Jefferson argued for freedom based on rights of man. We can escape arbitrary authority based on privilege and prerogative.

although the monarchical was from someone's personal blog