Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Did he? Which one was that? He actually asked you which one you were talking about.We were discussing dress codes which was the original Point made to Hitchens. You your self have pointed out one sexist law in the uk.
Did he? Which one was that? He actually asked you which one you were talking about.
You started off by mentioning one dress code in the UK which you thought was sexist but in fact isn't because it applies equally to both men and women, and I said you could have gone for something else which was, but by post 353 you still hadn't grasped this.
For the record, apart from good old British prudishness, there is probably a hygiene issue for not allowing full nudity generally.
What has sexist got to do with the subjegation of women?Did he? Which one was that? He actually asked you which one you were talking about.
You started off by mentioning one dress code in the UK which you thought was sexist but in fact isn't because it applies equally to both men and women, and I said you could have gone for something else which was, but by post 353 you still hadn't grasped this.
For the record, apart from good old British prudishness, there is probably a hygiene issue for not allowing full nudity generally.
I don't know what your point is. You start out implying a law is sexist and only applies to women, when it doesn't, now you're saying subjugating women isn't sexist and in fact might be justified for cultural reasons. Most "cultural norms" arise for solid reasons do they? Bullshit. Most come from religion, in fact I just heard you can get 5 years in prison in parts of India for just possessing beef.What has sexist got to do with the subjegation of women?
Most cultural norms arose for solid reasons. Means we should be even less hasty to judge others from our own perspective
Are you saying religion is not a way of codification of cultural norms ?I don't know what your point is. You start out implying a law is sexist and only applies to women, when it doesn't, now you're saying subjugating women isn't sexist and in fact might be justified for cultural reasons. Most "cultural norms" arise for solid reasons do they? Bullshit. Most come from religion, in fact I just heard you can get 5 years in prison in parts of India for just possessing beef.
Yer talking nonsense man.
I don't know what your point is. You start out implying a law is sexist and only applies to women, when it doesn't, now you're saying subjugating women isn't sexist and in fact might be justified for cultural reasons. Most "cultural norms" arise for solid reasons do they? Bullshit. Most come from religion, in fact I just heard you can get 5 years in prison in parts of India for just possessing beef.
Yer talking nonsense man.
They were pretty solid and successful at the time. Cultural norms develop in an amazing variety of different ways. Our cultural norm of democracy was developed in an ancient Greek society that venerated gods and yet had no word for religion. Sport and competition were as much drivers of social evolution for them which would have proved a disaster for us in our way of thinking now but there's no reason why that couldn't also become a cultural norm. Just another aspect of social organization that was delegated for social extinction for no particular reason.I don't know what your point is. You start out implying a law is sexist and only applies to women, when it doesn't, now you're saying subjugating women isn't sexist and in fact might be justified for cultural reasons. Most "cultural norms" arise for solid reasons do they? Bullshit. Most come from religion, in fact I just heard you can get 5 years in prison in parts of India for just possessing beef.
Yer talking nonsense man.
Some excellent reasons why things will never change there.
We have somebody saying subjugation of women might be justified because it's not sexist and it might have arisen as a 'cultural norm' for 'solid reasons'. I'm still calling bullshit.
Even more baffling is that the portrait in TFM's avarter is John Liburn (Free Born John) who died as a devout Quaker and who was very definately after a life of trials and tribulations a "man of God".
You'll do well to find many people who weren't religious in the 17th century.
True but a man such as Liburn did not commit himself to religion on a whim or just because everyone else did so. He made his reputation in questioning every norm and value that was held dear in C17th England. Cromwell who had Liburn imprisioned (despite the fact that John was an active Parliarmentarian) expressed the view if he were the last man on earth Liburn would argue with himself. (A very great "Son of Sunderland" who quite rcently was quoted in a judgement set down by the US Supreme Court).
Even Darwin was a Christian for a large part of his life.
Absolutley - although I am an athiest myself I don't subscribe to the view that all religionists are idiots and have nothing of value to say. Some ceratinly are - but then again I think that Dawkins is an absolute arse who gives athieism a bad name.
Ahem.I really don't get this. If it weren't for Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris etc. then I'm convinced that atheism would still be a minority belief system in many developed countries, especially the USA. Dawkins' books are brilliant. He is a scientist who has the knack of explaining his science to non-scientists like me and that is a skill which should be applauded.
It is interesting that some devout people are also very intelligent. Does this just show the power of brainwashing, or something else?Absolutley - although I am an athiest myself I don't subscribe to the view that all religionists are idiots and have nothing of value to say.
.....
Ahem.
That aside, what's not to get? Atheists don't have to go along with the anti theist dialogue proposed by Dawkins et al and it's part of the discourse within scientific circles as noted by Professor Peter Higgs, and like Higgs many atheists are 'troubled' (for want of a better word maybe) about the politicization of atheism and the call to publicly humiliate and ridicule those who have a different view. Religion has been pushed towards the margins without the authors you note and your claim is a bit of a stretch.
And yes, Richard Dawkins is much better when he writes on his chosen career as a scientist.
I really don't get this. If it weren't for Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris etc. then I'm convinced that atheism would still be a minority belief system in many developed countries, especially the USA. Dawkins' books are brilliant. He is a scientist who has the knack of explaining his science to non-scientists like me and that is a skill which should be applauded.