gonnagetbanned

0

gonnagetbanned wrote

Here's homework assignment:

Indonesia and Kyrgystan are secular nations where religion doesn't control the state therefore any information about them is irrelevant.

Turkey, which is mostly secular but not officially and where Islam is coming back by sharia, there has been only one female Prime Minister since the country's inception. And that was 20 years ago, so it seems to be getting worse.

In Pakistan, there has been one woman PM as well, and she was the daughter of the dictator in place before her, and was assassinated. LOL. She was elected again later, and suffered a coup d'etat in 1995 due to strong criticism. LOL.

I have to hand it to you, Bangladesh has had two women PMs, the same as the UK. However, Bangladesh is a "secular Islamic" state, which means it is not an islamic country either. But, it does have a majority muslim populations, so you were right in a sense. But it should be considered that their political system is based on the British one, according to many sources:

            "We don't practice Islamic Sharia laws in our court. We follow British 
              Indian laws. " - Anik Hassan, Quora

So in another sense your argument is invalidated by this.

As I have just shown, your homework assignment has done little good to your cause, sadly.

-3

gonnagetbanned wrote

You don't know what systemic oppression is either obviously! You're ignoring the definition I gave of it entirely, because you either had no idea what it meant or thought it meant something completely different. You can't criticize people for not following a term you don't understand.

1

gonnagetbanned wrote

  1. There is absolute reason to single out some from the rest as some are less/more strict or sexist than others; they're not all on the same scale. Eg: Jesus didn't marry an underage child of about 13 without consent.

  2. The only reason why I said that is because I've seen other people get banned(before I created an account) simply for criticizing Islam objectively.

I'm not trying to be smug or anything, and I definitely don't want to get banned, it was just sort of a passive-agressive way (I was mad, apologies) to reflect on what other people have been banned for. (Not saying this always happens at all, it's just what I've noticed on some occasions).

1

gonnagetbanned wrote

  1. There is absolute reason to single out some from the rest as some are less/more strict or sexist than others; they're not all on the same scale. Eg: Jesus didn't marry an underage child of about 13 without consent.

  2. The only reason why I said that is because I've seen other people get banned(before I created an account) simply for criticizing Islam objectively.

I'm not trying to be smug or anything, and I definitely don't want to get banned, it was just sort of a passive-agressive way (I was mad, apologies) to reflect on what other people have been banned for. (Not saying this always happens at all, it's just what I've noticed on some occasions).

3

gonnagetbanned wrote

I completely understand what you say, and I agree. However, two questions arise:

  1. Why isn't Christianity up there with the religions you can't be racist or biased against?

  2. Why then is everyone downvoting my comments that simply state objective, non-biased views on religions as a whole (and not about the people that represent them)?

I'm not asking you to answer in particular, you didn't decide these problems. But maybe someone has an answer...?

1

gonnagetbanned wrote

"The change, which will take effect in JUNE 2018, was announced in a royal decree read live on state television and in a simultaneous media event in Washington. The decision highlights the damage that the ban on women driving has done to the kingdom’s international reputation and its hopes for a public relations benefit from the reform." According to NY Times. Women can't drive till June, buddy. You had one of the easiest fact checks in the world and you still fucked it up.

Also, there is absolutely no reason why I should treat one religion with more respect than another. I'm not talking about "Jews" or "Muslims"! My father was a Muslim! I don't judge people based on their religion. I'm just saying ISLAM, compared to ALL OTHER MAJOR MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS, has a much more pejorative view on WOMEN according to the KORAN (not current practices and/or thoughts/traditions). Obviously there is also misogyny in Christianism (I mentioned this in another post with priests) but women can drive and have their faces uncovered and work and be president etc etc etc in most countries with a majority Christian population and/or non-secular Christian nations (El Salvador, eg.)

I'm not talking about "groups", I'm talking about the institutions. I never mentioned individual people. I talked about ISLAM, JUDAISM and CHRISTIANITY. What is wrong with that?

Side note: It is not my opinion that Islam is inherently sexist. If you read the Koran, line by line, you will find plenty of extremely sexist mentions that, in many parts of the world, still hold true. That is a fact.

-1

gonnagetbanned wrote

I have defined systemic oppression below and you have chosen to ignore the definition I gave without explaining why.

So, you have accused me of "intentionally misunderstanding what has been said" when you have, intentionally or not, misunderstood the meaning of systemic oppression!

Plus, if critiquing all three is welcome, why are only two written in the ToS? You still have not replied to this, sticking only to your incorrect definition of systemic oppression.

Please don't ban me, I just want to hear your logic on this. Banning me for no reason just because you disagree with me would be mean, I'm sure you wouldn't do that.

3

gonnagetbanned wrote

That's still not explaining why I can say whatever I want about Christianity but not Judaism and Islam. Are you saying these two religions are better than the first one, and therefore need more protection? Are their members weaker, therefore not able to stand criticism?

I fail to understand.

Obviously not talking about "jackassed racist myths", but if I say the following: "Women can't drive yet in Saudi Arabia and it's 2018" and "It's an Islamic country, Islam being a religion which precisely describes women as inferior"

What did I say wrong? These are absolute facts, no?

-2

gonnagetbanned wrote (edited )

Systemic oppression "occurs when established laws, customs, and practices systematically reflect and produce inequities based on one’s membership in targeted social identity groups. If oppressive consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs, or practices, the system is oppressive whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have oppressive intentions"

How is this systematic oppression?

1

gonnagetbanned wrote (edited )

Well, you see, for example, women are treated horribly in the Koran, and I don't like that. In the Torah, I disprove the point that you're not allowed to eat pork as it is completely out-of-date and was written in a time when pork was dangerous and could kill if not prepared properly. In the Bible, I strongly dislike the fact that women are not allowed to be priests, and I hate the amount of pedophilia in the Catholic church today.

Why am I allowed to say the last one but not the two first ones according to the ToS?