[quote]lixy wrote:
dk44 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Wow!
I’m speechless.
Why so speechless. Do you still think whites should have their own water fountain too?
Some are spouting hatred of the worst kind.[/quote]
Why are justice and fair play hatred in your eyes?
I am certainly against “accomodation” when it accomodates reactionary customs that go against Western liberal traditions (democracy, freedom of speech, etc). For example, I totally supported the Danish press to publish those caricatures of Mohammed. I also supported the French government law to ban the wearing of religious garments to school.
This particular incident doesn’t upset me so much. I wouldn’t get so upset, for example, if handicapped students asked to have the gym to themselves for a few hours each week.
I think what worries some of us is if this is the beginning of a slide down a slippery slope where, under the banner of multiculturalism, we have to tolerate any tradition, no matter how reactionary and anti-liberal (in the broader sense of that term).
Furthermore, I don’t like the idea of these women setting a precedent. What if all women start asking for gyms, where men are barred from entering? That would subtract one of the great joys of going to the gym! 
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
dk44 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Wow!
I’m speechless.
Why so speechless. Do you still think whites should have their own water fountain too?
Some are spouting hatred of the worst kind.
Why are justice and fair play hatred in your eyes? [/quote]
Look, I said that it is discrimination. I don’t think 2 bloody hours three times a week in the least frequented gym should pose any serious problem, but I can understand that some take a stand on principles here. Nothing wrong with that.
But when a redneck writes things like the following;
“fuck them, and their nun-hatted religion”
"How about we just ship their carbombing asses back to wherever the fuck they came from? "
we then slip into gratuitous hatred domain.
The Harvard College Women’s Center has every right to try and make their members’ lives easier, and their detractors have every right to protest and oppose any change said center lobbies for. If I’m not mistaken, the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed in writing in the United States and those women are merely exercising that right in my eyes. If you don’t think the Harvard University should have a say in the way their own gyms are run, then there’s nothing you can do about it. It is, after all, a privately owned institution.
But vile language such as thah spouted by the self-professed douche is neither “justice” nor “fair-play”. It’s blatant and heinous racism that’s a million times more serious than Harvard discriminating against males.
I can’t make it any clearer.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
dk44 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Wow!
I’m speechless.
Why so speechless. Do you still think whites should have their own water fountain too?
Some are spouting hatred of the worst kind.
Why are justice and fair play hatred in your eyes?
Look, I said that it is discrimination. I don’t think 2 bloody hours three times a week in the least frequented gym should pose any serious problem, but I can understand that some take a stand on principles here. Nothing wrong with that.
But when a redneck writes things like the following;
“fuck them, and their nun-hatted religion”
"How about we just ship their carbombing asses back to wherever the fuck they came from? "
we then slip into gratuitous hatred domain.
The Harvard College Women’s Center has every right to try and make their members’ lives easier, and their detractors have every right to protest and oppose any change said center lobbies for. If I’m not mistaken, the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed in writing in the United States and those women are merely exercising that right in my eyes. If you don’t think the Harvard University should have a say in the way their own gyms are run, then there’s nothing you can do about it. It is, after all, a privately owned institution.
But vile language such as thah spouted by the self-professed douche is neither “justice” nor “fair-play”. It’s blatant and heinous racism that’s a million times more serious than Harvard discriminating against males.
I can’t make it any clearer. [/quote]
The only thing clearer is your utter ignorance of civil liberties as it applies to religion - particularly those of the christian faith - on college campuses in the U.S.
Get in line, bitch. Your religion of murder shouldn’t get to move to the front of the line. Wait your fucking turn.
Your little sisters in death can are more than welcome here - I want them to all leave, and take their religion of hate with them - but that is the great thing about our country unlike yours: they have the right to gather. They do not have the right to co-opt public domain to practice their religion - not at the expense of other students.
How fucking hard is that to understand?
[quote]Lixy wrote:
But when a redneck writes things like the following;
“fuck them, and their nun-hatted religion”
"How about we just ship their carbombing asses back to wherever the fuck they came from? "
we then slip into gratuitous hatred domain. [/quote]
Right.
The thing is, this shouldn’t even be news worthy. Why is this being reported? Who cares?
If the gym had set aside male only hours as well as female only hours, no one would have cared. In fact, many gyms do this, and no one is complaining. The gym at my university has single gender hours for the swimming pool, although not the facility as a whole. No one cares.
If the gym also set aside an equal time for men only, no one would be complaining. And since men don’t actually care about men only hours, this proves that this is just idealistic whining bullshit.
These right wing extremist hicks love to call themselves practical, real world, and common sense, and they love to label progressives as idealists with their heads in the clouds. Then they turn around and shit themselves and spew hateful vitriol when a private organization gives some designated hours to women only, at the most isolated one of their several gyms.
Hypocrites. These same guys, in their religious awe of the magic of the free market, will do everything to keep government from “telling corporations what to do” unless of course a corporation enacts any policies at all accommodating to Muslims, gays, foreigners, or anything else on their hate-list. They spout the “get government off the backs of the people” but though they have no qualms about meddling with people’s sex lives. The hypocrisies from the right never cease to astound.
[quote]Gael wrote:
a bunch of illegible bullshit.[/quote]
I love the way chicken shits like you are so fucking brave on the internet.
You don’t even have the balls to engage me from behind your keyboard.
Do you have a point, tough guy?
[quote]Gael wrote:
Do you have a point, tough guy?[/quote]
Yeah - you are a cicken shit little e-warrior who is scared of me.
You make no points, offer no insight. You jump in like the little be-speckled kid - the last one on the dog pile to try to seem tough, but never actually doing anything.
You have been here for a month - and have offered nothing in the way of opinion that one couldn’t find on George Soros’ website 3 years ago.
In short - you are a stupid little e-tough guy.
I wasn’t even addressing you. I have never even posted to you. I don’t know you. What the fuck? Why are you interjecting yourself in front of me to alert me that I am scared of you?
Why is a guy with a Marius Pudzianowski avatar who likes to say “get in line, bitch” telling me I am a e-warrior/e-tough guy?
[quote]Gael wrote:
The thing is, this shouldn’t even be news worthy. Why is this being reported? Who cares?
If the gym had set aside male only hours as well as female only hours, no one would have cared. In fact, many gyms do this, and no one is complaining. The gym at my university has single gender hours for the swimming pool, although not the facility as a whole. No one cares.
[/quote]
This isn’t a gender issue.
Right, nor is it an issue based on any real grievance about the hours. If these were “maintenance hours” during which the whole gym was closed off to everyone, no one would care as much, and most wouldn’t care at all. Why do people care? Because they don’t like to see private institutions catering to the requests of religious people.
What if the people who pushed for this move weren’t religious? Many women feel uncomfortable with gawking gym males, my girlfriend included. What if a group of non religious women pushed for this move and won?
Other people shouldn’t have to accomodate your lifestyle. Period.
[quote]Gael wrote:
Yeah - you are a cicken shit little e-warrior who is scared of me.
I wasn’t even addressing you. I have never even posted to you. I don’t know you. What the fuck? Why are you interjecting yourself in front of me to alert me that I am scared of you? Is this your way of saying hello?
Why is a guy with a Marius Pudzianowski avatar who likes to say “get in line, bitch” telling me I am a e-warrior/e-tough guy?
Did you think I was personally attacking you?[/quote]
You quoted lixy quoting me - out of context, as usual.
You addressed what I said - even if it was in an attempt to lick lixy’s skirt.
I think there is no doubt you were attempting to take jabs at me.
What does an avatar have to do with the price of tea in China? How old are you?
Right, but I think the lack of protest is due to the fact that curves is not a campus gym that has suddenly decided to enact a policy through which half the campus is restricted and denied service. I repeat: What if a group of non religious women pushed for this move and won?
Folks from your side of the camp have argued:
“I think that it’s incorrect in a college setting to institute a policy in which half of the campus gets wronged or denied a resource that’s supposed to be for everyone,”
“It’s not that I am opposed to the idea of helping people in religious groups or women in general, but I just think Harvard is not being fair to people like me who live (near the gym),”
Oh, and Rainjack, get over yourself. Seriously. I have never personally insulted anyone on this site. I have never pulled the tuffstuff crap that I see in most of your posts.
I was wrong on the curves thing, men are allowed to join. Just not encouraged.
Fine, but my question still stands.
[quote]Gael wrote:
Oh, and Rainjack, get over yourself. Seriously. I have never personally insulted anyone on this site. I have never pulled the tuffstuff crap that I see in most of your posts.[/quote]
I have nothing to get over. Youpull the same shit here in the political forum every time you post. You just don’t attach names.
Like I have been saying for 5 years now - I talk the same way on the internet as would if you were sitting on a barstool beside me.
But -
I asked a question earlier that no one has even attempted to answer - so before we get to yours, how about answering me this:
If it was a group of right-wing, fundamentalist, evangelical christian women asking for the special treatment - would you still think it was such a non-issue?
This is the perfect example of how the US has lost the goals that the founding fathers set for us. I already know how some of you will already say:
“But the founding fathers created their ideal government of an obsolete system. They were racists, owned slaves, and betrayed their own country to achieve the goals and characteristics they thought were the best.”
Well, none actually were racists, and they would have abolished slavery, but the southern econonmy depended on the work of the slaves. And lets not forget that the slaves got free housing and a reliable food source. Although, I though agree that there were extremes. Some were consistently abuse, some were treated as hired workers and cared for with humanity, but there was also the gray area. Also, the system was designed to achieve and implement the desires of the majority. That is why we even hold elections. The majority rules in a democracy. Some decisions were not the best made, but the majority voted for them. If you do not like them, then you should have voted.
But not in the present state of the nation. The United States has succumb to fulfiling the needs of the minority instead of listening to what most of the country thinks. If you think it is wrong, then gather support and inform people of your views so they may decide. Persuasion is the key. But once a minute group of people control the decisions and actions of a grandiose population (such as Harvard) without any part of the population actually deciding what course is correct, then the initial concept of democracy has be disregared.
In some countries, actions and decisions such as this may be completely find because that is what the country was based and created on. The foundation of the United States was not designed for this principle. The people need to make decisions, not only the appointed.
I also suspect that some of you may refute that this is a private college not the government, and that they are exempt from the process of decision making that upholds the country. But why should the ideals and constructions of the government stop there. Citizens pay taxes and are allowed to vote on all measures that was designed for them to vote on by the Constitution. The students attending Harvard payed tuition, so why should they not be allowed the power of decision making in an enviroment that dictates their education and their future paths in life.
Once amnesty is granted for a certain group of people without the general population voting of the actions that should be taken, then the fundamentals of the nation are disrespected. Now, all the citizens of the United States should be proud or at least happy to reside in the US, but once they fall from the point of caring for the well being of the country by attempting to force the population to accomadate for their needs without a single vote cast, then I believe those people should not be considered citizens and should be expelled from receiving any sort of amnesty. This is issue based not in ethics and religion but on the correct terms of what is consitutional or not.
Now, if the studend body voted and allowed the Muslim women to receive the hours in the gym, then I would not see any problem with them attaining any sort of hours that they could work-out by themselves. Although once the decisions are made without consulting the students that are paying for the college, then the decision has crossed the line and should not be implemented or even considered.
I think its bullshit either way really, but I could live with the fact of a Curves type gym only for women, kinda like I can live with the fact that I can’t go piss in a womens restroom; but you can’t cater to religion; If they (harvard) wanted to avoid the PR problem they should have just made a mens gym and a womens gym.
You do realize that in America we have pretty much done away with any type of religious symbols so to not offend; christmas season symbols, pledge of allegiance omitting God, crosses in buildings. I think most of us are just getting pissed about the inconsistency of religious tolerance.