Harrison Butker | Commencement Address 2024

[Dill]

(05-30-2024, 02:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm honestly astonished that you can't see what a self own this circle J is.  You guys are so far up your own posterior that anything that defends each other seems reasonable.

Also, Dino style?  Dear lord.

LOL SSF-Style: impressions. Sharing feelings where others would use reasons. Acting as if what you claim to "see" is measure enough.

Yeah, Dino style. Juxtaposing your quotes (i.e., actual textual evidence), so you own yourself. 

Which works well, just letting your inconsistencies appear, in your own words. That's demonstration. And you've no effective response.

Pally's got your number now. The constant conversion of others' arguments to stawmen, the hostile misreading, the continuous, unnecessary disparagement of those who disagree with you, the projection. etc.


 

[Dill]

(05-30-2024, 03:36 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Dill Wrote:[url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Harrison-Butker-Commencement-Address-2024?pid=1484151#pid1484151][/url]Sure I'm a parent. No idea what you think you need to explain to me about parenting. 
Or why.  Our disagreement is over your claim Butker wasn't "knocking either choice."  
But you seem to agree with me now, since one "choice" is based on "diabolical lies."
 That's kind of a knock, isn't it? 

First: That's his opinion and you have YOURs (neither is a fact), my opinion, is he wasn't. We are going to have to agree to disagree cause I don't want to spend 5 pages on something that is opinion based. 

O-mike, you're a good guy whom I enjoy discussing issues with. Please don't take it amiss if I use a separate post here to make a methodological point.
Ours is not really a disagreement about "opinions." We are talking about textual evidence, recorded statements which affirm or deny, and
as such can be examined, questioned, and tested. From that evidence we make inferences which are sound or not. 

It's not my opinion that Butker says "diabolical lies" have turned women from their true calling. Nor is it simply my opinion that he is defining a career option based on lies as something lesser, not the best choice for women. These conclusions are transcript-based, not "opinion-based." If you say he does not mean what his words said, in your opinion, then the appropriate move is to offer some evidence for why the lifestyle based on "lies" is presented as an equally worthy option, why that is not "knocking" that choice. 

The appropriate move is NOT to claim we both have "opinions," of which neither is a "fact," so basically equal, no way to decide who is right about what Butker said or meant by statements in fairly plain English.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-01-2024, 05:32 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL SSF-Style: impressions. Sharing feelings where others would use reasons. Acting as if what you claim to "see" is measure enough.

Yeah, Dino style. Juxtaposing your quotes (i.e., actual textual evidence), so you own yourself. 

Which works well, just letting your inconsistencies appear, in your own words. That's demonstration. And you've no effective response.

Pally's got your number now. The constant conversion of others' arguments to stawmen, the hostile misreading, the continuous, unnecessary disparagement of those who disagree with you, the projection. etc. 

Sure, just like you can't remember Fred saying anything disparaging.  You kids never disagree with one another and always back each other up, even when demonstrably wrong.  Your explanation didn't make you any less cringe, it simply reinforced it.  We have your number now, the circuitous arguments, the deliberate misstatement of the argument being made, the refusal to address points you can't refute, the consistent condescension, the pontificating pedantry, the relentless partisanship you refuse to acknowledge, etc.

[Dill]

(05-30-2024, 03:36 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: How does a defense of gender equality = "shaming women for staying at home"? 
It does not. 

I posted in my previous post, that they are frowned up on because they will be reliant upon the Husband to provide for them financially. That 100% flies in the face of modern feminism that says no woman should be dependent upon a man. 

"Modern feminism" says a lot of things, but mainly that men and women should be treated equally, women should be thought of as equals. E.g., Betty Friedan made it clear enough that men and women want to live with each other and bear children, and could find many ways to do that. She, not Butker, was someone who saw "equal" options for women.

"No woman should be dependent upon a man" generally means women should not be economically trapped in relationships. Plenty of feminists are fine with women choosing to be homemakers. They just don't want that to be an only option or a trap. It should be a choice, like whether to go to college or not, whether to work in a factory or teach school or drive a truck. Feminists get their back up when men like Butker (and some women) say women are born to support men, and men are born to have careers and all the choices that go with that. 

So what is "frowned upon" is the cultural environment in which parents and extended family and teachers and ministers and the law take for granted that marriage and children are a woman's "real" role and manage incentives and choices and laws to achieve that end. 

(05-30-2024, 03:36 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: My quarrel is with the assumption that men and women are UNEQUAL. Why isn't that "shaming" women??? 

No where does he say,  your wife is your pet. In fact, he's praising her for putting family first. 
*sighs, Males and Females are NOT anatomically equal, and they never will be. that is not a shame, that's a fact. 
That has nothing to do treating each other as an equal in all matters. 

I never said that he said "your wife is your pet." 

Not sure what you mean by "anatomically equal." But I am referring to socially constructed roles, not anatomy.

I agree that anatomy should have nothing to do with husbands and wives treating each other equally in all matters.
That means women should have an equal right to a career, and not be disparaged for choosing one outside the home.

(05-30-2024, 03:36 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'd say "traditional moms" are on the rise in Egypt too. Women there have gone back to the hijab. Globally there is a
backlash against women's rights. Buckner's speech was just one point of darkness among many.

WTF? You just compared being a SAHM to being forced to wear a hijab and other global women's rights issues? Do the women in the US have those same issues? very likely not. What you are describing is likely more cultural related than anything else and has nothing to do with Harrison's speech. It's just your attempt to make them look equally as bad. 

Umm no. I'm making an partial analogy to the US. The Egyptian women I am speaking of were not "forced" to wear the hijab. They were pretty much freed from it under Nasser and the push for modernization. You look at pictures of Egyptian women on the streets in the 1950s-70s and they've got western hairstyles and dresses. Now even on the University of Cairo Campus they're all wearing hijabs as part of a conservative return to their roots (or at least they were a decade ago; haven't been there recently). That has to do with unsettling economic and political stresses more than anything. 

We have culture too, and people also feel threatened by modernization, globalization (see SSF on that topic) and the social changes that come with it. In response many people want to reassert traditional hierarchies and go back to traditional religion.  I think Butker's preaching traditionalism and "Making America Great Again" are instances of that in the US. This is a world wide phenomenon. I could have used India as an example as well. Or interwar Europe for a historical example. This is just sociology.

(05-30-2024, 03:36 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Your second link argues that women's EDUCATION plays an important role in children's success--an education that feminists fought for in previous generations. "Fought for"? My gosh, whom would they be fighting against?  That would be people who thought feminists and "leftists" were spreading "diabolical lies." 

In the past, Yes they had to fight for rights, Right to own land in 1848, Right to vote. As far as I can tell for US Laws, they are granted just about every right i can think of that men have. And before you hit me with some exceptions yes there's always azzholes out there that don't respect anyone. And not all are worth pursuing legally as it takes time and money to fight them and that's not a man only thing. 

And one of those rights was the right to choose to have an abortion, and to choose whether and what kind of birth control. Those rights are being rolled back. As in my Egyptian example, or the Indian one I could have used, modern and modernizing societies do generate a backlash, a desire to return to the security of traditional social boundaries. 

[Dill]

(06-01-2024, 06:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, just like you can't remember Fred saying anything disparaging.  You kids never disagree with one another and always back each other up, even when demonstrably wrong.  Your explanation didn't make you any less cringe, it simply reinforced it.  We have your number now, the circuitous arguments, the deliberate misstatement of the argument being made, the refusal to address points you can't refute, the consistent condescension, the pontificating pedantry, the relentless partisanship you refuse to acknowledge, etc.

LOl "We."   

Apparently you cannot remember Fred saying anything disparaging either, though you always have time to claim he did. 
But you CAN remember he gave you a good spanking on the Seattle "LE Leaks" thread after accusing him of bad faith, semantic 
arguments, in a "peak clown show," while he was arguing from law and facts, no personal attacks.  I know you can remember because 
I reminded you of that two weeks ago. It was another DINO-STYLE refutation, your own projection turned back on you with your own words.* 
Why should anyone EVER remember the disparagements of a long-gone Fred, when you're still here and far more disparaging of other posters.
 
So I've addressed your "circuitous arguments" ("scroll up"), "misstatements" (who knows if they're deliberate?), and "refusal to address points you can't refute" in multiple posts over a number of years now, and always with the receipts (textual evidence--what you call "pedantry") needed to make my case. Once or twice I have even pointed out the irony of you jumping into threads mocking the stupidity of everyone else, and then whining about "condescension" if I throw an LOL at you.  So what your list amounts to is yet another demonstration of your superpower--projection.  
You've never time to refute these established charges, and I am always ready to show my work.

I've also addressed the irony of your calling others partisan, while going after "the radical far left" and defending the Trump agenda, day-in-and-day-out, . This thread was your chance to show you really do stand up for women's rights, and so just can't be a Rightist--and you BLEW IT spectacularly, even telling the only woman in the forum to "calm down." 

You, on the other hand, have no receipts. There are just many posts like the above, where you just assert people are this or that, tell the forum how they make you feel ("cringe" this time), maybe throw in an emoji or a meme, and done!  "Pedantry" free!  


*Here is is again. Check posts #191-200 where you confuse evidence-based refutation with personal attack and then the climax #203-05. 
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-LE-Leaks-show-treatment-of-pro-BLM-protestors-vs-conservative-militias?page=11&highlight=CHAZ

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-01-2024, 09:14 PM)Dill Wrote: "Modern feminism" says a lot of things, but mainly that men and women should be treated equally, women should be thought of as equals. E.g., Betty Friedan made it clear enough that men and women want to live with each other and bear children, and could find many ways to do that. She, not Butker, was someone who saw "equal" options for women.

"No woman should be dependent upon a man" generally means women should not be economically trapped in relationships. Plenty of feminists are fine with women choosing to be homemakers. They just don't want that to be an only option or a trap. It should be a choice, like whether to go to college or not, whether to work in a factory or teach school or drive a truck. Feminists get their back up when men like Butker (and some women) say women are born to support men, and men are born to have careers and all the choices that go with that. 

So what is "frowned upon" is the cultural environment in which parents and extended family and teachers and ministers and the law take for granted that marriage and children are a woman's "real" role and manage incentives and choices and laws to achieve that end. 

I never said that he said "your wife is your pet." 

Let's keep this narrowed down, we are talking about being treated equally in a relationship. He praised his wife greatly for the job she does and he loves her for that, and apparently she loves being a SAHM. So apparently there's no mistreatment there. 

She's not trapped in a relationship, she has a degree and can leave anytime she feels like it and pursue a career to establish her own financial independence. The trap thing you are referring to is more for woman that didn't get a degree, then it might be more economical for them to stay in a bad relationship where the money is provided for them because they don't have the educational means to go out an earn enough to be a single parent. 

Do you think these educated women will stay at home for the rest of their lives? Not likely, once their kids are old enough they will likely start working again. Putting family first over a career is extremely admirable and i supported my wife, during that time when she was home taking care of the boys. Then as they got old enough to take care of themselves, she started back to work, and I supported her with that decision as well. 

You are trying way to hard to make him out to be an Enemy. He's religious, he's going to follow that lifestyle. If he was a homosexual, then he'd be talking about a different lifestyle choice.   If you don't like what he said, then maybe you should put in a notice to be the next speaker. 

No you never said he said that, but you did imply that he's putting women down. 

(06-01-2024, 09:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure what you mean by "anatomically equal." But I am referring to socially constructed roles, not anatomy.

I agree that anatomy should have nothing to do with husbands and wives treating each other equally in all matters.
That means women should have an equal right to a career, and not be disparaged for choosing one outside the home.

Good for you glad you and you wife saw eye to eye on that, just as many others see eye to eye on a different lifestyle. Did you ask him if he will only allow his wife to forever be a SAHM? or if once the children are old enough will he be ok if she wants to pursue a career?  I haven't seen it anywhere where he said she can't not have a career later in life? Did  you? 

(06-01-2024, 09:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Umm no. I'm making an partial analogy to the US. The Egyptian women I am speaking of were not "forced" to wear the hijab. They were pretty much freed from it under Nasser and the push for modernization. You look at pictures of Egyptian women on the streets in the 1950s-70s and they've got western hairstyles and dresses. Now even on the University of Cairo Campus they're all wearing hijabs as part of a conservative return to their roots (or at least they were a decade ago; haven't been there recently). That has to do with unsettling economic and political stresses more than anything. 

We have culture too, and people also feel threatened by modernization, globalization (see SSF on that topic) and the social changes that come with it. In response many people want to reassert traditional hierarchies and go back to traditional religion.  I think Butker's preaching traditionalism and "Making America Great Again" are instances of that in the US. This is a world wide phenomenon. I could have used India as an example as well. Or interwar Europe for a historical example. This is just sociology.

And where was Butker saying to force women into wearing Hajibs or that they can only be SAHM's? he didn't, he's encouraging that lifestyle. 

(06-01-2024, 09:14 PM)Dill Wrote: And one of those rights was the right to choose to have an abortion, and to choose whether and what kind of birth control. Those rights are being rolled back. As in my Egyptian example, or the Indian one I could have used, modern and modernizing societies do generate a backlash, a desire to return to the security of traditional social boundaries. 

So what? everyone has a different opinion on that, i am against abortion as well but not against women/men using Birth Control. 
I believe in the science side, life begins as conception. 

However, I am willing to compromise about it, and allow abortions in the first trimester, and only for emergencies after that. What i do not want to see is Abortion being used as a form of BC. Repeating should not be allowed, if you didn't learn your lesson the first time, then sorry. But that's for another thread. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-01-2024, 06:41 PM)Dill Wrote: O-mike, you're a good guy whom I enjoy discussing issues with. Please don't take it amiss if I use a separate post here to make a methodological point.
Ours is not really a disagreement about "opinions." We are talking about textual evidence, recorded statements which affirm or deny, and
as such can be examined, questioned, and tested. From that evidence we make inferences which are sound or not. 

It's not my opinion that Butker says "diabolical lies" have turned women from their true calling. Nor is it simply my opinion that he is defining a career option based on lies as something lesser, not the best choice for women. These conclusions are transcript-based, not "opinion-based." If you say he does not mean what his words said, in your opinion, then the appropriate move is to offer some evidence for why the lifestyle based on "lies" is presented as an equally worthy option, why that is not "knocking" that choice. 

The appropriate move is NOT to claim we both have "opinions," of which neither is a "fact," so basically equal, no way to decide who is right about what Butker said or meant by statements in fairly plain English.

Only problem is, you keep adding things that he didn't discuss. I didn't see anything about him wanting women to be TREATED like the Egyptian women but apparently you did.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-01-2024, 10:37 PM)Dill Wrote: LOl "We."   

Apparently you cannot remember Fred saying anything disparaging either, though you always have time to claim he did. 
But you CAN remember he gave you a good spanking on the Seattle "LE Leaks" thread after accusing him of bad faith, semantic 
arguments, in a "peak clown show," while he was arguing from law and facts, no personal attacks.  I know you can remember because 
I reminded you of that two weeks ago. It was another DINO-STYLE refutation, your own projection turned back on you with your own words.* 
Why should anyone EVER remember the disparagements of a long-gone Fred, when you're still here and far more disparaging of other posters.
 
So I've addressed your "circuitous arguments" ("scroll up"), "misstatements" (who knows if they're deliberate?), and "refusal to address points you can't refute" in multiple posts over a number of years now, and always with the receipts (textual evidence--what you call "pedantry") needed to make my case. Once or twice I have even pointed out the irony of you jumping into threads mocking the stupidity of everyone else, and then whining about "condescension" if I throw an LOL at you.  So what your list amounts to is yet another demonstration of your superpower--projection.  
You've never time to refute these established charges, and I am always ready to show my work.

I've also addressed the irony of your calling others partisan, while going after "the radical far left" and defending the Trump agenda, day-in-and-day-out, . This thread was your chance to show you really do stand up for women's rights, and so just can't be a Rightist--and you BLEW IT spectacularly, even telling the only woman in the forum to "calm down." 

You, on the other hand, have no receipts. There are just many posts like the above, where you just assert people are this or that, tell the forum how they make you feel ("cringe" this time), maybe throw in an emoji or a meme, and done!  "Pedantry" free!  


*Here is is again. Check posts #191-200 where you confuse evidence-based refutation with personal attack and then the climax #203-05. 
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-LE-Leaks-show-treatment-of-pro-BLM-protestors-vs-conservative-militias?page=11&highlight=CHAZ

Fred was regularly banned. If he wasn't then maybe you would have a leg to stand on. 

And you do realize that the mods remove the disparaging comments that lead to the ban in the first place right? 

I guess you don't remember him wanting to have sex with someone's underage kids?

[GMDino]

(06-02-2024, 12:49 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Fred was regularly banned. If he wasn't then maybe you would have a leg to stand on. 

And you do realize that the mods remove the disparaging comments that lead to the ban in the first place right? 

I guess you don't remember him wanting to have sex with someone's underage kids?

I was waiting for that one.

Not what he said at all.  And another banned member was the one who accused him.

More to the point, why are we talking about banned members and distant past threads?

Oh, right.  Because a current member only wants to argue and make accusations that aren't true.

Sorry.

Carry on.

This will join all the other threads they got locked for going off topic and making personal attacks.

[Dill]

(06-02-2024, 12:45 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Only problem is, you keep adding things that he didn't discuss. I didn't see anything about him wanting women to be TREATED like the Egyptian women but apparently you did.

I didn't see anything in my post about him wanting women to be TREATED like the Egyptian women either

--beyond re-affirming traditional gender roles. 

[Dill]

(06-02-2024, 12:49 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Fred was regularly banned. If he wasn't then maybe you would have a leg to stand on. 
And you do realize that the mods remove the disparaging comments that lead to the ban in the first place right? 
I guess you don't remember him wanting to have sex with someone's underage kids?

No. I don't. 

I do remember him being banned for discussing discipline publicly, after being told to stop it.
I think Bfine was flagged for that too, and Breech.  I miss all those guys. 

My impression was that people would pick on Fred and then he would eventually blow up. SSF
harassed him constantly, and often accused me of having "learned that from Fred" when he
accused me of something without evidence.

In any case, the link I provided to SSF shows Fred arguing facts and issues while SSF hounds him
with personal insults until Fred can't take it any more and collects them all in a Dino-style ripost. 

I am very much against the continual use of Fred's name as a shorthand for misrepresenting others'
views, especially by someone who was a far greater offender in that respect. 

Also, I think anytime that one poster accuses another of "post history" then he or she ought
to be able to present that history. That's a standard I hold myself too. 

[Dill]

(06-02-2024, 12:41 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And where was Butker saying to force women into wearing Hajibs or that they can only be SAHM's? he didn't, he's encouraging that lifestyle. 

Where was I saying that Butker was saying to force women into wearing hijabs? 

I do recall him saying that SAHM is women's true calling, and that those who view women as equals were perpetrating "diabolical lies."
So sure, he's "encouraging" that lifestyle.
He specifically says a woman's fulfilment does not come through a career outside the home. So he is discouraging that option.

(06-02-2024, 12:41 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So what? everyone has a different opinion on that, i am against abortion as well but not against women/men using Birth Control. 
I believe in the science side, life begins as conception. 

However, I am willing to compromise about it, and allow abortions in the first trimester, and only for emergencies after that. What i do not want to see is Abortion being used as a form of BC. Repeating should not be allowed, if you didn't learn your lesson the first time, then sorry. But that's for another thread. 

You are talking out "opinions" again. I am talking about laws: the "opinions" of some forced on others who don't agree.   

You offered a thumbnail history of the evolution of women's rights.' I'm arguing that there was always resistance to women's rights, 
and now there is a backlash against the liberal order which won those rights.

It's not just women's rights, that's one area where the backlash is occurring  Butker's speech is a symptom of that wider backlash. 

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-02-2024, 10:04 PM)Dill Wrote: Where was I saying that Butker was saying to force women into wearing hijabs? 

I do recall him saying that SAHM is women's true calling, and that those who view women as equals were perpetrating "diabolical lies."
So sure, he's "encouraging" that lifestyle.
He specifically says a woman's fulfilment does not come through a career outside the home. So he is discouraging that option.


You are talking out "opinions" again. I am talking about laws: the "opinions" of some forced on others who don't agree.   

You offered a thumbnail history of the evolution of women's rights.' I'm arguing that there was always resistance to women's rights, 
and now there is a backlash against the liberal order which won those rights.

It's not just women's rights, that's one area where the backlash is occurring  Butker's speech is a symptom of that wider backlash. 

[Dill]

How old are you, FBR? 

Are you under 21? 

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-02-2024, 10:22 PM)Dill Wrote: How old are you, FBR? 

Are you under 21? 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-02-2024, 10:04 PM)Dill Wrote: Where was I saying that Butker was saying to force women into wearing hijabs? 

I do recall him saying that SAHM is women's true calling, and that those who view women as equals were perpetrating "diabolical lies."
So sure, he's "encouraging" that lifestyle.
He specifically says a woman's fulfilment does not come through a career outside the home. So he is discouraging that option.

Again, what was the point of bringing up women in Egypt when discussing Butker's speech? You were implying that it is the same or that he will push us back to the "dark ages" with his speech.  Both of which are false, i already posted statistics showing that the educated Millennial women are doing just that and we already know that it is good for the kids and the family. 

Why are you so against Gender-Roles that don't fit your criteria. Aren't Gender roles fluid? People adopt to the roles needed as time goes by.  Today they might be a college grad, tomorrow, might chose to be a stay at home mom (if that choice is an option), then the next week back to work. It's not uncommon at all. 

So what if he says that is their True calling (that's his opinion, not a law), you were smart enough to know that it might not be their true calling, are you saying that these educated kids that heard his message are to stupid to figure out what's best for them? 

I personally think that most women if given a choice would chose to be SAHM's and then go back into the work force at a later time. 

(06-02-2024, 10:04 PM)Dill Wrote: You are talking out "opinions" again. I am talking about laws: the "opinions" of some forced on others who don't agree.   

What Laws? His 1A rights? I thought he exercised those just fine. Did he break some law I don't know about? No one was chained to their chairs. They had the freedom to get up and walk away if they so desired. So again what laws were being broken? 

(06-02-2024, 10:04 PM)Dill Wrote: You offered a thumbnail history of the evolution of women's rights.' I'm arguing that there was always resistance to women's rights, 
and now there is a backlash against the liberal order which won those rights.

It's not just women's rights, that's one area where the backlash is occurring  Butker's speech is a symptom of that wider backlash. 

And?
There will always be resistance to any change. 

Butkers speech is only pissing you off, it doesn't piss me off, i know what he's trying to say and yes he could do a better job of it, but he specifically attacked something that you hold dear to your heart. If you gave a speech there, i bet there would be plenty of people that would not like what you had to say either. 

Him being Religious pretty much means it's going to not be an opinion that a Liberal life yourself will want to hear. So why torture yourself over it?

(06-02-2024, 10:22 PM)Dill Wrote: How old are you, FBR? 

Are you under 21? 

What's the matter, is it annoying? Ask Dino how old he is while you are at it, i'd hate for you to appear biased. 

[GMDino]

(06-03-2024, 02:28 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Again, what was the point of bringing up women in Egypt when discussing Butker's speech? You were implying that it is the same or that he will push us back to the "dark ages" with his speech.  Both of which are false, i already posted statistics showing that the educated Millennial women are doing just that and we already know that it is good for the kids and the family. 

Why are you so against Gender-Roles that don't fit your criteria. Aren't Gender roles fluid? People adopt to the roles needed as time goes by.  Today they might be a college grad, tomorrow, might chose to be a stay at home mom (if that choice is an option), then the next week back to work. It's not uncommon at all. 

So what if he says that is their True calling (that's his opinion, not a law), you were smart enough to know that it might not be their true calling, are you saying that these educated kids that heard his message are to stupid to figure out what's best for them? 

I personally think that most women if given a choice would chose to be SAHM's and then go back into the work force at a later time. 



What Laws? His 1A rights? I thought he exercised those just fine. Did he break some law I don't know about? No one was chained to their chairs. They had the freedom to get up and walk away if they so desired. So again what laws were being broken? 



And?
There will always be resistance to any change. 

Butkers speech is only pissing you off, it doesn't piss me off, i know what he's trying to say and yes he could do a better job of it, but he specifically attacked something that you hold dear to your heart. If you gave a speech there, i bet there would be plenty of people that would not like what you had to say either. 

Him being Religious pretty much means it's going to not be an opinion that a Liberal life yourself will want to hear. So why torture yourself over it?


What's the matter, is it annoying? Ask Dino how old he is while you are at it, i'd hate for you to appear biased. 

I'll get my Denny's discount this year! 

I wish I got a discount for living in your head but I'm already there for free apparently.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-02-2024, 10:04 PM)Dilling hijabs? Wrote: I do recall him saying that SAHM is women's true calling, and that those who view women as equals were perpetrating "diabolical lies."
So sure, he's "encouraging" that lifestyle.
He specifically says a woman's fulfilment does not come through a career outside the home. So he is discouraging that option.

BTW, you are taking his speech out of context.

He clearly said:
"Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but i would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring in to this world."

What's more important? Family or your career? Should be a pretty simple answer for everyone.

[GMDino]

(06-03-2024, 11:07 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: BTW, you are taking his speech out of context.

He clearly said:
"Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but i would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring in to this world."

What's more important? Family or your career? Should be a pretty simple answer for everyone.

Why not both?

Why would he "venture to guess" that?

I know why, and I'm not even criticizing him for believing it himself.  But for anyone outside of that world to be stunned that there was pushback as a man tells women they probably are more excited about serving their man and raising his children than the career they just finished the struggle of college for is silly.

One does not necessarily supersede the other.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-02-2024, 10:22 PM)Dill Wrote: How old are you, FBR? 

Are you under 21? 

You never ask Dino that question when he responds with gifs.  Odd that.