@SDGundamX

So you genuinely believe that make-up has nothing to do with sexuality? Make-up makes women look more attractive to men. That's why it exists. There is no distinction between "attractive" and "sexually attractive." They are one and the same. Society tells women that without make-up, they are unattractive. It's also a double-standard, as men are not expected to wear make-up (unless they're on TV).

And basic hygiene is not a valid analogy. Hygiene is a matter of practicality. If you didn't bathe or wear deodorant, you would stink and annoy those around you, increasing friction and reducing productivity in the workplace. Make-up, on the other hand, is purely cosmetic. It serves no purpose other than making yourself more sexually appealing. It's the same reason why women are expected to shave their legs and armpits and have slim but curvy bodies. It's the same reason why they wear high heels.

Idealized gender representations exist solely for the sake of increasing your sexual appeal. If you don't live up to these representations, society looks down upon you and makes you feel like shit. Women wear make-up because they are insecure about their appearance. They're insecure because society has created notions of beauty that are unattainable through natural means.

Ugh. Women, you don't need to wear high heels and go fancy like that to be attractive!

Who wears high heeled boot when going to target practice in the outdoors? Staged as heck Not that that's a problem, from this PoV.

@SDGundamX

*takes a deep breath*

Okay,you do get one thing partially right: while Harris and I are arguing one thing, you insist on hearing something else. We say "religion", "Islam", "ideology", and all you seem to hear is "Muslims". I've already repeatedly rejected your strawman understanding of our arguments, I won't do it again (when I said you should reread, I was not joking).

Since speaking plainly doesn't seem to reach you, lets try some analogy:

If the law of religion X, as stated in its founding texts, says that prostitutes should be put to death, as well as anyone who lets their hair grow out after wearing it short all their life; that exhibitionists should have their junk cut off; that short people are worth half as much as tall people, and should wear 10-inch highheels at all times; but "only" 33% of Xites in your country want X law to be enforced, should you fear for the state of human rights in that country (and for those poor, unethically raised Xite kids who would answer such a thing)? And what about the countries were such laws are actually being enforced? What about the increase of short people having their legs broken (in X and non-X countries) because they were not wearing high heels, so were "asking for it"?

Of course I'm not worried, why should I be? Look at all the "good" Xites are doing! X provides a sense of meaning, community, etc. Xites do charity, too! What? All that can and is done by non Xites as well? But why?? Where do they get their morals from?? And why would anyone want to criticize X? What could possibly be their endgame?? (you see the point I hope)


"Harm and misery" are subjective? Are you serious? With such a grossly unethical (and scientifically wrong) argument, I'm starting to wonder if you're arguing just for the sake of it, in which case go argue with shinyblurry, he likes repeating himself: I don't.

As for the "many denominations/interpretations" argument, have you ever heard a so-called "New Atheist" addressing a particular denomination instead of the shared ideology at the core when criticising religion? Why should that be in any way a mitigating factor? Yes, there are different takes on the core ideology (which we call by its name, be it Christianity or Islam), some more influenced by the progress made in the domains of morality and science (which are the same for all humans, i.e. secular, i.e. do not have their source in religion) than others. As I stated in a comment above, I'm pretty sure I can safely assert that the large majority of humans, regardless their creed or lack thereof, live empathetic and peaceful lives. Do I have to stress that that includes muslims?

Also, who's talking about "eliminating" religions? I'm sure most of us antitheists would love to be able to click our fingers and have all those backwards and inherently tyrannical ideologies disappear (and all the new-age woo and pseudo-science too), but I doubt any of us are so naive as to think such a thing possible. Instead, by raising awareness to religion's negative effects, we hope that people will eventually grow out of it, and speak up to fight (with ideas and reason; we're not the fundies) those who want such ideologies to effect our lives and others', especially when those effects are unethical and cause real "harm and misery". (srsly, I still can't believe you'd say such an ignorant, relativist thing)

You are not obliged to answer this post, but if you do, please, please, please, PLEASE try to grasp the arguments you are opposing; because if I get another strawman/hypocrisy-filled response I will simply ignore it. As you can tell, having to deal with such responses make me frustrated, and waste my time (I do not have the composure and patience of a, say, Sam Harris).

p.s.: "transformation of Islam into a political ideology"? Do you read the links you post? If you did, you might have come across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_aspects_of_Islam


(Suggestion: don't say you have no intention of enraging a secular humanist and antitheist (that's me), and follow up with something like "I don't think I could ever[y] provide you with enough evidence to change your mind". Remember that H-word I was accusing you of? This is another example.)

i don't feel like there has to be a difference in the rhetoric and the reality. and find that statement kind of cynical.

my kids are allowed all kinds of crazy freedoms with their hair and dress and expression and creativity and language and their interests are almost always highly encouraged by me and my tribe.

princesses weren't a non existant part of playtime when my daughter was younger, at that point i thought it was an archetype and all little girls go through that phase. and i still kind of think that. but i think it can be overly nurtured in ways that are obnoxious. anyway, princess phase was short lived and generally took a back seat to her desire to be a fairy or a piano playing shark. i could think of million reasons to hate barbies, but i decided not to, she has barbies ... she just isnt real interested in them. bratz dolls are actually just amazingly whorey and negative and are just way overboard, so.. fuck no. she's too old for them now anyway.

my biggest issue is over commercialization, so we simply have no television. they watch movies and what not. and actually i feel like limiting the television and commercialization has helped them development loads of creativity. which is actively encouraged around here. it's totally possible to imbue your kids with your values without forcing your political agenda down their throats.

i'm extremely interested in how much of my kids personalities and social skills are due to their lack of exposure to what's "trendy" and how much of it is just inherent. . my niece is the same age as my daughter, she's been hooked on the disney channel since birth. "fitting in" and keeping up with trends and being "like" her peers is extremely important to her. my kid couldn't care less. but that was also the difference between her mom (my sister) and i when we were kids.

i used to worry more about my son being able to fit in with more mainstreamed peers. seeing as we have no television, he knows 0 about spiderman or transformers or sports, he has 0 male role model to emulate and has been raised entirely by a bunch of women. but he's having no trouble "fitting in" with other boys. my daughter on the other hand is having loads of issues with socialization. she has no interest in what other 8 year old girls seem to be interested in. honestly, at this point, if hannah montana would help her make friends, i'd consider getting cable. but she just thinks it's stupid.

i'm interested to know if that's her just being a mature, heavily artistic, tomboy, with a dose of shyness or if the persona's of little girls are just so entirely shaped by television and trends that she's finding it impossible to relate them without it. i suspect its probably a bit of both. and i find the latter extremely sad.

>> ^blankfist:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://kids.videosift.com/member/spoco2" title="member since August 21st, 2006" class="profilelink">spoco2, good point. But I'd have to wonder why I'd want to stop him or her from following what they want even if it's trendy. Is it because of how I feel about it? If so, that's not a very good reason at all.
I dislike commercialization like the next guy, but is it fair for me to push my own personal politics onto my child? I say no. Sure, wearing high heels at five may be a bit extreme, but most parents use those extreme examples as justification to stifle their children's self-expression at less extremes. In other words, the rhetoric is "my five year old daughter is not wearing heels" but then in reality it's "my ten year old son is not getting a faux-hawk/mohawk" or "my daughter is not getting a Barbie doll".

@spoco2, good point. But I'd have to wonder why I'd want to stop him or her from following what they want even if it's trendy. Is it because of how I feel about it? If so, that's not a very good reason at all.

I dislike commercialization like the next guy, but is it fair for me to push my own personal politics onto my child? I say no. Sure, wearing high heels at five may be a bit extreme, but most parents use those extreme examples as justification to stifle their children's self-expression at less extremes. In other words, the rhetoric is "my five year old daughter is not wearing heels" but then in reality it's "my ten year old son is not getting a faux-hawk/mohawk" or "my daughter is not getting a Barbie doll".

Tags for this video have been changed from 'women, watermelon, crushes, with legs, wearing high heels' to 'women, watermelon, crushes, with legs, wearing high heels, rule 34' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

A video like this comes about not so much from the chance of being sued as it is losing a safety incentive-either personal or at the corporate level--especially for government contractors. I know I have heard of a similar video about chair training. I can't use a ladder without ladder training, can't drive a cart without cart training and I won't be surprised if we have restrictions on footwear soon, even in office areas because of slips/trips/falls due largely to wearing high heels and sandals.

Tasers are illegal to private citizens in Michigan unless they are a "registered bail agent, private investigator, or properly trained aircraft pilot or crew" (that's straight from the TASER website)... and after seeing several of the videos posted here on the fatal side effects of the TASER, I think this is prudent. However, after there were several rapes in my city last spring I did initially ask my father to get me a taser, but that's not possible, so I've settled with the highest concentration pepper spray available. Both self defense mechanisms are of course secondary to a good pair of shoes you can run in, and I never leave the house alone wearing a pair I cannot do that in... call me paranoid, but I think that the women who wear high heels every day only decrease their chances of getting themselves out of a potentially dangerous situation... not to mention destroying their back and feet, but whatever, yet another case of the cultural imprinting of a beauty ideal I guess.

As for glasses, I personally do not think I necessarily look better without them, and believe me, I would never date a guy who didn't appreciate me in them. But, my own empirical evidence suggests that the general public feels otherwise (pervasive cultural attitude I guess), as I almost never get a second look with them on. But whatever, its all personal preference, as I myself prefer a guy with glasses.