• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump's Cabinet

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I think you are looking at the statement from the perspective of someone who already dislikes her.
I look at it from the perspective of a fluent English speaker.
Could it be that your perspective is that of a Democratic apologist?
She is not saying it to belittle men. She is simply making the point that women suffer and their suffering is usually ignored.
She makes the point that their suffering is "primary"...which means "first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal".
Clearly this is not a example of a lie. What is she lying about? She simply worded her point poorly.
I didn't say "lie".
In fact, I believe she was being honest.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
I look at it from the perspective of a fluent English speaker.
Could it be that your perspective is that of a Democratic apologist?

Could be if I were the one taking a poorly worded statement and attributing things to it that just aren't there. But I am not.

She makes the point that their suffering is "primary"...which means "first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal".

Yes, primary, when she probably meant to say 'one of the primary' or something else. If it were a deliberate thing she would have said it more than once. Clearly she didn't.

I didn't say "lie".
In fact, I believe she was being honest.

You used this statement to question her honesty. But it doesn't matter. Clearly you don't like her either way.

I don't particularly like her either. But I try very hard to look at things from other peoples perspectives before judging them. I have made enough bone headed statements in my time that I could probably write a book.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Could be if I were the one taking a poorly worded statement and attributing things to it that just aren't there. But I am not.
Yes, primary, when she probably meant to say 'one of the primary' or something else. If it were a deliberate thing she would have said it more than once. Clearly she didn't.
You used this statement to question her honesty. But it doesn't matter. Clearly you don't like her either way.
I don't particularly like her either. But I try very hard to look at things from other peoples perspectives before judging them. I have made enough bone headed statements in my time that I could probably write a book.
You keep trying to explain away her statements by making it about me.
I prefer to deal solely with what she said.
But I can see how that would be awkward for some.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
You keep trying to explain away her statements by making it about me.
I prefer to deal solely with what she said.
But I can see how that would be awkward for some.

It's simple. You want to make this a glaring fault, as though she intended to besmirch men. It was one poorly worded statement. Nothing else she has ever said hints that she believes men are not victims in war. She has not come out as the "anti men" candidate. She simply worded her point poorly as many of us have from time to time.

I make it about you only because that is the only way I can justify this kind of obvious prejudice.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
Let me stop you there.
It's her statement.
You want it to mean something other than what it says.
I can understand.
I just can't go along with it.

Actually upon digging a little deeper, I read her speech and I concede she meant what she said. I would even say she is right, after reading the rest of what she said.

And I am not the only one. In 2000 the United Nations Security Council said something very similar after a study they conducted.

http://www.cfr.org/women/un-security-council-resolution-1325-women-peace-security/p23041

Victim implies innocents, bystanders, those not fighting, those not making the decisions. When you look at the world as a whole, women are the primary victims. They have no control of the situation in many countries. They cannot fight, they cannot vote. They are left at home to deal with the outcomes while the men make the decisions and go to war. They are not the only victims, but they are the primary...


"The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comparable to what happens with domestic violence. Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. Women are again the victims in crime and domestic violence as well. Throughout our hemisphere we have an epidemic of violence against women, even though there is no longer any organized warfare that puts women in the direct line of combat. But domestic violence is now recognized as being the most pervasive human rights violation in the world. Here in El Salvador, according to the statistics gathered by your government, 1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted and the number of domestic abuse complaints at just one agency topped 10,000 last year. Between 25 and 50 percent of women throughout Latin America have reportedly been victims of domestic violence.

The problem is all pervasive, but sometimes difficult to see. Every country on earth shares this dark secret. Too often, the women we see shopping at the markets, working at their jobs, caring for their children by day, go home at night and live in fear. Not fear of an invading army or a natural disaster or even a stranger in a dark alley, but fear of the very people — family members — who they are supposed to depend upon for help and comfort. This is the trust-destroying terror that attends every step of a victim of violence. For these women, their homes provide inadequate refuge, the law little protection, public opinion often less sympathy. That's why we have to say over and over again, as Elizabeth has done and as so many of you have echoed, that violence against women is not simply cultural or a custom. It is simply criminal, a crime. The devastating effects of domestic violence on women are just as dramatic as the effects of war on women. The physical injury, the mental illness, the terrible loss of confidence limits the capacities of women to fulfill their God-given potentials."

So I don't think it was a mistake. I think she was spot on.

I would also point out that the speech was delivered at a domestic violence conference in El Salvador.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Actually upon digging a little deeper, I read her speech and I concede she meant what she said. I would even say she is right, after reading the rest of what she said.

And I am not the only one. In 2000 the United Nations Security Council said something very similar after a study they conducted.

http://www.cfr.org/women/un-security-council-resolution-1325-women-peace-security/p23041

Victim implies innocents, bystanders, those not fighting, those not making the decisions. When you look at the world as a whole, women are the primary victims. They have no control of the situation in many countries. They cannot fight, they cannot vote. They are left at home to deal with the outcomes while the men make the decisions and go to war. They are not the only victims, but they are the primary...


"The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comparable to what happens with domestic violence. Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. Women are again the victims in crime and domestic violence as well. Throughout our hemisphere we have an epidemic of violence against women, even though there is no longer any organized warfare that puts women in the direct line of combat. But domestic violence is now recognized as being the most pervasive human rights violation in the world. Here in El Salvador, according to the statistics gathered by your government, 1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted and the number of domestic abuse complaints at just one agency topped 10,000 last year. Between 25 and 50 percent of women throughout Latin America have reportedly been victims of domestic violence.

The problem is all pervasive, but sometimes difficult to see. Every country on earth shares this dark secret. Too often, the women we see shopping at the markets, working at their jobs, caring for their children by day, go home at night and live in fear. Not fear of an invading army or a natural disaster or even a stranger in a dark alley, but fear of the very people — family members — who they are supposed to depend upon for help and comfort. This is the trust-destroying terror that attends every step of a victim of violence. For these women, their homes provide inadequate refuge, the law little protection, public opinion often less sympathy. That's why we have to say over and over again, as Elizabeth has done and as so many of you have echoed, that violence against women is not simply cultural or a custom. It is simply criminal, a crime. The devastating effects of domestic violence on women are just as dramatic as the effects of war on women. The physical injury, the mental illness, the terrible loss of confidence limits the capacities of women to fulfill their God-given potentials."

So I don't think it was a mistake. I think she was spot on.
I read the context too.
We could go on like this all day, but are we achieving anything other than derailment?
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
I'm just lazy.
Life is easier when I have only opinions.
The truth is very hard to defend.
After all, "truth" is just an opinion what's put'n on airs.

I once learned how to dig a ditch from an old man.

For the first day of digging he didn't say a word, but my friend and I, both 15, were getting about half the work done he was on that first day.

The second day he asked if we wanted to learn how to dig a ditch. I said, 'sure, but I don't know how you do it. You work so hard'. He said, 'nah, I'm just lazy. I learned a long time ago that getting the job done as efficiently as possible saved my *** from a lot of work.' He spent 20 minutes showing us the mechanics of digging with the shovel on our knee and how to use leverage and momentum. The third day we managed to keep up with him and the 4th and final day he never showed up.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I once learned how to dig a ditch from an old man.

For the first day of digging he didn't say a word, but my friend and I, both 15, were getting about half the work done he was on that first day.

The second day he asked if we wanted to learn how to dig a ditch. I said, 'sure, but I don't know how you do it. You work so hard'. He said, 'nah, I'm just lazy. I learned a long time ago that getting the job done as efficiently as possible saved my *** from a lot of work.' He spent 20 minutes showing us the mechanics of digging with the shovel on our knee and how to use leverage and momentum. The third day we managed to keep up with him and the 4th and final day he never showed up.
Shovels do take some unexpected skill.
Selection of the tool also makes a difference.
 
Top