My sneaky suspicion of Snowden, by Naomi Wolf

[McGiver]

Perfect, you trust (but not blindly) those who share your version of the world.
That's agreeing with, not trusting.

It was your negative statement about feminism that brought up the red flag for me. 
Let me re-read, maybe I missed her feminist manifesto.

[RageBeoulve]

Perfect, you trust (but not blindly) those who share your version of the world.
That's agreeing with, not trusting.

It was your negative statement about feminism that brought up the red flag for me. 
Let me re-read, maybe I missed her feminist manifesto.

Feminism, as a whole, is corrupt and defeated already. It does not serve the purpose it originally did, far from it.

[Al Swearegen]

Not at all.
If some ascribes to a political ideal or a cultural persuasion or a value based system that does not align or mesh with yours...then you ought to be on the backfoot with them from the outset.
A radical funadamentalist Chrisian that would see me and all non-practicing Christians condemned to the afterlife and rather more quickly than our used by date, is not inherently wrong with every thought and utterance BUT such utterances MUST be viewed against the context of their viewpoint. If they say as an isolated soundbyte. "All humanity are god's children". then you have a right to say "Fabulous but did you not say 10 seconds ago that all that did not worship Jehova be thrown into the darkest hots pits of hell...or whatever"
It is all relative.
If a Christian Fundamentalist who has never overtly endorsed such preachings says something nice and wise, you similarly can say "Good, great, so you disagree that we ought to be cast into hellfire and be tormented in eternity?'
If though the person had no such conviction and never made any affirmations one way or the other you would not question their standpoint...would you?

[RageBeoulve]

Not at all.
If some ascribes to a political ideal or a cultural persuasion or a value based system that does not align or mesh with yours...then you ought to be on the backfoot with them from the outset.
A radical funadamentalist Chrisian that would see me and all non-practicing Christians condemned to the afterlife and rather more quickly than our used by date, is not inherently wrong with every thought and utterance BUT such utterances MUST be viewed against the context of their viewpoint. If they say as an isolated soundbyte. "All humanity are god's children". then you have a right to say "Fabulous but did you not say 10 seconds ago that all that did not worship Jehova be thrown into the darkest hots pits of hell...or whatever"
It is all relative.
If a Christian Fundamentalist who has never overtly endorsed such preachings says something nice and wise, you similarly can say "Good, great, so you disagree that we ought to be cast into hellfire and be tormented in eternity?'
If though the person had no such conviction and never made any affirmations one way or the other you would not question their standpoint...would you?

That would normally be a fine argument, but modern feminism is actually becoming quite harmful to society as a whole. Undeniable.

[McGiver]

Not at all.
If some ascribes to a political ideal or a cultural persuasion or a value based system that does not align or mesh with yours...then you ought to be on the backfoot with them from the outset.
A radical funadamentalist Chrisian that would see me and all non-practicing Christians condemned to the afterlife and rather more quickly than our used by date, is not inherently wrong with every thought and utterance BUT such utterances MUST be viewed against the context of their viewpoint. If they say as an isolated soundbyte. "All humanity are god's children". then you have a right to say "Fabulous but did you not say 10 seconds ago that all that did not worship Jehova be thrown into the darkest hots pits of hell...or whatever"
It is all relative.
If a Christian Fundamentalist who has never overtly endorsed such preachings says something nice and wise, you similarly can say "Good, great, so you disagree that we ought to be cast into hellfire and be tormented in eternity?'
If though the person had no such conviction and never made any affirmations one way or the other you would not question their standpoint...would you?

then you admit that you are immediately suspicious of her simply because wage is a feminist.  Even writing an article that is off topic of your suspicion.

[Al Swearegen]

Not at all.
If some ascribes to a political ideal or a cultural persuasion or a value based system that does not align or mesh with yours...then you ought to be on the backfoot with them from the outset.
A radical funadamentalist Chrisian that would see me and all non-practicing Christians condemned to the afterlife and rather more quickly than our used by date, is not inherently wrong with every thought and utterance BUT such utterances MUST be viewed against the context of their viewpoint. If they say as an isolated soundbyte. "All humanity are god's children". then you have a right to say "Fabulous but did you not say 10 seconds ago that all that did not worship Jehova be thrown into the darkest hots pits of hell...or whatever"
It is all relative.
If a Christian Fundamentalist who has never overtly endorsed such preachings says something nice and wise, you similarly can say "Good, great, so you disagree that we ought to be cast into hellfire and be tormented in eternity?'
If though the person had no such conviction and never made any affirmations one way or the other you would not question their standpoint...would you?

then you admit that you are immediately suspicious of her simply because wage is a feminist.  Even writing an article that is off topic of your suspicion.

Come on McJagger

"Because she is Feminist AND because you have read a lot of her writings and have ground to make a well grounded judgement in this regard"

That is what you really meant didn't you, McJagger. Want to know my answer to that FAIR question?

She is very sexy and smart and meets my interests for both intellect and beauty. In fact her feminist approach is not as radical and bizarre as most Feminists

You are not going to pretend that I did not at least imply from the above that i had not read any of her writings....right? No, good, just checking

[McGiver]

Yes. I just assumed you saw her on a Sunday morning show. 
What else could I infer when yo also mentioned her beauty?
 
Certainly not her writings.

[Al Swearegen]

Yes. I just assumed you saw her on a Sunday morning show. 
What else could I infer when yo also mentioned her beauty?
 
Certainly not her writings.

Really? Then how would I assess how radical her writings are against the other feminist writers?

You sure you could not infer anything else?

What about my talking of her intellect and the appeal of that? What has that to do with her appearance? How would i judge this?

Tell me again about what you could or could not have inferred about my view of her writings

[McGiver]

Just inferring from what little sexist  offering you gave in your original post.
Bringing into question feminism in a post unrelated.
Topic was about the NSA spying and Snowden being a pawn.
Do you think she would hold such opinions if the leaker was a female?

[odeon]

[McGiver]

He went to bed.
I was only poking at him because he was drinking.
I know he enjoys it.

I'm a giver.

[odeon]

That's really nice of you.

[Al Swearegen]

Just inferring from what little sexist  offering you gave in your original post.
Bringing into question feminism in a post unrelated.
Topic was about the NSA spying and Snowden being a pawn.
Do you think she would hold such opinions if the leaker was a female?

OK. I want you to replace the words "Naomi Wolf" with "George W Bush".

I think George Bush is subpar intellect and that when he says anything resembling intelligence, that i strongly suspect it is written by a smarter political commentator to make him sound cleverer than he is. I more strongly suspect an agenda in saying what he has been instructed to say what he says.

So I have equally reasoned justification on his form for suspecting he is untrustworthy and for the statement in THIS context to be suspect.

OK...now go ahead and make the sexist argument.

Good luck.

BTW I was and I do

[RageBeoulve]

Not at all.
If some ascribes to a political ideal or a cultural persuasion or a value based system that does not align or mesh with yours...then you ought to be on the backfoot with them from the outset.
A radical funadamentalist Chrisian that would see me and all non-practicing Christians condemned to the afterlife and rather more quickly than our used by date, is not inherently wrong with every thought and utterance BUT such utterances MUST be viewed against the context of their viewpoint. If they say as an isolated soundbyte. "All humanity are god's children". then you have a right to say "Fabulous but did you not say 10 seconds ago that all that did not worship Jehova be thrown into the darkest hots pits of hell...or whatever"
It is all relative.
If a Christian Fundamentalist who has never overtly endorsed such preachings says something nice and wise, you similarly can say "Good, great, so you disagree that we ought to be cast into hellfire and be tormented in eternity?'
If though the person had no such conviction and never made any affirmations one way or the other you would not question their standpoint...would you?

then you admit that you are immediately suspicious of her simply because wage is a feminist.  Even writing an article that is off topic of your suspicion.

Actually, yeah. If someone openly voiced third wave feminist shill, I would instantly be very suspicious of their motives. Modern feminism is a trick. A scam. Like scientology. Call me a tinfoil hat man all you like, but that's how I feel about that.

[McGiver]

 
As I stated before

all that, but the truth is you trust no one.
Just a dig at feminism.

Unless you want I forget you brought feminism into the discussion.
I suppose I can do that, but you'd have to edit first.