H_B Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Yes. Well done. Thats how it works. Is it really? This is enlightening. So all arranged marriages work that way do they? Maybe someone should have told the makers of this documentary :- http://www.linktv.org/programs/arranged "In India most marriages are arranged. Love isn't always a consideration. It is neither a quest, nor a prerequisite, for happiness. You must fulfill your destiny. Marrying for love remains the exception. The arranged marriage serves the best interests of the family, preserves values from generation to generation." Edited to add, after being so thoroughly destroyed Do tell....this should be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I am also bemused as to what Unionism has to do with disputing the rights of parents to pick a marriage partner for their children. I do very much understand however why you would be all in favour of an unsuspecting and almost certainly unwilling mate being found for you though. Saves those awkward nightclub incidents in the great search for a partner eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Unionism is the last bastion of the authoritarian, hadn't you heard? Paternalism is the crime it would appear. Unless, of course, you happen to be from a racial or religious minority, in which case it is superior. It's quite clear really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 I've only read this page of his thread but haven't you dodged some of his questions from earlier? Grateful for this starting near lunchtime though...... Which ones? Is it really? This is enlightening. So all arranged marriages work that way do they? Maybe someone should have told the makers of this documentary :- http://www.linktv.or...ograms/arranged "In India most marriages are arranged. Love isn't always a consideration. It is neither a quest, nor a prerequisite, for happiness. You must fulfill your destiny. Marrying for love remains the exception. The arranged marriage serves the best interests of the family, preserves values from generation to generation." Do tell....this should be good. Tell what? Are you saying that all arranged marriages work like the example you have highlighted? Its typical "THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE, EVERYTHING ELSE IS WRONG OR DOESNT EXIST" Unionist posting. Have you ever considered that things aren't always black and white, and that sometimes you have to consider a more nuanced position. So while there are without doubt examples of abuse, how can you want to ban all arranged marriage? How would you even go about doing that? Maybe some sort of rule about if your family suggests a good match, then you can't see them? Or perhaps not allowing people of "that" colour of skin to marry unless the Great British State approves? What? Anyway, is this valid "evidence"? It doesn't look like a poll (which apparently is the only thing that you consider to be valid evidence). It looks like you've picked examples that are relevant to you, and have decided that this is what happens in all cases, which is exactly what you accuse me of. Funny that. And all this to deflect the issue away from the decaying of your precious Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 I do very much understand however why you would be all in favour of an unsuspecting and almost certainly unwilling mate being found for you though. ... I personally am not in favour of it... Amazing how that selective reading of yours works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Which ones? Tell what? Are you saying that all arranged marriages work like the example you have highlighted? Its typical "THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE, EVERYTHING ELSE IS WRONG OR DOESNT EXIST" Unionist posting. Have you ever considered that things aren't always black and white, and that sometimes you have to consider a more nuanced position. So while there are without doubt examples of abuse, how can you want to ban all arranged marriage? How would you even go about doing that? Maybe some sort of rule about if your family suggests a good match, then you can't see them? Or perhaps not allowing people of "that" colour of skin to marry unless the Great British State approves? What? Anyway, is this valid "evidence"? It doesn't look like a poll (which apparently is the only thing that you consider to be valid evidence). It looks like you've picked examples that are relevant to you, and have decided that this is what happens in all cases, which is exactly what you accuse me of. Funny that. And all this to deflect the issue away from the decaying of your precious Union. Are you trying to cite a poltiical opinion as concrete evidence of someone exhibiting a closed or narrow minded outlook, if by doing so are you therefore implying that only concrete SNP supporters, conveniently including yourself - are the only cultured and open minded people around? Becuase that would be extremely naive, stupid and narrow minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Are you saying that all arranged marriages work like the example you have highlighted? Are you saying all arranged marriages work as you indicated? In case you have forgotten, this is the xbl description of how arranged marriages work :- "Thats how it works. Parents suggest a match, people go out on a date, decide if they like each other, maybe go out on a few more dates, and if they decide its worthwhile, then it could become a marriage" Are you now saying "well, except where they don't work like that at all?" Which is it to be? So while there are without doubt examples of abuse, how can you want to ban all arranged marriage? Where did I say I wanted to ban arranged marriages? How would you even go about doing that? Maybe some sort of rule about if your family suggests a good match, then you can't see them? Or perhaps not allowing people of "that" colour of skin to marry unless the Great British State approves? What? Nice strawman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 Are you trying to cite a poltiical opinion as concrete evidence of someone exhibiting a closed or narrow minded outlook, if by doing so are you therefore implying that only concrete SNP supporters, conveniently including yourself - are the only cultured and open minded people around? Becuase that would be extremely naive, stupid and narrow minded. Not at all, after all, there are plenty of Unionists who do not support the SNP, and plenty of non Unionists who back Labour. However, this forum shows that those who support the Big British State tend to be those that like to control the lives of others, who believe in people Knowing Their Place. Look at HB. He's a proud Unionist, and believes in the state telling people what to wear, how to live their life, and presumably, would also like to see Food Tokens used for the poor. I don't actually disagree with some of his views (for example, I dislike arranged marriages), but the crucial thing is that I don't believe in controlling people's lives. Look at Pink Freud, with his "A British Identity is wonderful. There is no such thing as a European Identity". Maybe its a coincidence that the loudest Unionists on the site are also the loudest believers in big state social control, or maybe its not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 and believes in the state telling people what to wear, I asked you before and you dodged it - where have I said I believe in the state telling people what to wear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Becuase that would be extremely naive, stupid and narrow minded. Much like the craven Scotch. SCOTLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND!!!!1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 Are you saying all arranged marriages work as you indicated? In case you have forgotten, this is the xbl description of how arranged marriages work :- "Thats how it works. Parents suggest a match, people go out on a date, decide if they like each other, maybe go out on a few more dates, and if they decide its worthwhile, then it could become a marriage" Are you now saying "well, except where they don't work like that at all?" Which is it to be? Where did I say I wanted to ban arranged marriages? Nice strawman. REVERSE, REVERSE!!! Let me just quote you: It's an absolutely abhorrent practice. Parents should have absolutely no say whatsoever in their son or daughter's choice of mate. Any suggestion otherwise, is completely ridiculous. So are you saying that all arranged marriages work as you indicated? And that all arranged marriages are "an absolutely abhorrent practice"? I am absolutely saying that they don't always work as I described, just like not all women choose to wear the burqa freely. However, this does not mean that all arranged marriages are bad. As I said, things aren't always black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 I asked you before and you dodged it - where have I said I believe in the state telling people what to wear? So why do you disagree with me then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Are you trying to cite a poltiical opinion as concrete evidence of someone exhibiting a closed or narrow minded outlook, if by doing so are you therefore implying that only concrete SNP supporters, conveniently including yourself - are the only cultured and open minded people around? Becuase that would be extremely naive, stupid and narrow minded. He does this constantly. He accused me of saying he was anti English recently, when in fact I've always defended him from that accusation. Although I have always maintained that Scotland could survive happily outside the union, and that should the majority want it then fair enough, I've been accused of the Scottish cringe merely because I like the status quo. It's all a little hysterical and closed minded. It also seems to pervade every topic, however irrelevant. It's all good though- with his total lack of interest or knowledge, combined with this frankly concerning loathing of all unionists regardless of their differences, I am quite convinced he harms rather than helps the nationalist cause. It's just a shame that Colim M can't convince him to get actively involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Phoenix Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 So why do you disagree with me then? It's written into the P&B Terms & Conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Not at all, after all, there are plenty of Unionists who do not support the SNP, and plenty of non Unionists who back Labour. However, this forum shows that those who support the Big British State tend to be those that like to control the lives of others, who believe in people Knowing Their Place. Look at HB. He's a proud Unionist, and believes in the state telling people what to wear, how to live their life, and presumably, would also like to see Food Tokens used for the poor. I don't actually disagree with some of his views (for example, I dislike arranged marriages), but the crucial thing is that I don't believe in controlling people's lives. Look at Pink Freud, with his "A British Identity is wonderful. There is no such thing as a European Identity". Maybe its a coincidence that the loudest Unionists on the site are also the loudest believers in big state social control, or maybe its not. In this case, how do you square the circle, as a lover of freedom and liberty, how do you tolerate distinctly illiberal and authoritarian practices being continued in your midst. When you have situations where fundamentalist religion is allowed to impose upon people's lives, encouraging a culture of fear and intimidation, where they cannot access the tools of state, such as a free and fully functional trial by jury system, to help themselves. It's not a case of saying that all arranged marriages are necessarily against the will of those thus joined, it's a case of what do you do about the amny cases where the peole have no choice and no liberty to live their lives as they see fit. Do you see liberty as a universal concern or merely something you enjoy and have no care about others so long as your sense of non interference remains intact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 REVERSE, REVERSE!!! Oh dear. Even for you, this is humiliating. I'll ask again. Are you claiming this is how arranged marriages always work :- "Thats how it works. Parents suggest a match, people go out on a date, decide if they like each other, maybe go out on a few more dates, and if they decide its worthwhile, then it could become a marriage" So are you saying that all arranged marriages work as you indicated? Am I saying all arranged marriages involve parental involvement in choosing their son or daughter's mate? Yes, yes I am. And that all arranged marriages are "an absolutely abhorrent practice"? That is correct. I am absolutely saying that they don't always work as I described So why did you say "That's how it works"? Are you now saying "That's not how it works"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 In this case, how do you square the circle, as a lover of freedom and liberty, how do you tolerate distinctly illiberal and authoritarian practices being continued in your midst. When you have situations where fundamentalist religion is allowed to impose upon people's lives, encouraging a culture of fear and intimidation, where they cannot access the tools of state, such as a free and fully functional trial by jury system, to help themselves. It's not a case of saying that all arranged marriages are necessarily against the will of those thus joined, it's a case of what do you do about the amny cases where the peole have no choice and no liberty to live their lives as they see fit. Do you see liberty as a universal concern or merely something you enjoy and have no care about others so long as your sense of non interference remains intact? Good question, what do you do? As I said, I personally know of more cases where people like and even want an arranged marriage, than were forced into an unwilling marriage. So what do you do? Personally, I think the best solution is education and support, but I don't know. You have to educate people out of this sort of thing, to go in and ban it (which I think would be impossible), or start monitoring these sorts of things would only cause more harm. But why not start a separate topic on this, rather than fill the Scottish election thread with it? Lets face it, HB only started it so that he could attack me, not because he cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 So why do you disagree with me then? Forgive me for intruding into your private spat but I think what HB is saying is that the burqa is distasteful but that if people want to wear it then they shouldn't be prevented from doing so. It's akin to thinking that wearing an SS uniform is rather distateful but shouldn't be illegal. I think the contrast that is picked up is that when you raise things like the burqa or arranged marriages you bring up 'positive' examples, the argument running along the lines of 'well some people may be forced into it but these people <insert documentary/article here> actually like it'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Lets face it, HB only started it so that he could attack me, not because he cares. There are other human rights abuses that concern me more, but the right to choose a mate for yourself is a fundamental one, which should exist in every society. It was an excellent example of your use of convenient anecdotal evidence to make a substantive point, which there is no justification for. It's also been enlightening to see you attempt to tell us "how these things work" before being forced to admit "well, OK, that's not always how they work - that's just one example which I've tried to pass off as a definitive one". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Has everyone been owned yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.