Thursday, 03 July 2008
-
Issie's turn
1. JMSnook, “this person” is Issie and I hereby grant you permission to address me by my name.
2. I informed you of my response to your comments not out of “courage”. To have done something courageously is to have done it despite of fear. I have no fear in this matter, whether it’s fear of you or fear of being proven wrong. I simply wanted an open exchange of ideas. I informed you out of integrity, for what is the point of submitting a public counterargument to your ideas if I was doing it behind your back? That would be sneaky, and I am a woman of honour. (No, the real honour, not the ‘honour’ behind the cruel ‘honor killings’ you champion).
3. I did not put up a link to the Revelife post or name you in my first response because I did not have your agreement then for this discussion. I wanted to respect your right not to participate and my goal was not to drag your name through mud, but to express my opinion. I did not want others to harass you or think poorly of you based on what I wrote. However when CiCi asked, I did inform her of the exact Revelife post I was talking about.
4. I apologise if my reading/reasoning/rhetorical/journalistic/investigative skills and general knowledge are not quite to your liking. But I do not accept your criticisms that they are inadequate, for I have achieved considerable academic success with them, and I do respect the opinions of my professors more.
Now my response… and I’ll try to keep it concise for simple reading. For our readers’ sake, not yours, for I’ve gathered that you are superior in your comprehension of the English language.
Why, oh why, do you always use the argument that someone is trying to justify their sin whenever they disagree with you? I never thought I’ll have to use my sexual purity this way, but sir, I am a virgin, and am so out of choice, not because of lack of chance. I’m not perfect, as you seem to be. When it comes to the opposite sex, I have made decisions that were unwise, even though they never led to the big bang, so to say. But since you are only talking about virgins, i.e. women who have never had sexual intercourse or contact, and not about other sins, then in that aspect, I have nothing to justify. I am pure in the original state. Also, most of the people who disagreed with you on that post did so out of their beliefs, not out of sin. This is apparent to most readers, but perhaps your reading and reasoning skills are so out of this world that you are seeing a different reality.
What is my stake in this? By declaring on a public forum that you would only marry an attractive thin virgin woman with the alleged backing of God is not merely declaring your personal preference. You have declared your theological deduction of the value of a woman, and that is what I find misogynist. Yes you may condemn men as well for premarital relations, but the virginity of a man cannot be medically detected, and you sir, have declared no romantic interest in males. You have also touted honour killings as if they were an acceptable method to deal with women who have had sex outside of holy matrimony. Therefore, to me and many readers of your comments, you have reduced women to mere sexual tools for their husbands’ pleasure and they are worth nothing beyond that.
If I may bring it to your attention again, I am a woman. I know my worth according to the Bible, and it is more than just a sexual companion to my husband. I am the bride of Christ, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, much loved, treasured, and forgiven, purified from all sin, daughter of the Most High, fearfully and wonderfully made, with the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in me, and called according to His purpose and commanded to love Him with all my heart and all my soul and all my mind and all my strength. You call women who have engaged in premarital sex “whores”, my God Jesus, in John 8, deems them worthy enough to be saved from public stoning, and given a second chance to live. You say they are unwanted, my God died on the Cross to tell them they are wanted. So this is my stake. You have insulted my God by using Him to forward your agenda against the female sex, of which I am a part of. I love God, and I love all the amazing women He has created, virgin or not. So I choose to stand for them.
I had no idea that my ignorance of sociology and history is “staggering”. I apologise for never having taken that legendary 1000 level geography course you mentioned, for I did not grow up in your country. Instead, I grew up in the region you are talking about, so I’m sorry if my real-life experience is inferior to your pedantic sources. Yes, I grew up in East Asia, and travelled the region rather extensively as my mother is from another country in East Asia, and has family there and in other neighbouring countries. Somehow, I must have missed the fact that no single person was having sex in my continent due to my lousy observation skills of all the Indians (race), Muslims (religion) and other Asian groups (ethnicity) around me. It must have been my mistake to gather that single people were having sex just because they were walking down the aisle with their unborn child. I should have gained my knowledge from international matchmaking sites instead.
As for the “ubercute Asian” argument, I agree with haemina, so there’s no need to trek that path again. It is racist, not just against your own race, but against Asians, of which I am also a part of. Ahh… what a lucky coincidence.
p
.s. I’m moving house tomorrow (Saturday) and serving in church (Sunday) so I will post my next response only after that. I’m sure you’ll be super-efficient with your response, as you did the last time, so I’m letting you know of my schedule out of courtesy.Sorry, got bored, so I'm ending the discussion on my part. Up to commentors now.
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to Issie's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in Issie's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (6)
don't be discouraged; don't stop speaking truth to what's wrong.
I find fault with your reasoning skills. Logical reasoning follows along the format of if A = B and B=C then A = C. The type of logic I see from you is more along the lines of A = B therefore C = F. I do not follow you at all, and I don't know whether or not you are doing it on purpose or whether you really believe that your arguments make sense. Not meaning to be too nitpicky but allow me to demonstrate:
"(No, the real honour, not the ‘honour’ behind the cruel ‘honor killings’ you champion)."
...and...
"You have also touted honour killings as if they were an acceptable method to deal with women who have had sex outside of holy matrimony."
1) When did I ever say I approved of honor killings? 2) Why not keep my comments in context. 3) When making accusations about what someone said why not quote them? That's the way to ACTUALLY win an argument. Your methodology might be good for the Salem witch trials where accusation is equal to proof but that's not the way that real life works. Either you are making huge unfounded leaps into illogic or you are deliberately lying. I would be offended except I never really had high expectations in the first place.
“By declaring on a public forum that you would only marry an attractive thin virgin woman with the alleged backing of God is not merely declaring your personal preference.”
--If I “declared” something then you should be able to quote me. As it is I was only talking about myself. My reasons for initiating/provoking all the debates served a two-fold purpose. One was just to initiate arguments because I needed something to do, the other was to get a feel for how many of the readers were chaste vs. unchaste. Of course I really do believe everything I said but I could just as easily have kept this to myself. At any rate, you said I declared something, do quote me on that. I never made any statements about what women are worth to God. I just said that I don’t want an unchaste woman and that is my prerogative. Incidentally my sister doesn’t want an unchaste man and considers the notion of pursuing one unfathomable. In her own words, “I used to be attracted to the bad boy type but now that I know I can have whoever I want I’m only attracted to good boys.” She has rejected most of the boys at church because they are no longer virgins, and that is well and good. Does that make her a chauvinist? No, it’s not an issue of sexism, it’s an issue of pursuing what is ideal, what God originally planned, and not conforming to the worlds standards. I did state that I preferred attractive and pure women, so do you feel slighted by that? We all have barriers we will not cross, I know you have lines that you draw someplace, so it’s hypocritical of you to criticize me.
“You have declared your theological deduction of the value of a woman, and that is what I find misogynist.”
--I declared? Quote me or drop the argument.
More of your arguments:
(A) “You have also touted honour killings as if they were an acceptable method to deal with women who have had sex outside of holy matrimony.”
(B) Therefore, to me and many readers of your comments, you have reduced women to mere sexual tools for their husbands’ pleasure and they are worth nothing beyond that.
--That would be a good argument and an example of how A = B or C except that in (A) never actually occurred, and I never made any statements about the worth of women. I have gone out with 2 non-virgins, one of which was physically unattractive. What’s it to you if I decide never to do that again? It seems that you have an axe to grind but it isn’t with me.
“If I may bring it to your attention again, I am a woman. I know my worth according to the Bible, and it is more than just a sexual companion to my husband.”
--Again, point me to statements of worth? I actually value intellectual companionship as well and don’t particularly care for women who cannot keep up with me intellectually.
“You call women who have engaged in premarital sex “whores”, my God Jesus, in John 8, deems them worthy enough to be saved from public stoning, and given a second chance to live.”
--I never called them whores. I just don’t have anymore interest in such women. One way or another I’m going to get around the system here in regards to women. Wither it means being single forever or doing something extreme.
Tell me then where you are from so I can understand your sociological background easier. I’m from the US, right now I live in the Georgia and at present I hate it here.
It is true that a great deal of my sources are textbooks and whatnot, however in the case of India I have a great deal of knowledge because I know many people from there (in person, Indian tea is pretty good if you ever get the chance to try it) and I know for a fact that arranged marriages are practiced and that extra-marital sex is frowned upon regardless of religion. That’s the way it ought to be because extra-marital sex is destructive behavior. As it turns out, I agree with arranged marriages and their philosophies and approaches to sex and marriage (as far as that goes however I’m up a creek without a paddle since my parents are incapable of arranging anything for me.) It’s a lot better than the US where anything goes, including ‘gay marriage.’ I did tamper around with an Indian match making site and talked to some girls on there but gave up for the time being, since the only women that accepted my interests were overseas. The Indian women in the US didn’t want me because they believe that most occidentals engage in sex and drinking, which is basically true, however it is not true in my case.
Now, you called me racist. I challenge you to substantiate that argument with some facts and logic. First of all, a person cannot be racist against their own race, that’s absurd to say the least. And my belief that Asian females are more attractive is not racist. A racist person believes that their race is inherently superior and does not wish to breed with people of other races because that would reduce the quality of their children. Racists don’t find people of other races attractive, and they certainly wouldn’t consider marrying someone different. Now if you want to be exposed to some examples of racism, I’m sure I could quickly find some for you on xanga here, or really anywhere. It might do you some good to see some examples of actual racism and that way when you will at least know what you are talking about.
@jmsnooks@xanga - Hmm it's quite hard to have a discussion if you can NEVER seem to understand my arguments. I'm not sure whose reasoning skills are at fault here since it appears to me that other commentors have no issue with my arguments. It is only you who do not understand. You say it is absurd that a person can be racist against their own race. Well, from what I've read in the comments here and on Revelife, people find you absurd. But then again, you don't care how people think, do you? You were amusing at some point, but now your insistence on not understanding anything is boring me. You can insult me and say I've given up or lost or whatever, but you know what? I don't care what you think because I only consider the opinions of people who are worthy. I'm not posting anymore but I'm quite happy for everyone else to do so, and for you to respond. Perhaps you can understand them better.
I have made myself clear to everyone else reading these posts, and if you need clarification, perhaps you should ask them. They appear to have superior reading skills.
By the way, dear Occidental, I am Oriental and you're telling me and Haemina you understand racism better?
@thirtytrillion@xanga - Cheers. I'm not discouraged. I just realised it (the fruitless discussion) was an endless pursuit and I have much more meaningful pursuits in my life that require my attention. I reckon everyone, other than snooks, can understand my perspective and my arguments, so I've made myself clear on this. I will continue looking at other issues that everyone can have a go at discussing, without being exposed to excessive insults.
@Issie - Your arguments are unsupported. Right, I don't particularly care what most people think. The fact that you have fouind people to agree with you has no bearing on whether you are correct or not, especially since all of those people are pre-disposed to agree with you anyways. It's like the Democrats and their constituency. The people who vote Democrat approve of anything their party does, regardless of whether or not they understand the explanation, whether or not an explanation was even provided, and regardless of what the consequences of that action might be. The Republicans invade a non-threatening country, bomb it, kill the leader(s), soldiers get killed, civilians get killed, and the Democratic constituency fuss and scream about it in a barely coherent fashion (much like...), now when the Democrats invade a nonthreatening country, bomb it, get soldiers and civilians killed, then it's a "humanitarian effort" as far as the Democratic constituency is concerned. So you see, with most people, especially the more emotional sorts, it's not about facts and logic, it's about emotions. You and your friends are getting all emotional over nothing, and because you have a consensus of people who feel the same does not mean that you're onto anything. The emotional consensus of Germany during the 1930's thought the Nazi party was the greatest thing.
I understand most of the comments posted, but some of them are extremely vague. I believe the vague ones are either tautologies or poor attempts at bait and switch. Why not just use some facts and logic? If you accuse me of something you have only to quote me on what I said and that will be the end of the argument. Of course, you can't do that because I never said any of those "declarations" you accused me of so all your accusations are baseless. You do realize of course that what you are doing is technically libel. Now the more sensitive sorts of people might go into a raging cursing fit, or some might even level some legal action against you. But in my case, I don't really care because it's just another raindrop on my face. As to the issue of who understands racism better. Who can say? You may have a better visceral understanding then the reverse is equally probable. You have no idea what my experiences are and I have no idea what yours might be. The fact of the matter, which is difficult to deny is that I seem to have a working definition of racism and you do not. Levelling accusations can be cathartic in the same way that smashing bottles may be, but if you want your accusations to stick then you need to provide evidence for them. I have asked you to explain the basis for your accusations and you cannot. That makes you look like a person who just likes to call names.
Oh good lord.
I think I'll be popping back in here sometime soon.