This speaker seemed very out of her depth. Bringing up KSA was in a debate about the Arab Spring was certainly eyebrow raising, but then I went to her Twitter account and it all made sense lol
Just on the fact that everyone (women and men) wanted to really question this speaker, she proved her point, and because of that selfish reason also, I really want to comment here with this speaker. Integration part one It is often assumed, described and understood that bullies are ignorant, brutes and stupid, and that it is so, and in most cases it can also be so. On the other hand, if the sets of actions that unfold and are undertaken by anyone described, understood and assumed in being involved in what is known as a bullying behaviour, are looked at in a more detailed manner, it will be quickly understood and very clear, that although the characteristics that can represent what is recognised as ignorant, brute and stupid are very much present with anyone involved in such a behaviour, what is being undertaken by anyone doing so, is anything but ignorant, brute or stupid. The structure of the behaviour known as bullying is in one form or another with and within every abled human being alive on the planet, at any given point. As a total system, it involves anyone assessing at the quickest way (and continuously) the advantages or the disadvantages that could be used by anyone as advantages or disadvantages in relation to themselves with anyone else. But most importantly in a vice versa abstract way simultaneously. Meaning the disadvantage of anyone in relation to what is considered beautiful, can be used as an advantage when taken away from someone else. The same would apply to hight, weight, sex, body parts and shapes, colour and distinctive race characteristics. With a always final aim of having the advantages or disadvantages including anyone in possession off, always subservient in relation to anyone making full use of the behaviour, be that as an advantage or disadvantage. It's basic structures fallow as such. The most common are in relation to one predominant person, which would continuously gather all the information needed in relation to all of its possible circle of applying the method of bullying, and do so at a very reasoned and logical linear structure. Meaning if a statement of anyone being fat, ugly, stupid, slow, deaf, blind, evil, weak, a colour, ideology, a religion or race etc etc is called....! Then most likely that statement would be true, and fit closely with what anyone else, or what in general is understood and meant by that precise circle of society or in most cases the larger part of society, (and it is precisely because of that type of structure the behaviour (bullying) becomes aggressive, if and when objected. Because the statement given in relation to anyone ((although often in full dishonesty)) makes sense and it is logical). The extreme cases of this, is when one single person becomes a loner and applies this method to a precise circle of society they are most in contact with, together with the whole society in a abstract way. From there, a structure where two predominant person's, (very rarely three) share the main structure of applying what is known as a bullying behaviour to a circle of society. The difference in this case is that a overall dominant figure always remains, but is joined by another similar dominant person and for reasons and logic having to do always with a status, a physical resource, or a human beings interest, come into a unspoken in terms agreement in order to become as one unit. Also, in such a scenario the person who is less active in exerting a bullying behaviour is sometimes most likely the dominant person which steps in every now and then or in precise critical situations, always in order to maintain and reinforce the bullying behaviour required. From this point on, an increase in dominant person's all involved and applying the same methods and behaviour to a precise or general circle of society, often leads to a criminal behaviour that is in almost all of the cases related to physical and mental harm, persecution and harassment of a specific or general circle of society. Different and complex combinations of such a behaviour in a long and short term are applied in a family circle, relationship, siblings, circle of friends, work, business, art's, sports, economy, military structure and activity/war, politics, diplomacy, religion, ideology, science and philosophy just to mention among a few. In such different and complex circumstances the whole behaviour often is accepted and in many cases encouraged, simply because it is overridden and in a abstract way takes a different form and structure (although as principal it remains the same), possible only through strong points of personal contact, experience, respect, loyalty, love, blood, interest, admiration etc etc. In fact many parts of such behaviour are accepted, and often encouraged in whole societies often very large in number and geography, with and within examples such as humour/comedy, competition, exams, awards etc etc.
It would be great if next time, you invite a public that has traveled abroad, that lived in the Arab world, that knows what it is talking about, rather than just students who think they live in democracy and carry high values that the whole world should share. In fact, not at all. The Arab world doesn’t want to destroy its own civilisation by promoting non-reproductive sexualities, and they have right to do so !
Such a shame that the couple behind the speaker were in the line of vision. Their interactions were a little distracting during speeches.
These countries who are doing better are those who brought troubles in the Arab Spring. Her intervention is out of topic.... period.
This speaker seemed very out of her depth. Bringing up KSA was in a debate about the Arab Spring was certainly eyebrow raising, but then I went to her Twitter account and it all made sense lol
Just on the fact that everyone (women and men) wanted to really question this speaker, she proved her point, and because of that selfish reason also, I really want to comment here with this speaker.
Integration part one
It is often assumed, described and understood that bullies are ignorant, brutes and stupid, and that it is so, and in most cases it can also be so. On the other hand, if the sets of actions that unfold and are undertaken by anyone described, understood and assumed in being involved in what is known as a bullying behaviour, are looked at in a more detailed manner, it will be quickly understood and very clear, that although the characteristics that can represent what is recognised as ignorant, brute and stupid are very much present with anyone involved in such a behaviour, what is being undertaken by anyone doing so, is anything but ignorant, brute or stupid.
The structure of the behaviour known as bullying is in one form or another with and within every abled human being alive on the planet, at any given point. As a total system, it involves anyone assessing at the quickest way (and continuously) the advantages or the disadvantages that could be used by anyone as advantages or disadvantages in relation to themselves with anyone else. But most importantly in a vice versa abstract way simultaneously. Meaning the disadvantage of anyone in relation to what is considered beautiful, can be used as an advantage when taken away from someone else. The same would apply to hight, weight, sex, body parts and shapes, colour and distinctive race characteristics. With a always final aim of having the advantages or disadvantages including anyone in possession off, always subservient in relation to anyone making full use of the behaviour, be that as an advantage or disadvantage.
It's basic structures fallow as such. The most common are in relation to one predominant person, which would continuously gather all the information needed in relation to all of its possible circle of applying the method of bullying, and do so at a very reasoned and logical linear structure. Meaning if a statement of anyone being fat, ugly, stupid, slow, deaf, blind, evil, weak, a colour, ideology, a religion or race etc etc is called....! Then most likely that statement would be true, and fit closely with what anyone else, or what in general is understood and meant by that precise circle of society or in most cases the larger part of society, (and it is precisely because of that type of structure the behaviour (bullying) becomes aggressive, if and when objected. Because the statement given in relation to anyone ((although often in full dishonesty)) makes sense and it is logical). The extreme cases of this, is when one single person becomes a loner and applies this method to a precise circle of society they are most in contact with, together with the whole society in a abstract way. From there, a structure where two predominant person's, (very rarely three) share the main structure of applying what is known as a bullying behaviour to a circle of society. The difference in this case is that a overall dominant figure always remains, but is joined by another similar dominant person and for reasons and logic having to do always with a status, a physical resource, or a human beings interest, come into a unspoken in terms agreement in order to become as one unit. Also, in such a scenario the person who is less active in exerting a bullying behaviour is sometimes most likely the dominant person which steps in every now and then or in precise critical situations, always in order to maintain and reinforce the bullying behaviour required. From this point on, an increase in dominant person's all involved and applying the same methods and behaviour to a precise or general circle of society, often leads to a criminal behaviour that is in almost all of the cases related to physical and mental harm, persecution and harassment of a specific or general circle of society.
Different and complex combinations of such a behaviour in a long and short term are applied in a family circle, relationship, siblings, circle of friends, work, business, art's, sports, economy, military structure and activity/war, politics, diplomacy, religion, ideology, science and philosophy just to mention among a few. In such different and complex circumstances the whole behaviour often is accepted and in many cases encouraged, simply because it is overridden and in a abstract way takes a different form and structure (although as principal it remains the same), possible only through strong points of personal contact, experience, respect, loyalty, love, blood, interest, admiration etc etc. In fact many parts of such behaviour are accepted, and often encouraged in whole societies often very large in number and geography, with and within examples such as humour/comedy, competition, exams, awards etc etc.
It would be great if next time, you invite a public that has traveled abroad, that lived in the Arab world, that knows what it is talking about, rather than just students who think they live in democracy and carry high values that the whole world should share. In fact, not at all. The Arab world doesn’t want to destroy its own civilisation by promoting non-reproductive sexualities, and they have right to do so !