Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Might as well misogynyFollow

#52 May 29 2014 at 1:26 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Women's issues in the US are not so grievous or obvious as you might find in third world countries. Does that make them non-existent?

Of course. Unless one is being actively raped and killed, there is nothing worth complaining about. To wit:

Somewhere in the world, there are women begin abducted from their homes and sold as sex slaves in a massive global market.

Somewhere in the world, girl children are smothered at birth because the burden of raising a girl is just too high. It is a bit disheartening that you use girls who lived past the age of infancy and their "problems" as some sort of example of suffering. You want suffering? Try suffocating to death in your mothers arms.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#53 May 29 2014 at 1:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
Elinda wrote:
Kuwoobie wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Kuwoobie wrote:

It is more than a little annoying when people are constantly belittling themselves and the groups they represent out of pure self-pity. They do nothing but damage the cause of real social activism-- against instances where said groups are actually being abused and victimized.

The difference between whining and real social activism is determined by the receiver of the information. If it's something you do't want to hear, or isn't a problem for you, you're more likely to view the information as whining. Likewise the other way around.



Somewhere in the world, there are women begin abducted from their homes and sold as sex slaves in a massive global market. Meanwhile, the United States continues to debate whether or not it should legislate women's reproductive rights in almost every way imaginable.

It is a bit disheartening when people compare these things with something like being called fat by their friend's boyfriend, then come up with twenty pages about how said boyfriend is secretly and subconsciously trying to exert his male superiority over them at every turn.

That's a ridiculous comparison.

Women's issues in the US are not so grievous or obvious as you might find in third world countries. Does that make them non-existent?

If you're willing to brush off more modest attempts at feminism by simply declaring women have it worse elsewhere, is that a problem?


So that would be considered a "modest attempt" at feminism? Where do you draw the line there?
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#54 May 29 2014 at 1:36 PM Rating: Good
Yeah, where do we draw the line?

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh
#55 May 29 2014 at 1:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
zamwiki wrote:
You see down south we don't think 1rst and 2nd graders should know about fisting and pleasuring themselves from teachers.

They should find out the traditional Tennessee way -- from their brothers and uncles.

I suppose when you're a lazy welfare state suckling off the teat of blue state labor, you have plenty of time to come up with stupid laws.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#56 May 29 2014 at 1:44 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
zamwiki wrote:
We value life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We white male Christians.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#57 May 29 2014 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:


So that would be considered a "modest attempt" at feminism? Where do you draw the line there?
Your example? If this is a real life situation that you encounter then you probably need more information about the individuals involved before you can judge who's a whiner and who's sexist.

I thought your example, however, as just an half-assed attempt to trivialize the issue with non-realistic 'examples' of women whining.






Edited, May 29th 2014 10:16pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#58 May 29 2014 at 2:18 PM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Elinda wrote:
If you're willing to just chalk this up to some crazy fella, then you have to admit that our gun regulations are not working. He was nuts. That was documented, yet he was never committed and therefore hes found quite suitable for purchasing and owning guns. He'd bought three -legally.
If he hadn't been given access to guns, he might have instead used another weapon he has already shown us he's willing to use and went on a Jack the Ripper style knifing spree. The more subtle approach that usually requires might have meant his death toll would have been higher before he was caught. I don't know enough about him to say for sure.

If he had been under closer scrutiny, it might not have happened at all. That's what I suspect, but I really don't know, and neither does anyone else posting about it on a forum. We can play armchair policymakers all day without knowing for sure which changes would have been effective in this case, and more importantly, in future cases. If there's no law in place preventing the insane from getting guns, then I can surely agree that's a problem.

However, there was a law in place, but he passed the criteria. I can't say for sure if that was because he had hidden it well or if the doctor who prescribed him those psych meds he was on dropped the hell out of the ball. Or maybe the criteria needs some tweaking(edit: How about being prescribed risperidol be a criteria for at least a closer look?). I still think overhauling the mental health systems in place would have done more good, but that's just personal opinion.

Edited, May 29th 2014 2:25pm by Poldaran
#59 May 29 2014 at 2:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Yeah, where do we draw the line?

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh



And why is it always *****-shaped?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#60 May 29 2014 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Smash wrote:
Of course. Unless one is being actively raped and killed, there is nothing worth complaining about.


You know, I thought I was having a pretty good day, and here's the confirmation. Thanks!
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#61 May 29 2014 at 2:34 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
I still think overhauling the mental health systems in place would have done more good, but that's just personal opinion.
That would be the ideal, but unfortunately the only people that could really do anything have decided that the only options to solve the problem are MORE GUNS or NO GUNS, both of which are pants on head retarded. Or par for the course depending how desensitized to the process you are.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#62 May 29 2014 at 2:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Eh, one report claimed that he had seen a series of mental health professionals. If he truly was a narcissist, they're notoriously hard to treat (because they never admit anything's wrong with them).

Sometimes there's just no good answer.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#63 May 29 2014 at 2:39 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Samira wrote:
Sometimes there's just no good answer.
Often there's a lot of bad answers, though.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#64 May 29 2014 at 3:39 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
That would be the ideal, but unfortunately the only people that could really do anything have decided that the only options to solve the problem are MORE GUNS or NO GUNS, both of which are pants on head retarded


Yeah, over the Atlantic we just lounge around with jeans on our heads in an agony of jealousy over your murder rate. **** it, we're probably just too stupid to kill one another.
#65 May 29 2014 at 4:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
If he truly was a narcissist, they're notoriously hard to treat

When I was a narcissist, I was a joy to treat. Everyone told me they'd never had as much fun treating anyone else.

You know, I thought I was having a pretty good day, and here's the confirmation. Thanks!

It's widely known that I'm a little bit o sunshine.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#66 May 29 2014 at 4:08 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
That would be the ideal, but unfortunately the only people that could really do anything have decided that the only options to solve the problem are MORE GUNS or NO GUNS, both of which are pants on head retarded.

Yeah, no. NO GUNS leads to lower murder rates, not really disputed in any serious way. MORE GUNS probably doesn't increase the murder rate in the US because of the existing massive saturation, but it's difficult to not assume it would lead to more gun accidents, since it almost certainly would. So, your ******** false equivalency "works" about as well as "the only options are MORE BOTULINUM TOXIN SALES AT 7-11 or NO BOTULINUM TOXIN SALES AT 7-11" One option leads to less dead people, one leads to more. Really not that confusing. I understand that not everyone is tall, handsome, well educated, witty, and confident, but that doesn't mean you people should be allowed to purchase hand held death machines in a feeble attempt to compensate for not being me.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#67 May 29 2014 at 4:22 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
Yeah, no.


Get those chaps off your noggin, you're crazy. He's suggesting a position in the middle of two other ones, he must be right.
#68 May 29 2014 at 4:40 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
zamwiki wrote:
Our nation should ban Sharia law as it should ban any cult who's guidelines involve mass murdering the infidels.

Can we also ban Christianity since certain sects have used it to justify murder and rape? No? Fuck you then.

Quote:
And yes we passed a law so teachers couldn't inundate children with homosexual propaganda. You see down south we don't think 1rst and 2nd graders should know about fisting and pleasuring themselves from teachers.

Well, that is a bit extreme; did Mr. Garrison end up teaching elementary school there?

Quote:
And yes we believe evolution but more so climate interruption (as the radical left is currently calling it) are nothing more than propaganda used to enslave people.

The stupidity in this statement speaks for itself.

Quote:
Our legislature illustrates that unlike you radical liberals we can think for ourselves and follow our beliefs which don't involve murdering babies after they're born like blue states allow.

So you can think for yourself by blindly following sets of rules put down by middle easterners several millennia ago? Good on you.

Quote:
We value life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Something blue states just don't support.

Except in cases where you think it's icky, even if it doesn't directly affect you.

Seriously, the ideologies you stand so firmly for are not so much different than Muslim theocracies.


Edited, May 29th 2014 7:17pm by Debalic
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#69 May 29 2014 at 4:54 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Debalic wrote:
Seriously, the ideologies you stand so firmly for are not so much different than Muslim theocracies.


It's different where it counts. White Jesus > All Others.

____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#70 May 29 2014 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
One option leads to less dead people, one leads to more. Really not that confusing.
Apparently the confusing part is believing either option will ever be available. And while everyone is fighting for only those options and getting nowhere, nothing is really being done but boy, does it look like it is!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#71 May 29 2014 at 5:25 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
That would be the ideal, but unfortunately the only people that could really do anything have decided that the only options to solve the problem are MORE GUNS or NO GUNS, both of which are pants on head retarded.

Yeah, no. NO GUNS leads to lower murder rates, not really disputed in any serious way.


NO GUNS is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment. So unless you are actually seriously advocating for a repeal of the 2nd amendment, supporting, praising, or even suggesting this as an option is moronic and a complete waste of everyone's time.

Which is presumably what he was talking about. There's a massive excluded middle where the only options are no guns and more guns. There is literally no one in opposition to creating regulation that can prevent truly disturbed people from being able to obtain guns (that would be the "less guns" option). The problem is that anytime this is suggested the "no guns!" crowd can't help by push for restrictions that apply to everyone, or slip in their own pet gun control, and thus ensures that the other side opposes it.

The saddest part is that I'm quite sure that the "no guns!" crowd does this purely for the political advantage it gets them. They know nothing will come of it, but by proposing tough gun control (while claiming they're just trying to prevent the last crazy guy's gun spree), they get to make their base happy, and drum up support by demonizing those "evil gun owners who want to help mentally disturbed people own guns!". It's a political fabrication, but in the meantime nothing actually gets done that addresses the real problem at hand.

Heaven forbid someone actually propose a clean and workable piece of legislation that actually addresses the health care concerns at hand rather than over extending it into a broad attack on the 2nd amendment. Because we can't do something that might actually work, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#72 May 29 2014 at 5:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
NO GUNS is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment. So unless you are actually seriously advocating for a repeal of the 2nd amendment, supporting, praising, or even suggesting this as an option is moronic and a complete waste of everyone's time.

I'm cool with that. Not that I believe no one anywhere should have a gun but the Second Amendment is poorly written, antiquated and long overdue for a rethink.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 May 29 2014 at 6:18 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
So unless you are actually seriously advocating for a repeal of the 2nd amendment

I'm advocating repeal of the 2nd amendment (I'm not sure why you added all those other words). Everything we know about the 2nd indicates that isn't remotely function the way it was intended. One of two things would be required for it to. Either 1. We interpret the "militia" bit to mean state National Guards, and conclude there is no individual right to bear arms beyond that. OR 2. We see the intent of the amendment as a check against the power of the government and allow individuals access to any weapon. I fimrly believe it was intended as 1, but whatever. Some of Jefferson's writings indicate it may have been 2, but it's hard to really get a feel for the mind of a guy taking time away from his teenager raping to philosophize.

While it may have been the case in 1800 that everyone having a musket was a check against government overreach, the modern reality in the US is quite, quite, different. The flying killer robots don't give a **** that you have a circa 1947 designed assault rifle, have no fear on this front. If you want the people to have their own flying killer robots, I'd disagree, but see the logic. That you want the people to have weapons just dangerous enough to kill random people but not useful enough to be a check against tyranny indicates that you don't give a **** about the 2nd amendment, you just want people to have access to guns because....I have no idea, actually. You don't own one, right? I guess because someone told you that was what you wanted.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#74 May 29 2014 at 6:35 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
So unless you are actually seriously advocating for a repeal of the 2nd amendment

I'm advocating repeal of the 2nd amendment (I'm not sure why you added all those other words). Everything we know about the 2nd indicates that isn't remotely function the way it was intended. One of two things would be required for it to. Either 1. We interpret the "militia" bit to mean state National Guards, and conclude there is no individual right to bear arms beyond that. OR 2. We see the intent of the amendment as a check against the power of the government and allow individuals access to any weapon. I fimrly believe it was intended as 1, but whatever. Some of Jefferson's writings indicate it may have been 2, but it's hard to really get a feel for the mind of a guy taking time away from his teenager raping to philosophize.

While it may have been the case in 1800 that everyone having a musket was a check against government overreach, the modern reality in the US is quite, quite, different. The flying killer robots don't give a @#%^ that you have a circa 1947 designed assault rifle, have no fear on this front. If you want the people to have their own flying killer robots, I'd disagree, but see the logic. That you want the people to have weapons just dangerous enough to kill random people but not useful enough to be a check against tyranny indicates that you don't give a @#%^ about the 2nd amendment, you just want people to have access to guns because....I have no idea, actually. You don't own one, right? I guess because someone told you that was what you wanted.

Fuck you, the 2nd Amendment ensures my right to own an Apache gunship. And as soon as I get that bad boy up and armed I'm gonna go strafing Capitol Hill.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#75 May 29 2014 at 6:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
NO GUNS is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment. So unless you are actually seriously advocating for a repeal of the 2nd amendment, supporting, praising, or even suggesting this as an option is moronic and a complete waste of everyone's time.

I'm cool with that. Not that I believe no one anywhere should have a gun but the Second Amendment is poorly written, antiquated and long overdue for a rethink.


By "no one anywhere" do you mean "no one who isn't a member of a national guard, police, or military"? Cause that appears to be what Smash wants. Do you agree with that? I'm just trying to see where the left and far left split on this issue.

Oh. And also illustrating why this is a poor approach to take. No one seems to be able to agree, so the only thing we accomplish by going with the "more gun control" route appear to be to create more argument. Which, if your objective is solely political, works great. If your objective is to actually find real workable solutions to the issue of crazies committing mass shootings, it's not so great at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 May 29 2014 at 8:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
By "no one anywhere" do you mean "no one who isn't a member of a national guard, police, or military"? Cause that appears to be what Smash wants.

Why do you assume I really care about what Smash wants? I'm not going to sit here and litigate imaginary amendments or legislation, I'm just saying that I'm 100% on board with repealing the Second Amendment.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 266 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (266)