If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(A letter to some guy)   "Where's my magic button, the switch I can flip to show men like you what it feels like on the other side of your 'jokes' and 'compliments'?"   (rolereboot.org) divider line 1001
    More: Scary, Liam Payne, female politicians, magic, patriarchy  
•       •       •

22239 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2013 at 8:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1001 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-20 12:07:12 PM

Wayne 985: omeganuepsilon: Wayne 985: omeganuepsilon: That is why you fail, classic equivocation fallacy. Misandrists do exist, pretending otherwise only makes you look willfully ignorant.

Speaking of looking ignorant, you may wish to re-read what I wrote, because I singled out misandry specifically (acknowledging its existence).

No, you mentioned it as if it was an absurd and irrelevant concept.

[Ctrl+F... Not found.] Imagine that. Though I will say that equating misandry to feminism is absurd.

THE GREAT NAME: "Feminist" is understood by the majority to be about promoting female interests regardless of equality, and the corresponding political cause.

[citation needed] Your opinion doesn't trump the dictionary, regardless of your fear of women.


Meh. That whole [citation needed] thing is old, burned out and no longer relevant. Like your opinions.
 
2013-01-20 12:22:30 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Meh. That whole [citation needed] thing is old, burned out and no longer relevant.


img42.imageshack.us

Asking for references - in order to back up someone's opinion and/or anecdote masquerading as fact - is "no longer relevant"? God I love the internet.

/thanks for the early morning LOL
//I needed it
 
2013-01-20 12:27:32 PM

omeganuepsilon: tirob: Only one of the cases you cite is possibly on point with the statute and the subject we are discussing here

You're the Queen of selective reading.

I have this in common with a lot of lawyers I know. All of whom would have told you the same thing I did.

omeganuepsilon:

Similarly, obscenity alone does not itself break the public peace, an indispensable feature of the crime of disorderly conduct.

Right you are. Everything depends on the context in which the obscenity is uttered. In the contexts you cite (movie, comedian, a performer singing the unexpurgated version of "Working Class Hero" in a club, person yelling F**K! in public after stubbing toe (similar to woman yelling at toilet in the case you cited earlier), the conduct is not generally considered disorderly these days. The difference between those cases and the subject here is that in the latter case ***the utterance (or gesture) is being directed at someone in particular.*** The Pennsylvania DC statute is pretty clear on this point; what is prohibited is obscene language or gestures in a public place that the speaker knows has a high risk of alarming someone else. I don't know how things are where you live, but here in Pennsylvania, at least, I would expect a woman whom I did not know to be alarmed if, out of the blue, in a bar, on the street, or in a bowling alley, I said something like, "Hey, sunshine, you're cute. Want a mustache ride?"
 
2013-01-20 12:30:54 PM
language...gestures...that...*have* a high risk...

ftfm
 
2013-01-20 01:12:35 PM

tirob: The difference between those cases and the subject here is that in the latter case ***the utterance (or gesture) is being directed at someone in particular.***


No, it is that the public at large was not disturbed, so the cases were overturned. Don't argue with me over the point, argue with the ACLU and the Penn. Supreme Court justices that have said exactly what I have. It is not a catch-all for mundane annoyances.

tirob: The Pennsylvania DC statute is pretty clear on this point; what is prohibited is obscene language or gestures in a public place that the speaker knows has a high risk of alarming someone else. the public or a substantial group


FTFY

tirob: I would expect a woman whom I did not know to be alarmed if, out of the blue, in a bar, on the street, or in a bowling alley, I said something like, "Hey, sunshine, you're cute. Want a mustache ride?"


And thank you for pointing out your own failings, and that of some of the more prudish parts of society in general.

That is no cause for "alarm", panic, or fear that the statute means....to rational people at any rate.

The law is to curtail public disturbances, not pamper individual's various and sundry fears and insecurities, no matter how much you try to manipulate the wording and meaning.
 
2013-01-20 01:19:03 PM

THE GREAT NAME: WhippingBoy: THE GREAT NAME: Everyone: do not disagree with the opinions of user cegorach because if you do you are automatically "rape-y" and part of "rape culture".

It's an effective silencing tactic. Someone posts an opinion you don't agree with? Label them a rapist (or a bigot, or a Liberal, etc. etc.).

I know. And it forces us to repeatedly state that we do not support rape, which should be obvious and should not need to be stated. This is why NAME makes a point of point of saying that while he does not support rape in general, the rape of cegorach would, as a special case, not meed with NAME's explicit disapproval.


It might force you to keep saying you don't support rape but it doesn't force you from saying:

"If somebody raped you, I would not shed a tear."

earlier in the thread.
 
2013-01-20 01:20:57 PM

BolshyGreatYarblocks: Would this be the fat self-hating one who screams "Leave us ALONE!! LEAVE US THE FARK ALOOONE!!!!" when a man says, "Hi! My name is....."?


Funny how you had to throw "fat" in there. But you aren't stereotyping, right?
 
2013-01-20 01:26:03 PM

Wayne 985: No, you mentioned it as if it was an absurd and irrelevant concept.

[Ctrl+F... Not found.] Imagine that.


Wayne 985: I know a lot of people in society remain uncomfortable with women asserting themselves, and therefore "feminism" has come to mean "radical man-hater", but that's irrelevant.


Yeah, imagine that.

Is it your goal to get ignored or written off as being an irrelevant troll or what?
I only ask because that's the only course you're leaving anyone who's reasonable. If it's not your goal, I suggest you actively try to not be such an asshole.

Wayne 985: Though I will say that equating misandry to feminism is absurd.


No one equated it, only stated that "feminism" contains many flavors.

Wayne 985: Your opinion doesn't trump the dictionary, regardless of your fear of women.


The dictionary does not trump colloquial usage. The purpose of the dictionary is to attempt to describe, not dictate, what we mean when we say X. Inevitably, it falls short. It takes time and effort to reflect the concepts of man, and when that is done, it's already outdated by a society that continues to advance. There are words that have meaning outside of the dictionary, be it the meaning or the word itself.

For a subject such as we are discussing, a lengthy encyclopedia reference does the concept / history more justice than a simple dictionary.
 
2013-01-20 01:29:44 PM

Pincy: "If somebody raped you, I would not shed a tear."


What requires him(indeed, all of society) to cry if you get raped? That's hardly strange, the vast majority doesn't give 2 farks if you get raped or beat up. Mankind is not nearly as empathetic as everyone likes to pretend it is.

In fact, if you take it another step, examine the usage of DIAF or EABOD. Go suck eggs. Keep farking that chicken.

So, yeah. Get Raped!
 
2013-01-20 01:34:19 PM

omeganuepsilon: Pincy: "If somebody raped you, I would not shed a tear."

What requires him(indeed, all of society) to cry if you get raped? That's hardly strange, the vast majority doesn't give 2 farks if you get raped or beat up. Mankind is not nearly as empathetic as everyone likes to pretend it is.

In fact, if you take it another step, examine the usage of DIAF or EABOD. Go suck eggs. Keep farking that chicken.

So, yeah. Get Raped!


Ah, here's another one of his gems:

"There is a strong case for turning a blind eye to the rape of people like cegorach. They should be designated, in effect, "rape-outlaws" who could be raped without consequence to the rapist. Note that I do not advocate rape: I deplore it. But those such as cegorach who misappropriate the stigma around rape for their own (probebly crypto-leftist) agenda should be denied protection from the true horror of violent rape."

And you apparently agree with him. Good for you. But please don't feel like we are forcing you to keep saying you don't support rape because we wouldn't want to put you out.
 
2013-01-20 01:51:56 PM

omeganuepsilon: PsiChick: Fark discusses child abuse

Going off topic with rape isn't enough, you've got to drag that into it as well?

It's like a tiny straw man inside of another straw man.(which you'll notice I already mentioned straw men in my reply above).


Goddamn, are you just incapable of reading entire sentences? Your high-school English teacher must have loved you. My point is that people are more willing to discuss things if they're anonymous, not child abuse itself, you idiot. And I have no idea where the straw-man thing is coming from, because if you'll notice, my 'off topic' rape comments are an  example about how under-reported harassment is. If even  rape is underreported (which I assume you can agree with, since I linked you to a Wikipedia article whose data points at the lowest suggest 25%, which is still a damn big number?), what the hell do you think harassment is?
 
2013-01-20 02:18:51 PM

PsiChick: And I have no idea where the straw-man thing is coming from


What was the topic of the thread?

Hint: NOT RAPE

Now, sure, topics ebb and flow, but you're severely pushing the limits of rationality. The point has been made that a very large number of men will say X, typically as "I'd like to"(as noted in the article) and not "I will", and they never end up raping anyone. Therefore a feeling of apprehension is not a rational response. Yet you're here, trying to cram very questionable statistics down everyone's throats as if it's from the bible itself.

That you don't even see what you're doing is ... humorous.

Here's a newsflash. Polls are not really all that reliable, you've seen FOX news, right? Anyone with a goal can ask the right segment of the populace and get just the numbers that they desire.

In the face of that, your pushing and insisting is in all actuality, totally irrelevant.

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

Pincy: And you apparently agree with him.


No, you just have severe issues with understanding things in context. The point of DIAF, Get Raped! or even GTFO is more to drive a point home, typically of how willfully obtuse someone is being, how much of a sad sack of pseudo-intellectual failure you really are. You clearly haven't understood anything rational, flat out deny some things. You sort of mark yourself outside of that bubble of what's worth the time of a rational person, so they decide to mock you.

___

I've brought this up in other threads, but as the populace of fark gets more infested with people of average or lower IQ's it's more and more relevant. Can you truely get people of low IQ and gross ignorance that also happen to be true believers, can you get them to actually acknowledge fact?

I'm of the opinion, that no, it cannot be done. Look at Tirob's mess of law interpretation above. A general insistence that it is a catch-all, despite many supreme court cases saying otherwise.
All other examples being too biased on your part, you can always look to SkinnnyHead and SteveB and IDW as prime examples of what it is that you're doing wrong here as well.

Some of you really are just not capable of handling rational thought, so in lieu of real discussion, we're left to entertain ourselves however we see fit.
 
2013-01-20 02:20:28 PM

omeganuepsilon: Pincy: And you apparently agree with him.

No, you just have severe issues with understanding things in context. The point of DIAF, Get Raped! or even GTFO is more to drive a point home, typically of how willfully obtuse someone is being,


That you could even type that sentence with a straight face is amazing.
 
2013-01-20 02:24:18 PM

omeganuepsilon: PsiChick: And I have no idea where the straw-man thing is coming from

What was the topic of the thread?

Hint: NOT RAPE

Now, sure, topics ebb and flow, but you're severely pushing the limits of rationality. The point has been made that a very large number of men will say X, typically as "I'd like to"(as noted in the article) and not "I will", and they never end up raping anyone. Therefore a feeling of apprehension is not a rational response. Yet you're here, trying to cram very questionable statistics down everyone's throats as if it's from the bible itself.

That you don't even see what you're doing is ... humorous.

Here's a newsflash. Polls are not really all that reliable, you've seen FOX news, right? Anyone with a goal can ask the right segment of the populace and get just the numbers that they desire.

In the face of that, your pushing and insisting is in all actuality, totally irrelevant.


Do you even read my posts, or just cherry-pick whatever you want from them? And have you ever actually  studied statistics, or are you just naturally this stupid?

/Of all the threads to be so emphatically trying to use an  actual straw-man on (hint: the term 'straw man' means to take a fraction of what the other person says, then spin off onto something they never said), I would not start with this one. Do you have any decency?
 
2013-01-20 02:26:08 PM

omeganuepsilon: I've brought this up in other threads, but as the populace of fark gets more infested with people of average or lower IQ's it's more and more relevant. Can you truely get people of low IQ and gross ignorance that also happen to be true believers, can you get them to actually acknowledge fact?

I'm of the opinion, that no, it cannot be done. Look at Tirob's mess of law interpretation above. A general insistence that it is a catch-all, despite many supreme court cases saying otherwise.
All other examples being too biased on your part, you can always look to SkinnnyHead and SteveB and IDW as prime examples of what it is that you're doing wrong here as well.

Some of you really are just not capable of handling rational thought, so in lieu of real discussion, we're left to entertain ourselves however we see fit.


Yes, I'm sure you've brought this up in threads many times. I'm sure it is always you who is the bastion of rationality surrounded by the insane and ignorant. If only everyone else understood your greatness and how you are only trying to help them be better people.

You're a martyr for the cause. Although martyrs usually end up suffering greatly, often with their lives. Not that I advocate something bad happening to you. In fact, I feel like I'm forced to say over and over that I don't.
 
2013-01-20 02:35:27 PM

omeganuepsilon: PsiChick: And I have no idea where the straw-man thing is coming from

What was the topic of the thread?

Hint: NOT RAPE

Now, sure, topics ebb and flow, but you're severely pushing the limits of rationality. The point has been made that a very large number of men will say X, typically as "I'd like to"(as noted in the article) and not "I will", and they never end up raping anyone. Therefore a feeling of apprehension is not a rational response. Yet you're here, trying to cram very questionable statistics down everyone's throats as if it's from the bible itself.

That you don't even see what you're doing is ... humorous.

Here's a newsflash. Polls are not really all that reliable, you've seen FOX news, right? Anyone with a goal can ask the right segment of the populace and get just the numbers that they desire.

In the face of that, your pushing and insisting is in all actuality, totally irrelevant.

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 189x170]

Pincy: And you apparently agree with him.

No, you just have severe issues with understanding things in context. The point of DIAF, Get Raped! or even GTFO is more to drive a point home, typically of how willfully obtuse someone is being, how much of a sad sack of pseudo-intellectual failure you really are. You clearly haven't understood anything rational, flat out deny some things. You sort of mark yourself outside of that bubble of what's worth the time of a rational person, so they decide to mock you.

___

I've brought this up in other threads, but as the populace of fark gets more infested with people of average or lower IQ's it's more and more relevant. Can you truely get people of low IQ and gross ignorance that also happen to be true believers, can you get them to actually acknowledge fact?

I'm of the opinion, that no, it cannot be done. Look at Tirob's mess of law interpretation above. A general insistence that it is a catch-all, despite many supreme court cases saying otherwise.
All other examples being too ...


You're wasting your breath. Not only are you attempting to argue with someone who thinks she's psychic (so pesky little things like logic, evidence, and rational thought aren't overly important to her), but some of the things that she's previously posted suggest that her intelligence is on the lower end of the Fark community. So you're neither going to get a rational counter argument, nor are you going to get the satisfaction of sparring with a worthy opponent.
 
2013-01-20 02:44:26 PM

omeganuepsilon:
tirob: I would expect a woman whom I did not know to be alarmed if, out of the blue, in a bar, on the street, or in a bowling alley, I said something like, "Hey, sunshine, you're cute. Want a mustache ride?"

And thank you for pointing out your own failings, and that of some of the more prudish parts of society in general.

That is no cause for "alarm", panic, or fear that the statute means....to rational people at any rate.

The law is to curtail public disturbances, not pamper individual's various and sundry fears and insecurities, no matter how much you try to manipulate the wording and meaning.


I don't even think that a PA ACLU lawyer with a client charged with DC for making this kind of utterance in, say, a bar would argue that her client couldn't have reasonably expected his utterance to cause alarm, both to the person to whom it was directed and to onlookers. You may be right when you say I'm a prude, but that doesn't change the statute, where the word "public" does not mean what you think it means. Rather, it means "affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access." As I have mentioned before, the statute is silent on the *number* of persons that has to be "affected."

What you seem to me to be doing is telling me what you believe the PA DC statute *should* be. And as a matter of public policy you may be right for all I know, although my take on it is to keep the PA statute the way it is. I am telling you what the law is now; it still prohibits the use of obscene language in a public place in circumstances where the person uttering it knows that there is a risk that the language will cause alarm.

omeganuepsilon: not a catch-all for mundane annoyances.

Funny that you should use the word "annoyance," because that word is in the statute too. I haven't referred to it up to now because it's such an elastic concept.  In one of your earlier citations, Judge Musmanno of the Supreme Court listed some mundane annoyances that are do not constitute disorderly conduct: "cheering football and baseball fans, riveting hammer operators, gong-clanging street car motormen, airplane pilots, siren-sounding ambulance drivers, missile testers, amusement park devotees, bathroom soloists, fife and drum players, trombone zealots, fireworks enthusiasts." He did not mention men who grossly and audibly proposition women in bars.
 
2013-01-20 04:22:10 PM
*Justice* Musmanno

ftfm

/have to give the man his due
 
2013-01-20 04:36:12 PM

WhippingBoy: So you're neither going to get a rational counter argument, nor are you going to get the satisfaction of sparring with a worthy opponent.


I never expected as such.

No, but I am drawing them out and making their faults more obvious. That's a reward in and of itself on a lazy sunday afternoon. I just woke up from a wonderful nap, and here these people were gesticulating and tirading, wringing their hands over how bad of a person I am or what have you.

That is all a rational person can do when it comes to a true zealot in such a forum, expose them. If they're looking to indoctrinate followers, their work here will be more difficult. The true victims here are not me, but people who may be reading. Poe's Law approaches the concept.

When it's difficult to tell a parody of extremism from the real thing, you're sort of left with dealing with the real thing, because even if they're dealing it out as a troll, there are people out there who think and reason in such a way, ergo you have got to reply to them as such if you are to reply at all.

It's all we can do, expose the flaws, demonstrate some logical thought, and hope Dear Reader, sees it. With the shallow end filling to overflowing, we may even get drastically overwhelmed at times, but even then, I see it as worth the spattering of time it takes me to type a post. There are those that start in the shallow part but build themselves enough to escape it. But for them to do that, they need at least some exposure, some challenging thought, some faint presentation that they could be wrong.

Philosophically, it's similar to the reasons behind war. Can we start a war for the sake of millions of people? Hundreds? One?

I move that one can be enough. If but one person reads these threads and for my efforts sees that Psi is a lunatic, for example, my goal is reached, anything after that is a bonus.

Even if all of these people attempting(and failling miserably) to be witty against me are ignored after this thread, I've done my part here. There's likely to be no real shortage of people to fight with in the next unduly controversial thread. At the very least if I ignore these people, the next will take a different avenue of argument(well, there is a chance), some of the people around here tend to be drearily repetitive. Almost creepy that, it resembles the Roman Catholic church's programmed responses that were learned by rote, uttered by some half asleep nitwit as much out of kneejerk habit as any real emotion or intelligence, supposedly inspirational, it sounds like background mumblings in a zombie movie.
 
2013-01-20 06:32:32 PM

cegorach: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Canned Tamales: I was responding to your much more general comment, and the ideas used by feminists. I thought that would be obvious, unless you're dishonest or stupid.

Call me a skeptic (or whatever you like), but I find the dramatization and frequency of such things alluded to in the article to not be very plausible, and not very harassing beyond rude.

I find it hard to believe that many women face daily harassment of that kind in western society, i.e random sex propositions, rutting movements, rude comments. I believe "several times a week" was the number used....I call bullshiat, or every woman I've ever known is a liar, and somehow I've gone 40 years living in places from the ghetto to the beach house without ever seeing it all.

No, I knew you were responding to your general notion that all feminists are man-haters who get upset at the tiniest compliment. I was merely pointing out to you that your stereotype is wrong.

So you are seriously telling me that you have never seen sexual harassment against women at all? I'm afraid I'm the one calling bullshiat. Unless of course your definition of sexual harassment is so skewed that it practically has to be rape before it is considered harassment.

And regardless of the frequency you believe it occurs at, you said you found the examples in the article to be "not very harassing beyond rude". I guess women just can't take a good pelvic thrusting joke.

I think the problem is that what you and I might call 'sexual harassment' he would call 'harmless fun and games'. And the fact that he doesn't grasp that is kind of the entire basis of rape culture, so I guess it's good that there are abject examples presenting themselves so willingly.


Yes, it's like they don't understand context at all. They apparently think that some random stranger making crude pelvic thrusts toward her is the same as a friend complimenting her on her appearance. It's almost like they think she should have been flattered by this random guy giving her attention, because hey, he's only telling her that he finds her attractive. Sure, the gesture might be a little crude, but don't get bent out of shape about it honey because really women like the attention or you wouldn't have been wearing those yoga pants.
 
2013-01-20 06:36:04 PM
@ my logically thinking friend omega and re the DC law in PA: I have a feeling that if the authority you cite, Mr. Justice Musmanno, had been confronted with a case where a dude was arrested for DC for grossly propositioning a woman in a bar, he would have come down hard on the side of throwing the book at the defendant. Among other things, Musmanno once voted (in a dissent) to rule the book Tropic of Cancer as obscene.

/Musmanno's influence on the law here in PA was and is considerable
 
2013-01-20 06:57:36 PM

tirob: Among other things, Musmanno once voted (in a dissent) to rule the book Tropic of Cancer as obscene.


Because, yeah. Obscenity = Public disturbance.
/sarcasm
Try posting again when you can be relevant, intelligent and rational would be bonuses, but I don't expect them.

Since you're apparent intent is more about decency / obscenity laws, that should have been your first order of business, not public disturbance laws. Most states have some, and they would be relevant, if applicable.

Maybe you tried and failed to find some that made it criminal to say dirty words to random people, and this is why you're grasping at straws?
 
2013-01-20 08:27:57 PM

omeganuepsilon: tirob: Among other things, Musmanno once voted (in a dissent) to rule the book Tropic of Cancer as obscene.

Because, yeah. Obscenity = Public disturbance.
/sarcasm
Try posting again when you can be relevant, intelligent and rational would be bonuses, but I don't expect them.

Since you're apparent intent is more about decency / obscenity laws, that should have been your first order of business, not public disturbance laws. Most states have some, and they would be relevant, if applicable.

Maybe you tried and failed to find some that made it criminal to say dirty words to random people, and this is why you're grasping at straws?


Are you always this obtuse, or are you just putting me on? My point wasn't to discuss obscenity laws, it was to point out to you that an authority on the PA DC statute *whom you cited* was someone who looked with disfavor on dirty words being uttered in public, at least in print, and that I thought it more likely than not that someone with such views would also look with disfavor on dirty words being verbalized in public in a bar, too. Am I making myself clear now?
 
2013-01-20 08:48:48 PM

tirob: Am I making myself clear now?


tirob: omeganuepsilon: tirob: Among other things, Musmanno once voted (in a dissent) to rule the book Tropic of Cancer as obscene.

Because, yeah. Obscenity = Public disturbance.
/sarcasm
Try posting again when you can be relevant, intelligent and rational would be bonuses, but I don't expect them.

Since you're apparent intent is more about decency / obscenity laws, that should have been your first order of business, not public disturbance laws. Most states have some, and they would be relevant, if applicable.

Maybe you tried and failed to find some that made it criminal to say dirty words to random people, and this is why you're grasping at straws?

Are you always this obtuse, or are you just putting me on? My point wasn't to discuss obscenity laws, it was to point out to you that an authority on the PA DC statute *whom you cited* was someone who looked with disfavor on dirty words being uttered in public, at least in print, and that I thought it more likely than not that someone with such views would also look with disfavor on dirty words being verbalized in public in a bar, too. Am I making myself clear now?

Perfectly clear.

Because he says X about Y, you're guessing he would say B about C.

Crystal.

The legitimacy of that logical process is questionable, but your point is made.
 
2013-01-20 08:58:13 PM

DrPainMD: The author, and most of the commenters, needs to grow a pair.


Not at all. After having spent time in various parts of the world I am convinced that there is something seriously wrong with societies that have originally been British colonies - namely Australia, New Zealand, the United States and of course Britain itself. I'm not sure about Canada since I haven't been there.

These cultures have a very nasty anti-social streak that manifests itself in hooliganism - a lack of respect for others, rampant graffiti vandalism, aggressive road behavior (such as tailgating and lane blocking) and a general attitude of fark you. In each of them you can find a sub-culture of ignorant assholes: chavs in England, neds in Scotland, rednecks and guidos in the US, bogans in Australia. These sort of people are not found in South Korea unless they are visitors from overseas - there is a large US military presence as well as an army of dubiously qualified English teachers.

Something else not found in South Korea (or China) is graffiti - and no one is going to throw a half empty can of beer at you from their car as you walk down the road.

We Anglos are nasty, ugly people.
 
2013-01-20 09:02:17 PM

omeganuepsilon: tirob: Am I making myself clear now?

Perfectly clear.

Because he says X about Y, you're guessing he would say B about C.

Crystal.

The legitimacy of that logical process is questionable, but your point is made.


Close. My point was that he says X about Y, and that I therefore believe it likely that he would say *X* about C.
 
2013-01-20 09:14:25 PM

kg2095: DrPainMD: The author, and most of the commenters, needs to grow a pair.

Not at all. After having spent time in various parts of the world I am convinced that there is something seriously wrong with societies that have originally been British colonies - namely Australia, New Zealand, the United States and of course Britain itself. I'm not sure about Canada since I haven't been there.

These cultures have a very nasty anti-social streak that manifests itself in hooliganism - a lack of respect for others, rampant graffiti vandalism, aggressive road behavior (such as tailgating and lane blocking) and a general attitude of fark you. In each of them you can find a sub-culture of ignorant assholes: chavs in England, neds in Scotland, rednecks and guidos in the US, bogans in Australia. These sort of people are not found in South Korea unless they are visitors from overseas - there is a large US military presence as well as an army of dubiously qualified English teachers.

Something else not found in South Korea (or China) is graffiti - and no one is going to throw a half empty can of beer at you from their car as you walk down the road.

We Anglos are nasty, ugly people.


I spent a year in South Korea around the time of the Seoul Olympics. I will call bullshiat on the lack of graffiti and polite road manners. There was only rule of the road there: the bigger you are, the more right of way you have. Period. There was also more than once we had to beat feet back to the base and take up positions around the perimeter because a mob of college kids was storming our way again. They burnt at least one university building with hostages still in it. South Korea has the same shiatbirds in it that the rest do. All in all though, I enjoyed my time there but it is not the utopia you want to make it out to be.
 
2013-01-20 09:34:11 PM

Dansker: She didn't address it to the entire world. Why do you feel targeted?


Oh, right. She sent it as private correspondence to a single person, which is why no one but that intended recipient ever saw it. Oh, no, she posted it on the friggin' internet, dumbass.
 
2013-01-20 10:51:19 PM
Are we supposed to be feeling bad for women? Why?

Sounds like a whole lot of snivelling over nothing.
 
2013-01-20 10:53:46 PM
Don't want comments? Don't wear yoga pants. I can see your twat.
 
2013-01-21 12:56:06 AM
After reading through the nearly 1000 posts I have declared this comment to be the winner:

phillyguy1547: To the author:

I'm a dude. I'm a 5'10" 190 lb dude. I still sometimes walk to the other side of the street if someone who looks like bad news is coming toward me. I'd still get a cab rather than stand at a bus stop with someone who gives me the creeps. It's called common sense.

Quit assuming that you're unfairly forced to have some common sense because you're pretty and a girl.

As to the rude comments. Words only have power if you let them. Ignore them.

Keep doing what you're doing - i.e. taking the smart steps to keep your self safe.... but just lose the "poor pretty me" attitude about doing it.


With this as the runner up:

megarian: This is stupid. Being a girl is fantastic.

That is all.  Thread closed.
 
2013-01-21 07:23:19 AM

untaken_name: Dansker: She didn't address it to the entire world. Why do you feel targeted?

Oh, right. She sent it as private correspondence to a single person, which is why no one but that intended recipient ever saw it. Oh, no, she posted it on the friggin' internet, dumbass.


So by your "logic" you have just called the entire world dumbass.
 
2013-01-21 07:27:04 AM

SimKey: Are we supposed to be feeling bad for women?


No, we're supposed to treat each other with decency, civility and respect.
 
2013-01-21 07:58:29 AM

Dansker: SimKey: Are we supposed to be feeling bad for women?

No, we're supposed to treat each other with decency, civility and respect.


Then women should stop entrapping men by getting pregnant. They should stop screwing them over for so much child support. They should dress reasonably in public and they should stop spreading their legs for porn.

Start there. MAYBE you'll get some respect.

Women don't respect themselves.
 
2013-01-21 08:33:21 AM

SimKey: Dansker: SimKey: Are we supposed to be feeling bad for women?

No, we're supposed to treat each other with decency, civility and respect.

Then women should stop entrapping men by getting pregnant. They should stop screwing them over for so much child support. They should dress reasonably in public and they should stop spreading their legs for porn.


As long as you're not applying ridiculous stereotyping.

Start there. MAYBE you'll get some respect.

Women don't respect themselves.


The women I know respect themselves plenty.
 
2013-01-21 09:46:11 AM
If women respected themselves we wouldn't see their crotches in international magazines.
 
2013-01-21 10:04:31 AM

SimKey: If women respected themselves we wouldn't see their crotches in international magazines.


Meh. I like porn, and I'm not going to disrespect your mother just because she's on the cover of Crack Whore Magazine.
Do you disrespect all men because some do porn?
 
2013-01-21 10:25:16 AM

Dansker: SimKey: If women respected themselves we wouldn't see their crotches in international magazines.

Meh. I like porn, and I'm not going to disrespect your mother just because she's on the cover of Crack Whore Magazine.
Do you disrespect all men because some do porn?


I don't think much of them either. I don't respect anyone who can't keep their clothes on in public.
 
2013-01-21 10:28:54 AM

SimKey: Dansker: SimKey: If women respected themselves we wouldn't see their crotches in international magazines.

Meh. I like porn, and I'm not going to disrespect your mother just because she's on the cover of Crack Whore Magazine.
Do you disrespect all men because some do porn?

I don't think much of them either. I don't respect anyone who can't keep their clothes on in public.


What does that have to do with women who don't do porn?
 
2013-01-21 10:54:33 AM
They dress and act like pigs then expect to be taken seriously. Yoga pants? Completely inappropriate public attire, but "don't comment on what I'm showing you."

They're all a bunch of teases.
 
2013-01-21 11:14:57 AM

SimKey: They dress and act like pigs then expect to be taken seriously. Yoga pants? Completely inappropriate public attire, but "don't comment on what I'm showing you."

They're all a bunch of teases.


All women are teases because some women sometimes wear yoga pants?
 
2013-01-21 12:10:09 PM

Dansker: What does that have to do with women who don't do porn?


About as much as an article condemning the cat-calling of women does to the majority of men who don't cat-call women. If the men from TFA represent all of us, then why shouldn't porn stars and hookers represent all women? It seems like equality to me.

/don't think hookers and porn stars represent all women
 
2013-01-21 12:32:04 PM

umad: Dansker: What does that have to do with women who don't do porn?

About as much as an article condemning the cat-calling of women does to the majority of men who don't cat-call women. If the men from TFA represent all of us, then why shouldn't porn stars and hookers represent all women? It seems like equality to me.


Nobody is saying that the guys in the article represent all men.

/don't think hookers and porn stars represent all women

SimKey does, and he's the one I was addressing. But thanks for your input.
 
2013-01-21 12:48:01 PM
This woman deserves never to have a dick in her vagina again.
 
2013-01-21 12:57:34 PM

umad: Dansker: What does that have to do with women who don't do porn?

About as much as an article condemning the cat-calling of women does to the majority of men who don't cat-call women. If the men from TFA represent all of us, then why shouldn't porn stars and hookers represent all women? It seems like equality to me.

/don't think hookers and porn stars represent all women


Wow, that response makes no sense. You can ask men to stop cat-calling without condemning all men. If you are a man and get defensive about that then maybe it hits a little too close to home.
 
2013-01-21 12:59:01 PM

Dansker: umad: Dansker: What does that have to do with women who don't do porn?

About as much as an article condemning the cat-calling of women does to the majority of men who don't cat-call women. If the men from TFA represent all of us, then why shouldn't porn stars and hookers represent all women? It seems like equality to me.

Nobody is saying that the guys in the article represent all men.

/don't think hookers and porn stars represent all women

SimKey does, and he's the one I was addressing. But thanks for your input.


Interesting that you assume I'm a man.
 
2013-01-21 01:13:23 PM

SimKey: Dansker: umad: Dansker: What does that have to do with women who don't do porn?

About as much as an article condemning the cat-calling of women does to the majority of men who don't cat-call women. If the men from TFA represent all of us, then why shouldn't porn stars and hookers represent all women? It seems like equality to me.

Nobody is saying that the guys in the article represent all men.

/don't think hookers and porn stars represent all women

SimKey does, and he's the one I was addressing. But thanks for your input.

Interesting that you assume I'm a man.


There's nothing in your profile. The vast majority of Fark users are male. Why is it a surprise?
 
2013-01-21 01:24:05 PM

Pincy: umad: Dansker: What does that have to do with women who don't do porn?

About as much as an article condemning the cat-calling of women does to the majority of men who don't cat-call women. If the men from TFA represent all of us, then why shouldn't porn stars and hookers represent all women? It seems like equality to me.

/don't think hookers and porn stars represent all women

Wow, that response makes no sense. You can ask men to stop cat-calling without condemning all men. If you are a man and get defensive about that then maybe it hits a little too close to home.


What do you suppose the reaction would be to an article telling women to stop being gold digging whores? It obviously wouldn't be condemning all women because not all women are gold digging whores. If you are a woman(or a man) and get defensive about that then maybe it hits a little too close to home.
 
2013-01-21 01:34:16 PM
This.
 
2013-01-21 02:18:59 PM

umad: Pincy: umad: Dansker: What does that have to do with women who don't do porn?

About as much as an article condemning the cat-calling of women does to the majority of men who don't cat-call women. If the men from TFA represent all of us, then why shouldn't porn stars and hookers represent all women? It seems like equality to me.

/don't think hookers and porn stars represent all women

Wow, that response makes no sense. You can ask men to stop cat-calling without condemning all men. If you are a man and get defensive about that then maybe it hits a little too close to home.

What do you suppose the reaction would be to an article telling women to stop being gold digging whores? It obviously wouldn't be condemning all women because not all women are gold digging whores. If you are a woman(or a man) and get defensive about that then maybe it hits a little too close to home.


I don't know, show me the article and then I'll give you my reaction.

I just reread the article we are discussing. I can't find any examples of the author calling all men sexual harassers. When I said she was asking men to stop the cat-calling, I meant men who would do such a thing in the first place. The author is perfectly within her rights to condemn men who would do such a thing. Would you speak up if one of your male friends started harassing some random women? If you wrote an article about your experience of telling your friend that he shouldn't behave that way would you be condemning all men?

It's a common literary device. She is writing to one person but the story is meant for everyone, and it will mean different things to different people. As a man who doesn't harass women, it reminded me that I shouldn't tolerate other men who do. Even though I would never think of doing something like that, I should speak up about it when possible. That's what I took from the article. I in no way felt like she was calling me a potential harasser.

And yes, as a man, I should also not tolerate women who harass men, or women who harass women, or men who harass men. So when men who are harassed by women write an article about it and I read it then I'll take that lesson from it as well. But I'll need to see the article first.
 
Displayed 50 of 1001 comments

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report