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.

(New York Sun)   1) Write byzantine sex-assault regulations for colleges 2) Accept high-dollar job helping colleges evade byzantine sex-assault regulations 3) Profit 4) Repeat   (nysun.com) divider line 406
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

7105 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jul 2014 at 3:04 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-09 11:44:25 PM

BigGrnEggGriller: Wow.  When I was in college, we went to class, drank and farked.

You guys are over-thinking this thing.


Now, now. Without the outrage how can money be made?
 
2014-07-09 11:47:45 PM

zzrhardy: sinisterben: Thankfully, not all want or abuse that privledge, and most women aren't that malicious.

Most people aren't malicious people 100% of the time, but most people are capable of being malicious at some time.  And it only has to happen once to completely fark over another persons entire life.


I agree, maybe it's just my liberal oasis in a red state privilege coming out, but I am surrounded by egalitarians, so it's not a worry I have.

Funny thing: I work at a college.
//getting a kick...
 
2014-07-09 11:50:02 PM

Loren: However, I have seen multiple people express an opinion close to it:


Thank you. Thank you for showing up.

I get the impression that a lot of the boys that I've been debating have been jacking themselves off with regards to this issue. Case in point:
 

Ishkur: Theaetetus: I think Ishkur is saying that if a man is bad at sex...


The issue is really about trust and whether I as a man should trust this person that I'm sleeping with.

It really does kick the ball back to men with regards to who makes the decision about sex and when to engage it. If you don't trust the person you are with then don't do it.

But this undermines a certain "live by the moment" spirit that may have produced "us" as a society. It may have created the current (and previous) spawn that walk the earth.

Now, that being said -I'm going to suggest to everyone in general not to have sex with people that you don't trust. But how many of us were produced from a single nights passion spawned truly from an alcoholic moment? The times they are a changing.
 
2014-07-10 12:27:13 AM
How about they just start giving out chastity belts at freshman orientation, except instead of keys, the belts are equipped with a breathalyzer. Kind of like the ones they can put in cars, but both parties must blow into it and register less than a .08 (or whatever the limit is) to unlock.

As far as the consent thing goes, that's a little hairier. I mean, I didn't realize until this thread that if someone says "yes" in a certain way it actually means no, so clearly I'm a rape apologist. There should be clear, unambiguous conversation - or better yet, a document that is available every time sexual activity becomes a possibility. Maybe something like when you sign a lease, except instead of initialing under the line about pets and after the paragraph about the security deposit, you have a list of sexual activities and a definite affirmative before you can proceed. Maybe they could make an app, and after every question, there's a fingerprint scan. "May I kiss you?" *scan* "May I remove your underwear and/or brassiere? (check all that apply)" "May I use my tongue to stimulate your anal sphincter?"

Or maybe just treat every sexual encounter like you're a stylist and someone's asking you to cut off 4 feet of hair. "Are you sure that's what you want? Are you positive? Let me bring my coworker over here, tell him this is what you really want. No, I trust your decision, it's just sometimes people think they want something, but when they see themselves in the mirror, it didn't turn out quite how they thought it would, and then I get yelled at."

I mean, obviously this is over the top, but I think it's a lot to expect teenagers and young adults to have meaningful, frank conversations about their sexual desires when most of them A) haven't even had proper sexual education other than "don't touch or Jesus will cry" and B) are tasting relative freedom for the first time. And I do get a little snarky about the rape issue because while I think it's shiatty and sad, it's hard to really empathize because it's something I'll never have to worry about.

Theaetetus: I think your logic just excused drunk driving on a "boys will be boys" defense.


Heh. The majority of this thread has already excused drunk driving on the basis that consuming alcohol makes you not responsible for your actions.
 
2014-07-10 02:53:09 AM

JackieRabbit: I haven't found much concrete about this phenomenon, but the ways that colleges are dealing with it or planning to deal with it pretty much tells the tale: they want to limit or ban alcohol from on-campus functions. This suggests to me me that it is the same-old-same-old: the kiddies get drunk, the girl farks a guy or guys (with some persuasion or not), she either is or fears being slut-shamed and cries rape. Or is something else going on?


Rape statistics for the US:

upload.wikimedia.org

Not sure why the chart stops at 2003.

I'd say it has something to do with rape being redefined to be just about all interaction between men and women. That's why we've got all this "rape-culture" and "rape continuum" nonsense. Even inviting a woman up for a cup of coffee is "creepy" these days. The chart above shows it's not so much a rape epidemic as it is rape hysteria. Make it trivial to get someone punished for rape or "sexual misconduct", and you end up with shiat like this:

All three young men claimed the encounters were consensual - but the women asserted otherwise. In each case, campus officials found the men responsible for sexual assault and expelled or suspended them.
But all three are pushing back, suing the schools on charges that their rights to a fair hearing were violated.

Just for the record; rape is a horrible crime. It's so awful that not only is it used as a weapon of war, it's illegal to use as a weapon of war. It should be taken seriously and those accused of it deserve a fair trail.
 
2014-07-10 03:07:37 AM

Ishkur: See, here's where you and MRAs fail so hard: You think it's easier to get the women to change, and you're actively lobbying for that on the Internet. But I think it's much easier to just change yourselves.


I have you tagged as "smart +1" ...but not on this topic. It's almost as if everything you know about MRAs came from that moronic SNL skit.

 Worried about false rape accusations? Don't give her any reasons to falsely accuse you of rape. A satisfying night of excellent sex is the best safeguard against morning after awkwardness (in fact, if anything, the morning after should be more sex). If you're not willing to put in the time and effort to get her there, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

Being great in bed won't protect you from a vindictive sociopath. No, most women aren't vindictive sociopaths, just like most men aren't patriarchal rapists.
 
2014-07-10 03:29:44 AM

sinisterben: Ivan the Tolerable: JesusJuice: Nah, she was just pissed that I didn't want a relationship with her and figured that because she thought the sex meant something and I didn't it meant I'd raped her.

Thats actually what we were taught 'rape' was in college. They considered that any consent done under false pretenses meant the consent wasn't fully informed and therefore rape, even if the person was willing at the time.

/So yes, by their rules; Saying you will call her later, and then not doing it, constituted prosecutable rape.
//Yes, that complaint actually did happen, and yes, the university did call in the police to perform an arrest.
///No, the police wouldn't have any of that nonsense.

MRA! You should have been a better lover!

//Does this reposnse make sense to anyone?


Yes. It means you have been getting trolled.
 
2014-07-10 04:19:45 AM
 
2014-07-10 05:17:18 AM

sinisterben: Wait so now women have to create a system before it can be anything but patriarchy?


Yes. That's the whole point. Now you're starting to get it.
 
2014-07-10 08:08:59 AM

At the risk of feeding a troll...: sinisterben: Ivan the Tolerable: JesusJuice: Nah, she was just pissed that I didn't want a relationship with her and figured that because she thought the sex meant something and I didn't it meant I'd raped her.

Thats actually what we were taught 'rape' was in college. They considered that any consent done under false pretenses meant the consent wasn't fully informed and therefore rape, even if the person was willing at the time.

/So yes, by their rules; Saying you will call her later, and then not doing it, constituted prosecutable rape.
//Yes, that complaint actually did happen, and yes, the university did call in the police to perform an arrest.
///No, the police wouldn't have any of that nonsense.

MRA! You should have been a better lover!

//Does this reposnse make sense to anyone?

Yes. It means you have been getting trolled.


I would probably agree with you if I had never been on tumblr or Twitter, but alas, here we are.
 
2014-07-10 08:58:00 AM

Uncle Tractor: JackieRabbit: I haven't found much concrete about this phenomenon, but the ways that colleges are dealing with it or planning to deal with it pretty much tells the tale: they want to limit or ban alcohol from on-campus functions. This suggests to me me that it is the same-old-same-old: the kiddies get drunk, the girl farks a guy or guys (with some persuasion or not), she either is or fears being slut-shamed and cries rape. Or is something else going on?

Rape statistics for the US:



Not sure why the chart stops at 2003.

I'd say it has something to do with rape being redefined to be just about all interaction between men and women. That's why we've got all this "rape-culture" and "rape continuum" nonsense. Even inviting a woman up for a cup of coffee is "creepy" these days. The chart above shows it's not so much a rape epidemic as it is rape hysteria. Make it trivial to get someone punished for rape or "sexual misconduct", and you end up with shiat like this:

All three young men claimed the encounters were consensual - but the women asserted otherwise. In each case, campus officials found the men responsible for sexual assault and expelled or suspended them.
But all three are pushing back, suing the schools on charges that their rights to a fair hearing were violated.

Just for the record; rape is a horrible crime. It's so awful that not only is it used as a weapon of war, it's illegal to use as a weapon of war. It should be taken seriously and those accused of it deserve a fair trail.


I think you will find exactly what UT is saying here about a lot of these issues: if you dig even the slightest bit deeper, you don't find data that leads to the conclusions that are found by these folks. Or you find some really messed up studies that are obvious witch hunts. They have the conclusion first and find what they want to support it.
 
2014-07-10 09:28:53 AM

brimed03: fireclown: gopher321: Because People in power are Stupid: Will the nonstop rape carnival never end?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 547x452]

I'm sure the actual raping going on outweighs a few media-hyped false reports.

It's still a serious, although separate problem.  The entire subject is serious, and has consequences.  False accusations should be dealt with harshly.

On to the main point:  Ladies: do not go to a college administrator if you are raped.  Go to the police.

As a former college administrator: THIS.

And if the local town cops try to point you back towards campus, go elsewhere. State police, DA, hire an attorney. But most police are getting better about handling this properly.

It's not like I was ever instructed to cover anything up, btw. But the response is too incoherent and unpredictable at the level of any individual school for me to give any other advice. What amounts to cover-ups is still a huge problem.

Kudos to the Obama administration for grappling with the issue. It needs federal leadership. Few schools are willing to implement proper and public reporting unless every other school does it too, because most parents are stupid enough to think that the school not reporting it must not have a problem with it. So they need someone to force them to all do it together.


Crikey.  I like to post my friendly advice in these threads (A friend of mine had her case handled poorly by a college administration), but I've never had an actual administrator agree with me.

I must admit I'm a little unsettled.
 
2014-07-10 09:32:50 AM

tlars699: Wrong, whomever you are, call 911, go to the Hospital ER, and request a rape kit first. Call your trusted friend/parental unit. Go to the Police.


I had been assuming that the police would do a rape kit as part of the process.  I am revolted at the thought that I might be wrong on that.  I do agree with tiars though.  Get evidence collected, then go to the police. But I think we are in agreement about not going to a college administrator.

/the world just keeps on making me angrier.
 
2014-07-10 09:38:48 AM

sinisterben: Ishkur: sinisterben: Why? Last I checked we were discussing patriarchy, which again you assert followed by a lot of hand waving and name calling. Then we even have to discount democracy of all things? Yep, I'm adorable.

Because you want to dispute the existence of patriarchy. I pointed out where it exists, and you decided to ignore everything but politics. Politics wasn't my argument.

Wow, you know, I have the ability fo define monarchy, or oligarghy, or theocracy, and I can even define ways to falsify those definitions. But you, you get to assert a fact, and I have to just accept it. Does England have a queen? Are they a matriarchy in your mind? Of course not, because, patriarchy.


Don't be daft.
Who has more political power in the UK, the queen or the prime minister?
What is the ratio of male to female prime ministers?
What is the ratio of men to women in the UK Parliament?
 
2014-07-10 09:42:45 AM

fiddlehead: sinisterben: Ishkur: sinisterben: Why? Last I checked we were discussing patriarchy, which again you assert followed by a lot of hand waving and name calling. Then we even have to discount democracy of all things? Yep, I'm adorable.

Because you want to dispute the existence of patriarchy. I pointed out where it exists, and you decided to ignore everything but politics. Politics wasn't my argument.

Wow, you know, I have the ability fo define monarchy, or oligarghy, or theocracy, and I can even define ways to falsify those definitions. But you, you get to assert a fact, and I have to just accept it. Does England have a queen? Are they a matriarchy in your mind? Of course not, because, patriarchy.

Don't be daft.
Who has more political power in the UK, the queen or the prime minister?
What is the ratio of male to female prime ministers?
What is the ratio of men to women in the UK Parliament?


I'm sorry. I guess we need to elect more stupid women to put next to stupid men to make other stupid women happy that they are represented by stupid people of both genders.

If you think the big problem with politics is "not enough women", you have a lot to learn.
 
2014-07-10 10:09:50 AM

zzrhardy: A strange game
The only winning move is not to play.


This is a conclusion reached after much playing with yourself?
 
2014-07-10 10:44:37 AM

fiddlehead: sinisterben: Ishkur: sinisterben: Why? Last I checked we were discussing patriarchy, which again you assert followed by a lot of hand waving and name calling. Then we even have to discount democracy of all things? Yep, I'm adorable.

Because you want to dispute the existence of patriarchy. I pointed out where it exists, and you decided to ignore everything but politics. Politics wasn't my argument.

Wow, you know, I have the ability fo define monarchy, or oligarghy, or theocracy, and I can even define ways to falsify those definitions. But you, you get to assert a fact, and I have to just accept it. Does England have a queen? Are they a matriarchy in your mind? Of course not, because, patriarchy.

Don't be daft.
Who has more political power in the UK, the queen or the prime minister?
What is the ratio of male to female prime ministers?
What is the ratio of men to women in the UK Parliament?


It's never enough is it? Female Head of State... patriarchy. This patriarchy is literally the worst protected power system ever. It doesn't seem very effective at protecting its power base.

Why not just an unjust world?
 
2014-07-10 11:57:23 AM
So,  vote Hillary 2016??
 
2014-07-10 12:32:24 PM
Forget it sinisterben, it's Femtardtown.
 
2014-07-10 12:40:38 PM

sinisterben: fiddlehead: sinisterben: Ishkur: sinisterben: Why? Last I checked we were discussing patriarchy, which again you assert followed by a lot of hand waving and name calling. Then we even have to discount democracy of all things? Yep, I'm adorable.

Because you want to dispute the existence of patriarchy. I pointed out where it exists, and you decided to ignore everything but politics. Politics wasn't my argument.

Wow, you know, I have the ability fo define monarchy, or oligarghy, or theocracy, and I can even define ways to falsify those definitions. But you, you get to assert a fact, and I have to just accept it. Does England have a queen? Are they a matriarchy in your mind? Of course not, because, patriarchy.

Don't be daft.
Who has more political power in the UK, the queen or the prime minister?
What is the ratio of male to female prime ministers?
What is the ratio of men to women in the UK Parliament?

It's never enough is it? Female Head of State... patriarchy. This patriarchy is literally the worst protected power system ever. It doesn't seem very effective at protecting its power base.

Why not just an unjust world?


Here, have a heaping helping of crazy: I Blame The Patriarchy
 
2014-07-10 01:01:19 PM

Repo Man: sinisterben: fiddlehead: sinisterben: Ishkur: sinisterben: Why? Last I checked we were discussing patriarchy, which again you assert followed by a lot of hand waving and name calling. Then we even have to discount democracy of all things? Yep, I'm adorable.

Because you want to dispute the existence of patriarchy. I pointed out where it exists, and you decided to ignore everything but politics. Politics wasn't my argument.

Wow, you know, I have the ability fo define monarchy, or oligarghy, or theocracy, and I can even define ways to falsify those definitions. But you, you get to assert a fact, and I have to just accept it. Does England have a queen? Are they a matriarchy in your mind? Of course not, because, patriarchy.

Don't be daft.
Who has more political power in the UK, the queen or the prime minister?
What is the ratio of male to female prime ministers?
What is the ratio of men to women in the UK Parliament?

It's never enough is it? Female Head of State... patriarchy. This patriarchy is literally the worst protected power system ever. It doesn't seem very effective at protecting its power base.

Why not just an unjust world?

Here, have a heaping helping of crazy: I Blame The Patriarchy


I... this is what I am talking about. It makes no damn sense!
 
2014-07-10 01:17:32 PM

Ishkur: That's an odd thing to ask. It's like saying "does being hot hurt the sun?"


Patriarchy does hurt men, though. By enforcing gender roles and devaluing the set of attributes it deems "feminine" (e.g. open emotional expression, nurturing, sensitivity, certain aesthetic appreciations, etc.), it circumscribes those behaviors in men. That makes it very difficult for males to express and embrace these parts of themselves, and because there's always a little yin in every yang, all men have those.

That's why it's now generally OK for girls to be tomboys (as long as they aren't too butch), but boys still get excoriated for "girly" things: The females are imitating the "superior" role, the males the "inferior". So even though girls seem on the surface to be advantaged by this system, it's still rooted in devaluing the feminine.
 
2014-07-10 01:20:26 PM

sinisterben: It's never enough is it? Female Head of State... patriarchy. This patriarchy is literally the worst protected power system ever. It doesn't seem very effective at protecting its power base.


It's very effective. It has a 90% incumbency rate and right now it's doing a good job convincing the public that the opposite sex is full of manipulative liars who can't be trusted.
 
2014-07-10 01:25:45 PM

Inchoate: Patriarchy does hurt men


Patriarchy is the rule of men. Men, in whatever system or culture, always seek hierarchy, and they will compete for position. You can't really say a system hurts a class when that class defines and rules the system, even when that class turns on itself and jockeys for stewardship.
 
2014-07-10 01:36:26 PM

sinisterben: Wait so now women have to create a system before it can be anything but patriarchy? You are proving my point here, you aren't defining anything meaningful.


Men inherit the throne preferentially over women. Elizabeth II is only the queen because she had no brothers. How is that not patriarchal?

sinisterben: It's never enough is it? Female Head of State... patriarchy. This patriarchy is literally the worst protected power system ever. It doesn't seem very effective at protecting its power base.

Why not just an unjust world?


A woman is permitted some power in a system whose actual majority power is wielded by men. Your point being?
 
2014-07-10 01:44:56 PM

Inchoate: sinisterben: Wait so now women have to create a system before it can be anything but patriarchy? You are proving my point here, you aren't defining anything meaningful.

Men inherit the throne preferentially over women. Elizabeth II is only the queen because she had no brothers. How is that not patriarchal?

sinisterben: It's never enough is it? Female Head of State... patriarchy. This patriarchy is literally the worst protected power system ever. It doesn't seem very effective at protecting its power base.

Why not just an unjust world?

A woman is permitted some power in a system whose actual majority power is wielded by men. Your point being?


See this is just silly. Are we seriously saying the only way for this patriarchy to end is to put women in charge? You aren't seeking equality, so stop claiming you are.
 
2014-07-10 01:50:57 PM
The Patriarchy as described in this thread sounds as menacing and impossible to dethrone as the oxygen we breathe.
 
2014-07-10 01:55:42 PM

sinisterben: Are we seriously saying the only way for this patriarchy to end is to put women in charge?


You can't end patriarchy and for civilization's sake you probably shouldn't.

Egalitarian systems existed pre-Agriculture so patriarchy is a function of social organization, not evolution. Unfortunately, there is no way to restore those systems without wiping out all hierarchies altogether and I wouldn't recommend it anyway. The next best idea is keep the patriarchal institutions but give women special rights and status and stop worrying about it. Failing that, a 50/50 split in leadership is preferable.

As it is right now, complaining that women have it better than men is like white people complaining that there's no NAACP for caucasions. Get over yourself.
 
2014-07-10 01:56:26 PM
Yes the patriarchy that allows leaders to be voted into office and where women have equal rights to run for that office, must instead place women into office because... otherwise patriarchy.
 
2014-07-10 02:00:53 PM

Fano: The Patriarchy as described in this thread sounds as menacing and impossible to dethrone as the oxygen we breathe.


It's not necessarily a bad thing, but in order to get there we must first get the MRAs to actually acknowledge it as a thing.
 
2014-07-10 02:02:14 PM

Ishkur: sinisterben: Are we seriously saying the only way for this patriarchy to end is to put women in charge?

You can't end patriarchy and for civilization's sake you probably shouldn't.

Egalitarian systems existed pre-Agriculture so patriarchy is a function of social organization, not evolution. Unfortunately, there is no way to restore those systems without wiping out all hierarchies altogether and I wouldn't recommend it anyway. The next best idea is keep the patriarchal institutions but give women special rights and status and stop worrying about it. Failing that, a 50/50 split in leadership is preferable.

As it is right now, complaining that women have it better than men is like white people complaining that there's no NAACP for caucasions. Get over yourself.


I am not sure if I should just say thank you for proving my point or if you are trying to troll. Either way, thanks.
 
2014-07-10 02:13:11 PM

sinisterben: Yes the patriarchy that allows leaders to be voted into office


We've been over this before: Is this the only part of patriarchy you recognize?

I'm seeing this type of argument over and over again lately, especially among Creationists. I call it the "99 = 0" fallacy. That because something isn't 100% absolutely true, therefore it is completely false. I am looking at all of civilization, analyzing every hierarchical system, organizational pact and family geneology table, from business to sports, and assessing it as a driving force of patriarchal institutions, and you want to say that there's no such thing because women can vote and run for office.

Seriously, get some perspective.
 
2014-07-10 02:16:45 PM

sinisterben: I am not sure if I should just say thank you for proving my point or if you are trying to troll.


I never troll. And if your point is that patriarchy doesn't exist, it was discredited a long time ago.
 
2014-07-10 02:21:31 PM

Ishkur: sinisterben: I am not sure if I should just say thank you for proving my point or if you are trying to troll.

I never troll. And if your point is that patriarchy doesn't exist, it was discredited a long time ago.


When? Would that be when you assert it just is, and never bothered with that whole data thing?
 
2014-07-10 02:23:38 PM
Or wait. Was it when declared democracy doesn't work?
 
2014-07-10 02:35:37 PM

sinisterben: Or wait. Was it when declared democracy doesn't work?


You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship! A self perpetuating phallocracy in which the feminin-- help help I' m being repressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
 
2014-07-10 02:38:53 PM
Here let me lay out all my cards, I bet it would be enough for 50% women in leadership roles for you, but rather women THAT AGREE with you in those roles. Because I assure you that you will say a bunch of Condoleezzas and Palins wouldn't count, would they?
 
2014-07-10 02:39:31 PM

sinisterben: When? Would that be when you assert it just is, and never bothered with that whole data thing?


Do you seriously think all of history is a lie?
 
2014-07-10 02:45:37 PM

Ishkur: sinisterben: When? Would that be when you assert it just is, and never bothered with that whole data thing?

Do you seriously think all of history is a lie?


This is an assertion not data, also I was unaware we were living in all of history. I try to focus policies around what is currently happening. YMMV.
 
2014-07-10 02:46:16 PM

sinisterben: Here let me lay out all my cards, I bet it would be enough for 50% women in leadership roles for you, but rather women THAT AGREE with you in those roles. Because I assure you that you will say a bunch of Condoleezzas and Palins wouldn't count, would they?


Well, not Palin because she's intellectually unqualified, but if politics was 50% Thatchers, Condoleezas and Nikki Haleys, even though they're Republicans I wouldn't care. Women have the right to their views and campaign on those views even if I disagree with them. But irrespective to all that, can you stop looking at politics for just a second and try to see the bigger picture?
 
2014-07-10 02:55:49 PM

sinisterben: This is an assertion not data


Actually, it's a question, because my argument is so obvious and so factual that I'm actually shocked that you would request data on it. Are you seriously that dense? Do you really need proof that men have created and controlled every hierarchical institution for the past 10,000 years? You actually need data on that (even when I have already sufficiently done so earlier in the thread)? I think a more interesting answer is why you DON'T think there is a patriarchy.

sinisterben: also I was unaware we were living in all of history. I try to focus policies around what is currently happening. YMMV.


We are, and always will be, living all of history. We are the effects of innumerable causes, and studying those causes is how we come to a better understanding. To not acknowledge this makes you not only obstinately blind, but egregiously stupid. You cannot possibly focus on what is currently happening without analyzing where it came from and how it came to be.
 
2014-07-10 02:57:26 PM

Ishkur: sinisterben: Here let me lay out all my cards, I bet it would be enough for 50% women in leadership roles for you, but rather women THAT AGREE with you in those roles. Because I assure you that you will say a bunch of Condoleezzas and Palins wouldn't count, would they?

Well, not Palin because she's intellectually unqualified, but if politics was 50% Thatchers, Condoleezas and Nikki Haleys, even though they're Republicans I wouldn't care. Women have the right to their views and campaign on those views even if I disagree with them. But irrespective to all that, can you stop looking at politics for just a second and try to see the bigger picture?


No, I won't stop paying attention to the policies of an obviously political movement. Also, how other than government intervention are you planning on making these special rights or enforced balance? You want this discussion to not pay attention to what you are doing, and what you are saying, because the obvious fact is they don't evidence what you want to paint yourselves as doing. If you don't want to be political then stop being so.

Seriously, I am probably more on your team than you could comprehend, because your identify is so wrapped up in this that you can't see the forest for the trees.
 
2014-07-10 03:05:37 PM

sinisterben: No, I won't stop paying attention to the policies of an obviously political movement


No. It's not.

That is why you're wrong.

sinisterben: Also, how other than government intervention are you planning on making these special rights or enforced balance?


Actually, government is not necessary most of the time. The Overton window will shift gradually as new generations accept different standards and we die off (because older generations are never wholly converted to new ideas).
 
2014-07-10 03:08:04 PM

Ishkur: sinisterben: I am not sure if I should just say thank you for proving my point or if you are trying to troll.

I never troll. And if your point is that patriarchy doesn't exist, it was discredited a long time ago.


You and I don't really agree on the implications of patriarchy, but at least you clearly understand that it exists. Which is nice.
 
2014-07-10 03:12:45 PM

Ishkur: sinisterben: No, I won't stop paying attention to the policies of an obviously political movement

No. It's not.

That is why you're wrong.

sinisterben: Also, how other than government intervention are you planning on making these special rights or enforced balance?

Actually, government is not necessary most of the time. The Overton window will shift gradually as new generations accept different standards and we die off (because older generations are never wholly converted to new ideas).


I'll just let this post lie, because again you make my point. You don't answer any questions honestly, you won't admit to your goals, and you will lie when faced with simple facts.
 
2014-07-10 03:14:24 PM

Inchoate: Ishkur: sinisterben: I am not sure if I should just say thank you for proving my point or if you are trying to troll.

I never troll. And if your point is that patriarchy doesn't exist, it was discredited a long time ago.

You and I don't really agree on the implications of patriarchy, but at least you clearly understand that it exists. Which is nice.


The patriarchy theory is indistinguishable from a religious belief. I'm sorry, it's true.
 
2014-07-10 03:29:25 PM

sinisterben: The patriarchy theory is indistinguishable from a religious belief.


Except patriarchy has demonstrable evidence, whereas a belief in a deity does not.
 
2014-07-10 03:30:15 PM

sinisterben: I'll just let this post lie, because again you make my point.


Your point that patriarchy doesn't exist?

Tell me: Do you plan on changing your name when you get married?
 
2014-07-10 03:32:58 PM

Ishkur: Egalitarian systems existed pre-Agriculture


You know, these hunter-gatherer tribes still exist in places. Maybe you would be happier if you lived amongst them.

Bring them cheetos and become their god.
 
2014-07-10 03:33:39 PM

Ishkur: sinisterben: The patriarchy theory is indistinguishable from a religious belief.

Except patriarchy has demonstrable evidence, whereas a belief in a deity does not.


That's not the overarching patriarchy you are discussing, this is like the Christian claiming god is love. You aren't talking about what you actually believe, you are talking about something much different and greatly diminished from the original claims.
 
Displayed 50 of 406 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report