"Smegma", "bottles the mind", "Fox News", "sassafrass", and the smell of B- blood.Tanoomba, what are your triggers?
When I'm on the minority side of an argument, I have no choice but to admit it when I am wrong about something. I can't pretend otherwise, or the fury of a thousand alphas will rain down upon me ceaselessly, forcing that point home. So yeah,I was wrong.I was forced to rethink not just my position, but why I felt motivated to defend it. I realized that I was right about the fact that taking advantage of a drunk person to fuck them counts as rape, but I was wrong in not explicitly stating that that level of intoxication needs to be such that the victim is not capable of sound judgment. I may have felt that was implied, but I can see now that it wasn't. So, Ididexplicitly state that in an attempt to clarify my position. I found multiple official legal sources that supported my stance. I left no room for misinterpretation and was not swayed by attempts to pull me into tangents or make things about me personally. I showed the majority that I wasn't just talking out of my ass and forced them to acknowledge that what I'd been saying for over a month was right... only eventhenthat's not how it played out.The dude has been riding the wrong side of an argument for over 100 pages. I think its safe to say there are no mild jimmy rustlers as far as he is concerned. Everything is 911 x 1000 for him.
SIXTY-NINE! SIXTY-NINE! SIXTY-NINE!On the scale of 1-10, how wrong was Tanoomba?
The way I understood it, Mist was basically saying that by reducing underage drinking, you reduce both rapes and rape accusations. Make underage drinking an expellable offense, and it's one less harmful distraction that undermines students' educational pursuits. I don't consider this a violation of anyone's freedom nor do I consider it "coddling" young people and stunting their development into adulthood. If anything, I find this suggestion could best be compared to Brazil, where for over a decade it had been illegal to sell beer in stadiums (before FIFA overturned that law, of course). Full-grown adults were being outright denied alcohol because, frankly, they couldn't handle it. It led to too much violence and even fatalities, so eliminating the catalyst was an extreme but logical step.Tanoomba, I basically agree with you on most of your points (well, after your change).
However, what I couldn't fathom is your continued statements that you thought Mist was making sense. She kept seeming to say, over and over, that she was using the rape issue as a proxy to fight underage drinking. Mist thinks the threat of false rapes is great because it might make people drink less. She also has said this would be fine, as the women who did the accusing (some of which WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN RAPED) should also be expelled for drinking. All of this wouldn't be a big deal though, because its "just college". That attitude is so vile it boggles my mind. I simply can't believe you support any part of that and I also don't think I'm exaggerating Mist's position at all.
Yep, the laws against underage drinking seem to have led to an increase in the actual problem, which is overindulgence.what the fuck is underage drinking anyways, it's a societal created taboo that encourages overcompensating deviate behavior in reality, especially those years just prior to it's "legal age".
When I'm on the minority side of an argument, I have no choice but to admit it when I am wrong about something. I can't pretend otherwise, or the fury of a thousand alphas will rain down upon me ceaselessly, forcing that point home. So yeah,I was wrong.I was forced to rethink not just my position, but why I felt motivated to defend it. I realized that I was right about the fact that taking advantage of a drunk person to fuck them counts as rape, but I was wrong in not explicitly stating that that level of intoxication needs to be such that the victim is not capable of sound judgment. I may have felt that was implied, but I can see now that it wasn't. So, Ididexplicitly state that in an attempt to clarify my position. I found multiple official legal sources that supported my stance. I left no room for misinterpretation and was not swayed by attempts to pull me into tangents or make things about me personally. I showed the majority that I wasn't just talking out of my ass and forced them to acknowledge that what I'd been saying for over a month was right... only eventhenthat's not how it played out.
Luckily for the majority, they never have to admit when they are wrong. They can be proven wrong repeatedly, but as long as they're willing to support each other, they can pretend together that they are somehow still in the right. Is it group mentality? Does it make one feel like onebelongs? Is teaming up with buddies to kick an underdog an action that contains its own reward, regardless of context? Is it more important to be popular than to be right? Is it just a form of laziness wherein each individual just assumes he is right because everyone else on his team says so, and surely they wouldn't be saying so ifsomeonedidn't know what they were talking about? Or, most likely, is it just cripplingly low self esteem that must be boosted by any means necessary, including making stuff up and throwing it out as fact in order to feel superior to others?
I ain't even mad. I learned a lot about the legal system, I showed everyone that sometimes "yes" doesn't mean "yes", I exposed a fellow poster as a fraud,andI found the weak point of one of the most intelligent and well-respected posters on this board. Not a bad showing for a feminist beta. But again, if it makes you feel better about yourself to keep ragging on me, go right ahead. My jimmies ain't rustled, and you get a self esteem boost. Everybody's happy.
As a blanket policy to be applied to all colleges? No. But there is no denying that underage drinking is a big problem in some colleges, such as the one Mist described. One response would be to say "So what? Let these kids fuck up their lives on their own terms." Another would be to attempt to curb the problem through, yes, stricter consequences for indulging in an already illegal and harmful activity.So you are really in favor of expulsion for under-age drinking?