Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Lithose_sl said:
First, not everyone that disagrees with you has a "kryptonite" about Gender issues, Tan. Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps it's you who are the one blinded by "gender" issues? What do you think is more likely, the one who sees a racial and gender divide in something like the legal system, and then express the SAME sentiment about both divides (Which I have done), or the person who morphs his judgements to better suit a fixed need (Which you are doing)? I don't look at gender any differently than I do race; if I consistently see the SAME variables get dealt with in a different manner; I believe something has a bias (And therefor, requires further study). The bias in sentencing is CLEARLY there, statistically it's larger than the bias between Black/White--and we hear, every day almost, about that bias in our court systems. So WHY wouldn't you believe there is a bias here as well? Maybe it's because YOU are the one being unreasonable here? And the best proof of this is in your post; you twist a statistical bias CLEARLY against men, to suit your anecdotal assertion of a bias against intoxication within rape cases (It's a breath taking logical fallacy).
Click to expand...
I'm not calling gender issues your weakness because you disagree with me. There's lots of stuff you disagree with me about. I'm calling it your weakness because it's the only topic I've seen that causes you to jump the gun (you've done it at least twice in this thread) and get emotionally involved where I've never seen you use emotion before. Now I don't read anywhere near ALL your posts, but in the many I've read you've exhibited consistent and predictable behavior. The only times I've ever seen you stray from the "stoic, wise, well-read, well-spoken" persona were gender issue discussions. If anything, you do that less than most posters, certainly less than me, but it was still noticeable. Sorry to have burnt your toast about it. Welcome to being a normal person, I guess.

I had started writing a technical defense of my stance when I realized... I like Lithose. I don't want to argue with him.

Then I thought that if I had been a person on this Jury, I just showed that I could have been convinced she was not trying to kill the guy. In fact, I still believe she didn't really try.

But if the defendant had been a man... well... I imagine I probably would not have been so easy to convince... unless he was a beta. Then I could probably be convinced.

There's my bias, I guess.
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,036
Tanoomba_sl said:
I'm not calling gender issues your weakness because you disagree with me. There's lots of stuff you disagree with me about. I'm calling it your weakness because it's the only topic I've seen that causes you to jump the gun (you've done it at least twice in this thread) and get emotionally involved where I've never seen you use emotion before. Now I don't read anywhere near ALL your posts, but in the many I've read you've exhibited consistent and predictable behavior. The only times I've ever seen you stray from the "stoic, wise, well-read, well-spoken" persona were gender issue discussions. If anything, you do that less than most posters, certainly less than me, but it was still noticeable. Sorry to have burnt your toast about it. Welcome to being a normal person, I guess.

I had started writing a technical defense of my stance when I realized... I like Lithose. I don't want to argue with him.

Then I thought that if I had been a person on this Jury, I just showed that I could have been convinced she was not trying to kill the guy. In fact, I still believe she didn't really try.

But if the defendant had been a man... well... I imagine I probably would not have been so easy to convince... unless he was a beta. Then I could probably be convinced.

There's my bias, I guess.
Click to expand...
I actually did a late edit to explain why I quickly went into a diatribe (I wanted to be concise and I felt like the first paragraph muddled the point, rather than made it). Essentially though I was perturbed mainly because my stance was misattributed (Using a tense that doesn't exist, yeah). Look at the Kentucky thread if you don't believe that said "annoyed" reaction is uniform; I absolutely detest when my words are twisted (Or in this case, the lack of them morphed into a stance.) And that's mainly because debates aren't very productive if one side is deliberately misrepresenting things. If you really want to see me get adamant (I wouldn't call it "angry"--I don't tend to emotionally invest too much), you'll see it there whenever Hodj tries to be obtuse and claim something I didn't say or do. I'm as human as the rest, Tan; lol, you must not have read many of my posts if you didn't believe so. (Ask Arysar about my arguments with Greyes.) But, long and short, that's why you get the stiff reaction--all the "gender" posts at the start of the thread, if you'll notice, were fairly calm. If Gender was what "annoyed" me, those posts would have been different (As they were all gender based). However, what piqued my interest again was attribution without, what I saw, as cause.
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,426
49,042
If tanoomba isnt allowed to say you said something that you never said or twist what you said out of context or shift the goalposts, he might as well close the browser and go home. That's his whole game bro, don't take it ALL...
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Lithose_sl said:
I actually did a late edit to explain why I quickly went into a diatribe (I wanted to be concise and I felt like the first paragraph muddled the point, rather than made it). Essentially though I was perturbed mainly because my stance was misattributed (Using a tense that doesn't exist, yeah). Look at the Kentucky thread if you don't believe that said "annoyed" reaction is uniform; I absolutely detest when my words are twisted (Or in this case, the lack of them morphed into a stance.) And that's mainly because debates aren't very productive if one side is deliberately misrepresenting things. If you really want to see me get adamant (I wouldn't call it "angry"--I don't tend to emotionally invest too much), you'll see it there whenever Hodj tries to be obtuse and claim something I didn't say or do. I'm as human as the rest, Tan; lol, you must not have read many of my posts if you didn't believe so. (Ask Arysar about my arguments with Greyes.) But, long and short, that's why you get the stiff reaction--all the "gender" posts at the start of the thread, if you'll notice, were fairly calm. If Gender was what "annoyed" me, those posts would have been different (As they were all gender based). However, what piqued my interest again was attribution without, what I saw, as cause.
Click to expand...
That's fair, and I can see why you would have interpreted it that way. I would say that my impression was based more on the post than the lack of response to the post, and it's a bit... iffy... to blame me for interpreting referring to something you've read as interesting as meaning you had an interest in it, but I can see after reading your explanation that I must have misinterpreted your words. I made you feel you were being misrepresented and I apologize. Trust me, I know what it's like. Hodj unloaded a misrepresentation of my words so powerful it nuked 2 threads and killed the net system. These guys are somewhat better, thank Christ. Some of them are downright reasonable. But I think if you post here, you pretty much have to know that somebody's gonna fuck with your words. If people generally agree with your views, it happens less often. If you make the unexplainable life choice of choosing to talk about things wherein people generally disagree with your views, it happensall the time.
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Tanoomba_sl said:
Insufferable cunt? After I gave you props and everything? Dude, that's cold...

You can threaten someone with something and have zero intention of carrying out that threat. If I call you and say "Stop posting stupid shit or I'll kill you, numbnuts" I will not be charged with attempted murder, even if that was my threat. This woman never stabbed the cop, never slashed at the cop, never made a real attempt to hurt him in any way. If it was her intention to kill him, she really sucks at carrying out her intentions. Does she have to actually murder someone to be guilty of attempted murder? No (that would be murder), but she does have toattemptto murder someone, and she didn't. She made a hollow threat, the cop physically overpowered her and got cut in the process, and that's that. Is it assault? Of course! is it attempted murder? Not even close.

You mention the perception of the victim here as though it's relevant. Of course someone being threatened with a weapon will believe his life is in danger. But believing your life is in danger is not the same thing as having someone actually attempt to murder you.
Click to expand...
tanoo, you can't threat without intent. Just look at the definition the word threat.. it means intention. Do you want several dictionary definitions?
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439


Can anybody settle something?

Which is the better definition for the dynamite power up in Pang/Buster Bros?

a) It breaks big bubbles into little bubbles

b) It breaks bubbles into the smallest bubbles
 
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,782
8,267
Tanoomba_sl said:
Can anybody settle something?

Which is the better definition for the dynamite power up in Pang/Buster Bros?

a) It breaks big bubbles into little bubbles

b) It breaks bubbles into the smallest bubbles
Click to expand...
They are both incorrect.

c) It breaks the big bubbles into smaller bubbles.

But if you had to pick, a) would be most accurate of the two.
 
V

VariaVespasa_sl

shitlord
572
5
lendarios_sl said:
tanoo, you can't threat without intent. Just look at the definition the word threat.. it means intention. Do you want several dictionary definitions?
Click to expand...
Dont be a shmuck, of course you can. A threat is a statement of an intent, it is NOT proof that the speaker ACTUALLY holds that intent, merely that he says he does. If I point a gun at you that I know to be empty (Because in all the excitement you dont know if I fired 6 shots or only 5) and say "Now give me your money, motherfucker, or I'll pull this trigger and turn your head into a canoe", thats clearly a threat, but equally clearly I have no intention of carrying it out because I cant and I know I cant. Would you like to try again?
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
When you rob a liqour store with an empty gun you're still charged with armed robbery. It really doesn't matter if the threat is empty. It honestly doesn't. A threat is a threat. A bluster is a threat. A person should avoid making empty threats because there's really no such thing.

If I threaten that i'm going to reach through the monitor and punch you in the nuts... that's obviously absurd. So what? It's an absurd threat. It's still a threat.

Guard your sack.
 
mkopec

mkopec

<Gold Donor>
26,235
39,945
Getting back on topic...

Here is an interesting quote I saw in an article somewhere. It makes sense...

"Feminism is like the parasite that kills it's own host. Freedom and affluence leads to decadence, which leads to decline. Feminism is the social force that tries to equalize the sexes, making the women more masculine and the men more feminine... in the end neither is doing what comes naturally. Which undermines the vitality of the culture."
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Well that's what a lot of them are peddling as feminism these days. That's no true feminism.

The right to vote? The right to own land?Reproductive rights? Equal compensation for equal work? Public representation, funding, and study for issues either unique or overwhelmingly influenced/ing to the gender? Sure. All of that. Even the shit that I don't like.

Feminism is not fat shaming. Feminism is not finding the most confused human being you can and defending cixz rights to unique pronouns. That's teenage twitter dumbshittery.
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
VariaVespasa_sl said:
Dont be a shmuck, of course you can. A threat is a statement of an intent, it is NOT proof that the speaker ACTUALLY holds that intent, merely that he says he does.
Click to expand...
The actual threat is the proof of the intent. No one can read anyone's mind, so we have to go by their actions. When a person is threatening you, he is communicating his intent to hurt you. What more proof do you want? That he actually hurts you?

A threat and the actualization of the threat are two different things, the lack of actualization doesn't remove the threat.
 
Kirun

Kirun

Buzzfeed Editor
19,237
15,628
iAnus_sl said:
The right to vote? The right to own land?Reproductive rights? Equal compensation for equal work? Public representation, funding, and study for issues either unique or overwhelmingly influenced/ing to the gender? Sure. All of that. Even the shit that I don't like.
Click to expand...
So, which of these do females not currently have?
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,426
49,042
iAnus_sl said:
Some would say reproductive and compensation still need some work. They very well may.
Click to expand...
Speaking of female compensation, how are lapdances still $20? Its like they are immune to inflation.
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,202
23,387
Sowhat ifgendered occupational roles WERE biologically defined. Why is it that the 'male jobs' just happen, on average, to pay more? I mean, there's approximately the same supply of labor on both sides of the gender scale, so it's not a supply issue.

Since I'm not allowed to say patriarchy, I guess I challenge one of you to come up with a logical alternative hypothesis.
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Cad_sl said:
Speaking of female compensation, how are lapdances still $20? Its like they are immune to inflation.
Click to expand...
Are the songs shorter? I wonder if no lap dance was ever given to Hey Jude, that would have sucked for the stripper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.