Sorry I hurt your feelings. If it makes you feel better, I went back and read the whole thing. Know what I learned? That it's wrong to make assumptions about other people. Other than that, "Lesbian pretending to be unattractive awkward male has trouble picking up women" is not the argument-ender you thought it was, sorry.He even ingored my article that dropped a deuce on most of his argument.
Really? Really? What about your lovely bar graphs about how much it sucks to be a male? I picked those apart point by point, and showed you logically and with evidence why they meant nothing. Did you humble yourself and admit that your little blue bars didn't actually make the point you wanted to make in the end? Did you accede that statistics without context mean nothing? No, you pretended the whole thing never happened. They have a term for that... what was it again... oh, why isn't it coming back to oh yeah CONFIRMATION BIAS.I'd like to make a long response but so far he has no given me any evidence or scientific study to back any of his presumptions. He continuously expands his previous points, thereby making it null and void, avoids being responsible for the things that has been stated, and erroneously deploy anecdotal evidence as a prime example for "need for feminism." Basically, he is begging the question. What a meaningless exercise.
I'd like to see some "evidence" of this admission.Yeah, but you already admitted defeat. Why stir it back up?
I'm sorryyour troll attempt failed.You are terrible at apologies.
It was bliss having his throbbing quim dagger shoved inside me again; stuffing my penis pothole with a number of chillies just didn't get my vibrator crater flooding like it used to. By now, my wunder down under was slobbering like Augustus Gloop at Willy Wonka's chocolate river. When he removed his bald-headed yogurt slinger from my puckered brown eye, he was pleasantly surprised to see a toilet twinkie staring back as him. He knew I couldn't wait to suck the corn-eyed butt snake off his front bum. Within no time, I could feel the shitty gentleman's relish haemorrhaging from my brown eye and all over my furburger. The unrelenting orgasms from his Ccean's 11 Inches slamming my south mouth made me come so hard, I began sweating like a midget nun at a penguin shoot.
Holy shit, did that make you explode?
Really? So this is where you're gonna stick to your guns? That whole chart was a joke and you know it (feminism is stoopid because LOOK LOOK more mans is dead), I call you on it and you're gonna pretend like I'm the one not presenting a valid argument? Sorry bro, you can't just call "Strawman! Strawman!" every time someone explains why your "evidence" is shit. If you're claiming I'm misrepresenting your position, tell me how.Holy shit, did that make you explode?
lol the chart shit. Do you want to go back and check it out again? I am pretty sure you pulled a strawman.
How did I replace your position with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition?To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Because, as I've already stated repeatedly, I've never victimized female sexuality. Ever. Female sexuality is awesome.Why won't you fucking man up about how full of shit you are for trying to victimize female sexuality?
You know, I think you write something and you're so happy with how it sounds in your head you don't realize how little sense it makes.This discourse is meaningless as long as you drum up victimhood of female sexuality. Complexity of sexual discourse is beyond your comprehension, unfortunately, judging by how you failed to understand value of female sexuality and the roles it plays in slut shaming and objectification. Another unfortunate strawman...
Oh, isn't that cute. An article about victim culture. And you were just talking about how I was "victimizing female sexuality" so it's totally apt and clever! I skimmed over it looking for where it said women should stop complaining about being constantly sexually objectified, but I must have missed it. I did catch "The Challenge" on the bottom, though:And indeed, it appears that it is a symptom.http://www.zurinstitute.com/victim_psychology.html
Fucking wow. This "challenge" might as well be called the feminist manifesto.The challenge that this page is presenting is to move from the blame approach to a more complex understanding of violent systems, the perpetuation of these systems and the role victims play in these systems. In order to be able to help a victim, one must understand the dynamic between victims and victimizers and the social, economic, political and cultural context in which the violence occurred. If we comprehend all this, we will have better tools to predict and prevent further victimization.
Ok.Really? So this is where you're gonna stick to your guns? That whole chart was a joke and you know it (feminism is stoopid because LOOK LOOK more mans is dead), I call you on it and you're gonna pretend like I'm the one not presenting a valid argument? Sorry bro, you can't just call "Strawman! Strawman!" every time someone explains why your "evidence" is shit. If you're claiming I'm misrepresenting your position, tell me how.
Tanoomba's Shitty Article_sl said:Unfortunately, the reason that "fem" is a part of the word "feminism" is that the world is not, currently, an equal, safe, and just place for women
Tanoomba_sl said:How many feminists are fighting for a dismantling of the patriarchy that considers men more disposable andwomen more worthy of protection?
Nope. My position was, "No, feminism is a hypocritical word."How did I replace your position with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition?
Your position was "Look at these numbers".
And it had nothing to do with my point.My response was "Statistics mean nothing without context.", and I proceeded to provide just that.
You couldn't understand it & ranted about something completely different. Not my fault? Should have asked for clarification before ranting about some random shit?Maybe some bros you know assume you know what you're talking about when you pull out the old "strawman" accusation.
Irrelevant.Do you disagree that statistics mean nothing out of context?
You don't understand what I mean by victimization of female sexuality...do you? You portray women as the victim because of their sex....Tanoomba_sl said:Because, as I've already stated repeatedly, I've never victimized female sexuality. Ever. Female sexuality is awesome.
I guess I should say, "Same to you~"Tanoomba_sl said:You know, I think you write something and you're so happy with how it sounds in your head you don't realize how little sense it makes.
Attitudes to which people approach each gender's sexuality? This link should help you to understand..."changing" sexuality.What's your definition of "female sexuality"? Is that like "female negativity"? I'm not making fun of you, I want to know.
Ok. Look above. Don't want to engage in "HE SAID SHE SAID" bullshit.Because to me, "female sexuality" is behavior of a sexual nature exhibited by females.
Conversely, it could be considered characteristics of a sexual nature possessed by females.
Yes you didn't. Because I never talked about it either.I have never portrayed either female sexual behavior or female sexual characteristics in a negative light, nor have I made either a "victim". Behavior can't be a "victim". Characteristics can't be a "victim". Sexuality itself can't be a "victim".
This is how you stoop to the level of your previous opponents.Do you use intentionally vague terms to make it harder for people to contradict you? I suppose it's possible you're just not very good at picking your words.
Yes, and I've constantly demonstrated that is not a real deal and its goals and policies are quite spectacularly off the mark.Remember when I mentioned how feminism is trying to change attitudes in society with the eventual goal of shifting generally accepted behavior to something that doesn't alienate quite so many people?
This is how you stoop to the level of your previous opponents.No of course not, you couldn't concentrate over your own voice yelling "Strawman!"
I'm not saying men are bad guys, I've never said that. I'm not saying women are victims, I've never said that.
Not really. Check my sources again?But the way women are sexually objectified, even if it has a historical justification, is obsolete.
There is no practical purpose? Are you serious about that statement? I strongly urge you to rethink.By looking at the social, economic, political and cultural context of today, we realize there is no practical purpose in continuing to perpetuate the notion of "female as sexual object"
Thanks for recognizing that men suffer--too.that in fact continuing to do so has a negative effect on many people, including males.
Yes.Therefore, feminism is trying to initiate a shift in how women are viewed, in order for them tostopbeing seen as "the victim".
I realize, I just took issue with that specific statement because it's so completely false. There are plenty of "run of the mill every day guys" that don't have a whole lot more going for them than the guy they are standing beside, but are absolutely swimming in pussy because for whatever reason they just happen to have the female mind meld shit going on.Ron Jeremy was created by the porn industry. If the guy was a construction worker he wouldn't be a stud. Kissinger is like saying Bill Clinton is a stud. What they lack in looks they make up for in sheer power and influence, which if anything ismoreof a turn on for women than just looks. I think Jefferies was talking about the run of the mill every day guy on the street, not high powered politicians and porn stars. Plus its just some crass stand up routine, albeit with splashes of hard reality, not exactly a serious discussion social sexual behavior.
Hey asshole.Why are you here, making so many verbose and utterly stupid points?
Why are you not trying to get laid right now? Are you 15?
Go out, attempt to get laid. Fail, and come back and post about in the Girls Who Broke Your Heart thread.
I Haven't read like more than half a paragraph of this entire thread, stop fucking around and being a dip shit trying to have internet battles, which cannot be won by default.
You're a dumb inexperienced kid, who got brain washed by girls whose opinions you've mistaken for being interesting, when really you've suppressed your latent desire to fuck them. You did this socially because you unconsciously wanted to Trojan Horse the girls, thinking the back door of social etiquette is superior to the blunt simple method of being forthright (also you can avoid rejection easier). Of course you got sucked up into it, and now you've convinced yourself, despite your most basic primitive instinct, that any of what you think you're championing right has any import at all. You are wasting your time, so. I challenge you.
I challenge you to stop fucking around here and progress to the next phase.
In however a fashion you want to, show attraction to the opposite sex. Attempt to court one, and present us with the results.
Rickshaw this thread, or resurrect an ancient one, bronze and leave it their for every young emasculated boy to come across later and learn from.
We need not re invite the wheel for every misguided lamb that come are way.
This is the last time I'm going to show you the secret pipe to level 8 in the Mushroom Kingdom.
So you're out to reverse thousands of years of evolutionary biology with....political activism? Let me know how that works out for you.But the way women are sexually objectified, even if it has a historical justification, is obsolete. By looking at the social, economic, political and cultural context of today, we realize there is no practical purpose in continuing to perpetuate the notion of "female as sexual object", and that in fact continuing to do so has a negative effect on many people, including males. Therefore, feminism is trying to initiate a shift in how women are viewed, in order for them tostopbeing seen as "the victim".
What does that have to do with your charts?Nope. My position was, "No, feminism is a hypocritical word."
If your points need to be clarified to be understandable, they're not very good points.You couldn't understand it & ranted about something completely different. Not my fault? Should have asked for clarification before ranting about some random shit?
Hey Dodgy McQuestiondodge, if it was irrelevant you would have had no problem answering it. However, you know damn well that your answer will weaken your argument. Instead of pointing out which particular fallacy I'm supposedly demonstrating by pointing this out, why don't you just answer the question?Irrelevant.
Here's why I don't buy into your "victimization" bullshit: It implies a "bad guy". There is no "bad guy" here, so using the word "victimization" distorts the point feminists are trying to make. It's a classic straw man, if you will. I think you've heard the term.You don't understand what I mean by victimization of female sexuality...do you? You portray women as the victim because of their sex....
All right, let's try putting "female" in there: "recognition or emphasis upon female sexual matters".sexuality
sex?u?al?i?ty
[sek-shoo-al-i-tee or, esp. British, seks-yoo-]
noun
2. recognition of or emphasis upon sexual matters.
Let's do a little experiment here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution
EXAMPLE:The revolution was recognized by profound shifts in the attitudes onwomen?s sexualityand homosexuality, and the freedom of sexual expression.
By pointing out when they're using vague and meaningless terms? I'll stop doing it when you stop using vague and meaningless terms.This is how you stoop to the level of your previous opponents.
At best, you have shown how harmful things have been done in the name of "feminism", and I've acknowledged that.Yes, and I've constantly demonstrated that is not a real deal and its goals and policies are quite spectacularly off the mark.
I do appreciate that you're pointing out that the other anti-feminists here have been doing a pretty shitty job.This is how you stoop to the level of your previous opponents.
Which ones? Your sources, to the best of my recollection, explained very well how it came to be that women are sexually objectified. I don't remember seeing anywhere why this is necessary today, but I'll be happy to re-check one of your sources if you think I missed something.Not really. Check my sources again?
Guess what? Men and women are going to get together and fuck regardless of whether beer commercials show tits. So yeah, there is no practical purpose in continuing to perpetuate the notion of "female as sexual object".There is no practical purpose? Are you serious about that statement? I strongly urge you to rethink.
I always have. And so does feminism.Thanks for recognizing that men suffer--too.
Now you're just being a jerk.Rape Culture
Domestic Violence
and "Slut Walk."
Ummm... where have you been? Pretty much every social development of the last 40 years has gone against thousands of years of evolutionary biology, so it's working out pretty well, thanks.So you're out to reverse thousands of years of evolutionary biology with....political activism? Let me know how that works out for you.
It's happened; whether its "working out pretty well" is an entirely different debate.Ummm... where have you been? Pretty much every social development of the last 40 years has gone against thousands of years of evolutionary biology, so it's working out pretty well, thanks.