Another dumb shit missing the point. Did you even read the article? What about being able to ruin men's lives with zero evidence or substantiation is acceptable? You conveniently just ignored that part and moved right on to your preconditioned response.
I read the article and it doesn't provide any real proof. With any change in social culture there will always be people that don't like the change. Of course some people will feel uncomfortable. People feel uncomfortable with race integration too. There is still discrimination because people feel "uncomfortable". Should we bring back segregation because some people are "uncomfortable" working with someone from another race ? From an outsider looking in there are many social aspects that the US is terribly behind with. They talk about left and right but the US doesn't have a real left. The US is not a democracy and as such - some progress - is still hindered by 1787 thinking. Your argument is completely fallacious. Just because people are objecting to one extreme does not mean the other extreme is the only alternative. You are being willfully ignorant and simply repeating your programmed response like a robot. We get it. Sexual harassment and discrimination is bad. That doesn't make over reaction to these issues any more acceptable. Furthermore if you took the time to think about this for more than a half of a second you would see that this trend is DIRECTLY negatively effecting women by the virtue of the fact that this culture of guilty until proven innocent demonization of men is DIRECTLY causing women to be excluded, and very reasonably so. People aren't going to put their careers, livelihoods, and businesses on the line on the chance that they won't make a false accusation, nor should they. You are talking about a caricature of the USA, not the reality. You are a mindless parrot vomiting up your programed replies to these topics without a moment of critical examination. No one is justifying sexual assault or harassment, and the implication of such is totally a figment of your own imagination that you project upon anyone who has a contrary opinion to your own. BTW you didn't answer my questions. |
|
|
|
|
Funny, Western feminists seem to find this issue to be completely invisible. You would think they would object over little baby girls getting parts of their genitals cut off, but nah, they are too busy worrying about man-spreading and appropriating popular media to use it as an envelope to deliver their propaganda.
|
|
|
|
It is often the creepy men that feel most intimidated by this. If you work with women in the workforce you just need to treat them professionally as an equal to if they were a man. Have proper professional boundaries in place and make sure that neither person crosses those boundaries. They seem to have much fewer issues with this in Europe. Nicknames, teasing, innuendo and flirting really do not have a place in a professional workplace. It is a ll fun and games until someone gets upset - then it can cost heavily. There are many things that can upset people when there is an issue. I've worked with quite a few women in a male dominated industry. I ensure I act above reproach both publicly and privately with co-workers and clients.. Making a false complaint is a criminal offense. It is on par with blackmail, theft and forgery. There are always people who commit crimes. Men and women. I'm not convinced that the statistics show it as being an epidemic. Another dumb shit missing the point completely. Did you even read the article? What about being able to ruin men's lives with zero evidence or substantiation is acceptable? How often are women held criminally responsible for false charges? Oh right, almost never. BTW it is not criminal to make false reports to HR, school administrators, or to start rumors. You conveniently just ignored that part and moved right on to your preconditioned response. |
|
|
|
paragraphs 1 & 2: boring and overly-trodden personal attacks
Zzzzzzzz Regarding your "logic", it is also harder to die from AIDs if no one has sex, I guess we should have mandatory abstinence right? Oh you like sex? Guess what, people like being able to not rely on government to defend themselves, especially since they are usually 10-20 minutes away, that is assuming they don't shoot you when they get there. Your chances of dying in a car accident are significantly reduced if you don't own a car, I guess we should ban cars too. Pools? Nah, people drown in pools. BAN. Just because you live in a place where you feel safe without owning a gun does not mean everyone does. In fact the people who most need to be armed are the poorest among us, but fuck them right? You live in a gated community with an armed guard, and guns are scary.
We've been over this ad nauseum: You've made a facetious comparison here. Guns are designed to be lethal weapons. Sex, cars, and pools are not. Why is this so difficult to understand? You have no logos, your arguments are 100% from a position of emotional instability and fear like nearly every gun control argument.
I present to you a bit of logical evidence to support the idea that more guns = more gun deaths (a pretty simply concept really) and you delve head-first into long-winded, overly emotional personal attacks in an attempt to counter it. I would say you are the one who is unstable here. Really, I don't even need to read your walls of sniveling hate text to know you're a bit off your rocker. Every day you bang your head against the wall here and expect different results. That's lunacy. Convenient you just throw the logical points out the window because a sentence next to it hurt your frail fee fees. Man debate is so much easier that way! Yes, we have been over this ad nauseum. The comparison is legitimate. Guns are designed to provide PROTECTION for people. You summarily excluding this primary use case is what is fallacious ( I know you meant to use this word instead of facetious, but you have trouble with the definitions of words and simple logic). You provided statistics that ignore totally the positive use cases and lives saved and protected by firearms. You don't get to just erase arguments and statistics that work against your point, that is not how debate works. Just because you plug your ears and go "LALALALA CONTRARY FACTS DON'T EXIST!" doesn't make the contrary facts disappear. So, 3 paragraphs = "walls of text?" Next time I will draw a cartoon for you, maybe that will be more your speed since 3 paragraphs is a difficult task for you. You were saying something about personal attacks... just before you use personal attacks... but I am the emotional one right? |
|
|
|
That's "feminist" hypocrisy for you. Half of that kid's DNA is from the father but he don't get any say about it.
And yes, we are noticing. They just substituted the government for the "patriarchy". Their fathers, husbands, sons having legal guardianship over them has been replaced by the government doing stuff for them.
Not surprising since they are the "economic engine". All you need to do is go to the mall with them for half an hour - women would buy any crap as long as you rub them the right way. The government have every incentive to keep dropping cash on women's laps so they can keep spending.
Yep, funny how women are a net drain on the tax system over their life time as well. They want all the benefits of a man, but no responsibilities, so they kick the men to the curb and have the government rob from them at gunpoint via taxes to support them. Everyone wonders why the birthrates are dropping like a rock... its because men are checking out of a system totally rigged against them. Unfortunately I think the only thing that will get women to realize their mistake is when society collapses and they are again dependent on men for their basic survival needs... and it is coming. Not to mention that after the quality of life has improved, women's lifespan has overtaken men's by a few years. Most workplace deaths are men and they are also far more likely to get murdered. Women would be on pension for far longer. As for the birthrates dropping, women are also to blame. They either ride the c**k carousel for years or waste their youth on a "career" and when they finally decide to settle down they realize they are no longer fertile, not to mention some of the STDs they can accumulate along the way could make them barren way before menopause. Yeah but you are a misogynist therefore I need not argue any of your points and I can ignore everything you just said. |
|
|
|
I mean I know it's possible and easy to do, to be honest I'm not too familiar with the whole process but as I understand it, it would only take a group effort to manipulate a good amount of votes, right?
I linked more information on the subject so I don't have to repeat something some one else already said better than I could have. Stop insisting I spoon feed you. Please watch the doc at least, I mean it is made by HBO ffs, it isn't that long either. Once you familiarize yourself with the subject matter I would be more than happy to discuss it. |
|
|
|
Huh. It is almost like there is no way for any of these users to ever get redemption over relatively small issues, so instead of being incentivized to reform, they are incentivized to tell everyone to go fuck themselves. Who would have thought?
Nothing can really be fixed if you chose the latter, I don't think that the issue can be resolve by throwing threats, false claims, and blatant lies to each other. It would do you more harm than good, even if you think you are winning you'll just later find out that you just dig your grave deeper with the mistakes you already made which are avoidable. You seem to be missing the point. From the perspective of those users nothing can really be fixed. Period. Full stop. I am not excusing any of that behavior, but perhaps instead of complaining about the symptoms, maybe you should be looking at the cause. |
|
|
|
You specifically kicked well-trusted users off of DT1/DT2 based on QS's or OG's PM's, huh?  Well trusted according to who? You? Now you get to decide who everyone else should be trusting? While I might trust you to not rob me, I certainly wouldn't ever trust you to not be full of shit. |
|
|
|
It's not the first time we have seen a member lose his/her way when they have gotten into the spotlight of controversy, I have seen lesser known members like digaran, mdayonliner/S_Therapist on the same situation and they did some untrustworthy things just because they are on the spotlight at the same time losing the battle. The same thing can be said to Quickseller, I know it was hard for him to get his reputation back up and now he got into another mess which I think the damage is far beyond repair that is why he is doing some unbelievable accusations against you and to other members here that brought him down.
Huh. It is almost like there is no way for any of these users to ever get redemption over relatively small issues, so instead of being incentivized to reform, they are incentivized to tell everyone to go fuck themselves. Who would have thought? |
|
|
|
Yet even more evidence gun control is about the inability of some individuals to control their emotions, not logic.
I completely agree with you: everybody who over-reacts out of fear that the government is going to take their guns from them and winds themselves up into conspiracy mode every time there's a mass shooting need to embrace common sense logic that perhaps gun ownership and access laws need to be reviewed. Here's some logic for you: its harder to commit a gun-related crime if you don't have a gun. So do you ever have any thoughts of your own, or do you have to wait for some one like me to have one so you can repeat it back to them? The word conspiracy is just a pathetic attempt to stigmatize the very real fact that the leading cause of non-natural death since the 20th century is government. Your argument presumes the state is some how morally superior to the individual. What a joke. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Every time there is a mass shooting fearful weak little boys like you scream we need "gun control" (euphemism for confiscation/ban) from the rooftops because you can not manage your emotional reaction to the events, then you attribute the reaction from the law abiding gun owners as irrational. They are reacting to people like you politicizing these events and attempting to take their rights, not the event itself. In short, people like you cause the reaction directly then call it irrational by characterizing it as "conspiracy". By the way you might want to learn the actual definition of that word seeing as you use it as a cudgel to attempt to utilize conditioned negative connotations to that word. It doesn't mean what you think it means. People afraid of reality love calling everything they don't agree with "conspiracy". Regarding your "logic", it is also harder to die from AIDs if no one has sex, I guess we should have mandatory abstinence right? Oh you like sex? Guess what, people like being able to not rely on government to defend themselves, especially since they are usually 10-20 minutes away, that is assuming they don't shoot you when they get there. Your chances of dying in a car accident are significantly reduced if you don't own a car, I guess we should ban cars too. Pools? Nah, people drown in pools. BAN. Just because you live in a place where you feel safe without owning a gun does not mean everyone does. In fact the people who most need to be armed are the poorest among us, but fuck them right? You live in a gated community with an armed guard, and guns are scary. You have no logos, your arguments are 100% from a position of emotional instability and fear like nearly every gun control argument. |
|
|
|
More Marxism This study is kind of like the inverse of the premise of the OP. The op examines the idea that people are all for these programs, but only if you totally disregard the negative effects of the cost, once that is part of the discussion, not so much. Your source is basically saying money can be saved, if you totally ignore the cost in the form of shit treatment, shortages, and the fact the government gets to dictate to you how you get your healthcare at every stage. |
|
|
|
Yet even more evidence gun control is about the inability of some individuals to control their emotions, not logic. "SNOWFLAKES Shut Down Toy Gun Store Because it Made Them Uncomfortable" https://www.bitchute.com/video/xivdAsb9UwI/ |
|
|
|
Can we have a section that is decentralized? That does not interfere with freedom of speech.
To have such a system internally on the forum is impossible for a multitude of reasons. Out of curiosity, what is this about? |
|
|
|
TBH I don't particularly mind him posting his assumptions and making an ass of himself except when he starts derailing unrelated threads... this subject was starting to reach into cryptohunter-level crosstrolling. In order to have cross trolling there would need to first be trolling which is being cross trolled. Are you admitting to trolling now? Why is your trolling ok but his trolling is not acceptable? Interesting how everyone who doesn't have the protective mark of brown on their nose is just like cryptohunter all of a sudden. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
