A woman in Winnipeg was just told by the judge at her rape trial that being raped was her fault because she wore a tube top, high heels and make-up, wanted to party and therefore ‘sex was in the air’. WTF is THAT? Sex was in the air? Surely that is open to interpretation and interpretation does not equal consent no matter how much someone may wish it. Sex “in the air”, whatever-the-fuck that means, is NOT consent! That she continually said “NO” has been made irrelevant.
Rape by rapist AND rape by justice system. Why would any rape victim, female or male, want to come forward publicly only to be told that their rape was their fault? This is crazy! Blaming the victim is a serious setback to victim’s rights. Rapists and potential rapists everywhere must be rubbing their hands together in glee! All they need to do now is target women in heels and make-up, especially those in tube tops, and let the raping ensue.
Unless consent is given, it is rape. A person can even consent but then change their mind. If their ‘partner’ continues anyway, regardless of the change of consent, that is rape. How far removed from reality does one have to be before being appointed judge? —Absolutely Gob-smacked
This article appears in Feb 24 – Mar 2, 2011.
Not to open pandoras box here but i’ve heard plenty of times where a woman has gone out like that, gotten drunk acted slutty, had sex with a guy (also drunk). Guy gets done for rape, how is that fair? How about drunk guy, has sex with sober woman, is the woman gonna go down for rape too?
Sounds like the Spring fashion line for HookersRUs.
Get real, what straight man can resist the lure of flapping labias?
I see what you’re saying, Anglo….
….but, you could be naked and literally on the verge of penetration and if one party says “no, stop” and the other party doesn’t — that’s rape. You could be in the MIDDLE of having sex (oral/anal/vaginal/etc…) and request the other party to stop and it’s rape if they don’t.
This bitch makes me so sad.
Yes, you could both be naked and about to put your cock in her and if she says no right about then, it is rape. Guys be warned.
Judge Robert Dewar is a jackass.
When did “No, oh no, no uhh uhh no ….oh, yeah NO !” stop meaning harder ?
I never got that memo !
But seriously, how can that guy be a judge ?
I have to ask, is he a religious nutjob, as well as a judge ?
When I was reading this I thought of the many so called ‘religious’ leaders of islam who preach that any woman who dresses in anything but a large dark colored tent, with eye hole is deserving of rape ! ! !
Methinks this ‘judge’ (i use the word loosely ) needs to retire to the happy snooze house of valium & vival !
Or see if there are any positions on the judicial bench in Saudi Arabia !
I never realised that rape was such a grey area before. If you forget the safe word can you accuse them of rape?
I’m pretty sure you could, anglo. However, it’s VERY hard to prove date rape when it’s one’s word against another’s…and a LARGE proportion of rape victims don’t bother reporting their rapes either.
But, as Sebastard would say “if it’s not in the news, it didn’t happen!” *eyeroll*
I really don’t think there’s that much of a grey area when it comes to rape. If your sexual partner says, no, stop, then you should stop. You clarify what the parameters of your shared sexual experience are and, based on that info, you either back off or resume. The worst that can happen by following that procedure is that some previously un-agreed upon role play fantasy does not come to pass. The worst that can happen if you don’t stop is that you rape somebody. Seems pretty clearcut to me.
Also, Life Sucks and More, you two should be ashamed of yourselves. Really. You make my skin crawl.
Anytime either sex dresses in a provocative, sexual way, and going out to bars, etc, it is to attract someone. To say otherwise is ridiculous. Clothing or lack thereof is a statement of who one is (uniforms, etc), possibly financial status, (Armani suits, etc) and other purposes. All animals try to attract mates.
Remember if it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck.
It’s cases like this that keep men away. What is the intention. Tis better to stay home with the palm sisters than to shell out thousands to lawyers. Sad but true.
Every woman in the world should be equipped with one of these:
http://members.arstechnica.com/x/kenvalyi/…
Yep, I’d love to see some goddamn rapist try to pull his cock out of this little beaut.
For those of you who aren’t familar with this anti-rape condom:
The Rape-aXe is a latex sheath embedded with shafts of sharp, inward-facing barbs that would be worn by a woman in her vagina like a female condom. If an attacker were to attempt vaginal rape, his penis would enter the latex sheath and be snagged by the barbs, causing the attacker excruciating pain during withdrawal and giving the victim time to escape. The condom would remain attached to the attacker’s body when he withdrew and could only be removed surgically, which would alert hospital staff and police.
Ouchie-ouchie.
“… that think their cunt is gold plated” I’m gonna use that line next time someone gets up in my grill. Lol
That being said, I always maintain that a person doesn’t turn into a dog when drunk. Chances are they were a dog before. The same way girls just don’t turn into loose women as soon as the drink hits. Taking alcohol out of the equation, I think no is no. In any circumstance, end of story, case closed.
Chris Rock has a great line about OJ Simpson “I’m not saying he should have killed her, but I understand”
I extend that to this situation. You go out dressed a certain way, acting a certain way, you have to expect a certain reaction. Now, I will add, that judge is a real moron for saying what he said. The rapist should be put away b/c what he did was wrong regardless of the circumstance!
Oh someone made a great point about taking people home when you’re sober and they’re drunk. I think that’s just sleazy and no one should ever do that!
Good point, TTFN. They should design a smaller, stealth version for the penal system. (Heh, heh, dude said pen…Oh Fuck It! >; )
I hope the judge loses his job and has to bag groceries for the rest of his miserable, sexist, rape-loving life.
More’s afraid of Muslims because TV taught him how to be.
meow…I make your skin crawl !
well, I didn’t realise you agreed with the judge.
If you go back & re read my comment,its obviusly to me, you’ve got the comprehension of a sparrow.
To explain (although you probably need someone there with you to walk you through it !)
The first part of my post was S A R C A S M.
The rest was disbelief this person could hold such an important position here in our (Canadian) Legal System !
While still in disbelief that this ‘judge’ isn’t retired or a Saudi judge .
And as your skin crawls meow, my incredulity at if you could really be that stund & incapable of grasping what I wrote continues to grow !!
This bitch saddens me as well. I’m also saddened by the way a lot of women “dress up” these days, but by no means do I think they’re asking for it. Also, I agree, if you’re sober and taking home a drunk woman, you’re probably a fucking sleaze to being with.
And for men or women who use being drunk as an excuse for anything, have some goddamn responsibility for your actions. Any kind of rape or molestation cannot be excused by saying, “I was drunk/she was drunk”.
Also, Life Sucks, you’re a fucking prick. It’s guys like you that make us all look bad. Why not go suck your own dick?
Why would people make them devices… must have been one hell of a sick individual to think that up.
How does suggestive clothing take precedence over a woman’s physical suggestions of fear, pain and distress? I mean, you can see her cleavage but not her tears? Women make mistakes, yes, but are you really suggesting that the punishment should be rape?
The barbed female condom was (I think) developed in South Africa because rape and HIV/AIDS are very common and women are/were sick of being both violated and infected.
I have never heard of the Rape aXe before, and I must say, holy shit! but, frankly, I must also say, I like the idea. Two things caught my attention when I looked at it:
1. surprisingly, women were the main critics
and
2. a man had invented something similar earlier, only his solution was more brutal: it actually slice off the tip of the penis.
Spot on, Three, the violence against women in South Africa is well-known and the sick bastards who rape them deserve to have their dicks punctured to deflate.
Yes, More, it must be the fact that my weak female mind just simply cannot grasp the deep complexities of your witty and insightful comment. It couldn’t possibly be that the content contained therein, your “sarcasm” or “joke” or whatever you’re calling it, along with your tiresome Muslim-bashing, are really so vulgar that they only deserve acknowledgement in the sense that one must acknowledge the grievous odour emanating from a pile of excrement left in the middle of the floor by someone who was obviously never taught (or is incapable of learning) how to behave in the company of other human beings.
More’s afraid of strong-minded, intelligent women and strong-willed, tanned Muslims of any sex/gender.
I read about this case the other day, and it made me lose my faith in humanity a little. You think Canada has progressed and then this happens.
Agreed, NGF, particularly about the strong-minded, intelligent women part.
and yoshi, i leave stuff like that for you and your kind, whatever the fuck that may be. don’t like what i say, or anyone else. then don’t fucking read it, or don’t bother coming on here, acting all holier than thou. get pounded in your ass.
While I’m not surprised to hear that pile of misogynist horseshit from you, LS, I am rather surprised to hear similar sentiments from other more thoughtful commenters. Some of you really believe that if a woman wears a particular type of clothing, she can expect to be raped? That it shouldn’t surprise her that donning a short skirt will lead to being sexually violated? What fucking century do we live in again?
There’s a very big difference between dressing in a way that you hope others will deem attractive or sexy, and declaring your willingness to have sexual intercourse with anyone that demands it of you. Men are not incapable of self control. They are perfectly reasonable, intelligent human beings capable of knowing right from wrong. Painting them as helpless brutes enslaved by their hormones and primal instincts, clubbing women about the head and dragging them back to their caves because they just can’t help themselves, not with all that temptation, is massively disrespectful to men on the whole and does a disservice to them. Men know that to force sex upon women against their will is an act of violation. It’s not like there’s any ambiguity about this, even for lesser lifeforms like LS.
When a man is mugged, do we question whether or not he was ‘asking’ for it? Maybe he was dressed too smartly, made himself look like rich pickings. How stupid of him to wear expensive clothes! He was practically asking to be targeted. Particularly if he was walking around late at night, all by himself. Maybe he’d given money away in the past, quite willingly. A man with a history of giving money away surely can’t be surprised when the police don’t believe the money was taken from him forcefully.
We don’t make these assertions because they are utterly ridiculous; the blame lies squarely with the person BREAKING THE LAW, the perpetrator.
No matter what the circumstances, rape is never acceptable, and the only person who is ever at fault for rape is the goddamn RAPIST.
“THEN DON’T DRESS AND ACT LIKE A CHEAP WHORE.” ok, given some females (I know a few …) will do that. However, it takes two to tango and why should you men treat any woman like she is a cheap ho, even if she’s parading as one.
Men don’t do this type of crap, the crap women tend to do with themselves. A man wants a woman and a woman wants to be desired by a man. For some reason media has made women out to be these “teasing” creatures. You must look this way, you MUST be desirable to all men, you must seek attention. They don’t market to men that way do they. To a man it’s pretty much, you see it, you can have it boys! I think it’s time both parties took responsibility. LS I’m sure some cruel ladies will cry rape but you gotta realize you can’t treat women as meat, even if they’re parading as such. Especially if you want to change the state of male female interactions. I suspect males (in general) would say yes to changing male female interactions, but then again it’s too easy to go down to the Dome and pick out some pussy for the night isn’t it.
I’m probably not making a great deal of sense as this is a grey area for me too. I am a lady and when I go out I genuinely want to look fab. and pretty. I have never gone out with the intention to get some guy and take him home. I dunno, today’s “culture” is really something isn’t it. Morality seems to be on vacation.
Just because a drug deal wears a drug dealer sign doesn’t mean it’s right to buy drugs from him.
Furthermore, men have been making women into “cheap whores” since the ’60s! and sadly women keep perpetuating this stupid shite. When women decided to move out of the kitchen, the labels came along. From Tawny Kitaen shaking her niblets on a car in that Whitesnake videos and the Cherry Pie girl etc etc. Hopefully (lol) I’ll become famous one day, and blow up your spot. Put some hunk on the hood of my car and objectify the shit out of him.
Females may be fucked up, but you are not without fault either.
I should add, that one can only get as much respect as one demands. Touching your toes while shaking your bottom public whilst in a tiny piece of cloth does not get you any kind of respect (male or female). Me0w is correct! Men have minds, and are very capable of using them. If she looks like “trash” to you, or someone who’ll “cry rape” then stay the hell away. If you do decide to venture closer to her, then here’s an idea, DON’T RAPE HER. You dingbats. Good God.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingn…
Apparently this guy is not a rapist he was just “insensitive to the fact (she) was not a willing participant.”
…that has got to be the most apologetic term for RAPIST I’ve ever heard.
Well, snoop, what else can we expect, the poor guy was under the influence of all the sex that was in the air and forgot he should be thinking with the big brain instead of the little one.
all fine and dandy for being a female. you can rip your clothes off in public, and have dozens stare at you in awe, or want. if a guy did that, bang, he gets jailed for indecent exposure. sre are a lot of double standards floating around these days.
if a women doesn’t want to be treated like a sex object, then don’t fucking try to look like one. men are stupid, to the point that yes, their dicks start doing the thinking for them. and that’s where all our problems are. in our dicks, and in the female brain, to think they can parade like a whore, and not get a response from a normal male.
there’s “response from a normal male” and then there’s rape … 2 different things …
A female naked in the street will still be arrested for indecent exposure, just like a guy. Dressed like a whore or completely naked, the same rule applies. Unless she’s saying ‘ooooh baby, baby, I want to have sex with you’ the only response required is hands off. Dressing like a whore in public may not be the smartest thing to do but it is not consent for sex.
This is proof that drunk people (and they were both drunk) do stupid things. Guys have one thing on their minds at a bar (well just about anywhere). Gals may have different things on their minds. Ladies have you or any of your female friends ever chatted up a guy to get drinks? Be honest now. Both parties play games but these days the games is very dangerous, from false accusations to STDs.
i still say, you get what you deserve. dressing like a slut and leading men on. if you don’t like wha i say, too fucking bad. look after your own self first, others later.
and yes, there are males who only want one thing, and if chick looks, acts, and tals like a slut, then open season on pussy. too bad, she was only trolling the water, hey. still double standards, and when guy get ready to let go, you think honestly, that he can stop, uhuh.
What the fuck HAPPENED to you, suckers? You’ve turned into a rage-filled nutbar…why’s everyone so filled with rage these days? 🙁
This whole thread is retarded….
LS’s inane text in particular.
has anyone checked if she can appeal?
This judge should be brought up on disciplinary charges because the power has gone to his head. NO ONE DESERVES TO BE FORCED TO HAVE SEX NO MATTER HOW THEY’RE DRESSED OR ACTING. No means NO. And I say this as someone who’s BEEN in that “gray area” before.
As we move (backwards?) towards that perfect world where the rights of capital are paramount and the rights and liberties of common citizens are redefined as merely “special interests”, where the preferred euphemism for the “dog eat dog” mentality is “rugged individualism”, there seems to be increasing enthusiasm for the unoriginal idea that female sexuality is something to be either feared and suppressed or warped into serving men’s interests.
When we rage against women for dressing too provocatively (although I don’t quite know what that means in this media-saturated age where everything is sexualized) I think we have much in common with the conservative mullahs of the Taliban whose ideas about women we supposedly despise.
Rape has nothing to do with how someone is dressed. Instead it’s about how fucked-up the perpetrator is. A woman can be dressed in a parka and snow pants and if a rapist is going to committ the ‘act’ then he/she is going to do it. Clothing has nothing to do with it.
Just ignore LifeSucks, he’s a fucking idiot. Don’t read his posts, they’re nothing but inane bable anyways. Trust me he does not represent the male species. He’s a lower life form that hasn’t evolved.
Look, I know you’re gonna reply in all caps and a thousand commas about how I should shut the fuck up and go get fucked by an octopus or threaten to leave the bitch board all together. (we could only be so lucky) knock yourself out bud, I won’t bother reading it.
Well there’s something you don’t see everyday: a thoughtful, well-written comment from NGF. 😛
I skip LS’s posts too, jerm.
I suspect LS is just trying to wind us up. If he isn’t … then this is just sad.
I think it’s the latter, Donk.
Read the Winnipeg article, the judge is obviously a douche. Honestly though, the best way to prevent situations like this is to avoid overdrinking, both by men and women.
The judge is a douche Cranky…I agree. He is totally saying that this is a nice guy and the victim is a whore. I don’t care what someone where’s or how they act. Rape is rape…..and there’s lots and lots of rape victims out there that have never pressed charges because they felt blame for what happened because some asshole said to them…well you shouldn’t have flirted or dressed that way…or called them a tease. Lots!
The Canadian judicial system has a peer review process that can censure the judge.
The prosecuting attorney can refile the charges.
Not a simple matter, but it can be done.
If I were to be walking downtown, with a wad of $100.00 bills sticking out of my ass (instead of in my wallet, in my pocket), I would expect that, I just might face a slightly geater chance of being robbed. Doesn’t make it right though, does it?
Hugo ’tis true.
Cranky is right, and also for drugs. Studies have shown that certain drugs after a certain point greatly decrease your ability to pick up on negative emotional cues.
It’s interesting, reading through these comments. The people who are for the woman and against the woman – you both keep referring to woman as “looking like,” “dressing like,” and “acting like” “whores” and “sluts,” as if “whores” and “sluts” somehow want to have sex with EVERY male they come across and can never be raped.
If you don’t agree with the lifestyles/fashion choices of “whores” and “sluts,” keep it to yourself. There’s a lot of people out there that don’t agree with homosexuality, and there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality whatsoever. You don’t know these “whores” and “sluts” and you don’t know why or how they came to make the decisions that they have in their lives. And if the decision ends up being, “because I want to,” that’s their life and none of your business.
Have some respect for women and their lifestyle choices. “Whores” and “sluts” are real women and real people too. They deserve just as much respect as the next person who’s sexual life differs. “Whores” and “sluts” and the women who “dress/act/look like” them aren’t asking for whatever man who feels like it to have sex with them. They still get to make the choice: yes, or no.
I heard a Christian man tell his teenage son how a 9 year old girl had been ‘asking for it’ when news came round that she had been touched, and, in the same town, I heard another man say she was probably asking for it when a 17 year old was arrested for raping a 78 year old woman.
The so-called ‘grey area’ appears to be quite vast.
I think the problem is that it is assumed that there is a point of no return for men, and so, any change of mind after that point is impossible.
Bullshit.
A man can be in the midst of coitus and still stop immediately if his child or mother or wife walked in. To continue on after someone says stop, or is struggling to get away or is crying IS rape pure and simple.
So, to the sorry fucking excuses for humans beings who support rape under ‘certain’ circumstances, let me be clear:
no or stop means STOP WHATEVER YOU ARE DOING IMMEDIATELY. There is NO grey area.
This thread is rather upsetting, I have to say.
I know I am upset.
Absolutely, Kim_NS! There are NO grey areas! “Asking for it” is such a demeaning excuse that implies the rapist is not at fault and further victimizes the victim. No one ASKS to be raped!
I realizee that I made the grey area comment in an earlier post.
“I’m probably not making a great deal of sense as this is a grey area for me too”
That was not in reference to the rape. I agree rape is rape no matter the circumstance. It was in reference to going out just to “hook up”, and the ease of which it is done. On one hand I know ppl are adults and who am I but part of me hates it.
MM. You make my skin crawl. Please try and refrain from using the C word. What would your mother say if she read your comments?? You disgust me.
I usually ignore you MM, but today you’ve shown yourself the truly despicable human being that you are. Leave your vulgarity on another forum, where it may be appreciated. It’s a given that you haven’t endeared yourself to the women here, by your last post. Your a troll without a goal.
Maybe it’s time for Mod 5 to rethink her position about MM.
well, well, all the little bitchers are in a tither about what i wrote. even those that say they don’t read my comments. well now, that you all have my attention, i shall try to lay it out for any dolts and brain dead folks on here. germbag, i don’t have to use caps at all, just to get your slack attention sometimes.
RAPE, what is it really? it is the forceful sex with a non consenting person, male or female.
CONSENT, something that one or both parties agree on.
AGREEMENT, like a contract, between two or more parties.
CONTRACTS, a thing that is suggested, and either usually agreed on or not.
SUGGESTIONS, WHAT ONE PARTY SAYS TO ANOTHER ABOUT SOMETHING/ANYTHING.
NON COMPLIANCE,the act of not fulfilling their part of a contract.
so, there it is, basically, female agrees to have sex, then decides most of the way through, that no, this is something i don’t want or need. so then she says stop,( or at least that is what she told cops), and dude was s[posed to halt all movement and emotions, just like that. sorta like tring to tell a bullit to stop, as it is fired at someone, because you had a change of mind.
this girl’s testimony doesn’t really cut it. did the judge err in his comments, probly, but remember, to err is human. the same can be said about the guy that was screwing said female, and just lost it at that time. no one should be raped, i take a real dim view on shit like that. but the fact remains about the way, some people act and/or dress.
do they want it? probly not, then stop advertising like you do. maybe the burkas are a good thing for this country as well. that is my 99 cents for tonight.
please read the judges statement..he never said it was her fault…he stated that if you dress like a slut,expect
some fallout from a few male jerks…remember we are still animals at heart,can’t change basic biology..in an ideal world,rape and assault wouldn’t happen,but just be aware of your surroundings and how you fit in those surroundings…as a gay male i would never enter an area that poses a risk to myself,even if i have the morale high ground,it still takes an idiot to stab or assault you….
and women cannot have it both ways…first i was horny and wanted his big dick,then i got bored and told him to stop…please,shake your heads,no wonder men are frustrated or turning gay..women want all control period,well,don’t give out the signals,then get upset when those signals are lost to the male partner…don’t be so shallow as to think that you can tease or torment men without any consequences!!!!!
?
did someone slips stupid pills in the water????
or are you an alias for LS?
hmmm, same horrific punctuation… same retarded logic….
I wonder….
Of course women can have it both ways. Duh. Its called blue balls ya toad. I have yet to ‘turn gay’, maybe some people are predisposed to gayness?
Update: http://www.metronews.ca//toronto/canada/ar…
Bullit. Brap brap brap!
What? Um, if you can’t just stop then put out and procede with palms. Also, if you saw your partner as a living feeling breathing human being and more than just tail, you would stop. The guy may not be a rapist but he did rape her.
To Real Chick (“You make my skin crawl; you disgust me”) and Puss & Boots ( You are “truly despicable”):
You might try reading my posts “Reflections on the Cunt” instead of just reacting to the word “cunt.” In fact, your reactions embody the very mindset I am trying to transcend in my analysis, such as it is, of the concept of the “cunt.” In my view the concept of the “cunt” is distinguished from (although derived from) its physical reality on the basis of its gender associations which are largely negative, not just among the rednecks who use the term but even among those who happen to possess a cunt (i.e., females). In other words, the only way, or so it seems to me, to undermine sexism as shown in the judge’s decision is to confront the connotations of the word “cunt,” not to sweep them under the rug. To do this, however, requires a rational rather than simply an emotional (although understandable) response.
So, as I say, try reading the posts – there are three so far – and THEN voice your opinion.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Oh go fuck yourself, montreal man. Or perhaps put YOURSELF in that gray area and see how you fucking feel about this thread. You make my skin crawl too.
It’s a shame it’s not possible to hook Montrealman up with that Lizbeth Salander chick from the Steig Larsson novels. Show her what a hot date he can be…
Let’s make it real simple:
You treat a woman like you expect every other man to treat your mother, your sister, your daughter or any other female who means anything to you.
For the men who cannot control their animal natures even around the women closest to them, you will be judged and, hopefully, removed from civilized society.
If you want to live freely in a society of humans than you must make use the logical, civil and controlled part of you that separates you from an animal in the wild. If you insist on acting like an wild animal, we will cage you. And, until you can be trained to behave, you should not be released.
We don’t tolerate ill-behaved dogs, and we should not tolerate people who act like them.
Poor montrealman…
he didn’t mean harm. In fact, he was trying to be helpful.
Unfortunately, he speaks a different language (and I’m not talking about French), and so, he is frequently misunderstood.
Not everyone has the background necessary to understand what it is you are trying to say, MM. If you are really serious about getting people to slow things down so that they can think more critically–more fairly–than you yourself must slow things down. Anyone with a few years experience in women studies would not have blinked at your approach, but we are a mixed group here, and one size does not fit all. That doesn’t mean that we can’t understand you, it just means you must take into consideration that we don’t have experience (or as much experience) in your area of expertise.
You have to learn how to KISS (keep it simple, stupid = ).
Well, thank you Kim (10:40AM) for your thoughts. It seems you might be right about the “mixed group.” If nothing else, I think my purpose – bringing the cunt out of the shadows and into the daylight in order to to be able to have a rational discussion about it – has been successful if only only partly so. I say “partly” since I see that I also make Pretty Kitty’s skin crawl too.
Puss n Boots previously suggested to Mod 5 that maybe it’s time to rethink her position about M.M. In other words, Puss n Boots (and presumable Real Chick and Pretty Kitty as well) want me banned from this site. Let’s do a little role play. Puss n Boots can be Puss n Boots and I’ll role play Mod 5:
: Puss n Boots: “Mod 5, I want MM banned from commenting on this site, or at least severely censored in his use of language.”
: Mod 5: “OK Puss n Boots, what reason did you have in mind?”
: Puss n Boots: “Well, Mod 5, he has used the C-word. I find this very objectionable. In fact I find it disgusting.”
: Mod 5: “But why do you find it disgusting, Puss n Boots? Could you clarify you reasoning on this point?
: Puss n Boots: “Well, Mod 5, he used the C-word in connection with some ‘reflections’ he claims he is doing about it over on “L’homme de Montreal, please go home.” (#3 of the “Most Discussed” Bitches.)) I’m not sure why I find the word disgusting, Mod 5 but I just do.”
: Mod 5: “But what if MM found your absence of reasons for my re-thinking my position about him unfounded and demanded that I reconsider my position about YOUR place on this site. Do you think that would be fair, Puss n Boots?”
: Puss n Boots: “I think you might have something there, Mod 5. I withdraw my request for you to re-think your position about MM.”
: Mod 5: “I think that’s the way to go on this one, Puss n Boots. Have a nice day.”
A pleasure as always/
Cheerio!
I don’t care if you get banned or not, MM.
Pretty Kitty, if you don’t mind your manners I’m going to ask Mod 5 to have YOU banned.
So there.
Uh…ok.
I’m sure my indifference as to whether or not you post here or are banned or not is really a great case for having ME banned.
In any event, back to PK ignoring you like usual.
PK stands for People’s Korea.
maybe not here nice, but it is starting to sound like a war zone in the making. three things to never really discuss, sex, religion, and wmoen on the rag. and shit, they have all been done here, and just about every one, comes out like this. but this is the fun part of the whole thing see. we get to rip at each other, while ripping at the person starting the bitch. oh what great fun, more so than getting fucked by an overly horny squad of rape apes.
People’s Korea? Is that true PK. Are you so ronery…
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Ever…
It sirry (but not rirry)….
I dunno ’bout them, but I’m the one reporting your comments you poutine loving, condescending freak.
just cause I can, I suppose.
The sun will come out tomorrow indeed….
Man, what an upsetting Thread this has been to read.
L.S, I could go out naked in public (mind you I wouldn’t make it very far before the cops stopped me, but thats not the point), and if you approach me for sex, If say no, it’s rape. Case. Fucking. Closed.
It is completely normal to have thoughts and impulses, but it is your responsibility to control them.
Also L.S, If I decided to walk topless down the street, I would be charged for indecent exposure. What about all the guys walking around in sandles, topless with short shorts on in the summer. Does that make them into a “whore” just asking for it? Please explain why it is o.k for men to go out wearing barely any clothing, but if a female does it they are a “whore” “asking for it”?
I have ignored your womeniznig comments in the past, and even came to enjoy some of your other posts, you grew on me, and I started liking you. But your comments here have made me loose any respect I had for you.
Jermbag: I havn’t seen you post before, but I like you 😛
I am assuming I have missed some of MM’s posts, and frankly I’m glad.
“For the men who cannot control their animal nature even around the women closest to them, you will be judged and, hopefully, removed from civilized society.” (Kim, March 2, 10:07AM)
I couldn’t agree more with Kim on the treatment of convicted rapists but I wonder about whether rape is simply a result of men who “cannot control their animal natures.” Does this mean that rape is basically a failure of some mens’ will power or is something else going on? My vote is for the second option.
The Biological Imperative – both females and males are possessed of the sex drive necessary for the perpetuation of the species (their “animal natures”) – provides the foundation for gender roles. But these gender roles are not symmetrical; rather they are asymnmetrical. For example, it is never the male who says, “No means no.” In other words, it is the female who controls sexual relations (excluding, of course, cases of rape). But what is the result of this female sexual domination?
I think it results, whether consciously or not, in male resentment which, depending upon the presence of other factors, results in misogyny, male hatred of the female. Misogyny comes in various strengths, ranging at the lower end of the spectrum with the epithet “cunt” to actual rape. While rape is a matter for the courts, mysogyny in the form of the epithet “cunt” might be domesticated if not eliminated by seeing it for what it is, the result of male misogyny which is itself the result of male resentment as a consequence of the asymmetrical relationship between the two genders. So let’s all work in bringing the word “cunt” into the light of day.
I hope you enjoyed this, Pretty Kitty.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Meow…strong minded intelligent woman is something that NEVER comes to mind when thinking of you, or many of the rest of your ‘crew’ on here !.
Reading your posts is usually a gag fest, & about as entertaining as vomiting.
As for Muslim bashing. I have no problems with muslims. I have a real problem with muslims trying to shove their 13th century values down the throats of those of us who have managed to crawl out of that mind set, for a hundred years now. But I am perhaps confused & you & the other bitches here who use handles that somehow glorify your love of cats. yes possibly confused, because to me by supporting muslims, you support their belief’s & so logically desire the subjugation of women, you must really be strongly in favor of 1 eyed burkhas, & every female encased in a solid black tent. Or she deserves to be raped…which is exactly what the majority of Saudi males believe.(particularly the feverently religious)
WHich IMO would be a good look for you. Not that I would ever look naked or not !
I’ve never been that desperate, & from what i have learned about women…not all… but many, is if you’re a man & you got money in your pocket, getting a piece of fluff on your arm is E A S Y.
Which is generally not the case with cat ladies, you see the ever present scent of cat urine, turns us off .
Kim. That’s what annie wants you to think. Like the kid who uses tourette as an excuse for rude behaviour, smeghead is doing the same. He just lacks any sort of couth or class 🙁
Go check out some of his earlier posts, he was quickly and correctly identified as a ‘troll’ and a ‘pseudo-intellectual’.
Hugo:
Regardless of what MM wants me to think, or of what MM’s agenda usually is, when he is playing nice, I will respond accordingly…like I do with LS or Kay. Otherwise, for the most part, I don’t consider them–I ignore them. Although, sometimes it is fun to toy with them. = p And, sometimes they do suck me in, but as soon as I realize their sincerity is bogus, I just cease responding immediately. I think MM is playing a role, for the most part, but he does lay it aside for important issues sometimes. So, regardless of how I feel about him, if he is making valid points or trying to make an effort to contribute constructively, I will be receptive.
MM:
Mostly definitely. There is so much involved in the act of rape outside of the actual drive for sex–like the “I’ll show her” or “How dare she…” attitude. Still, a man can’t just go around raping other men’s wives, daughters or sisters because the women denied him entry or rejected his advances. That would make him a villain. So, the solution is to make her the villain and himself the victim. Replacing the wife, daughter and sister with the fucking bitch, cunt and cocktease enables a rejected, enraged and bitter man to take what he feels should be his. So instead of being a thief, a tyrant, a rapist, he is akin to a vigilante–because she asked for it and she deserved it.
Well, yes Kim, I agree with your assessment of the rapist’s mind-set as far as I understand it but, at least for me, that was never the question. My concern was always with the epithet “cunt” used by those who are psychologically related to the rapist but who embody a much milder form of hostility to the female. It was (and is) my hope that by spotlighting the epithet “cunt” and bringing it out of the psychological shadows (both male and female) we might go some way to mitigating gender hostility.
Speaking of gender hostility, I have always thought that the female “default position” was one of a low simmering anger directed, of course, at the male of the species. So, on the one hand you have male resentment and on the other female anger. Is there any wonder that there is friction between the two?
Am I right about this? Could you comment on female anger as a free-floating but constant feature of the female psyche?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
I knew your target, but I was avoiding it for the most part…it would require much more time and effort, and, generally, I’ve been trying to avoid such commitments = ). I hadn’t been here long before I realized that people may appreciate and enjoy a well prepared 7 course meal, but generally, they only have the time for fast food. So, if you want to make a point, grab a knife, stab the turkey or pig through the heart and offer it up to the crowd so they can rip off a piece as they run through the joint. = )
That said…
it is my feeling that conditioning has a lot to do with the levels of resentment and anger felt by people. If, as in the example above, a father teaches his son that a female, even as young as nine, is asking for it, then a specific foundation is being laid. Every time the male role model opens his mouth in regards to the other sex, he adds a brick to that foundation–like telling the boy’s sister that she looks like whore because she showed up at the dinner table with lipstick on. Certainly,when daddy’s little girl has been suddenly cast in the role of whore, it is likely she will feel confusion and hurt and, over time, anger. Women also can build such a foundation by either backing up the father or by saying such things as ‘all men are pigs’.
The foundation is sealed with each negative experience the boy and girl have with the opposite sex later on in life.
Now this is just one (obvious) scenario. More often the messages sent are more subliminal. But, the effect of these type of messages, both obvious and subliminal, manifest themselves in the form of anger, resentment and bitterness. Combine negative thoughts and negative emotions with a lack of self-control…
The reason men are held more accountable than women is that men have a physical advantage over women–along with their brute strength, they are born with a natural weapon not possessed by women–their penises.
Oh, and I didn’t touch on such things as the impact of feeling betrayed or the developing of emotional survival skills because, frankly, I don’t the energy = ).
Oh (this is an endless, time-consuming subject), I still didn’t actually address the ‘cunt’ word directly. To call a woman a cunt is to objectify her–to ‘split her’ (so to speak) from any semblance to saintly women such as mothers, daughters and well-behaved wives. I mean, mothers and daughters don’t have cunts, and good wives have only…receptacles? service stations? comfort zones? that which must not be named? Cunts belong over there with the bitches, whores, sluts, skanks, cockteasers, vixens, succubi, hags, shrews…
That’s more than enough for tonight.
For the first time, there is good chance I might be deleted…oh well, it’s for a good cause
= p
Good morning Kim!
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. As you say, the subject of male-female relations is a difficult topic not the least because our respective mind-sets are gender-saturated. If there is any “point” I’m trying to make it’s that any “solution” lies in a non-adversarial gender dialogue which, as you know, was why I raised the issue of the cunt in the first place. But even that raised female hackles (“Oh go fuck yourself, montreal man.” Pretty Kitty) so there’s a lot more spade work to do. Anyway, while the following observations don’t provide any such “solution” they did occur to me as I was reading your post.
:”Fast food:” I’m not sure if you’re correct in saying that while the posters would appreciate a seven course meal “they only have time for fast food.” Where are they going? No, I think that for most on this site such “fast food” is their regular diet. In addition to the fact that the format of the site discourages developed thinking, I’m fairly sure that the posters are not capable of such thinking in the first place. (Ifallingangel: “I am assuming I have missed some of MM’s posts, and frankly I’m glad.”)
: Conditioning: I agree with your piece on the father’s conditioning his son who turns out to be a redneck but, at least for me, this simply rolls the question back one step – where did the father get his hostility to the female? To say from HIS father merely leads into an “infinite regress.” I think your last comment about the “natural weapon” might be relevant here.
: “The Natural Weapon:” Maybe it all goes back to biology. Women can’t rape and, by extension don’t have the mind-set that encourages it which. of course, includes the objectification of the female in the epithet “cunt.” More than that, on the basis of the possession of the penis the male is the active partner while the female, being in possession of the vagina is necessarily the passive partner. Add the “Biological Imperative” and you’ve got an explosive mix. I guess the “solution” is to domesticate the penis as well as to de-mystify the cunt.
Any thoughts on this?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“Women can’t rape and..” ???!!! Where the fuck did you get such a stupid, inane, half-baked, idiotic idea like that?
Again smeghead, your ignorance is showing – http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk315/A…
btw – the lack of responses, from certain posters, speaks volumes.
Oh More, you poor, angry little fella….just for the hell of it, I’m going to respond to your inane comments and clear some things up for you. First of all, I don’t care how you think of me, or if you think of me at all. Oddly enough, I tend not to be terribly swayed by the negative opinions of anonymous online personalities. Also, I have no ‘crew’, nor any affiliations with the people who post here. While I’m certainly fonder of some than others, when it comes down to it, you’re all just names on a screen to me. And yes I do, indeed, find felines delightful, but I don’t currently have one.
You claim that you don’t have a problem with Muslims, yet in your following sentence you accuse them of “shoving their 13th century values down your throat”. Do you care to qualify this somehow? Because if we’re going to speak in generalities, I can think of a certain major world religion that has been consistently more aggressive in shoving its antiquated values down people’s throats than Islam, and they’ve done a thoroughly brilliant job of subjugating women to boot. I support Islam only in the sense that I support the right of anyone to practice their faith, having no real fondness or affinity for organized religion myself. Like any religion, Islam can and has been used to control and oppress people, especially women, but to characterize all Muslims as burkha-enforcing woman-haters is just a regurgitation of anti-Islamic propaganda and really amounts to willful ignorance on your part.
You go on to attempt to prove your point of Islam’s maliciousness towards women by boldly claiming that all Saudi men believe that women who don’t wear burkhas deserve to be raped. Even if this absurd assertion were true, Saudi Arabia’s entire male population only accounts for about 6% of Muslims in the world, hardly a representational figure. All in all, a pretty weak argument, dude, especially with your own obvious resentment of women displayed in your contention that most of us are only after guys with money. Good thing you saved face by closing with those scathing schoolyard taunts.
MM, you really need to take a step back. On the one hand, you are trying to get to cut through the ignorance, prejudice and bias of sexist thinking by stripping away the layers to the very core (cause) of such thinking, and on the other hand, you commit the very same crime when it comes to dealing with less experienced or less educated people. You make sweeping statements about them, you objectify them so that you can neatly place them in slots that will allow you to keep them in their place (away and below you), and you disregard any evidence that reveals that you and the ‘others’ are more alike than not. Generally, I disregard this tendency,choosing instead to focus on what is good and relevant, like I do with other posters, but sometimes, MAN! your shit can really detract from the discussion at hand.
I use to have this same issue with badmrfrosty, and sometimes kay…they’d be going along okay, making sense and offering insightful, interesting and sometimes humourous comments, and then, WHAM! irrational or just plain mean would derail the whole train of thought I was riding along on with them. This is why I avoid committing the time and energy it takes to really dig in and give a subject more than just a cursory observation.
http://todayilearned.co.uk/2011/03/03/ther… … I don’t even … I just, I can’t believe this.
Well, that’s one way to catch rapists, but I wouldn’t want to be the bait in the trap.
Meow…religion is the balm of the weak minded.
Any religion , doens’t matter which half baked ,made up bullshit it is.
Some unfortunately are worse than others. Like the wonderful religion of peace, where if you don’t agree with them, they are perfectly content to murder you for it…or turn a blind eye while someone else does the deed.
Peace meow.
Peace indeed, More. As I said, I have no great love for organized religion, but I do have a significant affinity for personal freedom, which is why I will defend the rights of those who wish to peacefully practice their faith. Fundamentalism, especially that which leads to fanaticism is an entirely different issue, and I will continue to object to you or anyone who attempts to paint the whole of any faith with that brush. If intolerance was merely the product of Islamic beliefs, then it would be possible to justify the specific sort of prejudice that you’ve displayed. But if you’ve ever cracked a history book in your life, then you can’t possibly deny that myriad religious and government institutions are guilty of the same charge you’re attributing to Islamic faith, and often even more so. Why not take a crack at the religious fundamentalism that’s been negatively influencing your own society for the past couple millennia? Do you honestly believe that Islam is the biggest enemy of gender equality, or even more broadly, your own freedom? If you’re going to rage against intolerance, my dear, then you’re going to have to address your own intolerance first.
Alright, this is seriously inappropriate. I feel like a really bad person for this, and there is probably going to be some hate mail coming my way…but I just..can’t…resist….
http://static.funnyjunk.com/pictures/guy_a…
Speaking of male junk and inappropriate laugher…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CE9K3qquXY
LOL kim
May I add
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNfa_KiVlOs
ha ha ha, Donk!
I wanted to post this one (much funnier), but the other was more on topic = )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSFWgKl-O-A…
LMAO-Kim that first one had me laughing for 30 min. Thank-you:)
“You make sweeping statements about them (less educated and experienced), you objectify them so that you can neatly place them in slots that will allow you to keep them in their place (away and below you), and you disregard any evidence that you and the ‘others’ are more alike than not.” (Kim, March 4, 11:35AM)
Pretty serious stuff, Kim. Two thoughts: when I made that “Fast Food” remark (“I’m fairly sure that the posters are not capable of such (developed) thinking in the first place”) I thought I was simply making an observation rather than trying to put anyone down. However, it may well have read that this was indeed my intention. So, I guess we have a mistake on both our parts.
My second thought is that you are right or, conversely, that I was wrong. My reason for saying this is MeOw’s post to More in criticzing his view of Islamic fundamentalism and her defence of freedom of thought. My point is not about the content of her post which, by the way, I agree with but rather it is about the structure of the post itself which shows reflection and a developed argument. In other words, her post showed, in your words, that there is evidence that we (the ‘others’ and myself) are more alike than not.
However (yes, there’s always a “however” Kim), having miscontrued my intentions (see my first thought) at least as far as I was concerned, you write: “This is why I avoid committing the time and energy it takes to really dig in and give a subject more than a cursory observation.” I could be mistaken again Kim, but the way I read this seemed to suggest that YOU were making the same mistakes you charged ME with, i.e., putting me in a slot, speaking to me “de haut en bas,” and disregarding any evidence that you and I are more alike than not. Am I right about this Kim and, conversely, are you wrong?
Anyway, enjoyed the videos.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Extremism be damned meow, that you are blind deaf & dumb when it comes to the problems western nations are facing because of islam, so called ‘normal’ islam . While christianity has done some pretty rotten things in the past…& they’re not all that great now…at least the inquisitions are over !
Islam however, ,since you quoted stats on Saudi males. Here are some from Woman’s Day in Afghanistan
55% of woman are forced into marriage before age 16…often to men aged over 60 .
70% of all marriage there is forced marriage, with no possibility of annulment or divorce.
89% of Afghan women are illiterate & unschooled
All women are not permitted to be in public without being covered from head to toe & in the company of a male family member.
They are neither permitted to drive or work.
If they have no immediate male family , they are often imprisoned for that crime.
They can get out…when a male member of their family comes for them,except because there are none, its a life sentence.
In Europe many countries are finally fighting back against this so called ‘religion of peace’ & the archaic rules they live by, & their own twisted legal system (one interesting twist is a man’s word holds more truth than a womans…ie; I rape you & you tell & I deny it, I win)
What a wonderful religious group, you believe deserves to have the rights of any other religious group. But Jews don’t believe this, christians, bhuddists, even freaking Scientologists don’t believe child marriage & rape are ok !
I disagree & feel no guilt, or feel a need to apologize or see any problems with doing what ever is necessary to keep their 13th centruy ideals from becoming ‘law’ in my country.
http://current.com/news/politics/89738369_…
But, I do think we are alike overall. Like you, I find many comments, usually by made by the same few posters, nasty, hate-filled and sometimes dangerous. And, frankly, they deserve harshness. But, I think one must be very careful when reacting to such people, because the thin line that separates us, in certain areas, can quickly dissolve. And, I think we all cross the line, at times (some more than others), but most quickly realize it and step back–just as I think the people who dwell more on the other side of the line can be coaxed back with a certain amount of patience, tolerance and encouragement (the line being self-centred, self-serving, irrational, illogical and negative thinking). That doesn’t mean bad behaviour should be ignored–in fact, it should be punished–but I don’t think the person as a whole should be wiped out. Don’t get me wrong, sometimes when I get really frustrated and tired, I would love to hit a button and wipe some people out. But that is the root of the whole problem, isn’t it? Taking the easier way rather than doing the work needed–doing what’s necessary and right.
I also think, if one doesn’t want to totally waste their time and energy, they must carefully choose their battles. So, for instance, if Lifesucks is trying to make an effort by implementing unusual, for him, control and care, I can overlook his smaller sexist blurts and impaired logic. But, overall, I just ignore him, because saving the world is not my objective here. I come here to fulfill a social need, to hone some specific skills and for the entertainment. I only engage in battle when I feel that it is necessary (usually when I think an injustice has been done…and no one else is willing to get into it = p).
The difference between us, I believe, is I am myself, here for myself, overall. And you have assumed a role geared toward a specific end–you are on a mission that involves showing the rest of us something and/or chastising some of us. Certainly, you feel you have something important to say. The problem with this, is that you are wasting most peoples’ time, because they can’t understand what hell it is that you are trying say. And, often it appears that you do this deliberately. But, it makes no sense. Why take the time and make the effort as you do, only to say something no one understands? And, out of courtesy (at least, at first), people have tried to make sense of it. And, when that failed, due to educational difference mostly, I think, they could only take away what they did understand–your jeering, mocking, condescending manner. So, you have been refused. Disregarded. So, why do you continue on? I don’t know. But, I think a shame, because I think that you do have something to offer this community of people. I think you can be relevant. And, I think the time, effort and money spent on your higher education can be put to a good and relevant use, since you certainly have the time to do it. But, I have to ask, what good is all your education, your intelligence and your efforts, if wisdom doesn’t accompany it?
This is a blurt, by the way, not a thesis.
“… to keep their 13th centruy ideals from becoming ‘law’ in my country” I don’t think you have to worry about that.
More, what was the date on that Woman’s Day article? Because I can pull out statistics too, from an article a month ago in The Guardian (an actual newspaper rather than conservative fluff media for bored housewives) which states that 57% of women and girls are currently enrolled in school, and many women are working, for example, making up 24% of the health care sector and 10% of the judiciary in Afghanistan. Why might this change have occurred? I mean, after all, the country is still pretty Muslim. Oh, that’s right! – it’s because the Taliban, that crazy bunch of warlords that the Americans armed and trained, have finally been removed from power. A bunch of armed and deranged lunatic warlords running a country tends to lead to really shitty conditions for women, regardless of religious affiliation. Look at the DR of Congo, where mass rape is used as a tactic of war, to threaten and control women and whole communities. Literally thousands of women are raped there every month, and for the record, the country is overwhelmingly Christian. No religion I’m aware of sanctions the rape and abuse of women, and yet it happens. Is it the fault of the religion and its adherents, or those individuals who twist religious messages to support their own heinous actions?
There’s no denying that fucked up things happen to girls and women in certain Muslim countries – arranged marriages, child marriages, rape, denial of rights – but those same things are happening in non-Muslim countries around the world as well. For example, the Christian Orthodox Church is a big supporter of child marriages, and Hindu arranged marriages are also quite popular in India. To try and pretend that the subjugation of women is a product of Islam is absurd, and indicative of the fact that you are not actually pro-woman but simply anti-Islam.
A quick google search turns up all sorts of sensationalistic, fear-mongering stories about rapes committed by ethnic and religious minorities – Hindu rapes, Muslim rapes, etc. Funny thing is though, if the media called rapes committed by Christian guys “Christian rapes”, you could easily lead people to believe there was a growing epidemic of those too.
As far as any religion’s ideals becoming law in this country, the Christian right poses a far greater threat than Muslims any day, especially to women. It’s those fuckers who are rampantly taking away women’s reproductive rights south of the border, and are striving to do the same here. If you really care about women’s rights, More, and not just shitting on Muslims, perhaps you’ll consider doing “whatever it takes” to fight the oppression of women in your own country.
“not actually pro-woman but simply anti-Islam”
An astute and important differentiation, meOw.
“I disagree & feel no guilt, or feel a need to apologize or see any problems with doing what ever is necessary to keep their 13th centruy ideals from becoming ‘law’ in my country.”
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Seriously the best fucking thing I’ve read in a while. Made me laugh more than watching Friday while stoned for the first time. Way to sound like the typical ignorant and uneducated and paranoids rednecks who gather on CBC.ca, More!
While we’re at it, lets get rid of some of the white and Christian-based laws in Canada as they certainly do not reflect all Canadians – or at least its First Nations population.
And here’s an interesting fact about Afghanistan: young males are subjugated also. They are young dancing boys who are tricked into being taken from families by wealthy warlords or, basically, pimps. The boys can be children or young teens and must dress in women’s clothing and jewels and dance for bands of older men.
Then the boys are sold to the highest bidder and then go for short rides or find a room where the older men have their way with them and use them as a fucking blow-up doll. I’m unsure what the practice is called exactly but actually dates back to ancient times itself and was performed before Alexander the Great even stepped foot in Bactria.
And the western forces are well aware of this but continue to allow it to happen. That’s okay though because we just never hear about it.
CBC actually did a special about it before. Some freaky shit.
It’s called Bacha Bazi, NGF. Prepubescent boys are once again being recruited for rich and powerful, men. 🙁
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/0…
Oh my goodness. This is so terribly sad.
That’s it, PnB! I saw some clips of it on the CBC documentary before and was stunned.
It’s interesting that the news doesn’t report on this but uses the angles of “troops liberating women” instead. Not arguing that helping women is a good thing but considering that the exploitation of children in NA is taboo it shocks me that Bacha Bazi is something not mentioned.
And, even more ironically, it was the Taliban that outlawed Bacha Bazi for so long.
5 will get you ten that there were more than a few fundamentalist mullahs who still enjoyed their rent boys even after “outlawing” the practice for the general populace.
KIM’S BLURT
“This is a blurt, by the way, not a thesis.” (Kim, March 5, 12:39PM)
Your distinction between a blurt and a thesis indicates that you have followed your own advice which you previously gave to me, to take “step back” and realize what’s going on. The realization that one is simply “blurting” and not describing the world (i.e., in this case me) is a major step in developing reflective self-awareness which is central in what you describe as my “Mission.” So my first response, Kim, is to offer my congratulations on achieving a degree of reflective self-awareness.
In any case I’m glad it’s not a thesis – if I were your thesis adviser I would suggest a re-write in which you introduced evidence and examples to support your claims as well as a stronger “narrative line,” a sense of development rather than continually playing the same note. But it’s not a thesis, it’s a blurt, so my response must adapt to the change in circumstances. My response therefore falls into two parts:
(a) to your Blurt and (b) to your view of “My Mission”.
(a) The Blurt: The short answer to my response to the Blurt is that I have none. As the old saying goes, “You can’t prove a negative.” So I can’t prove that I haven’t been “jeering, mocking, and condescending” since these are impressions which exist in your mind Kim, but not in mine.
(b) “My Mission”: If it were true, as you claim, that I have assumed a role and am on a mission “that involves showing the rest of us something and/or chastising some of us” then your question, “Why do you continue on?” would make sense. But it isn’t true and so the question doesn’t make sense. In the same way, the claim that I have been “refused” is irrelevant as well. There is a sense that one doesn’t know what one thinks about something until one writes it down. But it’s not just a matter of simply asserting one’s view – one must also give reasons WHY one asserts it. In other words, one should struggle to be rational which, wouldn’t you know it, requires reflective self-awareness! That, in a nutshell, is why I continue on. I want to see what I think. That is my “Mission.”
You conclude with the observation, “what good is your education, your intelligence and your efforts, if wisdom doesn’t accompany it?” Well Kim, thanks for the compliment but, as usual, I have (at least) two replies. The first is that I’m not sure what the question means. You can help me out here Kim, by telling me what you mean by “wisdom.” By way of my second reply I direct your attention to another post by meOw (6:43PM). Her structured, reasoned reply to More indicates that perhaps, just perhaps, my “education, intelligence and efforts” might be having some collateral effect. You just never know.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Just out of idle curiosity, Annie, exactly how many times have you been a ‘thesis adviser’?
Those who switched away, don’t count ;p
While some of us are indulging our egomania (mm taking credit for me0w’s “structured, reasoned reply to More”) I’d like to take credit for something that has burdened my conscience for decades. I was the “second gunman” on the grassy knoll.
My impression of your motives was mistaken, it appears. And, since you clarified your your motive for being here, further criticism from me on the way you choose to execute your plan is not necessary. In fact, I believe you did state, in the past, that you were here on a mind excavation quest, but since the venue choice seemed contrary (to me), I was distracted by other (apparently secondary) statements you made as to your purpose. I mean, if your purpose is only to to see yourself think, you can do that with a paper and pencil, but you chose a public forum.
As far as the wisdom comment goes, well, that’s moot now isn’t it?
Also, I’m not sure you should break your arm patting yourself on the back as far as meOw is concerned. If you read her comments prior to your appearance here, you will notice she was already reasoned and structured, and since, I believe, she is still working on her degree, for the money she is shelling out, I would hope her professors deserve some credit.
Wouldn’t that make you 70+ years old, CE?
You might like this one, CE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoSVzm6PBJc…
John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and as everybody knows, a 9 year old is more than capable of firing a rifle. So CE only has to be 55 – 57 😉
@ Ivan, unfortunately it’s being practiced again today. Like it has been for 5,000 yrs. That’s what happens when you separate men and women in society. This clearly shows that morality doesn’t come from religion. IMO
No arguments from me Puss. The more fundamentalist the faith; the more fundamental the hypocrisy. The more powerful the faith; the greater potential for the abuse of the power.
NGF’s comment about the Taliban proscribing the dancing rent boys made me think of this asshole. Anyone else?
http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwy…
“The more powerful the faith; the greater potential for the abuse of the power.” – Bang on, 100%, Fucking-A
It also doesn’t help when the fundamentalists murder the moderates, kinda puts the damper on free speach & reason.
Ivan, the pic doesn’t ring a bell. So I googled rent boy….mistake.
Sorry Hugo. The pic is Pastor Ted Haggard, an American mega-vangelist who sought God in the stem of a meth pipe and the anuses of young male hustlers.
Thanks for your comments, Kim. I’ve been enjoying your responses a great deal lately as well.
For the record, while my professors probably do deserve some credit for my ability to present a decently structured argument, I’ve actually been posting here longer than I’ve been enrolled in school. I just began a bachelor’s degree in September, having dropped out of high school 15 years prior, so I really can’t bring myself to give too much credit for any of my accomplishments to the formal education system. I will say, I’ve spent a good many afternoons snickering behind my computer screen while certain posters have accused me of being one of those awful “university educated” types. Anyway, cat’s out of the bag now. I’m just a member of the Underclass, like the rest of you mooks.
Me0w, university is overrated anyway …
I for one, am glad that the over-ratedness of universities has not deterred nurses, physicians, surgeons and the like from obtaining an education. Same goes for engineers, teachers and dozens of other professionals we depend on.
google “Pederasty”
Of course OC I didn’t mean to completely throw a blanket over university and say it’s bad, hell I’m in friggin’ university, but preaching to kids that EVERYONE MUST GO to university is absurd.
True Donk, some vocations are learned at college. Uni is NOT for everyone but education higher than secondary is.
I disagree, OC. If everyone went onto post-secondary education, there would be a lot of unhappy people cleaning offices and picking apples. That said, I don’t think anyone who truly wants to pursue higher education should be deterred. As well, kids who are not geared to think beyond high school should be made aware of the opportunities that a higher education offers.
I think that everyone should be taught the importance of continued learning–that they should not stop reading or learning new things once out of school (that includes university graduates who put their books away once they have learned their particular specialty).
Even toilet scrubbers and apple pickers can aspire to better themselves, and their paycheck.
Of course.
But if we all possess degrees and college diplomas quite a few of us will scrubbing toilets an awful long time to pay for something we can’t find a placement for.
As well, there are so many who don’t want a chance at the brass ring…that are happy to not strive–for more…for bigger and better. There is nothing wrong with aspiring simply to be the best damn sandwich artisan in the city = ).
This reminds me of one of my favorite poems by Douglas Malloch- it’s inspirational, in it’s simplicity.
Be The Best Whatever You Are
If you can’t be a pine on the top of the hill
Be a scrub in the valley–but be
The best little scrub by the side of the rill;
Be a bush if you can’t be a tree.
If you can’t be a bush be a bit of the grass,
And some highway some happier make;
If you can’t be a muskie then just be a bass–
But the liveliest bass in the lake!
We can’t all be captains, we’ve got to be crew,
There’s something for all of us here.
There’s big work to do and there’s lesser to do,
And the task we must do is the near.
If you can’t be a highway then just be a trail,
If you can’t be the sun be a star;
It isn’t by size that you win or you fail–
Be the best of whatever you are!
Dat’s uh roight noice poeem puss.
I think there is an inherent dignity in all honest work that folks do to put food on the table and pay the rent even if it involves cleaning washrooms at the mall or putting on a “funny” hat and selling fast food.
Probably most people don’t set out in life aspiring to do those jobs but they do them because groceries and rent aren’t free and there is no shame in doing the honest work that life puts in front of us.
The problem is that the nation is awash in work that pays peanuts. We’ve been sucker punched by corporate and government elites who have been telling us for almost thirty years that we MUST compete with labourers in far away places who make a pittance for a long day’s work because . . . well because we MUST! Why we would give so much credence to a message from folks whose sole concern is profit maximization is beyond me.
Meanwhile an ever increasing proportion of the “wealth pie” is being consumed by an increasingly small number of people at the top, all while wages for regular folks have remained essentially flat for thirty years.
Your parents’ (grandparents’ ??) generation could afford comfortable homes on a single income, put a couple of kids through university and look forward to a comfortable retirement. Not any more and the reason isn’t that folks today are lazy.
I think having a nation full of thinking, problem-solving, caring and compassionate individuals is a good thing, and it doesn’t matter whether they come to these qualities through higher education or not. But there are powerful persons in this nation who don’t give a rat’s ass about such things and in fact, would prefer that such citizens did not exist.
DUMFOUNDED!
Hello Kim!
To say I was dumfounded by your response to my last post would be to understate the case. I could see it if you had some sort of agenda as far as I was concerned (i.e., get Montrealman!) but I thought you were above that. Maybe you are. Depending on your reply to this post, things will be clearer. Anyway, I think all that is necessary is to compare what I said with what you replied and try to get some sense out of it. There are two areas of comparison, My “Mission” and The Meow Case.
My “Mission”: In response to your question “Why do you continue?” I replied, “I want to see what I think. That is my ‘Mission.'” I thought it was pretty clear. One often doesn’t know what one thinks before engaging in dialogue with others to get clearer about one’s own views on any given subject. Thinking, in other words, is a dialogical exercise. However, your reply seemed to miss my point entirely. You wrote, “I mean, if your purpose is to see yourself think, then you can do that with paper and pencil, but you chose a public forum.” I think that you will agree that there is a world of difference between my wanting “to see what I think” and simply wanting “to see myself think,” whatever that might mean. The vision is of my holding up a mirror to my face while thinking and, perhaps, giving myself a knowing wink. It would have been hilarious if it were not in the present context.
The MeOw Case: Quoting you, I wrote, “My ‘education, intelligence and efforts’ might have some collateral effect. You just never know” in respect to my influence on MeOw. But read the words, “might have,” “you just never know.” My point, while partly tongue-in-cheek, was that it was not a logical impossibility since I have never read meOw’s posts prior to her appearance on this thread and the length of her analysis as well as her structure and clarity of style appeared unusual to me on this site. That is all. Your reply, however, was sharply sarcastic. You wrote, “I’m not sure you should break your arm patting yourself on the back as far as MeOw is concerned.” Now, I would have expected something like this from Lieutenent Esposito (11:45AM) since, some time ago, I had occasion to spank him (cf. “Going hunting on Friday”) and he clearly has an agenda where I am concerned, but I wasn’t aware that you might have too. That remains to be seen.
Finally, whether or not my request for your account of “wisdom” is “moot” depends on your reply. You wrote in the post prior to your last, “What good is all your education, your intelligence and your efforts, if wisdom doesn’t accompany it?” Clearly, you must be in possession of the criterion to make the determination that while I have passed the education, intelligence and effort conditions, I have failed to satisfy the wisdom condition. So I await your views on wisdom with anticipation.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Yeah, yeah, I know. That should be “Lieutenant” and not “Lieutenent” Esposito.
Restrain your agendas!
Cheerio!
L’homme-
Is it still “all a spoof”, as you stated a year ago, or has your “mission” evolved into an enjoyable mental exercise for vous?
Just wondering’,
Wheelieturp
“Everyone’s a hero in their own way. Everyone’s got villains they must face. They’re not as cool as mine, but folks you know it’s fine to know your place.” – Captain Hammer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqCXXMvMm6g
how many times have you been a ‘thesis adviser’?” – no answer = 0
I find it amusing, in a pathetic sort of way, that when someone disagrees with you they are “getting annie”. I suppose it’s just another aspect of your NPD.
“The vision is of my holding up a mirror to my face…” – remember, annie + mirror = cunt.
“I have passed the education, intelligence and effort conditions” – I disagree, you may have a very narrow and limited education, ‘intelligent’? Not so much, I mean, you can’t even do a High School level, word game 😉 You’ve professed your superior intellect on numerous occasions, and even with encouragement from several posters, you fail miserably in demonstrating anything besides the fact that, you are a dick wad.
smeghead, you are a boken record, stuck in 1952.
“Probably most people don’t set out in life aspiring to do those jobs but they do them because groceries and rent aren’t free and there is no shame in doing the honest work that life puts in front of us…The problem is that the nation is awash in work that pays peanuts.””
I wanted to work on a farm when I was a kid. But, my parents said, “No, be a secretary or a nurse or teacher. It’s a better choice.” My teachers said, “Why be a secretary or nurse or a teacher when you can be a CEO or a doctor or a professor.” My financial situation said, you can join the army or get a huge loan and eat kraft dinner for many years if you want to reach your full potential. My situation said, you need a job right now if you want a roof over your head and food to eat. So, I went to work on a farm. But, since my worth was based on my potential rather than my actual work, I got paid shit, I got treated like shit and I felt like shit.
Our perspective is skewed. While it is all very nice to believe in the potential of a person, it has gone too far when people are judged on what they can do instead of what they actually do. There is something wrong when a person’s contribution to the workings of our society is diminished simply because that perosn didn’t or couldn’t pursue a goal deemed relevant by others. There is something wrong when a person has to put 60 hours of hard labour in just to survive, because their unpapered skill is deemed unworthy or of little value.
Here’s the thing, toilet cleaners are hard to come by now, and since so many people have studied too long and paid too much out on their education to have to clean toilets, toilet cleaners can demand $18+ per hour–and get it. At least they could before the influx of degree holders who couldn’t find placement started taking the toilet cleaning jobs. So now, you have a lot of people who have reached their full potential but they are working and getting paid and getting treated the same as the people who didn’t strive for more. And, not only is their menial work not valued by the others, but they feel it is beneath them as well. No wonder there is so much discontent.
And, of course, as long as everyone continues to put the emphasis on what a person can do rather than what they actually do, big business will continue to profit from this way of thinking, and we, as a whole, will continue our downward spiral.
I’m not disregarding you, MM…I just don’t have the head for your reply right now. = )
AN ENJOYABLE MENTAL EXERCISE?
“L’homme – Is it still ‘all a spoof’, as you stated a year ago, or has your ‘mission’ evolved into an enjoyable mental exercise for vous? Just wondering.” (Wheeliep, March 7, 10:16AM)
Wheeliep’s comment in respect to my “Mission” on this site over the past year has stirred reflections on its transformation which seems to have neatly fallen into three parts.
The reference to “all a spoof” relates to a comment I made at the end of the first part contained in the sadly deleted thread “HRM do your job” where I announced plans to examine the characteristics of the Halifax Underclass from the perspective of an elevated academic pedagogue. That was the “spoof” part, but my real intention was to kick the ass of the “Redneck Strutters,” those blowhards who seemed to me to be thick on the ground on this site. It was a pleasure counter-punching the Rednecks but, at length (182 comments), the thread wore down, the Mission was accomplished and, thinking I was bidding adieu to Bitch, I made the “spoof” remark.
However, quite by accident, the second part of my “Mission” got underway when I read “Going hunting on Friday.” As I am fiercely against hunting, I launched a direct assault on Life Sucks, the one who was “going hunting.” The analogy of the hunter/rapist traced the similarity of the two trajectories – reconnoitering the area and then stalking the prey, targeting the prey, and then the climax in the form of the killing and/or orgasm – originated as far as I know with me and, after nearly 600 comments, the second part of my “Mission” was accomplished. Once again, I thought that was it for me on Bitch.
However, the third phase of my “Mission” arose after getting involved with “Is it a special club now?” when I came in IN SUPPORT of the Bitcher! (Can you believe it?) I guess I had started to mellow out of the attack mode and began to adopt an expository mode such as the one I’m doing now. The expository mode continued with “When no means no” and, in dialogue with Kim, came to involve an attempted analysis of the content of female gender based on the perspective of philosophical realism which traced, at least in part, the gender’s origins to the biology of the female in general and in particular to the cunt. That, it seems, is where my “Mission” now stands.
So to answer your question, Wheeliep, I guess my “Mission” HAS evolved into an enjoyable mental exercise for moi. But, of course, part of that enjoyment still consists in kicking ass when the opportunity arises.
Now, how about you, Wheeliep? What’s YOUR “Mission?” Come on, out with it!
A plasure as always.
Cheerio!
“It was a pleasure counter-punching the Rednecks…the Mission was accomplished” – it’s only you that thinks that :p
“going hunting” – ah yes…where you imagine yourself servicing the hunters, I remember that.
“attempted analysis of the content of female gender” – ‘attempted’ is right, your lack of understanding and comprehension is painfully evident.
“kicking ass when the opportunity arises.” – well I’m right here, bitch. I’ve offered you numerious opportunities, but all you do is run & hide, wine that I’m being ‘unfair’, blame others when you look like an idiot. Fuck, annie, you’re such a pathetic, weak little git.
As TTFN said “learning more and more about less and less, eventually knowing everything about nothing.” – that’s you, unable and not competent enough to venture outside you tiny little area of semi-expertise.
More than one person agrees with me Sméagol, you’re a joke, a lark, a laugh…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rav9ijyyZk…
“engaging in dialogue with others”
I am glad you said this. All my criticism has stemmed from my assumption of this point–that you came to this public forum to interact through conversation with other people. I will break down this idea, just so we can be sure we have the same understanding:
Engage, as in:
a : to hold the attention of
b : to induce to participate
c: to take part
Dialogue, in its simplest form, is a conversation:
“A conversation is communication between multiple people. It is a social skill that is not difficult for most individuals. Conversations are the ideal form of communication in some respects, since they allow people with different views on a topic to learn from each other.”
Others have defined dialogue as:
Martin Buber: dialogue is not some purposive attempt to reach conclusions or express mere points of view, but it is a prerequisite of authentic relationship between man and man.
David Bohm: a group of people talk together in order to explore their assumptions of thinking, meaning, communication, and social effects.
Mikhail Bakhtin: the power of discourse to increase understanding of multiple perspectives and create myriad possibilities.
Paulo Freire: dialogued communication allowed students and teachers to learn from one another in an environment characterized by respect and equality.
Not to be confused with a speech:
“A speech, on the other hand, is an oral presentation by one person directed at a group.”
WITH others–not against others or disregarding others or in spite of others, but with others.
Now that my meaning is clear, I will repeat myself:
You are not engaged with others–there is you and there is them.
You are not holding their attention–at least, not in any complimentary way.
Participation, maybe in the vaguest of sense. But I picture participation in a conversation more like a tennis match (the ball (idea) being volleyed back and forth), but in your case, it is more like a ball machine just driving balls at the other player–there is no volley.
I have to cut this off, so I’ll end here:
You present this image:
“The vision is of my holding up a mirror to my face while thinking and, perhaps, giving myself a knowing wink.”
And you laughed, and so did I. But, truly, that is how you are perceived.
I’ll leave you with this:
http://www.mindtools.com/page8.html
HEIGH HO!
Well, Kim, it was disappointing to hear you describe me as a “ball machine that just drives the balls at the other players.” You’ve seem to have done a 190 degree turn from your post of March 2 when you said, “Poor montrealman, he didn’t mean any harm… etc. etc.”
But, heigh ho, what do you know, I guess you’re just another turn-around. Find peace among your new(?) friends, Kim.
I’ll get busy now and load up the ball machine.
Cheerio!
MM-
Thanks for the (lengthy) answer.
I thought I recalled you saying, last year, that you wrote as Montrealman to get a rise out of people and have a good time. I can’t find the original quote though.
My opinion of the why behind what you do was you wanted to rattle some cages, turn over some tables, and use your brain to compose these long posts in an affected style of your character, “montrealman” as a kind of extended mental exercise where you have to be “in character” and says things as MM, and defend these things.
Just as I presume Lifesucks isn’t the guy in real life he presents here, I think the real You is different from the online you. No doubt a part of why you are, just as Lifesucks most likely has this loud mouth asshole living inside him that doesn’t get to express itself in public, because of the reactions from women, the police, etc.
I’m here because it is an often pleasant diversion from the day’s events, and I think it is healthy to engage in debate with others and have to defend one’s opinions. I find I learn more about why I believe the things I believe, though I too have somewhat an online persona with my writing, though I try and indulge the reasoned, nice part of it than the asshole part. Sometimes I write from the negative place, but it’s as much a part of me as my positive part.
My mission is to have fun and to learn something, about people in general, and about myself in particular.
A bien to!
P
I wasn’t finished…I just ran out of time. The above was a general impression. And it was an appraisal of Montrealman’s persona as view by people in general. Since it was my understanding that MM was a created personality, the usual courtesies were not always extended. I mean, you can’t really insult or hurt an imaginary character, right? Yet, for the most part, I played along. Then, over time, the personality of MM’s creator began to creep in, and MM started to round out–become more human, and, I thought, more likable. MM developed a sense of fun. And, in small ways, he was getting kinder, more thoughtful, more generous and his introspect was losing its narrowness. And, best of all, his writing style was changing to accommodate a more general audience. I say best of all, because now I can better understand him.
Responding thoughtfully can take time since often I struggle to articulate my thoughts. And writing doesn’t come easy to me for the most part–I don’t have a lot of experience in it–word choice alone can be difficult. Needless to say, I don’t have the background. So, if I have to, basically, translate Montrealman’s more complicated pieces, which would include much cross-referencing, and then, respond to it, much of day would be gone. But, as a courtesy, since MM took the time to make a contribution, I try to make an effort. Of course, when I make the effort only to realize at the end of it all that the whole thing could have been said a few simple sentences, I am exasperated. = )
Anyway, to the point…
I don’t really have the time or inclination to debate with Montrealman in his original form. Now, the present form of Montrealman, I have time for, or at least, I try to make time for, because I find him interesting and stimulating. But when he veers off from an compelling discussion to make distracting and detracting comments, I just want to slap him.
For example: “In addition to the fact that the format of the site discourages developed thinking, I’m fairly sure that the posters are not capable of such thinking in the first place.”
As far as my friends go, I find most people here friendly–even those who disagree with me. And although I annoy some people, even they are tolerant of me, and, for most part, friendly. And don’t kid yourself, it was not a gimme. I had to go through the initiation period just like everyone else. Just like you. And, you were almost there, but you did the one thing that starts you back at the beginning–you stopped trying. You have to at least try to be considerate. To be understanding. To be tolerant. These are basic requirements when joining a community. It’s about trust. If no one can trust that you will not trample on their thoughts, why would they risk sharing? Now personally, I have no complaints–you have treated me with courtesy, respect and tolerance. But, I must admit, because of the way you treat most people, there is a part of me that waits for the slam to come–the slap in the face. It never came, but because I am just as infallible as the rest, I cannot trust that it won’t. That said, because you did not belittle me just now, when I pissed you off, that distrust part has shank a bit = ).
This took way to long *yawn* and I’m going to pay for it tomorrow = )
A DESCENT INTO “PSYCHOLOGISM?” or: THE FEMINIZATION OF MONTREALMAN?
“In addition to the fact that the format of this site discourages developed thinking, I am fairly sure that the posters here are not capable of such thinking in the first place.” (Montrealman)
As there is a great deal of conceptual overlap in Wheeliep’s and Kim’s last two replies I thought I would respond to them together in serial order. However, before doing that, I thought it might be a good idea for me to frame my response in the context of my title, “A Descent into ‘Psychologism’? or: “A Feminization of Montrealman?” As an opener, I have chose a statement of mine quoted by Kim to which she took exception and, in fact, wanted to slap me for it.
But what are we to make of it? I think it points to an important distinction.
When I made the statement I thought (and think) that is true. It may not have been the “correct” or politic thing to say but, coming from a philosophical rather than a psychologistic perspective, I think that truth trumps correctness. One’s view of the truth in any given situation, together with the reasons one brings to support that truth, is what philosophy is all about. What it is NOT about is “winning friends or influencing people.” One goes where, one believes, truth leads.
Psychology, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with emotions, whether conscious or subconscious, which influence behaviour. Truth, in the sense of an objective, reasoned claim, is irrelevant to psychology. “Psychologism” takes psychology to its logical conclusion – truth, reality and all the rest are just phantasms since everything is reduced to one’s feelings about them. From a philosophical perspcetive, it reduces to a complete and thorough-going relativism – you’re right if you think you are, I’m okay and you’re okay. In effect, it leads to the destruction of thought.
But, to return to my quotation: Does this assertion make me a BAD MAN? Is it possible for me to assert the claim and yet be a reasonably GOOD MAN? I think so. In fact, I think the two questions are not related at all. For example, I think Cassanova, without contradiction, could write a book about marital fidelty. Macchiavelli could also, without contradiction, write another about international co-operation and peace.
So that’s where I’m coming from. Do you want me to continue with an individual analysis in which I hope to link psychologism and “feminization” or, on the contrary, DO YOU JUST WANT TO SLAP ME?
A pleasure as alwaya.
Cheerio!
“I am fairly sure that the posters here are not capable of such thinking in the first place.” – LOLZ Annie, I’ll give you a 7.5 for that irony 😉
You of course do realize that you’re a regular poster 🙂
The rest of your post was – too long, too boring, didn’t read.
I don’t have a background in philosophy but I’ll give it a shot:
Assessment of developed thinking is based on comments made at LTWWB.
LTWWB posters write comments that do not exhibit developed thinking.
Therefore, LTWWB posters are not developed thinkers.
LTWWB posters are not developed thinkers.
Montrealman writes comments at LTWWB.
Therefore, Montrealman is not a developed thinker.
Is that how it’s done?
I have a background in philosophy Kim_NS. I’d say you’ve pretty much nailed it. “I bitch, therefore I am.” Descartes would be proud!
“I think, therefore I am” Am what? A thinking bitch.
Ha ha ha, OC.
Kim, if you could pad that ‘assessmnt’ up to about 300 pages they’d give you a Ph.D 🙂
montrealman – “Psychology, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with emotions”
What type of Psychology?
Developmental, Jungian, Clinical, Forensic?
Come on Annie, please don’t present such generalistic, all encompassing, partially correct statements, as fact.
Since your basic understanding of psychology appears to be flawed, your argument is also flawed, and therefore not valid.
Before we can answer the question of Smeghead being a good man, or a bad man. We must first determine whether or not it is, indeed a man at all, or merely an object for “pity, scorn and laugh”.
OCEANCHICK’S BACKGROUND IN PHILOSOPHY
“I have a background in philosophy Kim_NS.” (Oceanchick, March 9)
Oceanchick’s reference to her background in philosophy set me to thinking. While I don’t doubt for a minute that she has such a background, her assertion raised the question of what such a background might consist. Here’s my best guess:
Oceanchick’s first class consists of training in syllogistic reasoning. Chanting in unison with the others, Oceanchick (who’s seated in the first row) sings out:
“Major Premise: All men are mortal.
Minor Premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore Socrates is mortal!”
Oceanchick learns that the truth of the Major Premise is crucial since only if it is true will the rest of the syllogism follow with logical force. After a bit, syllogistic reaoning has been mastered and its’s time for the second class, one in Aristotelian logic with particular reference to the his second law, that of Non-Contradiction. The class sings out once again: “A proposition cannot be both true and not true at the same time and under the same aspect!” Oceanchick learns that an assertion, “Socrates is mortal,” cannot be both true and not true in the given context of syllogistic reasoning.
Then it’s time to move on the word-world relation, in particular to the famous “Tarski Sentence.” Once again in unison, the class chants: “The proposition ‘Snow is white’ is true if, and only if, snow IS white.”
Oceanchick learns that for an assertion to be true in an empirical – as opposed to the purely logical sense of the syllogism – it must corrrespond to the way things actually are – the famous “Correspondence Theory of Truth.”
Finally it’s time for the “Agon” as it was called in ancient Greece, the famous philosophical wrestling match where Oceanchick will get a chance to put her philosophical skills to the test. Oceanchick and Kim take to the mat, warily circling each other with feeling-out moves. The foorwork is swift, handholds are made and then broken. Finally, Kim makes a fatal error by asserting:
“Major Premise: LTWWB posters are not developed thinkers.
Minor Premise: Montrealman writes comments at LTWWB.
Conclusion: Therefore, Montrealman is not a developed thinker.”
Oceanchick sees her opening and is quick to act. Stunningly, Kim has failed to grasp that her Major Premise must be prefaced with the word “ALL.” Otherwise nothing follows by logical necessity. The take-down is swift. Oceanchick has won the Agon! Her philosophical background clearly playing the decisive role! Oceanchick dons the laurel wreath, symbolic of the Agon champion! Congratulations to Oceanchick!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
All assessment of developed thinking is based on comments made at LTWWB.
All LTWWB posters write comments that do not exhibit developed thinking.
Therefore, all LTWWB posters are not developed thinkers.
All LTWWB posters are not developed thinkers.
Montrealman writes comments at LTWWB.
Therefore, Montrealman is not a developed thinker.
Hmm. I thought the ‘all’ was assumed. And, in assuming it, I thought MM’s critique would lie more in the fallacy of the original premise. What a dilemma! = p
Congratulations there annie 🙂
You’ve made an excellent argument for Kim’s and Oc’s point.
Lol, I can’t believe that dip-shit mm has the gall to compare itself to Cassanova, Machiavelli (not Macchiavelli),and Socrates. Well maybe Machiavelli, an amoral narcissist.
The rest of your post is truisms and quotes from other people, what’s the matter? Incapable of original thought above the sophomore level?
You think that you’re being clever and authoritative, sorry, but you come across as weak, pathetic, and unknowledgeable.
Kim made her point in 6 lines, it took you 8 paragraphs to confirm it.
And as far as your ‘psychology’ gaff is concerned, check out this site, it’s good for beginners like you. http://psychologycorner.com/
I’ve played in your yard annie, and kicked your ass more than once. Now it’s time for you to come play in my field of expertise….if you dare.
Phhhht. Tosser can’t even conjure up a proper girlfight in his own mind.
http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/uploa…
Teats on a bullock, Annie. All that learning is just so much overbaked methane.
Oc and I are mature women…we don’t fight! But, if we did…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu22ree-bag
Good one Kim-girl! Hehehe!
I hope a group of large black gentleman put a wig on that judge and give him a nice deep one.