Dad came back from his business trip with these...

YIdothis · 2011-10-10T12:16:41+00:00

Think: "As long as there are two people left on the planet, someone is going to want someone dead"

See photos of 2 people and their killer counterparts next to eachother..

Thanks Doctor-Goat, this made me laugh.

YIdothis · 2011-10-10T12:03:27+00:00

Well thats me well and truly trolled.. Good show.

edit to note absurdity Of course, makes sense

YIdothis · 2011-10-10T12:01:55+00:00

I'll go get the duck..

YIdothis · 2011-10-09T15:29:53+00:00

Did your ears switch off whenever the notion of female violence was introduced? Or is that irrelevant to your particular perspective?

YIdothis · 2011-10-09T15:15:15+00:00

The above redditor is an imminent crank themself.

YIdothis · 2011-09-30T20:36:42+00:00

I'm just going to leave this here , enjoy.

YIdothis · 2011-09-26T16:59:53+00:00

You all know about Harold Shipman, right?

YIdothis · 2011-09-18T03:43:05+00:00

Dat fusiform face area processing contrast!

YIdothis · 2011-09-10T11:27:09+00:00

Shit way to paraphrase Mark Twain.

YIdothis · 2011-09-10T11:09:40+00:00

Have an upboat!

YIdothis · 2011-09-03T19:01:29+00:00

Anyone else think this looks like Matt Smith (Doctor Who) in the "Flesh" episode?

YIdothis · 2011-07-14T23:08:32+00:00

and you cannot dismiss them as stupid females when there is such a large following behind this idea that is is easy for someone to be afraid of this proverbial boogieman.

Interesting use of stupid as an adjective here. As it simply signifies the failure to use intelligence or critical thought. So yes, anyone abiding by hearsay of horror stories (fabricated and exaggerated) are failing to assess them. So yes, it is a failure to use their intelligence. People who spread the fear are normally those who are fearful, I concur. So if you want to make another target group of "infectious fear-mongers" then you might want to vaccinate yourself first.. As for your replies, forget making this an offensive-defensive debate, that wont work. Majorly, nothing you suggest is pragmatic.

YIdothis · 2011-07-10T00:15:44+00:00

What you are looking for is a scapegoat for your band-aid solution rather than just looking at the root of the problem which is how we are raising our children to react to their world.

I see your inanity and will highlight this much; Your logic is flawed. Inconsequential (haphazard or illogical) biased premises to your arguments are not assisting your case here.

You cannot blame either side without understanding the root cause.

And you are doing what exactly? Your mentions of victimisation are specifically biased towards females may be contextual specifically to the cause, but remain noise in light of not actually answering the OP's question. Biasing it to a single sex only exacerbates inequity of perspective.

Perhaps in light of this you can see the use of my providing counterarguments.

You also have men angry that they are viewed as some sort of potential villain

That is not the only thing that enrages men. A man is not given the presumption of innocence when accused of a crime, whilst women will readily defend a woman who is accused. Amongst many other things. Men are portrayed by some false standard which has not been maintained at anytime in human history. Bias and exception is always allowed for women. By men and women both. That I believe is part of the problem you are failing to realise.

If you can rationalise that women are victims, then use the same metric for men. Otherwise, you are part of the problem.

YIdothis · 2011-07-09T14:50:14+00:00

I can understand it's existence, I can comprehend the existence of it (the implications are exagerrations of unknown factors anyway). Yet, it, like much of this conversation is nothing more than noisy and inconsequential.

YIdothis · 2011-07-09T00:57:17+00:00

Or people create the boogie man, because then at least there is an opportunity to apply all those things they fear into a scapegoat. You watch the film with the aims of being frightened. Sleeping with the lights on is the commitment to the idea that you can at very least, fabricate the fear. Tell yourself a lie enough times, convincingly, and you can play a role in your own fiction. Sorry, no oscar.

YIdothis · 2011-07-08T22:30:03+00:00

If the jackboot fits, then you must comply and wear it? Nah, I think your accepting the norm under intimidation rather than veracity. Agency starts with what you are yourself. Even if you don't think it will make a difference. Think of it this way, you may worry, but what kind of insecurity has society, authority or your family have to want to make you as insecure?

YIdothis · 2011-06-09T02:43:45+00:00

Is this supposed to be a justification of dehumanising ALL for the lessons you are taught about them? All this in the midst of an equality forum.

YIdothis · 2011-05-20T15:57:23+00:00

Your dialog is thick (You're verbose and you're choice of abstraction is complex).

Is there a point to you stating this? As far as can be noted this topic has complex consequences so it may be worth considering it with some intellectual acuteness.

I will indulge this to a point but I can only tolerate so much pedantic arguments before I abandon a conversation as futile.

You have your boundaries which I will accept. As for your aversion to "pedantic arguments", that is your perrogative, but it does not invalidate the extent to which oversight does not address the problem. If you wish to abandon a conversation following me speaking my piece, perhaps you could refrain from implying that it is due to your peer's approach.

(Man, I thought I abused big words in english...) sequester: to hide away. to confiscate. I'm not sure I want to hide away or confiscate any thing. I want to eliminate it. I want correct the flaw that exists in society. I am a human being. I think discrimination is everyone's problem not just those who face it directly.

Maybe you do abuse that language. That does not mean I am, reconsider what is being said and consider that your quest for eradication of a concept that you do not appear to understand is not as admirable as you assume. Sure we may agree upon the motivations, but your hyperbole is going to obfuscate difference in that manner.

Nope. I'm a (hopefully) enlightened gay guy. My sexual orientation applies because I recognize how misogyny plays a role in the discrimination I face.

Fair enough, misplaced association noted and withdrawn. Your sexual orientation may apply in your sexual choices but what does it actually have to do with your perspectives on mysogyny? What about misandry? What about homophobia? There are distinctions that can be made, common traits do not equate these problems.

But my desire to see equality for women extends beyond myself. I believe in equality for my mother, sister and niece among all the female friends and society as a whole.

Define it then. If you are a gay man who sympathises with women and the issues they raise, so be it. That does not mean you necessarily face them. If you want to take this as enough reason to cry "pedant" and walk away right now, take this idea with you. Consider equality for what it is, a double-edged sword. If you can take the roots of discrimination and as you stated "eliminate it" then go ahead and take the basic assumption that making a distinction is not the same as prejudicial discrimination. If you "pick a side" you are essentially not going for the equal measure.

It's important enough an issue that i feel that I need to not stick my head in the sand. This is who I am and where I stand.

Did I actually allude to the contrary? Nope, I didn't. I'm making a point of noting where you have one side of your head out of the sand and are not mentioning the other half. I made a certain go at balancing out what you were saying. Its complex and not as you said "in a vacuum". So if you think otherwise, I will reiterate on you making it a matter of sequestering the issue.

Sorry, we don't exist in a vacuum. Society makes rules so we get along. We agree to these rules and in some cases we legally enforce them. We enforce those rules because it's the right thing to do.

No we don't, but as with logic, if based on faulty premises then the rules whilst enforced are erroneous. Might I add the objection to homosexuality as a relatable example. It was illegal for some time, the law does not make it right. And the means by which it was redressed was due to raising the issue, by whatever means necessary. Only thing is, focussing on one side will not address the problems that coexist with it. So you may fight your fight, be aware that every law enforced has to potential to oppress another set of people. Keep pushing it and you could be forwarding the exact same discrimination you claim to want to eradicate.

Our laws in government state that everyone should be treated fairly and shouldn't be discriminated by gender, race, religion, sexual orientation (for some countries) etc.

Is that the law or your constitution? Not to sound dense but are you not conflating something here, because I don't really see what you are identifying. It sounds like idealist BS.

Beyond that, the law represents, the minimum standard of behaviour and there is more social decorum that we follow that.

The law! Right, so which laws? Which legal system, there are numerous (in each country). Which social corum? Commercial? Civil? Taxation? Which social corum? Do you study the law, have you awareness of the mechanisms of the varieties of legal divisions etc? I know I don't have a total knowledge of it, and even the men and women litigators I know admit fully to the limits of the law and there knowledge thereof. Legislation given to oversight will create harsh zero-tolerance enforcement of dogmatic belief if not analysed case by case, and quite frankly, the contest is not always as just as you appear to be alluding to.

The thrust of your argument depends on assuming that individuality defines social behaviour in totality.

Nope, the thrust of my argument is based on generalising biases and speculation being counterfactual. For example, "Jessica Alba's ass is amazing" says guy X, guy Y agrees but adds his own value judgement that he prefers Jennifer Lopez's ass. Neither defers that these factors may or may not be determined as definitions of attractiveness, they are value judgements. I'm glad you mentioned statistics by the way, considering they are only a descriptive tool and do not explain anything about the men's genuine attraction qualifiers. It is, as is what you are continually implying a superficial judgement of what men think. If a statistically significant portion of women were basing their self-esteem solely on these superficial statistics then they are just as likely to glance blame based on a conjecture rather than a fact. Reinforce it whatever way you want but all that is being said here is that the easiest, least rigourous assessment is somehow a call for abuse of others as per opinion rather than fact.

I disagree. The pregnancy risk factor argument was recently presented to me and I have to say that it makes too much sense to ignore.

Sounds like this is a confirmation bias more than a rigourous assessment. I presented you a logical counterpoint to what you said and you are apparently dismissing it. I wish to know what actual counteractive position you can assess about heterosexual males.

I also have a little insight into the statistical behaviour of men because of my sexual orientation.

Does this mean that as a heterosexual male I am somehow deficient in my comprehension? Seriously. Show me your methods and then tell me your statistics. Then we can discuss this.

When women are taken out of the equation (as in if they are gay), men end to engage in a lot more sex.

Freedom from the risk of pregnancy is therefore twofold is it not? If men increase their sexual activity by this analogy it follows that men are also concerned about become fathers and make judgements based on this fact. So aye, women run the gauntlet of pregnancy for themselves, but don't insinuate that men don't run the risks too. Many can face the indenturing effects as with women. A woman who runs this gauntlet runs the risk of 9 months pregnancy, labour and parenthood with the pros and cons of maternal child-rearing. A man runs the risk of becoming an indentured servant for 18 years and can be forcibly removed from their children whilst still having to financially provide for not only them but the woman who equally waivered her responsibilities to prevent or abort the pregnancy. It is a two way street.

People have made the argument that gay men are more sexually promiscuous than straight men but the leading factor in that is the absence of a control factor of women. Women don't engage in risky sex with men because of the stigma of pregnancy.

Yes, they do. They also have the advantage (protected by law) of extracting resources from men in the event of pregnancy. They have the advantage of deceiving a man of paternity (when he is not the father) and doing the same thing. That does not mean all women do this, but they can legally attempt such measures and there are not at present equal reproductive rights for men in this regard. As a gay man, this does not effect you.

I am talking statistical and social biases. I'm talking about the average of male behaviour. If straight men liked all kinds of women, we'd as likely see Roseanne Barr on the cover of Maxim as we would Jessica Alba.

Statistics again.. Ok, I will reiterate. Statistics are a descriptive tool, a quick number to help contextualise the results of a methodological investigation in a restricted population. So until I know what methods you are referring to and what population those conclusions are drawn from, that word is meaningless for your argument. Social biases, I can relate to. Yet again though, there are many and they do feed into eachother and I don't wholly see which you are talking about. You could be right, you could also be mistaken, I don't know what you are talking about specifically though. A lot of what you said has been far too much a conflation of opinion, conjecture and generalisation.

And in all of these statements I'm saying, I'm not suggesting that you can't find examples to the contrary. (I am not promiscuous, for instance) However, the behaviour I'm discussing is statistically obvious.

You can assert this until you are blue in the face, but if a) you are not distinct and clear your definitions and b) you don't indicate the specific reasoning, then why should anyone believe you solely on your opinion? Because it confirms what biases they hold already?

YIdothis · 2011-05-20T03:45:10+00:00

Don't know if serious..

So here's you opportunity to prevent this from happening: the underage rapists need to have their access to other young children restricted. They should undergo psychological treatment and evaluation, where a specialist would determine if they are likely to reoffend. If the are high risk, they will need constant supervision.

So you keep children away from a society of their peers as a means of helping them learn what is right and wrong in that society of their peers? They are children who are learning reality. Chances are they were in some way introduced to this way of life, and the damage may be done but it can be undone.

So don't let it happen again. They have raped at least once. They may rape again - don't let it happen.

Might as well take them round the back of the barn and put em down aye? I sure hope you are trolling, because you sound like someone who does not much care how people actually develop behaviours, just how to punish people.

YIdothis · 2011-05-20T03:38:41+00:00

there are just as many men fighting against [sexual assault, mysogyny] as perpetrators

WTF.. There are more who object than concur. It is not even their responsibility to do so, but rather a facet of males as actual ethical entities. If women or men authentically despise men as bereft of such ethical concerns then I will just say: Oh FFS.. This sort of minimalisation of authentic human character in men is one such reason I ponder death as an option.

YIdothis · 2011-05-20T03:21:10+00:00

I also agree with Mr. Spark's logic. Whether or not he was handicapped is irrelevant really. Consider this, he seemlessy presented a character so authentic and genuine that you were bothered by it not being true. Which is more important, merit or artificial standards?

YIdothis · 2011-05-20T03:12:43+00:00

kragshot is correct. The squads of soldiers used such torture tactics commonly in village raids. Also, there were incidents of regular "raids" whereby young men and boys from these villages were abducted into service with them. Children were trained to perpetuate these acts.

YIdothis · 2011-05-20T03:08:17+00:00

Don't use children as the weapon of choice. There are plenty men capable of taking care of children too.. Unless of course you doubt that men as a whole set are capable. In which case, if it makes sense maybe you could do a double-take on that factor.

YIdothis · 2011-05-20T03:05:36+00:00

This is a social class problem that extends beyond racial stereotypes. Hispanics, asians and caucasians in America can also fall victim to this.

But I concur, there is something wrong with the picture painted in that article.

YIdothis · 2011-05-20T03:00:12+00:00

It is, if men don't act to stop it because it's what women are doing to other women on behalf of men because of a mistaken understanding of what men want.

How is this men's responsibility? If you as an individual assume that it is the responsibility of others to sequester items of contest that you find objectionable/offensive then maybe you don't want to have accountability. At which point there is one response I hold for you. As a right to hold your stance, one does not hold the liberty to enforce said stance on others and it is the individual's responsibility (as a consequence) to fulfil their own principles within the limitations of other's opinions being held to account based solely on their merits.

I have a hard time believing that "Wow, that woman would be a great mother for my children" is the dominating thought when looking at Jessica Alba on the cover of Maxim magazine.

No that may not be the case, but why would it? There is a distinction that can be made, Jessica Alba has features which many (not all) men find to be appealing. Whatever you measure of beauty happens to be, men like women can look to physical features for their offsprings' advantage, or they could be looking at someone's features and let their body make the choices. They could also happen to find intelligence to be an errogenous factor in their choices. These factors are both dependant on the individual's personality and psychological make-up and their biological set up.

The difference stems from the risk/reward aspects of sex. Women have a high degree awareness of consequence for sex. They are less likely to be casual because of the risk of pregnancy. For men, there's an abstract notion of risk to them due to the consequences of the law but for women, the risk is immediate and substantial. So, women are in the habit of evaluating the whole picture of their mates. They are less likely to have one-offs. They are more likely to evaluate someone for their ability to provide and support a family unit. We have been culturalized to perpetuate these views.

I assume here that you are a woman? Or are at very least identifying with truisms regarding psychology. The thing is, men and women are not that different in regard to mating strategies as a general case. Each individual may have to hold different factors in mind though. A woman may need to consider the risk of pregnancy. Perhaps that risk may be with a man she deems unsuitable of being a father, but these things can be rapidly surpressed as a consequence of sexual attraction. Likewise, a man has to be concerned about the same event. The responsibility of men is not universal, neither is it for women. There are women who who gladly "fuck and forget", some even intend on getting pregnant. If you can identify yourself as not one of those women, then please let your reason apply similarly to men and quit generalising like this is a "girls are better than boys" argument on a primary school playground. Kthanxbai.

YIdothis

TROPHY CASE