|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 14 2016 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:...
As of now I'm inclined to think there is literally nothing she could do or say that would prevent her supporters (who can vote) from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it.
Okay, here's one: solid, actual proof that she'd taken serious bribes for some nefarious purpose or another.
|
On October 15 2016 00:02 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 23:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 23:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 23:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I think you misread my comment, but remind us how Russia feels about the "defense system" we're installing over there in your neck of the woods? The US - Russia balance of power holds by the Mutual Annihilation doctrine. If you build an anti missile system around them, suddenly the balance changes drastically: the US can annihilate Russia, but Russia can't annihilate the US. That's a historical doctrine that has existed from the cold war. I don't think the US - Chinese relations are based on any such doctrine. And North Korea, well... But again and again, it's probably a terrible idea and it's not in Clinton platform. What's the deal here exactly? Besides that anyone would know it's a terrible idea before having to be told so (presumably a SoS should be on that list), it's further evidence of her hawkish tendencies. So for people like Plansix who are voting for her with thoughts of their brother not going to war, it's more evidence that it was always a pipe dream. Also, if you think Hillary's platform accurately represents what she intends to accomplish, then I also have a bridge to sell you. Oooooh I see. Hillary is bad because she suggested to make a defense system against NK once three years ago. - So on the one hand, you use one sentence said three years ago to say that she hawkish. - On the other one you assume that nothing in her platform or what she says has any value because she is an evil hypocritical liar. That's a bit paradoxical. My question is, since you have decided that her word was worth 0, why do you try to convince us with one sentence of her 3 years ago. Maybe she was being hypocritical and was lying. She never intended to build a defense system in fact she is a naive stupid liberal dove. See, I can do it the other way round. I get it, you really, really, really hate her. But then there is not much to discuss. She says something good you dismiss it, she says something bad (three years ago, once) it's a further proof she is evil. Not great material for a good discussion, especially with people who are not as enraged against her as you are. Your are being disingenuous or intentionally dense by suggesting I'm using a single sentence from 3 years ago. You are again being disingenuous or intentionally dense by not seeing the obvious difference between what she says in public versus what is said in private. Finally you keep trying to say I "hate" her or think she's "evil" and I've told you several times now that I don't. Plenty of people who share my other opinions do, but you can't dismiss my disagreements as just being rage fueled nothings, because you don't see all of the lies as problematic. Well, for a democrat, Clinton is on the hawkish side, I agree. I was just questioning your modus operandi. Do you realize that what someone writes in private emails is not his definitive conclusion, and not his official position. It's perfectly normal Clinton throws good and bad ideas in private emails. To attack her on that is bat shit crazy. It never made it to an agenda, she probably ended up thinking it was a bad idea or not feasible and counter productive, and moved on. Maybe she was really pissed and frustrated at the Chinese that day and was only expressing anger by making a stupid suggestion. See, that's why private is private and public is public. Also. Come on, your idea of Clinton is completely extreme. Yeah, Clinton has been shady and probably disingenuous about her emails. Ok, she was probably trying to cover her ass for that mistake. And yeah, the Democratic party wanted her. You have the right not to like her. But you don't think one good thing she ever says is sincere, you just make her into some kind of monster serial liar that has no pure intention ever and don't give a fuck about anything. It's your right. Just admit that it makes discussion impossible, because we have no material to discuss. If I say "Hillary has a great plan for education" you will answer "she doesn't mean it". Well, elections are about programs. You can't discuss an election if you first assume that the candidates are 100% disingenuous. "Yeah Clinton is a repeated liar, but calling her one isn't fair"... The DNC lied repeatedly, cheated, and manipulated the process against their own rules, characterizing that as "the Democratic party wanted her" is laughable. The discussion may be impossible, but not for the reasons you selected. She's not a monster, without good intentions, she (like many politicians) is simply addicted to the money/power. As such, she behaves like an addict. Addicts aren't evil people, but they are sick and need help, not enablers. Hillary is the DNC? So everything that the DNC does is Hillary's fault. Your psychological stuff is cheap as fuck. You don't know her and you are not a specialist. You are just making assumptions about her motivations based on your feelings about her. You could say the same crap about any politician and it would bring you nowhere because you have no idea. You call her a liar if you want. She is a liar insofar she lied about this or that. But I say "look, it's not in her platform" and you answer "she is a liar it doesn't matter". Well, in that case there is, again nothing to discuss. You hate her because the DNC favoured her (she didn't need it she crushed Bernie but anyway), you made up your homemade psychoanalytic little tale and you decided there is nothing genuine about her except her thirst for power and money and that anytime she might say something good, it comes from a bad place. Well, that sounds awfully like bitterness, and there is very little to talk about. What can we contribute in your thought by talking with you? You are completely hermetic. Your stuff about her is a close system. And how can you contribute? By making us think she is horrible horrible horrible because the DNC was partial? And then what? Meanwhile, there is Drumpf on the other side. But carry on with your petty vendetta. Ideally people at least recognize she is not honest when it suits her and that her struggling this hard against Drumpf (she can't even get 50%) combined with her (and the DNC's) deception, means that at best, she's our only option until 2020 when people who have been awoken to her real motives and goals realize that she needs to be primaried. As of now I'm inclined to think there is literally nothing she could do or say that would prevent her supporters (who can vote) from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it. As of now Im inclined to think that nothing she could do or say would prevent her detractors from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it. This is a nothing discussion.
I said this a LOOOONG time ago. If she came clean and had a "come to Jesus" moment I would probably vote for her. It's easier to say it's impossible to have a discussion when you refuse to even engage with what is actually being said.
|
On October 14 2016 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 23:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 23:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 23:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:31 Sent. wrote:
Why would you build a missile defense system around China or Russia? I can understand surrounding Iran or North Korea with such systems because they're poor as fuck and can't afford to build thousands of missiles but it doesn't seem logical against great/super/mega powers. If I recall correctly missile defense systems aren't cost effective. I think you misread my comment, but remind us how Russia feels about the "defense system" we're installing over there in your neck of the woods? The US - Russia balance of power holds by the Mutual Annihilation doctrine. If you build an anti missile system around them, suddenly the balance changes drastically: the US can annihilate Russia, but Russia can't annihilate the US. That's a historical doctrine that has existed from the cold war. I don't think the US - Chinese relations are based on any such doctrine. And North Korea, well... But again and again, it's probably a terrible idea and it's not in Clinton platform. What's the deal here exactly? Besides that anyone would know it's a terrible idea before having to be told so (presumably a SoS should be on that list), it's further evidence of her hawkish tendencies. So for people like Plansix who are voting for her with thoughts of their brother not going to war, it's more evidence that it was always a pipe dream. Also, if you think Hillary's platform accurately represents what she intends to accomplish, then I also have a bridge to sell you. Oooooh I see. Hillary is bad because she suggested to make a defense system against NK once three years ago. - So on the one hand, you use one sentence said three years ago to say that she hawkish. - On the other one you assume that nothing in her platform or what she says has any value because she is an evil hypocritical liar. That's a bit paradoxical. My question is, since you have decided that her word was worth 0, why do you try to convince us with one sentence of her 3 years ago. Maybe she was being hypocritical and was lying. She never intended to build a defense system in fact she is a naive stupid liberal dove. See, I can do it the other way round. I get it, you really, really, really hate her. But then there is not much to discuss. She says something good you dismiss it, she says something bad (three years ago, once) it's a further proof she is evil. Not great material for a good discussion, especially with people who are not as enraged against her as you are. Your are being disingenuous or intentionally dense by suggesting I'm using a single sentence from 3 years ago. You are again being disingenuous or intentionally dense by not seeing the obvious difference between what she says in public versus what is said in private. Finally you keep trying to say I "hate" her or think she's "evil" and I've told you several times now that I don't. Plenty of people who share my other opinions do, but you can't dismiss my disagreements as just being rage fueled nothings, because you don't see all of the lies as problematic. Well, for a democrat, Clinton is on the hawkish side, I agree. I was just questioning your modus operandi. Do you realize that what someone writes in private emails is not his definitive conclusion, and not his official position. It's perfectly normal Clinton throws good and bad ideas in private emails. To attack her on that is bat shit crazy. It never made it to an agenda, she probably ended up thinking it was a bad idea or not feasible and counter productive, and moved on. Maybe she was really pissed and frustrated at the Chinese that day and was only expressing anger by making a stupid suggestion. See, that's why private is private and public is public. Also. Come on, your idea of Clinton is completely extreme. Yeah, Clinton has been shady and probably disingenuous about her emails. Ok, she was probably trying to cover her ass for that mistake. And yeah, the Democratic party wanted her. You have the right not to like her. But you don't think one good thing she ever says is sincere, you just make her into some kind of monster serial liar that has no pure intention ever and don't give a fuck about anything. It's your right. Just admit that it makes discussion impossible, because we have no material to discuss. If I say "Hillary has a great plan for education" you will answer "she doesn't mean it". Well, elections are about programs. You can't discuss an election if you first assume that the candidates are 100% disingenuous. "Yeah Clinton is a repeated liar, but calling her one isn't fair"... The DNC lied repeatedly, cheated, and manipulated the process against their own rules, characterizing that as "the Democratic party wanted her" is laughable. The discussion may be impossible, but not for the reasons you selected. She's not a monster, without good intentions, she (like many politicians) is simply addicted to the money/power. As such, she behaves like an addict. Addicts aren't evil people, but they are sick and need help, not enablers. Hillary is the DNC? So everything that the DNC does is Hillary's fault. Your psychological stuff is cheap as fuck. You don't know her and you are not a specialist. You are just making assumptions about her motivations based on your feelings about her. You could say the same crap about any politician and it would bring you nowhere because you have no idea. You call her a liar if you want. She is a liar insofar she lied about this or that. But I say "look, it's not in her platform" and you answer "she is a liar it doesn't matter". Well, in that case there is, again nothing to discuss. You hate her because the DNC favoured her (she didn't need it she crushed Bernie but anyway), you made up your homemade psychoanalytic little tale and you decided there is nothing genuine about her except her thirst for power and money and that anytime she might say something good, it comes from a bad place. Well, that sounds awfully like bitterness, and there is very little to talk about. What can we contribute in your thought by talking with you? You are completely hermetic. Your stuff about her is a close system. And how can you contribute? By making us think she is horrible horrible horrible because the DNC was partial? And then what? Meanwhile, there is Trump on the other side. But carry on with your petty vendetta. Ideally people at least recognize she is not honest when it suits her and that her struggling this hard against Trump (she can't even get 50%) combined with her (and the DNC's) deception, means that at best, she's our only option until 2020 when people who have been awoken to her real motives and goals realize that she needs to be primaried. As of now I'm inclined to think there is literally nothing she could do or say that would prevent her supporters (who can vote) from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it.
Well, she is struggling because the right has a gigantic propaganda machine and that the left has it share of useful idiots. I mean when the news are about her email for A YEAR, literally, of course she struggles.
I'm sure you would do everything you can to make her lose that election. I mentioned it a long time ago, you don't give a fuck about the consequences of a Trump presidency. You don't care that he will obliterates the efforts made by the democratic party to prevent global warming to accelerate, you don't care how his tax plan will skyrocket inequalities, that he wants to dismantle the little social security the US provides to vulnerable people. You don't give a crap about the immigrants he wants to deport, about the supreme court that will decide that you can keep fucking up with women's rights, about the position of the US in the world that is going to be completely jeopardized.
Again, it's not about the people and the country, it's between you and your little crusade against Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Well, GH, that's low.
|
On October 15 2016 00:03 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:...
As of now I'm inclined to think there is literally nothing she could do or say that would prevent her supporters (who can vote) from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it. Okay, here's one: solid, actual proof that she'd taken serious bribes for some nefarious purpose or another.
Unfortunately you don't qualify.
Honest question: Do you see the problem with the qualifiers "serious" bribes and "nefarious" purpose?
On October 15 2016 00:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 23:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 23:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 23:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I think you misread my comment, but remind us how Russia feels about the "defense system" we're installing over there in your neck of the woods? The US - Russia balance of power holds by the Mutual Annihilation doctrine. If you build an anti missile system around them, suddenly the balance changes drastically: the US can annihilate Russia, but Russia can't annihilate the US. That's a historical doctrine that has existed from the cold war. I don't think the US - Chinese relations are based on any such doctrine. And North Korea, well... But again and again, it's probably a terrible idea and it's not in Clinton platform. What's the deal here exactly? Besides that anyone would know it's a terrible idea before having to be told so (presumably a SoS should be on that list), it's further evidence of her hawkish tendencies. So for people like Plansix who are voting for her with thoughts of their brother not going to war, it's more evidence that it was always a pipe dream. Also, if you think Hillary's platform accurately represents what she intends to accomplish, then I also have a bridge to sell you. Oooooh I see. Hillary is bad because she suggested to make a defense system against NK once three years ago. - So on the one hand, you use one sentence said three years ago to say that she hawkish. - On the other one you assume that nothing in her platform or what she says has any value because she is an evil hypocritical liar. That's a bit paradoxical. My question is, since you have decided that her word was worth 0, why do you try to convince us with one sentence of her 3 years ago. Maybe she was being hypocritical and was lying. She never intended to build a defense system in fact she is a naive stupid liberal dove. See, I can do it the other way round. I get it, you really, really, really hate her. But then there is not much to discuss. She says something good you dismiss it, she says something bad (three years ago, once) it's a further proof she is evil. Not great material for a good discussion, especially with people who are not as enraged against her as you are. Your are being disingenuous or intentionally dense by suggesting I'm using a single sentence from 3 years ago. You are again being disingenuous or intentionally dense by not seeing the obvious difference between what she says in public versus what is said in private. Finally you keep trying to say I "hate" her or think she's "evil" and I've told you several times now that I don't. Plenty of people who share my other opinions do, but you can't dismiss my disagreements as just being rage fueled nothings, because you don't see all of the lies as problematic. Well, for a democrat, Clinton is on the hawkish side, I agree. I was just questioning your modus operandi. Do you realize that what someone writes in private emails is not his definitive conclusion, and not his official position. It's perfectly normal Clinton throws good and bad ideas in private emails. To attack her on that is bat shit crazy. It never made it to an agenda, she probably ended up thinking it was a bad idea or not feasible and counter productive, and moved on. Maybe she was really pissed and frustrated at the Chinese that day and was only expressing anger by making a stupid suggestion. See, that's why private is private and public is public. Also. Come on, your idea of Clinton is completely extreme. Yeah, Clinton has been shady and probably disingenuous about her emails. Ok, she was probably trying to cover her ass for that mistake. And yeah, the Democratic party wanted her. You have the right not to like her. But you don't think one good thing she ever says is sincere, you just make her into some kind of monster serial liar that has no pure intention ever and don't give a fuck about anything. It's your right. Just admit that it makes discussion impossible, because we have no material to discuss. If I say "Hillary has a great plan for education" you will answer "she doesn't mean it". Well, elections are about programs. You can't discuss an election if you first assume that the candidates are 100% disingenuous. "Yeah Clinton is a repeated liar, but calling her one isn't fair"... The DNC lied repeatedly, cheated, and manipulated the process against their own rules, characterizing that as "the Democratic party wanted her" is laughable. The discussion may be impossible, but not for the reasons you selected. She's not a monster, without good intentions, she (like many politicians) is simply addicted to the money/power. As such, she behaves like an addict. Addicts aren't evil people, but they are sick and need help, not enablers. Hillary is the DNC? So everything that the DNC does is Hillary's fault. Your psychological stuff is cheap as fuck. You don't know her and you are not a specialist. You are just making assumptions about her motivations based on your feelings about her. You could say the same crap about any politician and it would bring you nowhere because you have no idea. You call her a liar if you want. She is a liar insofar she lied about this or that. But I say "look, it's not in her platform" and you answer "she is a liar it doesn't matter". Well, in that case there is, again nothing to discuss. You hate her because the DNC favoured her (she didn't need it she crushed Bernie but anyway), you made up your homemade psychoanalytic little tale and you decided there is nothing genuine about her except her thirst for power and money and that anytime she might say something good, it comes from a bad place. Well, that sounds awfully like bitterness, and there is very little to talk about. What can we contribute in your thought by talking with you? You are completely hermetic. Your stuff about her is a close system. And how can you contribute? By making us think she is horrible horrible horrible because the DNC was partial? And then what? Meanwhile, there is Trump on the other side. But carry on with your petty vendetta. Ideally people at least recognize she is not honest when it suits her and that her struggling this hard against Trump (she can't even get 50%) combined with her (and the DNC's) deception, means that at best, she's our only option until 2020 when people who have been awoken to her real motives and goals realize that she needs to be primaried. As of now I'm inclined to think there is literally nothing she could do or say that would prevent her supporters (who can vote) from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it. Well, she is struggling because the right has a gigantic propaganda machine and that the left has it share of useful idiots. I mean when the news are about her email for A YEAR, literally, of course she struggles. I'm sure you would do everything you can to make her lose that election. I mentioned it a long time ago, you don't give a fuck about the consequences of a Trump presidency. You don't care that he will obliterates the efforts made by the democratic party to prevent global warming to accelerate, you don't care how his tax plan will skyrocket inequalities, that he wants to dismantle the little social security the US provides to vulnerable people. You don't give a crap about the immigrants he wants to deport, about the supreme court that will decide that you can keep fucking up with women's rights, about the position of the US in the world that is going to be completely jeopardized. Again, it's not about the people and the country, it's between you and your little crusade against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Well, GH, that's low.
Yup, I don't care about all of those groups/issues (most of which directly impact me)... That's the same "privilege" crap I get from white people telling me I don't care about black people. Maybe, just maybe, we've noticed neither party gives a shit about us other than when we're voting. Which is almost always in the context of "well the other guy will be a worse slave master".
Maybe, just maybe, we're fed up with being threatened into supporting someone who will make things worse, using a bigger asshole. Perhaps we're just waiting for others to pull their head out and realize that hostage voting leads us down a path of things getting worse, not better.
|
On October 15 2016 00:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 23:48 a_flayer wrote:On October 14 2016 23:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2016 23:30 Antyee wrote:On October 14 2016 23:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2016 23:20 Antyee wrote:On October 14 2016 23:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2016 23:09 Antyee wrote:On October 14 2016 22:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2016 22:40 Kickboxer wrote:
The relationship between genders when it comes to sex and courtship (seduction) is an extremely complicated matter, and there is no simple way to address it. I do agree women remain far too vulnerable to actual assault and sexual bullying, and that this is a real issue we need to work on, but the term "rape culture" is simply not the best one, and the people fighting for the cause need to choose another banner in addition to facing some serious issues they have willfully chosen to ignore.
Women simply do prefer assertive powerful men. They do prefer "aggressive" men. It might be deeply illogical and unfortunate, but it is a pragmatic fact of reality. It is the way Homo Sapiens mates, and anyone honest with themselves who's not angered by their own sexual frustration will begrudgingly recognize this.
A vast majority of females (that have not experienced sexual trauma of course) strongly prefer a hint of "sexual aggression", they do respond to "dominance", they do respond to a certain degree of autonomous boldness, and sometimes you simply do have to kiss the girl (or as "dogs" would figuratively put it "grab her by the pussy"), or you will lose her to a more confident man - even though she is not holding up a consent poster. Until the split second the woman actively resists (which is the clear line of real sexual assault as far as I am concerned) the distinction between "alpha" behavior that often brings great real-life success with women, and cancerous behavior that terrorizes them is nearly impossible to draw.
And that, in a nutshell, is why some people are willing to forgive Trump for his "locker room" talk (though he is still a pig because he's clearly crossed this line habitually).
Cat-calling is also a nuanced concept because it is in many ways an instinctive response to the sexual power an attractive woman willingly exerts upon the male subconsciousness. No, this does not mean they "deserve" to be groped let alone assaulted (!), but it is a particular form of violence against men that I feel is never properly addressed.
What I just said perhaps makes some people facepalm and cringe, but your problem then lies with the factual reality of sexual relations between men and women and not with my speculation.
Women rage about the necessity of wearing make-up 24/7 and about being objectified all the time, but most of them nevertheless spend half their money and time specifically on the task of appearing sexually attractive to men in a radius as wide as possible, because that gives them vast amounts of "soft" power over men.
Our culture has been glorifying female sexual liberation for 30 years non-stop, in addition to enforcing highly dubious ideas of "gender fluidity" marshaled by the exact same people using the term rape culture, to a point where most female celebrities (women adored and mimicked by young girls all across the world) are famous for some kind of porn, and many of them, frankly, act like sluts - or more precisely, they act like men. Why don't we ever talk about that? Do you think this contributes to the problem of rape culture or not?
Post-Samantha, in the age of Miley Cyrus and the Kardashians, is it safe to say we have a "whore culture" problem in addition to a "rape culture" problem? Is this a legitimate topic to discuss or am I deplorable? I don't know but if someone is triggered by the obscene (and deliberately obtuse) way I framed this, they should understand that championing beta behavior as a one-stop solution to the issues of violence between genders triggers many people, too, and directly helps politicians like Trump rally the silent majority. 1.) People are attracted to the options around them. If they live in a culture that values rape, they will be attracted to rapey things. Women are not "illogically" attracted to it, its a side effect that rape permeates so much of the culture that often the choice women have is to either fetish it or become celibate. 2.) Women wear makeup because the west is such a misogynistic culture, it is impossible for women to feel value outside of their own bodies. Western culture emphasizes the importance of the female body as a fuck toy to rape that in order for many women engaged in that culture, beautification to maximize the value they are told to have becomes primary. 3.) There is no such thing as a whore problem. Women enjoying sex is a not a whore problem. A whore problem is when you disallow and make illegal for women to earn an income and women are forced to become whores to make ends meet. A woman enjoying sex is, in and of itself, normal. Now if women walked around, grabbing little boys dicks, going to school and and took videos of little boys peeing, broke into peoples houses and fucked men at gun point, then you can talk about women acting too much like men. But just because they like having sex too--that's a fairly stupid thing to bring up. 4.) The reason women are doing the things you observe them doing is because the west glorifies rape. Women, also being part of western culture, can't help but be forced to engage in it as well. That's what the fucking word culture means--its the thing a group of people do. The reason its illogical and seems to serve people's interest other than the woman's is because the west is a misogynistic culture that doesn't give a fuck about the woman's thoughts and ideas. And then teaches the woman to think the same. This is probably the most anti-women thing I read in a very long time. You are saying that women are too weak to have a mind of their own, make decisions for themselves or just do anything not for men. It's not western society but you who think they are only fuck toys. Read it again. Slower, and use a dictionary for the words you don't understand. Because I fail to see how women enjoying things in the culture they are in equates to being weak minded to you. I don't even see how that equates to them being fuck toys being I don't actually talk about anything in those points about them being fuck toys. 'Use a dictionary' - one hell of an arguement lol. "Women wear makeup because the west is such a misogynistic culture, it is impossible for women to feel value outside of their own bodies." "Women, also being part of western culture, can't help but be forced to engage in it as well." As I said, you claim they are helpless. Moreover, if you now claim they are enjoying it, why is it a bad thing? Seriously, a dictionary, use it. Look up culture. See what it means. Because I don't think you understand words. Lets use a different example since you get very emotional and defensive with rape culture. Lets talk Movie Star Culture. There are good looking movie stars (citation needed), that people desire (citation needed), because they are a big part of movie star culture. People talk about movie stars (citation needed), admire them (citation needed), lust after them (citation needed), and they do this because a lot of people talk about them (citation needed). Since we are in a movie star culture, we can't help but enjoy talking about, fantasizing, and relating things to movies, movie stars, etc... Since it is cultural, we naturally tend to bring it up as a topic of conversation, thoughts, ideas, etc... Its the same with our idea of placing value in the looks of women. As a culture, we highly value good looking women. As such, just like people can't help talking about the Kardashians (you even know who I am talking about just saying Kardashian) women can't help but embody that cultural ideal. Much like it isn't weak to enjoy watching a Star Wars movie, it isn't weak to enjoy the things the culture you are in emphasizes as important. Now, go read a dictionary, and learn words. Once you know what words mean, you can better understand what is being talked about. I won't argue with someone whose only arguement is 'read a dictionary'. EDIT: dumbs happened. I'm serious about it though. In fact, get an anthropology 101 book. I really don't think you understand what the word culture means. I even shifted the subject away from rape culture into celebrity culture to show you that people love talking, thinking, and fantasizing about things in their culture. But somehow you still don't understand what culture means. Please, look it up, it will be very helpful to you. You can define culture very broadly or very narrowly. I always assume culture in common usage to be defined as human group behaviour within a context of 25-50 years and in a limited region. The sub/dom situation within human relations that Kickboxer so adequately described has existed within humanity for thousands of years. It might even actually predate the homo sapien. So yeah, I don't think you can attribute the sexual relation between man and woman that exists today to "rape culture". It is part of the human condition. And yeah, obviously we need to be aware of the dangers and pitfalls of this, and we need to ensure that people are educated enough and sufficiently capable of reason to know not to force themselves on someone against their will. But to attribute this problem that exists to today's culture is denying the human condition. Culture does not have a time limit... And just because there was rape culture in the past does not mean we are bound to it now. Much like just because we had cannibalism in the past does not mean we are bound to it now.
What are you talking about? Culture has a time limit. We do not live in the "culture of Ancient Rome". The time of that culture has passed... Culture is ever-changing and thus if you are talking about a -specific culture-, you must be talking about a specific period in time during which that culture existed or exists. Defining boundaries of when a culture starts or ends is obviously vague and fluid depending on which ideas you attribute to a specific culture, but cultures definitely exist within a specific period of time.
And what I'm trying to say with sexual relationship between man and woman and the potential of sexual abuse, is that is it not a cultural problem, but a human condition problem. While I certainly don't think that is a reason why we should accept or be comfortable with the idea that 10%-15% of women report being sexually assaulted, I think it is disingenuous to call it a rape culture that is the result of today's society. It clearly extends far beyond that - as I said, it is part of the human condition that has always been.
Oh, and you referred to western culture specifically, but Asians and Muslims also have within their brains this sub/dom concept and have very similar interactions between men and women in that respect. They are human after all.
|
???
"RE: McCain Survey- Take 3"
On October 15 2016 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 00:03 Aquanim wrote:On October 14 2016 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:...
As of now I'm inclined to think there is literally nothing she could do or say that would prevent her supporters (who can vote) from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it. Okay, here's one: solid, actual proof that she'd taken serious bribes for some nefarious purpose or another. Unfortunately you don't qualify. Honest question: Do you see the problem with the qualifiers "serious" bribes and "nefarious" purpose?
Reminder that GH comes in, drops his conspiracies, insults people then refuses to discuss anything.
|
On October 15 2016 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 00:03 Aquanim wrote:On October 14 2016 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:...
As of now I'm inclined to think there is literally nothing she could do or say that would prevent her supporters (who can vote) from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it. Okay, here's one: solid, actual proof that she'd taken serious bribes for some nefarious purpose or another. Unfortunately you don't qualify. Honest question: Do you see the problem with the qualifiers "serious" bribes and "nefarious" purpose?
There is actually nothing that will stop the leftists from supporting clinton. The end justification will be to say "not trump". It's how the system is set up, and I think you should give up on trying to get HRC supporters to admit to shit like that, it won't happen. As farva said, Ja rule and bonethugz will get their support. We do a lot of arguing here, but accomplish very little.
|
On October 15 2016 00:12 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 00:03 Aquanim wrote:On October 14 2016 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:...
As of now I'm inclined to think there is literally nothing she could do or say that would prevent her supporters (who can vote) from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it. Okay, here's one: solid, actual proof that she'd taken serious bribes for some nefarious purpose or another. Unfortunately you don't qualify. Honest question: Do you see the problem with the qualifiers "serious" bribes and "nefarious" purpose? There is actually nothing that will stop the leftists from supporting clinton. The end justification will be to say "not trump". It's how the system is set up, and I think you should give up on trying to get HRC supporters to admit to shit like that, it won't happen. As farva said, Ja rule and bonethugz will get their support. We do a lot of arguing here, but accomplish very little.
Irony being that GH is actual one of the most "left" people here.
|
On October 15 2016 00:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 00:12 biology]major wrote:On October 15 2016 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 00:03 Aquanim wrote:On October 14 2016 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:...
As of now I'm inclined to think there is literally nothing she could do or say that would prevent her supporters (who can vote) from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it. Okay, here's one: solid, actual proof that she'd taken serious bribes for some nefarious purpose or another. Unfortunately you don't qualify. Honest question: Do you see the problem with the qualifiers "serious" bribes and "nefarious" purpose? There is actually nothing that will stop the leftists from supporting clinton. The end justification will be to say "not trump". It's how the system is set up, and I think you should give up on trying to get HRC supporters to admit to shit like that, it won't happen. As farva said, Ja rule and bonethugz will get their support. We do a lot of arguing here, but accomplish very little. Irony being that GH is actual one of the most "left" people here.
He's an exception for being a bernie bro and was specifically stabbed in the back.
|
On October 15 2016 00:15 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 00:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 15 2016 00:12 biology]major wrote:On October 15 2016 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 00:03 Aquanim wrote:On October 14 2016 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:...
As of now I'm inclined to think there is literally nothing she could do or say that would prevent her supporters (who can vote) from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it. Okay, here's one: solid, actual proof that she'd taken serious bribes for some nefarious purpose or another. Unfortunately you don't qualify. Honest question: Do you see the problem with the qualifiers "serious" bribes and "nefarious" purpose? There is actually nothing that will stop the leftists from supporting clinton. The end justification will be to say "not trump". It's how the system is set up, and I think you should give up on trying to get HRC supporters to admit to shit like that, it won't happen. As farva said, Ja rule and bonethugz will get their support. We do a lot of arguing here, but accomplish very little. Irony being that GH is actual one of the most "left" people here. He's an exception for being a bernie bro and was specifically stabbed in the back.
Yes, stabbed in the back by 2 million votes. The horror.
|
On October 15 2016 00:12 biology]major wrote:
There is actually nothing that will stop the leftists from supporting clinton.
An actual alternative might.
|
On October 15 2016 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 00:15 biology]major wrote:On October 15 2016 00:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 15 2016 00:12 biology]major wrote:On October 15 2016 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 00:03 Aquanim wrote:On October 14 2016 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:...
As of now I'm inclined to think there is literally nothing she could do or say that would prevent her supporters (who can vote) from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it. Okay, here's one: solid, actual proof that she'd taken serious bribes for some nefarious purpose or another. Unfortunately you don't qualify. Honest question: Do you see the problem with the qualifiers "serious" bribes and "nefarious" purpose? There is actually nothing that will stop the leftists from supporting clinton. The end justification will be to say "not trump". It's how the system is set up, and I think you should give up on trying to get HRC supporters to admit to shit like that, it won't happen. As farva said, Ja rule and bonethugz will get their support. We do a lot of arguing here, but accomplish very little. Irony being that GH is actual one of the most "left" people here. He's an exception for being a bernie bro and was specifically stabbed in the back. Yes, stabbed in the back by 2 million votes. The horror.
wikileaks showing new stuff about how primary debates were rigged also.
|
On October 15 2016 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 00:15 biology]major wrote:On October 15 2016 00:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 15 2016 00:12 biology]major wrote:On October 15 2016 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 00:03 Aquanim wrote:On October 14 2016 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:...
As of now I'm inclined to think there is literally nothing she could do or say that would prevent her supporters (who can vote) from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it. Okay, here's one: solid, actual proof that she'd taken serious bribes for some nefarious purpose or another. Unfortunately you don't qualify. Honest question: Do you see the problem with the qualifiers "serious" bribes and "nefarious" purpose? There is actually nothing that will stop the leftists from supporting clinton. The end justification will be to say "not trump". It's how the system is set up, and I think you should give up on trying to get HRC supporters to admit to shit like that, it won't happen. As farva said, Ja rule and bonethugz will get their support. We do a lot of arguing here, but accomplish very little. Irony being that GH is actual one of the most "left" people here. He's an exception for being a bernie bro and was specifically stabbed in the back. Yes, stabbed in the back by 2 million votes. The horror.
It's less that the DNC lied, cheated, manipulated the process against their own rules, than the arrogance with which her supporters celebrate it, that strikes me as impressive.
|
On October 15 2016 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:...
Honest question: Do you see the problem with the qualifiers "serious" bribes and "nefarious" purpose?
You didn't ask for the minimum which would see people decide not to vote for Clinton. I went with something that most definitely would.
|
On October 15 2016 00:21 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:...
Honest question: Do you see the problem with the qualifiers "serious" bribes and "nefarious" purpose?
You didn't ask for the minimum which would see people decide not to vote for Clinton. I went with something that most definitely would.
In which case you presume they would do what?
|
On October 15 2016 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2016 00:15 biology]major wrote:On October 15 2016 00:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 15 2016 00:12 biology]major wrote:On October 15 2016 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 00:03 Aquanim wrote:On October 14 2016 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:...
As of now I'm inclined to think there is literally nothing she could do or say that would prevent her supporters (who can vote) from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it. Okay, here's one: solid, actual proof that she'd taken serious bribes for some nefarious purpose or another. Unfortunately you don't qualify. Honest question: Do you see the problem with the qualifiers "serious" bribes and "nefarious" purpose? There is actually nothing that will stop the leftists from supporting clinton. The end justification will be to say "not trump". It's how the system is set up, and I think you should give up on trying to get HRC supporters to admit to shit like that, it won't happen. As farva said, Ja rule and bonethugz will get their support. We do a lot of arguing here, but accomplish very little. Irony being that GH is actual one of the most "left" people here. He's an exception for being a bernie bro and was specifically stabbed in the back. Yes, stabbed in the back by 2 million votes. The horror. It's less that the DNC lied, cheated, manipulated the process against their own rules, than the arrogance with which her supporters celebrate it, that strikes me as impressive.
And despite the utmost confidence that you can claim this, every time you're asked to show some actual evidence or proof you go off on dumb tangents.
|
On October 15 2016 00:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 00:21 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:...
Honest question: Do you see the problem with the qualifiers "serious" bribes and "nefarious" purpose?
You didn't ask for the minimum which would see people decide not to vote for Clinton. I went with something that most definitely would. In which case you presume they would do what?
I wouldn't care to speculate, though I doubt it would be voting for Trump in most cases. What is the point you're trying to make with this line of discussion?
|
On October 15 2016 00:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2016 00:15 biology]major wrote:On October 15 2016 00:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 15 2016 00:12 biology]major wrote:On October 15 2016 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 00:03 Aquanim wrote:On October 14 2016 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:...
As of now I'm inclined to think there is literally nothing she could do or say that would prevent her supporters (who can vote) from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it. Okay, here's one: solid, actual proof that she'd taken serious bribes for some nefarious purpose or another. Unfortunately you don't qualify. Honest question: Do you see the problem with the qualifiers "serious" bribes and "nefarious" purpose? There is actually nothing that will stop the leftists from supporting clinton. The end justification will be to say "not trump". It's how the system is set up, and I think you should give up on trying to get HRC supporters to admit to shit like that, it won't happen. As farva said, Ja rule and bonethugz will get their support. We do a lot of arguing here, but accomplish very little. Irony being that GH is actual one of the most "left" people here. He's an exception for being a bernie bro and was specifically stabbed in the back. Yes, stabbed in the back by 2 million votes. The horror. It's less that the DNC lied, cheated, manipulated the process against their own rules, than the arrogance with which her supporters celebrate it, that strikes me as impressive. And despite the utmost confidence that you can claim this, every time you're asked to show some actual evidence or proof you go off on dumb tangents.
Maybe when you ignore the posts you disagree with, but there's a post history we can all look at and see you aren't accurate in that assessment (or your previous one about my posting habits).
On October 15 2016 00:23 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 00:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 00:21 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:...
Honest question: Do you see the problem with the qualifiers "serious" bribes and "nefarious" purpose?
You didn't ask for the minimum which would see people decide not to vote for Clinton. I went with something that most definitely would. In which case you presume they would do what? I wouldn't care to speculate, though I doubt it would be voting for Trump in most cases. What is the point you're trying to make with this line of discussion?
Well that's why I said you don't qualify. We can continue when someone can answer the question though.
|
On October 15 2016 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
...
Well that's why I said you don't qualify. We can continue when someone can answer the question though.
Look, I attempted to have a conversation with you in good faith.
Suppose I say "the people who would have voted Clinton instead don't vote at all". Where are you going to go from there?
|
United States42655 Posts
On October 14 2016 21:54 Little-Chimp wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 17:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 16:56 WhiteDog wrote:On October 14 2016 14:08 JW_DTLA wrote:On October 14 2016 13:17 Nyxisto wrote:
Haven't followed the thread much yesterday so I've got no idea if the Michelle speech has been posted but it was pretty great, best one of the election imo I just watched it after work. I teared up. Michelle: + Show Spoiler +I am now watching the DJT Florida speech in full. DJT literally can't say a true thing. He has gone completely Assange/Wikileaks. DJT doesn't even bother to offer counter evidence to all the accusers. All he has is "false smears" and "lies". He talks and talks about everyone in the world is lying about him, but he won't sue anyone. Can't his goons see this? + Show Spoiler + "This is so bad, this is so sad, Trump is obscene and brag about gropping women. He is so bad. Moral, moral, moral, moral, moral." I'm not defending Trump at all, especially if he actually did what he was bragging about. But the fact is that a campaign that has nothing to say aside than talking about the moral of its candidates is a failed campaign. It's the degree 0 of politics. And this is somewhat described as a great speech. It's not just "moral". Sexism and rape culture are among the n.1 pronlems of today's society. I know that in France we are veeeeery tolerant to people's private life, but the fact that the president might be a sexist pig who brag about sexual aggressions is not ok. Sexism and rape culture are among the number 1 problems in today's society? Are you high? Or in saudi arabia? It's exaggerations like this that make it hard to take this term seriously.
Alternatively you might not be the best judge on how much of a problem sexism is when you're not on the receiving side of the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
