By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Can Feminists Get Any More Desperate?

A_C_E on 13 January 2016
o_O.Q said:

you already stated that you understand the effect of testosterone meaning that you understand that it is responsible for the increased aggression in men men... how do you account for this if men and women are the same? do you not consider increased aggression to be a behavioral trait?

and besides that if men and women are pretty much the same why is this ad directed towards men specifically as if men are in fact different? as if it takes into account that men are more sexually predatory?

what i should probably ask you first of all though is if you even understand what the psychological aspects of a person are because i'm starting to believe that you can't, not with the contradictory things you are posting

Testosterone is linked to aggression but testosterone levels actually raise with aggression, not necessarily because of it. Just because one is an aggressor and one is more dormant does not imply that we know who is producing more testosterone. There's more than just one single compound linked to why we would be more aggressive. I can assume we agree on the fact it is most likely the aggressor who will have a higher testosterone level during the period of aggression. Just so we are clear.

Question: You say men and women are psychologically different than one another. To illustrate this claim you stated that men produce on average more testosterone than women and that in turn affects the aggression level. If men and women aren't the same because one sex produces different levels of testosterone on average than the other, then are men who produce less testerone than other men no longer biologically men?

It's not the amount that matters, it's the production, and in men and women the production exists in both, not the same amount like you say but the wheels turn in the same direction. You are not male because you produce a certain amount of testosterone, that's not how biology works.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

here's a thought experiment for you i want you to go outside and light a fire and when you have done so toss a small scrap of paper on it, then take a large heap of paper and toss those on.... notice a difference?

Yep, the fire's bigger. What you fail to understand is that just because the fire is bigger does not change what you used to make it bigger, you simply used more of it. The exact same chemical reactions are taking place and the exact same ingredients are being used in the exact same manner, just more of them. A fire is a fire my friend, how the fire acts does not change that it is a fire. Thank you for that thought experiment.


Around the Network
DonFerrari on 13 January 2016
A_C_E said:
o_O.Q said:

you already stated that you understand the effect of testosterone meaning that you understand that it is responsible for the increased aggression in men men... how do you account for this if men and women are the same? do you not consider increased aggression to be a behavioral trait?

and besides that if men and women are pretty much the same why is this ad directed towards men specifically as if men are in fact different? as if it takes into account that men are more sexually predatory?

what i should probably ask you first of all though is if you even understand what the psychological aspects of a person are because i'm starting to believe that you can't, not with the contradictory things you are posting

Testosterone is linked to aggression but testosterone levels actually raise with aggression, not necessarily because of it. Just because one is an aggressor and one is more dormant does not imply that we know who is producing more testosterone. There's more than just one single compound linked to why we would be more aggressive. I can assume we agree on the fact it is most likely the aggressor who will have a higher testosterone level during the period of aggression. Just so we are clear.

Question: You say men and women are psychologically different than one another. To illustrate this claim you stated that men produce on average more testosterone than women and that in turn affects the aggression level. If men and women aren't the same because one sex produces different levels of testosterone on average than the other, then are men who produce less testerone than other men no longer biologically men?

It's not the amount that matters, it's the production, and in men and women the production exists in both, not the same amount like you say but the wheels turn in the same direction. You are not male because you produce a certain amount of testosterone, that's not how biology works.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

here's a thought experiment for you i want you to go outside and light a fire and when you have done so toss a small scrap of paper on it, then take a large heap of paper and toss those on.... notice a difference?

Yep, the fire's bigger. What you fail to understand is that just because the fire is bigger does not change what you used to make it bigger, you simply used more of it. The exact same chemical reactions are taking place and the exact same ingredients are being used in the exact same manner, just more of them. A fire is a fire my friend, how the fire acts does not change that it is a fire. Thank you for that thought experiment.

To summarize your point, man and woman are the same because both have niples, eyes and etc... it doesn't matter how different they are or perform because that quantified isn't important, just that they exist... are you for real??? The very definition of difference is that they differ, not that they have some similarity.





duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 13 January 2016
SpokenTruth said:
bdbdbd said:

Isn't there? I thought the Green movement describes itself as feministic, is pretty open with their new world order plans and is full of anarchists. Not only that, but they silently accept any act of terrorism or so in the west, but condemn every attempt to return peace in the developing world.

The vocal ones make the headlines more easilly, but so do the sane ones when theyre active in politics and are in parliamets - the message is still the same though.

The green movement?  As in the environmental movement?  For one, that too has no central organization or leadership.  It's just that, a movement.  A concept adopted by individuals.  And saying "they" silently accept any act of terrorism in the west makes me wonder if we're thinking of two different things. 
Hang on, do you mean the Green political movement in Iran several years ago? 
DonFerrari, I'll reply back soon.  Short on time at the moment.

No problem



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Ganoncrotch on 13 January 2016
Aeolus451 said:
ReimTime said:

I hope one day you'll be able to look back on this and realize how fucking stupid you were. You realize that you are saying it is the woman's fault that she was raped, correct? I'm pretty sure that is what you're saying, but I figure I'll give you a chance to save face.

 

 

I don't think that he was saying that but I believe his point is that a person's choices have the largest influence on how something might play out or the likelihood that it will go one versus the other. That's true of anything really. 

If someone is gonna get wasted, they should do that around multiple trusted people (close friends/family) to ensure nothing bad will take place. Sure, no one can or should blame a victim for something bad happening to 'em but the event probably wouldn't of happened if the person was more cautious. 

 

Aye if you were to walk drunk and alone through some bad areas of the town I live you could end up getting beaten up, mugged or worse. It's not victim blaming to say that people should take care of themselves... the person who is most at risk of not taking care of yourself... is yourself, surely that should be incentive enough not to put yourself in unneeded danger.

I mean a large amount of I want to say feminists, but basically the people who would create videos like the one in the OPs point is that girls are perfectly able to take care of themselves and are strong independant people, surely those people are disgusted seeing some of the girls who go and get black out drunk and have to be propped up to stop themselves from drowning on their own sick at parties, regardless of if anything bad is done to them by others... these people are not taking care of themselves in the slightest.





Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

DonFerrari on 13 January 2016
SpokenTruth said:
ganoncrotch said:

Aye if you were to walk drunk and alone through some bad areas of the town I live you could end up getting beaten up, mugged or worse. It's not victim blaming to say that people should take care of themselves... the person who is most at risk of not taking care of yourself... is yourself, surely that should be incentive enough not to put yourself in unneeded danger.

I mean a large amount of I want to say feminists, but basically the people who would create videos like the one in the OPs point is that girls are perfectly able to take care of themselves and are strong independant people, surely those people are disgusted seeing some of the girls who go and get black out drunk and have to be propped up to stop themselves from drowning on their own sick at parties, regardless of if anything bad is done to them by others... these people are not taking care of themselves in the slightest.

The careless act of one doesn't not absolve the legal actions of others upon them.  Should they take greater care to protect themselves?  Of course they should.  But that does not give a free pass to anyone that want to disrobe and have their way with an unconcious body for their own pleasures.  

Are you suggesting that a man's right to violate an unconscious woman is greater than a woman's right to not be raped whle unconscious? 

Perhaps he is more on the like I said before... two people that are on the same level of lack of conciense can't be just said the girl was rapped and the guy is a rappist... everyone have the right to not be violated, but if you don't watch your own safety and put yourself at uneeded danger you lose some of the complaining right.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
OdinHades on 13 January 2016

Of course rapists should be convicted, nobody is questioning that. The problem is the ridiculous reasoning of some feminists. Time and time again I hear them saying that instead of teaching women to watch out for themselves, we should teach men not to rape. But men already know that rape is wrong. The thing is that some just don't care about it. It's about as ridiculous as telling murderers not to murder. You can do that, we actually do do that, but it doesn't make those crimes completely disappear.

Women and men are responsible for themselves. They can't expect the society or the government to watch out for them all the time. So you really should think before you act in whatever way. I don't let my front door open and complain afterwards that I'm getting robbed. I don't walk through a black neighborhood in a KKK outfit. I don't go on vacation in a war zone. It's just common sense. A woman should also be careful to prevent rape from happening as good as possible. The only people that aren't responsible for themselves are children. They need protection. Women don't. They are adult, they can look out for themselves. If rape or another crime happens, that's sad and whoever did it should be condemned according to the law. But special treatment for women because of rape just isn't reasonable. It is already a crime and nobody besides some totally psychos think it's a good thing. Everyone knows it's wrong. So what actually do feminists want to happen in that regard? Rapists already get condemned. I think a bigger problem is people who get condemned for rape without any proof whatsoever. If a woman decides to sue you because of rape, you're basically fucked, no matter if you actually did it or not. You might win in court, but you will still get fired and lose most if not all of your friends, because you're branded as a maniac in society.



Official member of VGC's Nintendo family, approved by the one and only RolStoppable. I feel honored.

DonFerrari on 13 January 2016
SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:
SpokenTruth said:

The careless act of one doesn't not absolve the legal actions of others upon them.  Should they take greater care to protect themselves?  Of course they should.  But that does not give a free pass to anyone that want to disrobe and have their way with an unconcious body for their own pleasures.  

Are you suggesting that a man's right to violate an unconscious woman is greater than a woman's right to not be raped whle unconscious? 

Perhaps he is more on the like I said before... two people that are on the same level of lack of conciense can't be just said the girl was rapped and the guy is a rappist... everyone have the right to not be violated, but if you don't watch your own safety and put yourself at uneeded danger you lose some of the complaining right.

If you are so uncognizant that you cannot say no, then by default you also cannot say yes...much less engage in fornication.   Further, if she and he are so drunk they are not aware of what they are doing, how can either claim the next day that they did or did not want the sex at that time?  

As for the throwing yourself to the wolves argument.  It's her fault for not protecting herself but it does not absolve the assailants from their actions.  If a man goes into a high crime neighborhood to buy drugs and gets shot, does that absolve the shooter because it was a dangerous neighborhood?  Was the guy stupid for going there?  Sure.  Should the shooter still be convicted for his crime?  Well, of course.   Why do we men want to treat rape so differently?  Would straight men feel the same if they were drunkenly voilated by another man?

Yes no one could really say if they did or didn't want. So how can you say one is the aggressor and the other is the victm? I see several cases that feminists will always say the male is the rapist.

No it don't absolve (unless when we are saying that one can't be responsible then both can't if they are in same conditions), criminals should be judged as criminals independent of the victm. So as we agree that being dumb yourself don't absolve the criminal if a person is using the fact he is still lucid to assault an almost comatose person then yes he is a criminal. I still don't think we can classify it as rape if the girl was willing but only incapable of proper judgement (since if you suffer a crash while driving drunk you are still responsible). But we certainly should teach children to respect other will and not to hunt on the weak at the same time we teach them not to be the the hunted or weak.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Ganoncrotch on 13 January 2016
SpokenTruth said:
ganoncrotch said:

Aye if you were to walk drunk and alone through some bad areas of the town I live you could end up getting beaten up, mugged or worse. It's not victim blaming to say that people should take care of themselves... the person who is most at risk of not taking care of yourself... is yourself, surely that should be incentive enough not to put yourself in unneeded danger.

I mean a large amount of I want to say feminists, but basically the people who would create videos like the one in the OPs point is that girls are perfectly able to take care of themselves and are strong independant people, surely those people are disgusted seeing some of the girls who go and get black out drunk and have to be propped up to stop themselves from drowning on their own sick at parties, regardless of if anything bad is done to them by others... these people are not taking care of themselves in the slightest.

The careless act of one doesn't not absolve the legal actions of others upon them.  Should they take greater care to protect themselves?  Of course they should.  But that does not give a free pass to anyone that want to disrobe and have their way with an unconcious body for their own pleasures.  

Are you suggesting that a man's right to violate an unconscious woman is greater than a woman's right to not be raped whle unconscious? 

 

Do a ctrl+F on my post to see if I'm saying that.

And no obviously if a person gets the shit kicked out of them for walking into a bad area of town here waving money around over their head alone in the middle of the night, the assualters are still obviously the ones breaking the law and if found (often the kind of crimes such as taking advantage of a black out drunk person male or female, are impossible to catch who did it because the victim isn't going to be aware of what might have taken place until at least the next day when they regain some sort of conciousness and until they stop thinking that the pain they are suffering is just down to the massive hangover) are completely reprehensible by the law, there is no excusing if someone is breaking the law with phrases like "they deserved it" or "they had it coming" but at the end of the day who is the one who is harmed? The person who put themselves in the situation where such a thing could happen to them.

I really find this is one of the only sort of cases where suggesting taking the slightest bit of care to not end up getting caught up in this sort of situation leads to getting attacked,

 - Have you ever criticized your parents for telling you to look left and right before crossing the street? Sure the car that knocks you down will be at fault, but you'll be dead.

 - Have you ever lashed out at the IT guy who tells you not to click on the .rar files which come with emails, (for the last time dammit those things don't have Anna Kornikova naked pictures!!!) I mean, it will obviously be the hackers who rob your credit card details who are commiting a crime, not the guy telling you to be careful

 - Or just things so bloody basic as warning a person at any point in your own life about anything.... "don't eat that" , "don't talk to him, he's crazy" or "don't run with a knife"

If you're of the mindset where you think that if someone suggesting something such as "mind yourself" as someone they care for is going out to a party, is victim shaming then I may well have wasted keystrokes and you're time reading as much of it as you did, and I'm sorry for both those things, but I can't stand people who would hurt in anyway another person, regardless of gender of either the victim or the attacker but at the same time, when it comes to my own friends and family, I always tell people to take care or mind themselves as my general parting ways phrase.... and I mean it, regardless of who is to blame, if something happens to a person, it's the person who is harmed by it.

Also some humour to a shit post in a fairly shit thread! (sorry if you don't find it funny but it's kinda a TL:DR to my post heh)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/heinous/files/2014/09/1962685_10205094451148833_5319163003356010614_n.jpg



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

MikeRox on 13 January 2016
SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:
SpokenTruth said:
ganoncrotch said:

Aye if you were to walk drunk and alone through some bad areas of the town I live you could end up getting beaten up, mugged or worse. It's not victim blaming to say that people should take care of themselves... the person who is most at risk of not taking care of yourself... is yourself, surely that should be incentive enough not to put yourself in unneeded danger.

I mean a large amount of I want to say feminists, but basically the people who would create videos like the one in the OPs point is that girls are perfectly able to take care of themselves and are strong independant people, surely those people are disgusted seeing some of the girls who go and get black out drunk and have to be propped up to stop themselves from drowning on their own sick at parties, regardless of if anything bad is done to them by others... these people are not taking care of themselves in the slightest.

The careless act of one doesn't not absolve the legal actions of others upon them.  Should they take greater care to protect themselves?  Of course they should.  But that does not give a free pass to anyone that want to disrobe and have their way with an unconcious body for their own pleasures.  

Are you suggesting that a man's right to violate an unconscious woman is greater than a woman's right to not be raped whle unconscious? 

Perhaps he is more on the like I said before... two people that are on the same level of lack of conciense can't be just said the girl was rapped and the guy is a rappist... everyone have the right to not be violated, but if you don't watch your own safety and put yourself at uneeded danger you lose some of the complaining right.

If you are so uncognizant that you cannot say no, then by default you also cannot say yes...much less engage in fornication.   Further, if she and he are so drunk they are not aware of what they are doing, how can either claim the next day that they did or did not want the sex at that time?  

As for the throwing yourself to the wolves argument.  It's her fault for not protecting herself but it does not absolve the assailants from their actions.  If a man goes into a high crime neighborhood to buy drugs and gets shot, does that absolve the shooter because it was a dangerous neighborhood?  Was the guy stupid for going there?  Sure.  Should the shooter still be convicted for his crime?  Well, of course.   Why do we men want to treat rape so differently?  Would straight men feel the same if they were drunkenly voilated by another man?

 


What does absolving someone if their crime have to do with anything? This is the key thing I notice whenever this topic is discussed.

 

It's not a situation where its either or. As I said in an earlier post, a crime is always a crime and the actions of the victim do not ever detract from that. However it is incredibly naive and idealistic to think that nothing bad will ever happen to you no matter what position you put yourself in.

 

It seems to be if anyone says someone should look out for their own safety more, it's instantly flipped as victim blaming.

 

It's not the victims failt, however we know what type of world we currently live in and I don't know about anyone else, but personally I would like to minimise the risk I put myself in.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

DonFerrari on 13 January 2016
SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes no one could really say if they did or didn't want. So how can you say one is the aggressor and the other is the victm? I see several cases that feminists will always say the male is the rapist.

No it don't absolve (unless when we are saying that one can't be responsible then both can't if they are in same conditions), criminals should be judged as criminals independent of the victm. So as we agree that being dumb yourself don't absolve the criminal if a person is using the fact he is still lucid to assault an almost comatose person then yes he is a criminal. I still don't think we can classify it as rape if the girl was willing but only incapable of proper judgement (since if you suffer a crash while driving drunk you are still responsible). But we certainly should teach children to respect other will and not to hunt on the weak at the same time we teach them not to be the the hunted or weak.

I think we are coming closer to an accord.  Your last statement regarding education is the key.  Ads like this one are part of that education (granted, the video itself could be better).  We used to teach our young boys to beat women when they got out of line.  This is the counterbalance to erase that social flaw.

Ads like these are very far from being helpfull... the only reaction it got from me (I don't and wouldn't ever abuse a woman or take advantage of she being knocked out senseless) was "what a load of bullshit". The reason is that it antagonizes and make it fell like they think all man are rapist mysoginist pigs. You can have class and video in a much better portrayal of the issue. The problem with most left wing propaganda and speech is that is towards hate speech and "they versus u"... you'll never get support from the people you viliffy.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."