Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Apologies for not quoting, but this response goes towards several posts between my initial one in this thread and this point.

Immoral actions are most certainly encompassed in what I said. My argument hinges on the definition of "pay," not "do."

So yes, if you are not some sort of sociopath and you live with yourself after having brutally murdered seven children, three old ladies and one baby ostrich, that would go towards paying for it. So would prison, naturally, but I am trying to illustrate the intended scope of my swing word. Full scope, pretty much.

It works well for a regular-sort-of-feller. The friendly neighborhood sociopath is unlikely to care about earthly rules regardless of what they are, so why would I bother with defining one specifically for him?

Speaking of, yes, "Do as you will" does mean go ahead and gas all the Jews, if you want it to. I have no problem with that interpretation and history shows that there are those who have no problem with that action. However, that can also mean "Stop that evil-ass cuntpickle," and the payment may well be extracted even before you succeed or even proceed.

So there you have it.
Media / Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
« Last Post by Asmodean on Today at 03:49:23 AM »
I'm starting to have many points in several threads, which I want to address, and address well at that. *Sigh* I need a few more processor cores in my head.

I don't see most of that as forcing political agendas. And even if they are, I still don't see the problem. Just don't watch it if you don't like it.
"Avoid if you don't like" is a game two can play. Mostly for the reason mentioned above though, not today.

That is a contradictory statement. Feminism is for gender equality, so if you're anti that, then how can you have no problem with equality?
There is a lot of more-or-less-semantic bullshit hidden behind the thin veneer of Merriam Webster in this short sentence and I think I will indulge myself to a tirade after briefly getting straight to the point. Dictionary definition works for the atheists because the lack of belief in gods is the only think which unites us all. The same would be true of the dictionary definition of feminist if, in fact, they were united by a desire for gender equality. Quite a number of them are practically and/or vocally against it, using the same dictionary's definition of equality. That is why it doesn't work. Now, my tirade won't write itself (if you pardon the pun from an intended response much later in this post... If ever I get there)

Yes, I'm sure there are feminists out there who are for gender equality. They are also more than likely a vast, yet relatively silent majority. What you put forth, however... It's kind of like saying that the SWJs are a part of the Progressive Left. Sure, they claim to be, but the respectable bits of what the Progressive Left was before their movement/subculture/whatever-it-is took off want nothing to do with them. Vocally and vehemently so. In this case, slapping a different label on them worked well enough. But sidetracked again. Feminism. There is no accurate label of which I'm aware for those "social media feminists," as I call them and while sensible people do distance themselves from those assholes, it is they who seem to dictate the ebb and flow of the entire movement.

So, if when you say "feminism" you are talking about the movement which secured women the right to vote across the civilized world and/or the movement which secured them equal rights under the law in much the same places (Mission accomplished there, by the way, and bloody well done at that) then you are pretty much speaking fondly of the well that was. Before it was poisoned by the rotting carcass of aggressive victimhood ideologues.

As fortune would have it, the sensible elements do seem to be on their way to hijacking their movement back. I'm sorry to say that I missed the trigger event, if there was such, but I think it started sometime last year. Perhaps the harpies just lost momentum... Or cannibalized each other, as they are prone to do.

An overly-long story short, in practice, this current wave of western feminism is not about equal gender rights. A lot of it is about sentimental bullshit issues, some is about fighting battles already won because... They weren't won well enough, I suppose. Some is about disadvantaging men and the rest... I'm pretty sure even its adherents would be hard-pressed to adequately and honestly define what they try to accomplish. There is not much room for promoting egalitarianism in all the bullshit.

So yes, I am all for people having equal starting conditions. And yes, I am for people having the same core rights. People. Not specifically men, or women, or dragonkin which, if the Internet is to be believed, is an actual thing these days. Fuuuck... And they apparently expect me to honor their bullshit identities. And that there is why if I am to wear a label with regard to feminism, I am against it.

Just don't put gender into shit - statistics will do the rest and... "Problem" solved. (Yes, I am being highly figurative after the dash)

/end tirade

Why do these discussions have to go off on irrelevant tangents? I'm not going to address it.
By all means. My irrelevant tangent defended its relevance in its very first sentence though. You are not promoting equal status in this discussion. You are promoting mathematical equality.

So, why are you then promoting crap like "we must get more women into films" and not crap like "we must get more men on the catwalks?"

And when you have addressed that question, why must we do that? Or, if you dislike my use of the word "must," what makes this course of action prudent? Are men who so desire not free to become fashion models? Are women who so desire not free to become actors? Most who try will probably end up selling burgers or some such, but that is not a part of the problem. If your choices result in failure, that's on you. There was a saying about either swimming with sharks or eating dogs... One or the other, or maybe even both, But I forgot.

I don't agree with your cause to effect conclusion due to lack of reliable evidence.
Is it lacking though, or is this a "citation needed" sort of argument?

None of artistic creation is organic. Paintings don't paint themselves. And shows and movies take thousands of people to create them. With several points of failure.
I shall call this a "no honey's organic argument." Did any one coin that already? Because if not, I hereby declare it mine.

IKEA wallpaper does not draw itself. Great paintings often do. Do with my semantics what you will.

Actually, it seems to be the only point against women taking more roles.
A point against women taking more roles? I don't actually have one such. Maybe I should get one, yes? As someone being sold shit to?

Hmm... Ok... A probably-bullshit point which would indeed be a point against women taking more roles... I can spin that narrative... Gimme a minute.

*A better part of an hour later*

Ok. I know almost nothing about the natural acting abilities in primates, not to mention humans specifically. However, there are species of fish and birds and what have you where males do most of, if not all the acting. Humans being a sexually dimorphic species, does it not then stand to reason that the unequal representation on the silver screen is wholly or partly the result of human males just having a higher likelihood of being good at that particular craft?

Totally uninspired, I know, but that one is the sort of argument you mentioned. The argument I presented addresses a different issue, or at the very least a different angle of this one.
Oh, don't worry, Buff loves me. Then again, thus far, he loves everyone. I'm just kind of a special favorite. I'm planning on making him a digging box because he's already super into digging...
Politics / Re: The Asmo's Trump Thread
« Last Post by Tom62 on July 19, 2017, 10:47:41 PM »
I agree for most parts with the Asmo from a foreign policies perspective. Obama screwed up enormously in the Middle East with the help of the highly aggressive Hillary Clinton and the extremely weak John Kerry. Supporting Jihad groups in Libya and Syria to remove dictators, but instead generating huge clusterfucks. Granted, Obama's predecessor didn't do much better. Invading countries without having an exit strategy is pretty dumb.

Hillary Clinton is a scruples hawk, who's policies goes wherever the wind blows. Now it is all about gender equality, feminism and Muslim hugging. How to solve terrorism? Answer: we should get to know the terrorists better and eat their food. She would support the corrupt Ukraine regime and established a no-fly zone in Syria, thus  causing severe problems with the Russians. She'd also invite thousands of unvetted migrants in the USA from countries that hate the USA. Lesson learned in Europe: you better don't do that unless you want no-go zones, more sexual assaults, crimes and terrorist attacks. No wonder that many people voted for Trump.
Media / Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
« Last Post by Gloucester on July 19, 2017, 09:59:12 PM »
Sad to say that the graduation rate of black kids is considerably smaller than that for white kids when calculated on a percentage of enrollment basis.  Grade point average is also reflected in racial differences as are pregnancy rates for high school girls. Add in Juvenile delinquency rates too.   

Those statistics are not to imply that black kids are less capable of earning top grades, graduating on time and staying out of trouble.  There are some sociological implications. Generally speaking our white kids come from more educated parents who are also likely to be more financially secure.  That is a dilemma for we Americans who care about such things. And yes there are many of us who do care about such things. 

As a long time volunteer tutor I have worked with plenty of damned good kids of both races. Also some kids of both races who were not the least bit motivated.  It pains me that the kids with more pigmentation are so sparsely represented among the high achievers. Meanwhile our valedictorians have disproportionately Indian, or Asian names.
Asians in general and Jews seem to take education very seriously, I have often wondered why.
Current Events / Re: A dream in his hands!
« Last Post by Gloucester on July 19, 2017, 09:53:55 PM »

ALthough some people might think of the Matrix when they hear his name.

Zion is also another term for Jerusslem and Zionism is a rather extreme form of Jewish/Israeli nationslism.
Media / Re: From Facebook - on taking sides
« Last Post by Arturo on July 19, 2017, 08:37:19 PM »
It's not like they made the reservations either. But they have to live on them. They are just trying to make the best of what they have, but it's not to everyone else's satisfaction, so they just shove the whole thing under the rug and ignore it. Then that sends the message they have to make the best of what they have, but only to other people's standards. "You can't be happy with yourself, you have to get your value from other people." Which is total abusive and manipulative bullshit.

Now I ask because I'm European and don't know, but from this thread it kinda sounded like.

Are there laws in effect in America right now that says a native American can't leave the reservation and go live somewhere else?
For example, if a member of the Arapaho tribe got a job in ....Seattle or wherever.... is there some legal barrier preventing him from moving there?

No there aren't any laws, it's just really tough because the education they recieve is so poor and there is a lack of opportunities to become skilled at something on reservations. So they don't get hired anywhere and become "land locked" because there really is nowhere for them to go.

Which, in my mind, makes the "old way" seem so enticing. Where they could roam the land and get everything they needed from the earth.
Laid Back Lounge / Re: What's on your mind today?
« Last Post by Arturo on July 19, 2017, 08:32:10 PM »
Major insomnia AGAIN.

Hello. Good morning.
Media / Re: From Facebook - on taking sides
« Last Post by BooksCatsEtc on July 19, 2017, 08:16:56 PM »

Now I ask because I'm European and don't know, but from this thread it kinda sounded like.

Are there laws in effect in America right now that says a native American can't leave the reservation and go live somewhere else?
For example, if a member of the Arapaho tribe got a job in ....Seattle or wherever.... is there some legal barrier preventing him from moving there?

No, there's no such law.  Only about 22% of natives live on native lands (as the rez is sometimes politely called).

Edited to add this article I found about it:  Between Nations: choosing to live on or off the reservation
Laid Back Lounge / Re: What's on your mind today?
« Last Post by Claireliontamer on July 19, 2017, 07:53:10 PM »
Major insomnia AGAIN.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10