Government folly


Off-Topic Discussions

1,101 to 1,150 of 2,076 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>

Regarding unequal and arbitrary enforcement of sex crime law, the only comment I'm going to make is

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/

I recommend that you only read this when you're ready to get very, very angry.


LilithsThrall wrote:

Regarding unequal and arbitrary enforcement of sex crime law, the only comment I'm going to make is

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/

I recommend that you only read this when you're ready to get very, very angry.

I'm certainly angry, but that's mostly because I read the comments and then went and poked around at the rest of the site. That place is disgusting. It's like listening to white people whine about how they're being oppressed by minorities.

That said, I'm agree that what they say is a problem, if the data backs them up. Having looked at some of the other articles, I wouldn't take anything they say at face value.


thejeff wrote:
I'm certainly angry, but that's mostly because I read the comments and then went and poked around at the rest of the site. That place is disgusting. It's like listening to white people whine about how they're being oppressed by minorities.

Personally, I'm happy that they aren't censoring reader comments. But, they do allow readers to rate (like/dislike) comments. To show that you aren't just taking blind potshots at the site, tell us which reader comments were widely 'liked' which you took offense to.

thejeff wrote:


That said, I'm agree that what they say is a problem, if the data backs them up. Having looked at some of the other articles, I wouldn't take anything they say at face value.

The site provides citations for many of it's sources. Which sources do you question?


According to the FBI, men can't even be forcibly raped.
It defines forcible rape as "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will."
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr

So, a 16 year old boy, perhaps a freshman in a high school, being overpowered by a larger, stronger female teacher or a 32 year old man in a wheelchair - according to the FBI, neither one can be forcibly raped by a woman.


Quote:
IE, if 15 year olds can sleep with 14 year olds but 16 year olds can't, then the 15 year olds can take the pictures, but anyone older can't take or own them.

So you can keep that picture of the girlfriend you married until you turn 18, but then have to delete it off your phone?

Also you'd have the problem of a porn industry being run with a 12 year old as a figurehead, so the pictures would be legal. (meanwhile their sleezy 18 year old older brother is really doing everything)

The issue is too complicated to legislate, sorry. Its relying on DA"s to use their brains, and hopefully media to bring attention to their idiocy when they dont.


thejeff wrote:

I'm in general very much opposed to selective enforcement of laws. As you say, way too much potential for abuse.

OTOH, it's tricky to write a child porn law that would properly punish the creeps trying to exploit kids and not be ridiculously harsh on kids sending naughty picture to their boyfriends.
Just normalizing the ages won't do it. The bizarre legal situations might go away if there was a single age of maturity, but unless you drop it to 12 or 13, there will still be plenty of people having sex and probably taking pictures of each other below it. If you do drop it for porn, then you're going to have kids taken advantage of legally.

How do you legally distinguish between private sexy photos and pornography, in an age when those private photos can suddenly become public? That's why this has become an issue, when it comes right down to it. Girls have been giving naughty photos to their boyfriends at least since the Polaroid came around, but the worst that could happen then was that it would get passed around or posted at school after they broke up. The law never got involved. Now it can be world wide in matter of minutes.

How would you rewrite it?
The closest I can come, in a few minutes of thought, would be to only punish those who are involved with the process, taking, distributing, possessing, etc, who wouldn't be legally allowed to have sex with the subject. IE, if 15 year olds can sleep with 14 year olds but 16 year olds can't, then the 15 year olds can take the pictures, but anyone older can't take or own them.
I still don't like it, but I can't come up with anything better. (Do they have to throw them away at their next birthday? Alternately, can anyone have pictures of preteens if they were take 10+ years ago?)

Sometimes laws break down and you have to either make them more and more elaborate or just fall back to the "Don't be a Dick" rule. Which in legal situations means: Don't try to exploit the loopholes and we won't throw the book at you.

I really don't know. Every way I look at this I see a lot of downside. I see the immense danger of giving the child exploitation industry any openings that they can build on, but the current situation is still insane.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
IE, if 15 year olds can sleep with 14 year olds but 16 year olds can't, then the 15 year olds can take the pictures, but anyone older can't take or own them.

So you can keep that picture of the girlfriend you married until you turn 18, but then have to delete it off your phone?

Also you'd have the problem of a porn industry being run with a 12 year old as a figurehead, so the pictures would be legal. (meanwhile their sleezy 18 year old older brother is really doing everything)

The issue is too complicated to legislate, sorry. Its relying on DA"s to use their brains, and hopefully media to bring attention to their idiocy when they dont.

However we have legislated the issue, and I just don't trust DAs (or judges or law enforcement)to use their brains all the time. At a minimum some kind of marital exception should be written in for possession and transfer for married couples. A 17 year old wife and her 18 year old husband shouldn't be looking at a 15 year minimum sentence because she texts a naughty pic to his phone. Of course this still leaves the situation up in the air for other huge problems. A soldier in Afghanistan who gets a naughty pic emailed from his 17 year old fiance faces large mandatory minimum sentences and so does she.

Your example of minors becoming pornographers is a valid one though. Some one will exploit any opening.

I know the current situation is broken, but I'm far less confident of how to fix it.


LilithsThrall wrote:

Regarding unequal and arbitrary enforcement of sex crime law, the only comment I'm going to make is

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/

I recommend that you only read this when you're ready to get very, very angry.

I find it interesting how men's rights are so quickly discounted and even attacked.

Of course there are some really really bitter dudes in the movement, but a lot of them have been epically screwed over.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

Regarding unequal and arbitrary enforcement of sex crime law, the only comment I'm going to make is

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/

I recommend that you only read this when you're ready to get very, very angry.

I find it interesting how men's rights are so quickly discounted and even attacked.

Of course there are some really really bitter dudes in the movement, but a lot of them have been epically screwed over.

According to the lunatic left, men hold the institutionalized power and have to prove themselves to not be sexists before (or at least simultaneously while) their issues get attention.

I think being bitter is understandable.


LilithsThrall wrote:

According to the FBI, men can't even be forcibly raped.

It defines forcible rape as "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will."
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr

Can you link to the actual document that contains that? That site is just a top level list of reports.

Not that I'm doubting it, I've seen it reported elsewhere, but I was going to look for other terms that might cover other forms of rape.

The definition apparently dates back to the 20's, which makes it more understandable. I can even see some argument for keeping it, as long as incidents that fall under that definition are accounted for. These statistics are used to track long term trends among other things. If they're changed regularly, the data becomes less useful.
I do think this should be changed, unless there's a category right next to it defining "Forcible rape: male", for example.

I'd also note that it was the Feminist Majority Foundation that raised this in Congressional hearings back in September.
This is a holdover from an even more male dominated time, not evidence of men being oppressed by feminists.


thejeff wrote:

This is a holdover from an even more male dominated time, not evidence of men being oppressed by feminists.

I didn't say it was evidence of men being oppressed by feminists. It is, however, evidence that power dynamics aren't as simplistic as many feminists portray them as.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

Regarding unequal and arbitrary enforcement of sex crime law, the only comment I'm going to make is

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/

I recommend that you only read this when you're ready to get very, very angry.

I find it interesting how men's rights are so quickly discounted and even attacked.

Of course there are some really really bitter dudes in the movement, but a lot of them have been epically screwed over.

According to the lunatic left, men hold the institutionalized power and have to prove themselves to not be sexists before (or at least simultaneously while) their issues get attention.

I think being bitter is understandable.

Ah, I'm familiar with this site. Most people on it are upset and go quite overboard, which poisons what they're trying to do, understandable bitterness aside.


LilithsThrall wrote:

According to the lunatic left, men hold the institutionalized power and have to prove themselves to not be sexists before (or at least simultaneously while) their issues get attention.

I suppose you'll consider me a member of the lunatic left then.

The first part is obvious, men do hold the institutionalized power: Congress for example is almost 83% male (445 men/93 women), upper management in the top corporations is overwhelmingly male, etc.

For the second part, I'm not sure what you mean. What kind of male issues are ignored until the men (which men?) prove themselves non-sexist?

And exactly what is the lunatic left anyway? Is it some tiny minority with no real power or do you really mean most liberals? How would it compare in size/political power with those on the right who believe a wife should submit to her husband?


Had to put this here. Mostly humorous.


thejeff wrote:
The first part is obvious, men do hold the institutionalized power: Congress for example is almost 83% male (445 men/93 women), upper management in the top corporations is overwhelmingly male, etc.

There are about 4 to 7 million more female voters in recent elections. So, females control who is in office.

thejeff wrote:


For the second part, I'm not sure what you mean. What kind of male issues are ignored until the men (which men?) prove themselves non-sexist?

Here's an example

thejeff wrote:


I'm certainly angry, but that's mostly because I read the comments and then went and poked around at the rest of the site. That place is disgusting. It's like listening to white people whine about how they're being oppressed by minorities.
thejeff wrote:


And exactly what is the lunatic left anyway? Is it some tiny minority with no real power or do you really mean most liberals? How would it compare in size/political power with those on the right who believe a wife should submit to her husband?

The lunatic left is vocal extremists rather than moderates.


LilithsThrall wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'm certainly angry, but that's mostly because I read the comments and then went and poked around at the rest of the site. That place is disgusting. It's like listening to white people whine about how they're being oppressed by minorities.
Personally, I'm happy that they aren't censoring reader comments. But, they do allow readers to rate (like/dislike) comments. To show that you aren't just taking blind potshots at the site, tell us which reader comments were widely 'liked' which you took offense to.

I'd assumed they were censoring/moderating comments, mostly because I didn't see any adspam, swearing or the usual nonsense that overwhelms unmoderated sites. Maybe they just fly below the trolls radar.

Do you know they're uncensored? To use a more extreme example, just because the comments at Stormfront are offensive doesn't mean they're not censored. It may mean the site supports those offensive comments.

No individual comment is particularly offensive, it's the overall impression from browsing around the site for a few minutes that got to me.
But some examples from the story you linked that got me started:

Quote:

Feminists have raged rabidly for years that women had a history of being chattel.

Wrong. It’s men who are chattel. Right here and right now unless they take measures to protect themselves.
Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2

Quote:

A complete mis-representation of the past.

For the most part, restrictions on women were perfectly valid and fair.

For example, why should women have had a ‘vote’ when the matters that were dealt with by government in the past (such as war and employment) affected mostly men. Thus, why should a woman have a vote on whether men should go to war?
In essence, women were treated like children – for their own protection.
Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1

Quote:

Its always been this way. Men have always been forced to produce more than they consume in order to provide for women and children. Women have reaped the benefits. These days, however, they want it all and they don’t want to have to provide anything in return.

Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3


LilithsThrall wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The first part is obvious, men do hold the institutionalized power: Congress for example is almost 83% male (445 men/93 women), upper management in the top corporations is overwhelmingly male, etc.

There are about 4 to 7 million more female voters in recent elections. So, females control who is in office.

Only if you ignore the actual dynamics of power. Who runs. Who decides who runs. Who gets the financing, the corporate money. The male dominated corporate money that you ignored.

Also a ~5% numerical advantage could be easily overwhelmed if women's votes were more divided than men's for any reason.

But are you really saying men hold the institutional power because women want them to and this is somehow evidence that men are oppressed?

LilithsThrall wrote:


thejeff wrote:


For the second part, I'm not sure what you mean. What kind of male issues are ignored until the men (which men?) prove themselves non-sexist?

Here's an example

Nicely played. :)

I'd prefer an example from the actual national stage, rather than some idiot on a blog.
Any evidence that nothing is being done about these issues because men have to prove themselves to not be sexists? Or that men's issues in general are neglected in national politics?

thejeff wrote:


And exactly what is the lunatic left anyway? Is it some tiny minority with no real power or do you really mean most liberals? How would it compare in size/political power with those on the right who believe a wife should submit to her husband?
The lunatic left is vocal extremists rather than moderates.

Which doesn't actually answer the question. Should I assume you agree that it's a tiny minority with no real power?


thejeff wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'm certainly angry, but that's mostly because I read the comments and then went and poked around at the rest of the site. That place is disgusting. It's like listening to white people whine about how they're being oppressed by minorities.
Personally, I'm happy that they aren't censoring reader comments. But, they do allow readers to rate (like/dislike) comments. To show that you aren't just taking blind potshots at the site, tell us which reader comments were widely 'liked' which you took offense to.

I'd assumed they were censoring/moderating comments, mostly because I didn't see any adspam, swearing or the usual nonsense that overwhelms unmoderated sites. Maybe they just fly below the trolls radar.

Do you know they're uncensored? To use a more extreme example, just because the comments at Stormfront are offensive doesn't mean they're not censored. It may mean the site supports those offensive comments.

No individual comment is particularly offensive, it's the overall impression from browsing around the site for a few minutes that got to me.
But some examples from the story you linked that got me started:

Quote:

Feminists have raged rabidly for years that women had a history of being chattel.

Wrong. It’s men who are chattel. Right here and right now unless they take measures to protect themselves.
Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2

Quote:

A complete mis-representation of the past.

For the most part, restrictions on women were perfectly valid and fair.

For example, why should women have had a ‘vote’ when the matters that were dealt with by government in the past (such as war and employment) affected mostly men. Thus, why should a woman have a vote on whether men should go to war?
In essence, women were treated like children – for their own protection.
Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1

Quote:
Its always been this way. Men have always been forced to produce more than they consume in order to provide for women and children.
...

Here's another article, this one on feminism and mens' rights, worth reading

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/how-feminists-get-mra-wrong/


LilithsThrall wrote:

Here's another article, this one on feminism and mens' rights, worth reading

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/how-feminists-get-mra-wrong/

That one I like much better. There are legitimate issues, particularly relating to children, but ranting about how men are chattel and women should be treated like children is not the way to win support.

I'd actually argue that the feminist movement in general has been good for men. Particularly for men's relationships with their children. Breaking down gender stereotypes has let father's play more of a nurturing role, not just a provider. Would a stay-at-home dad with a wife who works have been at all acceptable a couple decades ago?

There are legal issues regarding custody and suspicion of abuse that need to be addressed. We're working through an unprecedented cultural change. There are snags, but on the whole it's a good thing.
Many of the issues also stem as much from pre-feminist stereotypes like men provide money, women take care of the children, as they do from anything else.


thejeff wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

Here's another article, this one on feminism and mens' rights, worth reading

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/how-feminists-get-mra-wrong/

That one I like much better. There are legitimate issues, particularly relating to children, but ranting about how men are chattel and women should be treated like children is not the way to win support.

This statement of yours offends me greatly considering how the other article you are talking about was actually about men being raped or having their sperm stolen and then having to pay child support for the resulting child.

And, in referencng this article, you describe it as "ranting about how men are chattel".


LilithsThrall wrote:
And, in referencng this article, you describe it as "ranting about how men are chattel".

Unless I missed it, he was referencing the comments, not the article. But then again, if everyone is already looking to be offended, there's no preventing it. And gender issues is one of those topics that always seems to bring that out in people.


LilithsThrall wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

Here's another article, this one on feminism and mens' rights, worth reading

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/how-feminists-get-mra-wrong/

That one I like much better. There are legitimate issues, particularly relating to children, but ranting about how men are chattel and women should be treated like children is not the way to win support.

This statement of yours offends me greatly considering how the other article you are talking about was actually about men being raped or having their sperm stolen and then having to pay child support for the resulting child.

And, in referencng this article, you describe it as "ranting about how men are chattel".

Actually I was referencing the comment from that article I quoted above:

Quote:


Feminists have raged rabidly for years that women had a history of being chattel.

Wrong. It’s men who are chattel. Right here and right now unless they take measures to protect themselves.
Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2

Which could, I guess, be read charitably as referring to only the specific rape/child support cases described, but seemed far more general to me, especially since it dismissed the documented history of women being legally subordinate to men as rabid feminist raging.

But whatever. I'm done with this discussion. And with arguing with you in general. You have repeatedly picked gotcha lines from posts to respond to while ignoring questions I've asked you. It's enough of a pattern for me. You win. Have fun.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
And, in referencng this article, you describe it as "ranting about how men are chattel".
Unless I missed it, he was referencing the comments, not the article. But then again, if everyone is already looking to be offended, there's no preventing it. And gender issues is one of those topics that always seems to bring that out in people.

Regarding treating men as chattel - a comment made in reply to an article about male rape victims being forced to pay child support - the question which deserves to be asked is this,

"is forcing male rape victims to pay child support for the children who were a consequence of their victimization equivalent to treating those men as primarily just financial resources - that is, treating them as chattel?"


LilithsThrall wrote:
"is forcing male rape victims to pay child support for the children who were a consequence of their victimization equivalent to treating those men as primarily just financial resources - that is, treating them as chattel?"

I don't know what's "equivalent" to what, and aside from basic empathy, I have little insight to offer into "victimization." I do know that I have, in the past, felt that I was viewed as nothing but a source of sperm and money, put on earth spefically to support someone else's dream to stay home and be a mommy forever. I'm not saying I was correct in that feeling, and I'm sure as hell not saying that's typical or whatever, but I do agree that men, in whatever situation, can be viewed as more or less "just financial resources."

On the flip side, I often see people ranting about all kinds of crap that's not much more than incoherent emotional rhetoric. "The gubbermint's takin' all mah munny and all mah freedom!" is a favorite.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
On the flip side, I often see people ranting about all kinds of crap that's not much more than incoherent emotional rhetoric. "The gubbermint's takin' all mah munny and all mah freedom!" is a favorite.

How is that on the flip side of making rape victims pay child support? The flip side of what?


Freehold DM wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

Regarding unequal and arbitrary enforcement of sex crime law, the only comment I'm going to make is

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/

I recommend that you only read this when you're ready to get very, very angry.

I find it interesting how men's rights are so quickly discounted and even attacked.

Of course there are some really really bitter dudes in the movement, but a lot of them have been epically screwed over.

According to the lunatic left, men hold the institutionalized power and have to prove themselves to not be sexists before (or at least simultaneously while) their issues get attention.

I think being bitter is understandable.

Ah, I'm familiar with this site. Most people on it are upset and go quite overboard, which poisons what they're trying to do, understandable bitterness aside.

That's kind of a sad dynamic because a lot of the issues and specifics raised are very valid and widely ignored.

I'm guessing that if we had been linked to a story about a woman who was raped while unconscious, had the baby, lost custody of the baby to the rapist, and then had to pay child support to the rapist who was never even charged we would all agree immediately how screwed up that is.

Instead the conversation here is focused on the organization rather than the incident, the facts, the victim, and the ugly case law that it establishes.

EDIT: I should say organization, tone, commenters, attitudes and so forth in the last sentence.


LilithsThrall wrote:
How is that on the flip side of making rape victims pay child support? The flip side of what?

The flip side of legitimate specific concerns grounded in reality. One person points out an injustice like the one you cite, and someone else replies "That's right! Women are just out to get our money and would be happy with any good provider -- they're all basically whores." That statement (a) is far too generalized to be of any value at all, and sure doesn't stick to the initial point; (b) assumes a false dichotomy; and (c) is basically just an excuse to rant. But I hear it surprisingly often. And a number of the comments after the article are very much in that vein.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
How is that on the flip side of making rape victims pay child support? The flip side of what?
The flip side of legitimate specific concerns grounded in reality. One person points out an injustice like the one you cite, and someone else replies "That's right! Women are just out to get our money and would be happy with any good provider -- they're all basically whores." That statement (a) is far too generalized to be of any value at all, and sure doesn't stick to the initial point; (b) assumes a false dichotomy; and (c) is basically just an excuse to rant. But I hear it surprisingly often. And a number of the comments after the article are very much in that vein.

I, also, hear "Men have little interest in providing for or being active in the lives of their children" frequently.

But, instead of being distracted by the bs, let's focus on real issues.


LilithsThrall wrote:
But, instead of being distracted by the bs, let's focus on real issues.

That's fine to a point, but if someone pauses to call "BS" on some of the nonsense, I'm not going to tell him to stop. And I'd maybe check and ask for clarification first, rather that throw heated accusations at him. Especially if it's a generally civil member of the discussion.


Bitter Thorn wrote:

That's kind of a sad dynamic because a lot of the issues and specifics raised are very valid and widely ignored.

I'm guessing that if we had been linked to a story about a woman who was raped while unconscious, had the baby, lost custody of the baby to the rapist, and then had to pay child support to the rapist who was never even charged we would all agree immediately how screwed up that is.

Instead the conversation here is focused on the organization rather than the incident, the facts, the victim, and the ugly case law that it establishes.

If it was on a site of militant man-hating feminists and the story was used as evidence that men controlled everything and women are horribly oppressed, that might be part of the conversation?

Looking a little closer at that story, the only rape/child support example that has enough evidence to be easily found is 15 years old. I don't know if the law has been changed since then, but it's hardly setting a new precedent.
The other cases don't have links, names or dates, making it hard to track them down.

None of that changes my opinion about the cases described, they are completely screwed up.

But coming from a site with such an obvious agenda it does make me wonder. Are these the only cases they could find? Just the most obviously egregious ones? Is there anything more recent than the mid-nineties? Have laws been changed or other precedents set since then?


thejeff wrote:
But coming from a site with such an obvious agenda it does make me wonder.

And what is the evidence of this "obvious agenda"? That some visitor to a site on the Internet posted something buried in the comments section which compared treating male rape victims forced pay child support to treating men like chattel.

You're funny.


thejeff wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:

That's kind of a sad dynamic because a lot of the issues and specifics raised are very valid and widely ignored.

I'm guessing that if we had been linked to a story about a woman who was raped while unconscious, had the baby, lost custody of the baby to the rapist, and then had to pay child support to the rapist who was never even charged we would all agree immediately how screwed up that is.

Instead the conversation here is focused on the organization rather than the incident, the facts, the victim, and the ugly case law that it establishes.

If it was on a site of militant man-hating feminists and the story was used as evidence that men controlled everything and women are horribly oppressed, that might be part of the conversation?

Looking a little closer at that story, the only rape/child support example that has enough evidence to be easily found is 15 years old. I don't know if the law has been changed since then, but it's hardly setting a new precedent.
The other cases don't have links, names or dates, making it hard to track them down.

None of that changes my opinion about the cases described, they are completely screwed up.

But coming from a site with such an obvious agenda it does make me wonder. Are these the only cases they could find? Just the most obviously egregious ones? Is there anything more recent than the mid-nineties? Have laws been changed or other precedents set since then?

Fair questions. I doubt that the laws have changed, but I'm just not knowledgeable enough about the data underlying the issues to say with any certainty. I've seen lots of issues with friends and coworkers where men get royally screwed so I can sympathize with the bitterness, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of research into men's rights issues like this. I'm not even sure how one would go about making serious estimates about unreported and unprosecuted rapes let alone something as hard to define as getting royally screwed on child support and custody. These are difficult things to quantify.

I would say generally that these issues receive very little attention or sympathy so I serious doubt there has been much legislative movement.

In some regards it reminds me of the prison rape and abuse issues; they don't evoke much sympathy or attention, and even when legislation was passed it was all but meaningless.

I'm sure politicians are in no hurry to address injustices that very few voters are passionate about.


Quote:
However we have legislated the issue, and I just don't trust DAs (or judges or law enforcement)to use their brains all the time.

I don't either, but I trust legislators to be able to close every loophole with written words less.

It probably doesn't help that this is being treated on a state by state basis.

Quote:
Your example of minors becoming pornographers is a valid one though. Some one will exploit any opening.

Sometimes its useful being able to think evil. Most of the time its depressing how ACCURATE it is.

Quote:
I know the current situation is broken, but I'm far less confident of how to fix it.

Just don't be so quick to toss the baby out with the bath water.


LilithsThrall wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But coming from a site with such an obvious agenda it does make me wonder.

And what is the evidence of this "obvious agenda"? That some visitor to a site on the Internet posted something buried in the comments section which compared treating male rape victims forced pay child support to treating men like chattel.

You're funny.

I would think the obvious agenda on a men's rights site would be men's rights.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But coming from a site with such an obvious agenda it does make me wonder.

And what is the evidence of this "obvious agenda"? That some visitor to a site on the Internet posted something buried in the comments section which compared treating male rape victims forced pay child support to treating men like chattel.

You're funny.

I would think the obvious agenda on a men's rights site would be men's rights.

I would think the obvious agenda on a men's rights site would be better, more equal, more mutually empowering relationships across sex lines.

Some people, unfortunatelt, tend to view men's rights as a zero sum game - that they can only come by setting women back.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But coming from a site with such an obvious agenda it does make me wonder.

And what is the evidence of this "obvious agenda"? That some visitor to a site on the Internet posted something buried in the comments section which compared treating male rape victims forced pay child support to treating men like chattel.

You're funny.

I would think the obvious agenda on a men's rights site would be men's rights.

I would think the obvious agenda on a men's rights site would be better, more equal, more mutually empowering relationships across sex lines.

Some people, unfortunatelt, tend to view men's rights as a zero sum game - that they can only come by setting women back.

I prefer to try to look through the lens of human rights if you will, but every time I've seen this come up on the web it turns into a screaming flame war. It seems remarkable to me how much more heated this gets than even the standard hot button issues.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I support gender social-equality and hot sex between and amongst them as they see fit!


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
I support gender social-equality and hot sex between and amongst them as they see fit!

Seconded.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
I support gender social-equality and hot sex between and amongst them as they see fit!
Seconded.

Adults own themselves. Let them do what they will that harms no one else.

It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.


I saw this movie today and I liked it a lot.

I'll put it here because this is where all the angry extremists hang out.

If A Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front


I accept the existence of extremists. Time to start drinking. ;)


Hey, Freehold DM, can I come crash at your place for a couple of days?

Occupy Wall Street!


-Unaddressed men's issue: the lack of parity in social services.

http://keddycsi.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/abandoning-men_-jill-gets-welfa re.pdf

-The fact that being a boy is enough to get you put on psychotropic medication for running around like an 8 year old.

-I want my own seat in the life raft. None of this women and children business.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Hey, Freehold DM, can I come crash at your place for a couple of days?

Occupy Wall Street!

Interestingly enough, i have heard little about this.


Freehold DM wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Hey, Freehold DM, can I come crash at your place for a couple of days?

Occupy Wall Street!

Interestingly enough, i have heard little about this.

Very few people have in comparison with more important news.


ThatEvilGuy wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Hey, Freehold DM, can I come crash at your place for a couple of days?

Occupy Wall Street!

Interestingly enough, i have heard little about this.
Very few people have in comparison with more important news.

I agree with your point, but, don't you think Putin looks great?

Hee hee!


Voting is Worthless?

I've been saying that for years!

Also, getting back to the Occupy Wall Street thing, have you scrolled through these videos/pictures? Man, there's some hot chicks!

This has impelled me to get back involved in the socialist movement--if there's going to be, like, a million unemployed ex-campus radicals, I bet some of them would like to get it on with a communist shop steward in reasonably good physical shape!


I cant believe there has not been more media coverage of Occupy Wall Street. Wait, yes I can believe it.

Back to the folly of government...Why exactly do people cheer for the death penalty again?


On that note, and I, of course, totally don't support this...

Abolish the death penalty!

Dark Archive

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Abolish the death penalty!

Heck I'd be happy if we just stopped this "war" on marijuana.

THC Cure for Altzeimer's?

1,101 to 1,150 of 2,076 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Government folly All Messageboards