|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its not that Im critisizing the post. And maybe it could be compared in a few ways. Especially against the Orweillian work of the feminazis who are trying to recreate reality with their bogus propaganda.
My concern is, do we need to constantly berate women or point out their flaws?
We should take the oppurtunity to point out the greatness of men a bit more too.
I know Im a guilty person of it as much as anyone else. But pointing out feminist flaws and women's flaws are two very distinct things.
Women are just as violent and underhanded as men, we know that. The question is 'how are we going to get all these social programs to start working for men' as much as they do for women.
I do not want a repeat or an equal but opposite affair like the 'Take Back The Night' event but for men. Because in my opinion they are likened to Orwell's depiction of 'Hate Week' in 1984.
Which can be read and synopsed here:
http://www.classicnote.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/198 4/
Our enemy is a system of mistruths and re-engineered historys. Faulty lenses of reality. Fighting women only turns us into one of them. We need to rebel against the establishment. The lawyers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday May 08, @08:39PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I've been guilty of it too. (Generalizeing women, that is.)
But we are constantly told that MEN and MEN alone are ever violent.
I believe that this incident, caught on video, is actually a semi-rule not an exeption, when it comes to female violence.
I have seen girls "mixing it up" in my local shopping mall's parking lot.
This video is at least SOME proof that we, as men's activists aren't just saying what we say because we "hate females".
But I agree, we shouldn't make light of this incident.
I saw it on the local news this morning, and it just made me sick. And I do not wish to see it again.
Frankly, I think we may see even more of this. We have a society that DENIES that females can be violent and a media that INCOURAGES them to be violent, especialy towards males.
Speaking of the media, any one want to bet that we will hear SOMEONE in the news-media say that this happened because of "A society that incourages violence against WOMEN"?
And some how, some way, they'll find a way to blame MEN for it.
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday May 08, @08:47PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud,
You stole some of my..er...thunder, with that last comment. I am wondering how long it will be until the talking heads find a way to blame this on men.
My prediction is that we may hear that the boys present encouraged it, pushed the senior girls and egged them on and then just sat back and watch like some perverted male fantasy.
Hope I'm wrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday May 08, @09:58PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
How right you are! While here in Chicago the media has not taken that road, NBC's Dateline had no problem taking it. They made sure to include audio and video of the boys egging the girls on, including one boy with a video camera expressing that this was the coolest thing he ever saw. It left the implication that the girls were not soley responsible for their actions: that the boys should except some responsiblity for what happened. Sound familiar? Amazing how these strong, empowered, bright young girls that are better educated than our young men have no sense of right and wrong, and consistently rely on others to show them the way. By the way, did I point out that these girls come from a wealthy suburb?
This isn't women bashing. Pointing out feminist hypocracy is never going to hurt society, however a good blend of male achievments and support along with that is always healthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It left the implication that the girls were not soley responsible for their actions: that the boys should except some responsiblity for what happened.
Hate to respond to an anonymous, but...
If some boys egged them on, then they should accept responsibility for what they did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday May 08, @11:17PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Why? Women egg men on to violence constantly and accept no responsibility, as it should be. The people performing the violent acts should accept full responsibility for what they did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why? Women egg men on to violence constantly and accept no responsibility, as it should be. The people performing the violent acts should accept full responsibility for what they did.
You should quit hiding and get a handle.
I've seen men on this board, and elsewhere in the men's movement, hold women partly responsible for warfare because, for instance, women degrade men who refuse to go to war. I agree with that. Those women are partly responsible for the war. And people, who believe that and don't hold men responsible for egging women on to violence, are hypocrites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 09, @01:24AM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Women are partly responsible for war as they are active participants, they vote and hold political office and make decisions regarding foriegn policy. War is not about entertainment either. War is a completly diffrent situation then this one.
I was more thinking women egging men on in bars, schools, ect. if a man fights to impress women then it's his fault for any actions that he performs. If he's dumb enough to be a circus monkey to impress the ladies then it's his responsibility to accept the consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women are partly responsible for war as they are active participants, they vote and hold political office and make decisions regarding foriegn policy. War is not about entertainment either. War is a completly diffrent situation then this one.
I was more thinking women egging men on in bars, schools, ect. if a man fights to impress women then it's his fault for any actions that he performs. If he's dumb enough to be a circus monkey to impress the ladies then it's his responsibility to accept the consequences."
I'm afraid it's a little more complicated than that; we're not talking about an isolated incident or circumstance, but an entire world-culture-- which is a person's entire world. As such, a person's basic social needs of worth and belonging, as well as every other need, stem directly from
For example, how many women will accept a man who fails to excel by societal standards, but simply for himself? That number is between zero and non-existent; women even more than men are social lemmings, and it's no accident that tragic heroes are men, since only they even question their relation to fate and social pressure; for women, that's REALITY. How many times have you heard a woman defend arbitrarily social convention ("everyone knows, that's the way it IS!") to the death, and viciously attack anyone who dies it as evil, inferior or pathetically ignorant?
As such, I agree that it's up entirely up to men to make progress, but let's not fool ourselves that women are innocent-- willing or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 09, @01:24PM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
I could be wrong here, But isn't it law, that when someone sees an illegal act being carried out that person (or persons) has the responsibility to call the authorities?
If that's the case then ANYONE standing around watching, whether they were "egging on" or not, male or female, are reponsible.
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is absolutely NOT the law.
Case in point:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/views/y/1998/09/mcderm ott.casino/
(Please remove the space in the above url)
Yes, it's disgusting what happened. Would I have tried to stop it? Certainly. Would I have beat this guy, friend or not, dead myself if I was too late? You bet.
Do I want the government to legislate my morality to an even greater extent than it already does? Nope. I think they've done enough already.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you, Thundercloud. I'd never run into the middle of a riot or melee, even a small one. I can't see that it would do any good, and it might well result in an escalation. However, I can't imagine watching a group of people beating up on another group of somewhat smaller people and doing nothing. Maybe I'd run and try to find a cop or call the police. It would depend on the situation. And I certainly wouldn't egg on the muggers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is absolutely NOT the law.
Hello Mitchell.
Please don't take this as a criticism. It's not meant to be. Could you include a reference to a previous post or a quote of some sort? I'm not sure to what or to whom you're referring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 09, @02:50PM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas.
Yeah, same here. Law or not, I'd feel a sense of responsibility to go to the cops, dial 911, and such.
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/comments.pl?sid=03/05/ 08/1539224&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=threade d&pid=28#42
This was in response to ThunderCloud's question about Good Samaritan laws. I posted the david cash (this guy does not deserve his name in first letter uppercase) example due to it's shocking and reprehensible nature.
As for the guy at the gas station: How can anyone really expect to legislate fear out of this person? If he was afraid, why should he potentially risk his life, even after the fact?
And no offense taken, Thomas. I’m actually very hard to offend. And, you’re a rather level headed, seemingly good individual. I can’t really get mad at you. ;)
I know that I may be giving a somewhat skewed impression here, providing examples of why we don’t want this kind of control. I want people to be decent, honorable, kind. I believe that societies operate at a higher level when children are brought up under strict parental boundaries. I know that church is (mostly) an important component of community as it helps tie our lives together with meaning (I am not a member of any organized religious group).
However, when we legally demand innumerable moral shades from our citizens, well, it is exactly this kind of forced proper equivalency that put men where we are in the first place: Almost always at the wrong end of the DV line, at the wrong end of the divorce line, at the wrong end of the importance line. It takes but one nitwit justice to make a ruling, something that extends the basic idea out just a touch, before everyone then tries to expand the circle of decency to include things and actions that you and I consider personal responsibility. Before you know it, I’m in jail because I yelled at my kids ballgame ‘Fantastic win, son!’ and that offended a mother on the other side because she felt it demeaned her child’s performance.
FYI: My son can’t even play tag at school anymore because some dim bulb complained that it made her son feel inadequate. Nor can they play dodge ball, tag football, practice wrestling, and more that I can no longer recall off the cuff.
Get the government out of our bedroom, out of our home, and out of our way, while still providing the basic tenants of societal structure, and we’ll all be so much better off.
Any girls and boys that participated in this hazing activity that were on the physically violent end, not the rah rah ain’t this great end, you bet: Put them in a sling with their parents and school officials and, for those that showed extreme malice, local authorities. Leave everyone else alone. This incitement rule was created to avoid riots, not punish a bunch of kids standing around watching and shouting at some activity that got out of hand. And I don't want to hear "but this was more than some out of hand activity" stuff either...it was exactly that: Out of hand. When I was young I participated in a couple of rumbles and, yeah, they were rough but that was a rite of passage. Just because other people don't agree with that type of activity doesn't mean I didn't want to participate at the time. I went, and willingly so! Please note that no one brought guns or knives to these events either. Just fists and knees and technique...and the outcome was a broken bone in one guy's left (or right, I can't remember now) hand and a lot of bruised egos. Anyone that wants to preach to me about this can just hold their tongue as a:) you were not likely there and b:) until nature somehow breeds it out of us, guys have testosterone and we're gonna use it. Oh, and when the boys in blue came, they just broke it up, asked if anyone was hurt, then sent our butts home with this warning: If we see you out here again, we’re hauling your asses down to county and you can call your folks from there.” End of story.
I can only shake my head and wonder what we will expect law enforcement to do next.
Now, I'm off my box and back to work. C'mon guys, quit making this kinda debate thing so much fun for me!!!!!!!!!!!
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 09, @08:06PM EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, Ye old Testoterone made me do it excuse, it's amazing how feminutters have convinced so many men that they are biologically pre-destined to violence, agression and criminality. I suppose these types of feminutters are the same types that racists use to prove without a doubt that diffrent races are inherintly violent or immoral because of biology.
An intresting article to read:
Hormones in Context: Testoterone and Aggression
http://www.gender.org.uk/about/06encrn/63_aggrs.ht m
I'm to lazy to find more links right now, trust me many more exist. Basically from what I have read they are unsure if agression causes a rise in testoterone or if testoterone causes a rise in agression. It's a chicken and egg thing, this is common in psychology/biology. For example they are unsure if depression causes a lowering in seretonin or if a lowering in seretonin causes depression or both. It's also true that males have more of a 'tolerance' to testoterone then females as both genders have testoterone in there bodies. There have been findings that certain female hormones also have a role in agression. There are many many more hormones then just testoterone that affect violence and impulsivity, abnormalities in the frontal cortex of the brain provide much better indicators of agressive and impulsive behaviour then levels of testoterone does.
They have found that extremly low levels of testoterone in lab animals causes elevated levels of agression and extremely high levels of testoterone causes calmness and complacency.
My hormones made me do it might be a excuse for irresponsible women that commit crimes but I think us men are better then that. We are humans and not slaves to hormones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great post Mitchell. Thanks.
when the boys in blue came, they just broke it up, asked if anyone was hurt, then sent our butts home with this warning: If we see you out here again, we’re hauling your asses down to county and you can call your folks from there.” End of story.
Ah, yes. Those were the good ol' days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the idiot's way to attempt to minimize chemical charges and changes in the brain. We have testosterone, and it has been suggested that what causes boys to become so excitable is that the level varies wildly in the body, and that this rise and fall causes the sometimes ‘pumped up’ behavior. And, yes, it has been suggested (logically so) that when the level falls to low, boys become excited and that this activity raises the level back to normalcy. Also, it has been suggested that this is precisely what causes the male brain to expand (and achieve better spatial and logical synergy) as it rushes towards adulthood. Finally, it has been shown (I’ll find and post the link) that testosterone is the very reason why boys tend to need more sleep than girls as they grow.
Yes, you are a liberal neo-pacifist that doesn't know the first thing about rite of passage, and who believes all things can be reasoned out. Boys are boys, and to not accept the fact that they are more hormonally driven by testosterone than girls is to not only deny their nature, but to laughably attempt to FEMINIZE them. Shame on you!
And what about those that are mentally chemically unbalanced, and by virtue of modern medicine are now able to live productive lives? Weak, lazy, no good societal rejects...bipolar schmolar!
Tell a young boy’s body to stop changing when going through puberty. Tell those bones to stop growing. Tell those bastard hormones to get out. Come on, he can out think them, can’t he?
Now, ask your mommy to get you your binky and a cup of warm milk, and to read you a bedtime story. Make it: Where The Wild Things Are. A book that celebrates the wonderful, magical imagination of a young boys playful, excitable, sometimes mischievous mind.
Mitchell A. Smith ~ Mild mannered gentlemen by day, pacifist slayer by night.
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 09, @11:44PM EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
Good defence ad hominem man or should I call you monkey man, slave to his hormones. Now go out and beat on your wife, and haze some 12 year olds, the feminutters will love it when you blame your actions on testoterone. You'll just be proof of another male born violent.
The "neo-liberal" attitude, whatever the hell that means, seems to be that no one should have to take responsibility for there actions anymore. Oh, you killed your baby, nevermind being accountable it must be post-partum depression. Failing school it's ADHD. Gunned down a couple people, that's your crack addiction. Got into a car drunk and killed a family, a few year in jail and some AA meetings, not your fault you're a drunk suffering from a disease of addiction.
Sorry I don't buy into it my hormones/society/peer pressure don't control me. I'm a human being perfetly capable of making rational choices that I expect to be held responsible for.
Mental illness is a strawman and the jury is still out on that. Psychiatrists debate constantly about the origins of mental illness. Is it the enviroment that causes the chemichals to become unbalanced or do the chemichals become unbalanced first and cause the illness or is it a combination of both. I'm sure if they ever discover a mental illness caused by an imbalance of testoterone the feminutters will be screaming with delight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 10, @04:24AM EST (#66)
|
|
|
|
|
Here is another intresting link that brings biological destiny to some more illogical conclusions: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1609
Strangely this one states that males are more fragile then females. Guess they can't figure out what all them hormones and genetic diffrences really do. At least they assure us at the end maleness is not a genetic disorder. Whew!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, your hormones don't control you? And what do you call that angry tirade at the beginning of your response?
It feels good to be right.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They already have discovered a disease caused by testosterone imbalance: Liberalism.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 10, @10:57AM EST (#71)
|
|
|
|
|
....and women never have angry tirade's do they, they are peaceful and loving. Lovers of all humanity, non-violent and nuturing. Those women spreading feces on each other and beating each other up must be a hallucination or maybe a liberal plot. Sorry, an angry triade has nothing to do with testosterone every human is capable of anger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 10, @11:19AM EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
People like you and your femihater allies would just love that wouldn't they to make testosterone a mental illness. You and the femihaters would make good chums, you can team up with Andrea Dworkin and discuss men's biological need to kill and be violent.
For me I'd rather have this as my definition of manliness:
"Manliness is responsibility. It is respect for others, honour (self-respect), and all the skills needed to work in a group to nuture the community." -from Where's Daddy? The Mythology Behind Custody-Access-Support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 10, @11:30AM EST (#74)
|
|
|
|
|
One more thing to add. Not only do you adhere to one of the driving forces behind feminism-that men's "biological desires" need to be tamed by a good women but you also use similar tactics. I don't know how many times I've heard a feminutter acuse a man of "proving there point" because a guy finally gets pissed off at there gender stereotypes and negative depictions of manhood. I guess that's the beauty of accusing others of what one is most guilty of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you're a good case study. Thanks.
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as you continue to become more emotional, and you continue to not sign your posts...you continue to prove my point.
So sign up, become a member of this board, and start autographing your posts. I'm proud of the statements I make here, anon. Are you?
Mitchell A. Smith ~ Discrediting the pacifist ideology
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my email address is above...why don't you bring this discussion directly to me?
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 10, @08:22PM EST (#81)
|
|
|
|
|
ppmnow to incredibletulkas:
" make a point, substantiate it, bring something to the table other than your 'opinion'. From what I've read, you have yet to make a valid statement on subject. All I read is 'see me - adult male - my chest big - obey me'. Yes, that’s gonna work. That’ll show ‘em! rah rah!
However, what you lack in argumentative skills you make up for in inventive labeling. Women's logic...I like that. You're so silly."
Hmmm....this seems to be your tactic not mine or incredibletulkas'. Another case of-the beauty of accusing others of what one is most guilty of. At least incridibletulkas and I can agree on one thing-your thinking is steeped in women's logic I would say feminazi logic instead of women's logic but that's just semantics. From the beliefs you hold that no one should be held responsible for there actions to the tactics of argument you use all lifted straight from the SCUM manifesto. Hey, isn't the banging of chests and the screaming of me adult male obey me what you are all for.
Wow! You sure have lots of uses for testosterone monkey man, not only does it cause anger but emotion too and anonymous signing of posts. I'm not going to take this to email, people like you are just as dangerous as femicrazies and need to be exposed. You must be embarrased of not being able to come up with an argument to back your views if you want to take it to email.
If you haven't figured it out yet pacifism does not mean the use of violence when necessary, I suppose anyone who opposes your feminutter inspired view of men as inherintly violent and criminal must be a pacifist.
It's amazing how a mere 40-50 years of feminist thought has had such an impact on men's thinking about themselves. Even some men's activists fall in line with Andrea Dworkin and her ilk's beliefs that men are natural born killers while women are sugar and spice and everything nice. If the men's movement has friends like you who needs enemies.
Excuse me, gotta go, I have to go initiate some youths into manhood by beating the crap out of them. Yeah, that'll teach them what it's like to be man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"From the beliefs you hold that no one should be held responsible for there actions"
'there' should be 'their', anon. Shame you don't have grammar check: You could use it. And a dictionary: ‘Pacifism’ means opposed to violence of any kind.
As for the rest of your tirade, it's just so, well, silly. Particularly 'Monkey man.' Very cute.
And why no signature?
Mitchell A. Smith ~ Awaiting email from ‘anon-sequitur the silly’
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday May 11, @12:32AM EST (#83)
|
|
|
|
|
Why would I email you? You actually think you are worth my personal attention. The last ditch effort of a loser that can't manage a reasonable argument-make fun of spelling.
I know the definition of pacifism monkey man I was pointing out that you have no clue what it means considering I'm not a pacifist but you continue to use the word. Then I suppose there are no pictures in the dictionary so it isn't of intrest to you.
BTW where's that link you were going to post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sign up and sign your posts and then I'll give you a link...if you're nice.
Take care, silly.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday May 11, @02:25AM EST (#85)
|
|
|
|
|
I no longer care to continue this conversation. Until you can come up with a reasonable argument about how boys wandering in gangs beating on other boys is a postive experience of manhood and how testosterone is the primary chemichal in the creation of a violent nature I'm done conversing with you. It's fairly obvious to me that women are just as capable of violence as men and that testosterone plays a minimal role in this. Keep up the machismo the feminists will love you for it.
As for anonymous posting, who gives a rat's ass. You could easily sign up a new account and post under another name. You could log out and post anonymously yourself. You could have three or four accounts if you wished to. If you haven't realized it yet this is the internet where everyone is anonymous if they choose to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take care. And good luck finding some truth for yourself. And maybe a dictionary, and an English grammar book, and...
Mitchell A. Smith ~ Making a bet about you sticking to your word.
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under what strange rule (no doubt it would have to be a feminist rule at that) should these boys be held accountable?
Now, if what you're trying to say is that these boys should admit to themselves that what they did was wrong, then I'm not going to argue with that. I would feel ashamed if I participated in this kind of stunt, regardless of my level of involvement.
That being stated, under no circumstances should these boy be made to feel a sense of culpability. By choosing that line of logic, then you can easily state that anyone watching is also culpable because voyeurism is tantamount to encouragement through passive enabling. In addition, to bolster your argument, it has been shown if people stand around and watch an act or event then it is a type of herd mentality approval, not a condemnation or criticism of the incident in question. Thus, you can also make the case that the crowd as a whole is blameworthy since it created a type of peer pressure that demanded the activity continue.
Knowing these things, would you want to enter into such a slippery slope where just being present at something as childish as this action is enough to be held liable? Also, what would you do to those that listened but didn’t watch? How ‘bout all those people watching the video and laughing hysterically at the action? Where exactly would the culpability end?
I know that child porn and a few other examples completely whitewash a good portion of my argument, but that’s ok. I’m just not ready to live in a world where anytime I watch or listen to something I am then a culpable participant in the act.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under what strange rule (no doubt it would have to be a feminist rule at that) should these boys be held accountable?
It's very simple, Mitchell. If they just saw it happening, they're not responsible. If they egged the girls on, they share responsibility.
Many people here, myself included, have pointed out the shared culpability for war of women who refuse to date or even degrade men who refuse to go to war. This is the same situation in reverse. Again, any boys who egged the girls on share in the responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"That being stated, under no circumstances should these boy be made to feel a sense of culpability. By choosing that line of logic, then you can easily state that anyone watching is also culpable because voyeurism is tantamount to encouragement through passive enabling."
If a person is watching and shouting encouragement, this causes a person to feel the need to overly-respond in order to protect their image in the eyes of those watching; it's nothing short of cock-fighting.
Rather, I think that society has fallen in that the boys did nothing to STOP the fighting, as is a man's proper place to PREVENT women from tearing things apart-- which inevitably happens when men are the passive (or equal) partner or party to a relationship- it's simply the natural order of things, and to oppose this is to deny the laws of physics. If the boys were trained to be men, then any one of them would have been able to stop it, and even if all the girls turned on him then he could even stop them by simply taking the gloves off if necessary.
However, civility has long gone out the window with these "Gen X" types being so brainwashed with toxic feminist ideology to the point that NO ONE wears the pants anymore-- or even proverbial clothes; as Eminem says in criticizing fallen social mores, the social message today is "we ain't nothin' but mammals!"
And so, it's no surprise that kids have expressed this social de-evolution to the point of acting like apes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I made a case for why you're wrong, and it holds up pretty well.
By your logic, if a kid is attempting to make a 10 foot jump on his skateboard, and another kid says 'You can do it, Johnny!', and Johnny falls and breaks a leg, then Johnny's parents can now blame, and potentially sue, the kid and his parents. In addition, if a basketball game is underway, and a boy on the bench says 'Go for the steal!', and a steal is made but a foul is committed AND a broken leg or finger or hand happens during the foul, then the boy that said ‘Go for the steal!’ is now guilty of, I don’t know, something.
Finally, who is going to determine the fine line (yes, my now famous chalk line) of what is and isn’t verbal instigation? Will it be you? At what point does a sarcastic remark like “I sure hope most of you get hurt!” constitute initiation of more aggressive activity and thus require that person to be held responsible for what comes next?
Thomas: Don't tell me I'm wrong...try to convince me that you're right.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I'm at a party and say, along with the crowd, "Chug Chug Chug" to a person that then proceeds to get drunk and drives his/her car into another car killing someone, what am I guilty of? How did I know that it would escalate?
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas> It's very simple, Mitchell. If they just saw it happening, they're not responsible. If they egged the girls on, they share responsibility.
Once again, I disagree. Anything the boys said after the girls started their melee was simply their exercising the right to comment. How do you know whether they're remarks were sarcastic? They would have been perfectly entitled to convey their derision with back-handed praise.
You apparently think the boys in the audience should be punished. How do you propose to select the male scape-goats for punishment? How will you separate those who were making enthusiastic encouraging remarks from those who were making sarcastic encouraging remarks?
Thomas> Many people here, myself included, have pointed out the shared culpability for war of women who refuse to date or even degrade men who refuse to go to war. This is the same situation in reverse.
Tell me about that war, Thomas. Did the women start refusing to date men who wouldn't go to war before the war started or after? If it was after, how can they be responsible for the war starting?
I think your ideas on personal responsibility are lacking.
Tim
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While for the most part you're right, there are places where failure to act to stop a crime in progress can leave you open to suit or arrest.
this site has an interesting discussion of the subject:
http://www.agulnicklaw.com/articles/duty.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I know that child porn and a few other examples completely whitewash a good portion of my argument, but that’s ok. I’m just not ready to live in a world where anytime I watch or listen to something I am then a culpable participant in the act."
Yeah, I know. Still, thanks for the URL Dave...you are da man!
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DaveK67> While for the most part you're right, there are places where failure to act to stop a crime in progress can leave you open to suit or arrest.
"Crime in progress"? we're talking about some school girls rolling around in the mud, for chrissakes.
DaveK67> this site has an interesting discussion of the subject:
http://www.agulnicklaw.com/articles/duty.html
I read it. Did you? There is nothing in that article to support the idea that there is anything in the laws of any of the united states that requires by-standers to intervene in crimes in progress. This is unsurprising as such a rule would be quite insane -- bank customers would be have to be prosecuted for not tackling armed robbers, motorists for not pursuing and stopping drivers who driving dangerously, etc.
The only US laws mentioned are "good samaritan" laws which require one to render assistance to persons in "grave physical harm... to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself". No blanket requirement to tackle criminals, let alone filthy schoolgirls.
Tim
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someone getting whacked hard enough to require stitches is most certainly a crime. If it was my kid I'd want to see arrests.
As I stated earlier, for the most part you're right, but in some cases and in some states people should be aware that they may have some legal responsibility to take certain actions. "the majority of states" does not equal all.
"Contrary to the French Penal Code, the majority of states in the United States refrain from punishing individuals for not helping endangered victims, be it by rescue or by summoning the authorities. France's approach, which is widely followed throughout Europe, punishes individuals for non- intervention, provided that four requisite elements are met. [FN120]"
In this case, in some states those bystanders could be in trouble for not reporting the crime to the authorities... although the risk of injury would keep them from being required to help.
Furthermore... in the case of the girls and boys on the sidelines who were "egging on" the girls doing the beating, that is patently illegal and constitutes Incitement.
Criminal Incitement
It is unlawful to explicitly recommend, incite, or urge the commitment of a crime, through any means of communication. Such an act is a minor crime, and the penalty is to be proportionate to the penalty for the crime which was recommended, incited, or urged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 09, @11:15AM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
When I was 5 years old I broke a pencil at school and was reprimanded by the Headmaster for it. Also, my parents received a bill for a replacement pencil. When they asked me why I broke it, I replied,
"Because Phillip told me to."
I was then given a long lecture about nobody but myself, no matter what they say or tell me to do, is responsible for my actions. This was my lesson in life, and a very valuable lesson indeed.
I am absolutely astounded at suggestions made on this thread that the boys should be held accountable for what happened in this particular scenario because they 'egged the girls on'.
What utter nonsense,
Red Kev
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A link to a discussion of the conflict between First Amendment rights and Incitement:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/c onlaw/incitement.htm
obviously they're talking about issues a lot more serious than a playground fight... but this playground fight has gained national attention and is likely to be taken pretty seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read it as well. Depending on the circumstance, a bystander may be required to take action based on relationship. However, this link also states another fact very clearly:
“Contrary to French law, the American rule on omissions is as follows: there is no legal duty to rescue another in danger, even though a moral obligation might exist. [FN10] This is true even "when that aid can be rendered without danger or inconvenience to" the potential rescuer. [FN11] “
I am not a legal scholar, nor am I employed in the legal profession, so I cannot verify the voracity of these statements. I can say that I know of no law which requires a bystander to act to prevent or discourage the actions of others.
Now, I don’t like to shoot myself in the foot, and I hate to lose an argument, but there is a precedent for not encouraging the acts of another:
http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/ 121253
Do I agree with the conviction outlined above? Yes…and no.
In the Hedlund case (that listed above), the passenger was the fiancé of the driver, which establishes a relationship. Also, she provided liquor to the situation. In those respects, I agree with the guilty verdict. Yet, the circumstance surrounding the events are more akin to cheering, and that alone would not have warranted prosecution, much less conviction. So, if judged solely on the actions of the passenger with respect to her encouraging behavior while the car was in motion, I would not have returned a guilty verdict of accomplice to a man driving under the influence of alcohol.
Tim: I think Dave was just giving us a pointer to some pertinent info which illustrates how easily this sort of thing can become indeterminate.
As for me, well, you’ve read my comments and know where I stand.
“Ah, the life of a frog…that’s the life for me.” – Bart Simpson
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the incitement thing is almost impossible to test for. Given the following:
2 women are fighting. A woman in the crowd says "Someone, please, stop this!" A woman hears the call to duty, then tries to stop the altercation, but that enrages a bystander, one thing leads to another, and a mad many person brawl ensues.
Is the woman that requested someone to stop the fight guilty? If not, why not? I mean, she encouraged physical 'action' of some sort, yes? And this action led to further violence in the above scenario so what is she guilty of? Being a good Samaritan does not shield you from potential hazard or lawsuit or criminal prosecution.
Do spectators at sporting events hold some accountability when fights break out and they cheer them on?
See, making onlookers and gawkers and vocalists guilty of crimes under these circumstances is patently dangerous. That slippery slope thing is mighty, um…
…slippery.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It's very simple, Mitchell. If they just saw it happening, they're not responsible. If they egged the girls on, they share responsibility."
I'm going to go one further and say that if they FAILED TO STOP IT, they have full responsibility; anything else simply buys into the anarchical "abdication of leadership" model which seeks to anonymize individuals of identity--gender or otherwise, and while under our processed-sterile culture women are stripped of what it means to be a woman, men are likewise stripped of what it means to be a man-- and everyone becomes basic free-radical organisms in the environment with no sense of order or purpose.
Compare this to the natural order, in which any disturbance will be quelled by an alpha-male, and we can see even from this simple example why the destruction of order in the name of "liberation" leads to anarchy when no effective better alternative is given (save one that works on paper just by waving the hands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"By your logic, if a kid is attempting to make a 10 foot jump on his skateboard, and another kid says 'You can do it, Johnny!', and Johnny falls and breaks a leg, then Johnny's parents can now blame, and potentially sue, the kid and his parents. In addition, if a basketball game is underway, and a boy on the bench says 'Go for the steal!', and a steal is made but a foul is committed AND a broken leg or finger or hand happens during the foul, then the boy that said ‘Go for the steal!’ is now guilty of, I don’t know, something."
Again, this is a non-sequitur analogy in that he's not encouraging hostile action between or against other persons, but merely
While persons should be taught to resist peer pressure, hostile situations present multiple-jeopardy by both setting the effective "street rule" in terms of respect and approval via law of the jungle, thus placing the participants in a basic survival situation of fighting for their very worth and existence- and anyone who denies this simply doesn't know what the F they're talking about (and I do NOT use such terms freely).
As far as anyone judges them in such a situation in which both parties were equal participants and not "assailant-victim," then I am forced to logically agree with George Bernard Shaw in the statement that "the absent are always wrong," i.e. unless the adults, police etc were there at the time, they have no right to monday-morning quarterback the situation from a safe distance after-the-fact, when there is no way in HELL that there weren't warning signs of this type of behavior which were ignored or rationalized and suppressed by all adults involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Contrary to French law, the American rule on omissions is as follows: there is no legal duty to rescue another in danger, even though a moral obligation might exist. [FN10] This is true even "when that aid can be rendered without danger or inconvenience to" the potential rescuer. [FN11] “
It's a sad day indeed when Americans are put to shame by the French.
In the natural order of things, as well as the proper way of society which doesn't deny reality with dogma, the male has responsiblity to assume leadership and keep order; if we continue to allow feminist false ideology to perpetuate lies to the contrary out of the egotistical self-hatred of a few ugly women just because they are more alike to men in body AND mind, but who allow themselves to be defined by gender rather than individuality, then we're buying into a doomed philosophy which only hurts everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I like your moxie for making the statement, regardless of it’s ridiculous contents.
Do I hear the faint whisper of ‘flame bait’?
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mitch, I can't stand one more of your absurd, non-sequitur analogies, and I sincerely hope that you're not serious about actually believing this type of women's logic; if so, you must be very young and so have some excuse, however if you're over 30 then please give it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anything the boys said after the girls started their melee was simply their exercising the right to comment. How do you know whether they're remarks were sarcastic?
I don't know. Read what I wrote: "If they egged the girls on, they share responsibility."
How do you propose to select the male scape-goats for punishment?
Foolish ad hominem here. I don't propose selecting scapegoats.
How will you separate those who were making enthusiastic encouraging remarks from those who were making sarcastic encouraging remarks?
Culpability for wrongdoing should be determined through witnesses, recording(s), admissions by perpetrators. Also, it's ultimately up to the school and/or justice system to make the determination.
Did the women start refusing to date men who wouldn't go to war before the war started or after? If it was after, how can they be responsible for the war starting?
If it was after the war started, they shared responsibility for the fighting done by men who otherwise might have refused to go to war. We recently had a discussion about this with respect to, if I remember correctly, a ribbon campaign during WWI. Women would publicly degrade men who weren't at war by giving them ribbons. If I remember correctly, in that discussion the men who posted were generally quite emphatic that women were partly responsible for the fighting. From what I've read so far on this thread (through post 15), however, when women fight and men encourage them, it's only the women who are culpable.
I think your ideas on personal responsibility are lacking.
More ad hominem, not worthy of a response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While for the most part you're right, there are places where failure to act to stop a crime in progress can leave you open to suit or arrest.
I'm not sure to whom you are referring, but I will point out that I am not writing about failing to stop a crime. I'm writing about actively encouraging a crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someone getting whacked hard enough to require stitches is most certainly a crime.
Another had a broken ankle. This was not girls rolling around in the mud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore... in the case of the girls and boys on the sidelines who were "egging on" the girls doing the beating, that is patently illegal and constitutes Incitement.
FINALLY, someone else gets it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
make a point, substantiate it, bring something to the table other than your 'opinion'. From what I've read, you have yet to make a valid statement on subject. All I read is 'see me - adult male - my chest big - obey me'. Yes, that’s gonna work. That’ll show ‘em! rah rah!
However, what you lack in argumentative skills you make up for in inventive labeling. Women's logic...I like that. You're so silly.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But you can't have my Bud lite... if I drank Bud light... which I don't (yuk).
Anyway...
Incitement isn't too hard to prove when you've got video of the event, not that I believe they would go after bystanders.
My point was that such behavior IS illegal, it's different from ice hockey because the fights in ice hockey aren't illegal activities.
In this case I think they'll probably just get a few of the more egregious attackers and let it go at that. BUT... given the way things are today, if they DID go after the guys who were egging on the attackers, they'd probably get stiffer punishment than the girls doing the attacking. (see the article about the woman who blackmailed a bunch of guys... her boyfriend is getting a longer prison sentance than she is)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
given the way things are today, if they DID go after the guys who were egging on the attackers, they'd probably get stiffer punishment than the girls doing the attacking.
How right you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That same site indicated that US states are moving in that direction (the US laws that are similar to the French ones are all less than 30 years old) but we're just going slower than they did.
Overall I think it's kindof sad that we would feel the need to legislate basic decency... but after watching the video over the winter of the guy in Washington who was filling up his car as another guy was robbed and shot to death, I tend to think maybe legislation IS needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am very uncomfortable with "Moral behavior" being legislated. Who's "morality"?
Yes, people should help others, but it's a slippery slope when the law can punish you for NOT doing something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's a slippery slope when the law can punish you for NOT doing something.
Just realize that there are two different things being discussed here—on the one hand people doing nothing to stop the actions of others, on the other hand people actively encouraging a crime-in-progress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 09, @08:12PM EST (#56)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas this is the anonymous poster that responded to you but not the chicago joe anonymous poster that started the chicago thread... :) ...yes I'm going to stop hiding and pick a handle, this can get confusing. You have changed my mind the boys egging them on should be held responsible in some ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to stop hiding and pick a handle, this can get confusing.
Great. If you've made the posts that I think you've made, it will be a pleasure to discuss matters with you.
You have changed my mind the boys egging them on should be held responsible in some ways.
What can I say? I always enjoy having someone agree with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. Actively encouraging assault is and should be considered incitement. But there have been a few comments to the tune of "if they didn't try to stop it they should be prosecuted." As was previously posted, if a male interfered, he's probably going to be rewarded with assault charges. So why bother. I don't even stop to help women with flat tires anymore. Heck, she might think I'm trying to attack her and I'll get a face full of mace or something. Besides, they wanted to be equal, and I don't remember any girls breaking up fights when I was in Junior High.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday May 11, @04:53AM EST (#87)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe some day the men's movement with the likes of ppmnow at it's head will be able to attain true equality between men and women.
Neither sex will be held accountable for there actions anymore.
'nuff said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for not keeping your word, anon. I pay myself $1.
Gotta love that Pavlov...
Mitchell A. Smith ~ Now officially done with this discussion thread.
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anon: It left the implication that the girls were not soley responsible for their actions: that the boys should except some responsiblity for what happened.
Thomas> Hate to respond to an anonymous, but...
Why? the anon posts often have good points to make. I know. I've made many anon posts here.
Thomas> If some boys egged them on, then they should accept responsibility for what they did.
Uh? The anon said the boys weren't responsible for the girls' behaviour. Don't you agree with that? Evidence is it was the girls who were the only ones perpetrating the violence and so they are responsible for it.
The boys are responsible for what the boys did. If they 'egged the girls on' then they are responsible for that, relatively minor, offence.
Personally it sounds like good dirty fun and a typical case of American over-reaction.
cheers,
Tim
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas> Hate to respond to an anonymous, but...
Why? the anon posts often have good points to make. I know. I've made many anon posts here.
Yes, sometimes AUs make good points, However, discussions with AUs are often impossible. Sometimes several AUs will start posting on a subject and it's impossible to know who is saying what or developing a line of thought beyond any single post. (On a humorous note on another thread we just had an AU make a statement and very shortly after AU posted to say that AU had made a great point. Now there's a ringing endorsement!) It's impossible to hold an AU responsible for any previous posts; the person can just deny having made the statements.
Also, in the cases where a person is too lazy to bother getting a handle, or is too afraid of being held accountable for previous statements, then they're generally not worthy of my time.
The anon said the boys weren't responsible for the girls' behaviour. Don't you agree with that?
Of course. Note what I wrote: "If some boys egged them on, then they should accept responsibility for what they did." I just added the emphasis, but the quote is precise.
The boys are not responsible for what the girls did. The boys are responsible for what the boys did. Inciting to violence is a criminal offense in many jurisdictions and rightfully so. My point is that if the boys were just cheering the game, they committed no offense, if they incited to violence, then they are guilty of wrongdoing that may be a criminal act, albeit probably a misdemeanor that won't be pursued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The boys are responsible for what the boys did. If they 'egged the girls on' then they are responsible for that, relatively minor, offence.
Sorry, I meant to quote this in my last post. It looks like we're actually in agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you to a point Thomas, the behavior of the boys to stand by and do nothing, or egg them on is not noble by any means. However, this is about responsibility for one's actions. If the boys egged on the girls to rob a couple of 7-Elevens afterwards, and the girls proceeded to do so, are the boys partially responsible? Morally yes, but criminally no!
My point in all of this is that if women and men are equals, then assuming responsibility for your actions is also a form of equality. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that men are held to a higher form of responsibility and accountability than women. I find many men willing to "go easy on women" for their irresponsible or immature behavior, yet more than willing to come down hard on men for the same actions. I posted a story last fall about two Chicago journalist who felt that adult females who seduce young men should not be punished as extensively as men. Why? Because in their opinion, when adult men seduce young girls they are hardcore monsters, but when women do it, "they are just having relationships with them". And both writers felt that the male victims should also receive criminal charges because "they know what they are doing is wrong". Isn't this the most egregious form of sexism? It implies a deep seated belief that men are more intelligent and well-rounded human beings than women, and therefore, we expect more civilized behavior from our men than our women. Unfortunately this seems to be the mood of our culture rather than just two journalist.
It seems we should acknowledge the boys behavior as distubing, but let's not forget the fact that the boy's egged on the girls only AFTER they began engaging in what prosecutors are calling criminal behavoir.
What NBC's Dateline left out(distorting the truth) was the fact that some people, boys included, did eventually come to the aid of some of the victims.
And it should also be noted that one of the girls that was victimized and traumitized by the event was willing to tell her story, but demanded money from the media first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you and I, we're of the same mind here.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
men are held to a higher form of responsibility and accountability than women.
There's no question about this. It is a terrible injustice, and while many people (equity feminist types, for instance) might claim that it hurts women, by infantilizing them, as much as it hurts men, such a claim is fatuous. It victimizes (yes, victimizes) men far more than women. I suspect that this type of imbalance and injustice toward men is a primary reason for so many people on this board being cautious about holding the boys responsible in this case.
I find many men willing to "go easy on women" for their irresponsible or immature behavior, yet more than willing to come down hard on men for the same actions.
You sure won't get an argument from me about that. Such behavior on the part of those men is corrupt and hypocritical.
I posted a story last fall about two Chicago journalist who felt that adult females who seduce young men should not be punished as extensively as men.
Thank you for that valuable post. It led to a fine discussion as well as some activism by people on this board.
the boy's egged on the girls only AFTER they began engaging in what prosecutors are calling criminal behavoir.
Actually, judging by the most recent video that I've seen, the boys were involved in helping the girls get drunk—all around illegal behavior (granted, not in and of itself necessarily extremely serious).
some people, boys included, did eventually come to the aid of some of the victims.
I didn't know that, though I'm not surprised. Thanks for pointing it out.
And it should also be noted that one of the girls that was victimized and traumitized by the event was willing to tell her story, but demanded money from the media first.
I shake my head and give a rueful chuckle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In our gentlemans debate, let me clarify a few points further. For one, it appears the alcohol was supplied by the parents of a student that took part in the hazing. Charges against them may come next week after further investigation. Second, it still disturbs me that you feel the boys helped them get drunk. Unless there was a gun held to their head, no girl had to drink.
This is that gray area of responsiblity and accoutabiity that seems to be administered according to one's gender. If this had been a male dominated event with some women present, would our society accuse the women of helping the boys get drunk and harming each other? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think it would ever happen.
In situations where men act irresponsibly, society expects men to accept accoountability for their actions, and the consequences that follow like mature adults. And that's the way it should be. When women are involved in the same type of behavior, our culture, men and women alike, immediately struggle to find an outlet to purge these women of full accountibilty, and distribute blame, consequences, and punishment upon others-usually men, or the abstract influences of our "masculine society".
Consider that in Illinios there is push to release a woman from prison who killed her children almost twenty years ago. Those close to the case say that looking back, it is now obivious that the woman was suffering from post-partium depression. Our new governor is considering releasing her. Compare that with an article I read a few months ago about a man in another state who is sitting on death-row. He was proven to be mentally disturbed at the time of his killings and is still mentally disturbed today. So how did the state deal with him and his mental illness? They are going to induce him with enough drugs to make him mentally fit to be executed. Don't want to kill a crazy person do we? It's not politically correct. Hopefully the readers of MNN can recall or clarify the exact details of the case.
To put it bluntly, I do not condone the pathetic behavoir of some men, I just feel more has to be done to force women to stand alone and accept resposibilty and the consequences of their actions in the same way that it is expected of our men.
Have always enjoyed your thoughts and comments Thomas!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday May 12, @12:21AM EST (#89)
|
|
|
|
|
You know, I was thinking...,
Feminists and a lot of women are always saying "Men are less intelligent than women." and "Men are just big children." and "Men are not as "evloved" as women."
Okay, If they truly BELIEVE these things about men to be fact..., Then wouldn't logic also dictate that men would naturaly have to be held LESS RESPONSIBLE THAN WOMEN who are said to be MORE responsible and "advanced" than men are.
If men are just "big babies" then how can some one with such a mentality POSSIBLY be held accountable for much, if anything at all...?
Me thinks we are seeing a tad of double-speak.
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"By the way, did I point out that these girls come from a wealthy suburb?"
That makes even more sense; poorer girls tend to be overly-assertive due to insecurity, but mainly in individual situations where they feel threatened; however the rich ones are spoiled to the point that they think themselves the center of the freaking universe and entitled to do and treat people as they please like little Caligula's-- the fact that young girls are elevated due to their liberated sexuality puts them entirely out of control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 10, @04:31PM EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
""By the way, did I point out that these girls come from a wealthy suburb?"
That makes even more sense; poorer girls tend to be overly-assertive due to insecurity, but mainly in individual situations where they feel threatened; however the rich ones are spoiled to the point that they think themselves the center of the freaking universe and entitled to do and treat people as they please like little Caligula's-- the fact that young girls are elevated due to their liberated sexuality puts them entirely out of control."
It was the same over-pampered spoiled brats who founded the modern feminist movement, which of course has never been for "equal rights" for women nearly as much as it has been simply a hate movement against men, and even women who do like/love men. Very good point, 'Tulkas.
- Freebird
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Frankly, I think we may see even more of this. We have a society that DENIES that females can be violent and a media that INCOURAGES them to be violent, especialy towards males."
It's not just the media (which exceed Nazi propaganda in encouraging and rationalizing the same type of violence), it's also the system which selectively prosecutes and punishes persons based on gender-- even in casees of self-defense.
Thus, women are allowed to kill male attackers, but men aren't even allowed
As one man put it in the interview after "The People's Court" after Judge Wapner criticized him for fighting back against an ex-girlfriend who attacked him on his own property, saying that she was going to "fix it so he'd never make love to another woman again," citing the slight difference in size,
"Well, I don't think women should have 'carte blanche' on men's bodies just because they're smaller or weaker or whatever."
Too bad the legal system doesn't see it that way.
However, I agree; I'm not particularly worried about any woman, however it's the principle of respect and dignity against such defamatory and degrading messages and images which were favorites of Nazi propagandists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can definitely see your point here. However, it is good to see a little stereotype-breaking every now and again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I can definitely see your point here. However, it is good to see a little stereotype-breaking every now and again."
The issue I am making is: Our enemy is not women. Our enemy is clearly a system that forces us to believe that 2 plus 2 can equal 5 if it so feels.
Granted at this point in time it works well for women, which is why it has been so easy to push along. The state needs 2 plus 2 to equal 5.
But when it comes to violence we know for certain 2 plus 2 equals 4. My guess is that the state is activly trying to divide men against women to easier subjugate us.
The real cream of the matter now is that so many "socialists" outlets depend on the DV industry. They rely financially on the image of reality being 2 plus 2 equals 5 when it comes to women , men and violence.
To top this off, that hazing event in the school is nothing new. I have been involved in Universities for years that type of stuff goes on all the time all across the board and has for years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot to mention, but, it is my belief that as soon as they can do it, they will turn these dv laws against women.
I agree that men should be protected, but we should be confused at to who the real culprits are here. The state is creating disloyalty against eachother in favour of the state. Don't be fooled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...what I've been saying, i.e. that women's conscience is morally relative, and takes the form only of an assertive man, without which they are eventually ruthless; I can't think of a single case of such a thing ever happening at a boy's game.
It must be because males, taught from birth to carry the burden of civility, are raised according to the rules of fair play and sportsmanship; or it's just inborn (which makes more sense from a chicken-egg viewpoint).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's try not to overgeneralize. Men "haze" each other as well. If there is a lesson in this posting, I think it is to show that men do not have the monopoly on violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's more on the melee.
Note the "In one segment of the home video, girls wearing bright yellow football jerseys can be seen being held upside down over a keg of beer by several boys while they drink straight from the tap. In another segment, several girls can be seen pounding on one girl with their fists while they push her down into the mud."
I'd say some boys shared in the overall culpability. And this was definitely not just a case of girls rolling in the mud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just saw the most recent video. There was a group of girls beating the ever loving crap out of another girl. They weren't just pounding fists, which sounds like lifting a fist up and down and pummeling with the heel of one's hand. They were throwing full scale, closed fist punches. We're talking real brutality here.
I guess they were driven to it by the patriarchy. We all know that no female would ever behave like this if she weren't driven to it by evil males. It just isn't in their nature.
(sarcasm off) (sarcasm off) (sarcasm off)
Geez. It took three tries that time :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 09, @11:20PM EST (#63)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas,
I saw that too, this evening.
Did you see where the one girl actually shot one of the "hazeing" girls in the lower back at close range with a paint-gun?
I've never been shot by one of those, but I understand it hurts like crazy!
These girls aren't just vicious and mean, they're just plain STUPID!
BTW, I also saw where some girl who goes to that school, was interviwed and she said something to the effect; "So some girl got her head split open, What's the big deal? She didn't DIE, or anything...,"
Yeah..., MALES are sooooo insensitive.
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
some girl who goes to that school, was interviwed and she said something to the effect; "So some girl got her head split open, What's the big deal? She didn't DIE, or anything...,"
Yeah..., MALES are sooooo insensitive.
Bull's-eye.
Society is undergoing a dramatic and traumatic awakening these days. The world is coming to realize that females are not the persecuted holy innocents that, for decades, oh-so-many females have claimed they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In one segment of the home video, girls wearing bright yellow football jerseys can be seen being held upside down over a keg of beer by several boys while they drink straight from the tap. In another segment, several girls can be seen pounding on one girl with their fists while they push her down into the mud."
Why do they reference the boys BEFORE the statement of the girls assaulting the female victim as she is held down? This action DOES NOT belong in the second paragraph of this story. In fact, I don't believe it even needs to be included at this time. Again, more feminazi, anti-male propaganda! The Associated Press absolutely reeks of agenda influence when it comes to this kind of thing.
Typical.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
