|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 28, @10:55PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 29, @01:40AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
that was me above
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I sincerely, honestly, and fervently hope Lorianne wanders into this thread. You guys should read the LAST post I left her. I decided that since she wouldn't respond to FACTS and QUESTIONS I would point out a couple of things to her. It was an HONEST attempt to break the feminist indoctrination she's under. It's long, but I think it was probably the first time someone challenged her fundamental views.
/comments.pl?sid=04/01/ 20/2110248&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread& pid=159#166
Check it out if ya like.
This law is a step in the right direction. I don't want kids locked up for doing what kids do, what I did, and what comes natural. But if the law is going to punish one child (of the same age) then it's got to be balanced. Now, of course, is the litmus test of equal application of the law. When the laws are balanced there can be objective discussions on it's application. If this premise is to be questioned then consider the South African Apartheid laws that had one set of laws for whites and one for "Kaffirs". Funny how the MSers don't see the similarities in the comparison, but then, that would require the MSers to first consider us human beings with the same innate rights and responsibilities.
Let's hope we hear updates on this story. I, for one, am interested.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I and many other don't consider like-age teenagers having sex as "statutory rape". Also, it is ludicrous that two people could "rape" each other, statutorily or otherwise.
The people who are for criminalizing sex between minor peers have a completely different agenda than the people who wish to prosecute ADULTS who have sex with minors.
Again, we ran into this in my state where the ultra-religious crowd misunderstood (or diliberately misconstrued) what statutory rape laws are about ... which is protecting minors FROM adults ... not protecting minors from each other.
Those who just wish to enforce laws against sex period are different than those who want to protect minors from unscrupulous adults and possible exploitation of minors at the hands of adults.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And once again the mental gymnastics on the part of our Stealth Feminazi to argue against women being held equally as accountable in anything as men.
Jeez, can you set your watch by her or what, guys?
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. But Lorianne ... that's the law now. Don't you, MS "it's the law", support the legally passed, supported (by parents I guess), and now publicized law of the land. Little lights seem to go off above your head now that a ridiculous law can affect YOUR gender. That education you paid for at "Indoctrination Studies" sure does show.
Nothin but love for ya.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 29, @11:31PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Equality. . .FACE IT LORAINE
What
And
So
NOT. . .EQUALITY IS EQUALITY
accept it . . .
by your own words!!!!!!!!!
Women are factually just a capable and ARE equally oppressive, criminal and just plain shity as men can be. . . not all. . .not all men. . .deal with it
As the sleeping giant wakes. . .this is only the beginning!
GAMES WITHOUT FRONTIER. . .WAR WITHOUT TEARS
you'll not PLAY on the males natural tendency to protect/pity or nurture women no more
You see its not the woman on the outside that matters. . .its who they are on the inside that counts!
We have learned. . .
shall I continue???
Need anything more be said?
How bout NO. . .OK?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 29, @11:49PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Also, it is ludicrous that two people could "rape" each other, statutorily or otherwise.
But it happens very very often. . .how ludicros. . .wake up
Then why the hell are males prosecuted, jailed, imprisoned? Of course never, ever the female as she MUST ALWAYS be the victim . . . right?
PEHLEASE
HELLO
Well??
The notorious double standard. . .maybe?
Well let me put it to ya this way, and this is how real life is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I posted the last two "anonomous" posts, had to re-find my password
Any way
Whats wrong with prosecuting criminal women? Criminal men are surely prosecuted. . .no?
I know women are predestined with hundreds maybe thousand of "syndromes" (excuses) in which they are excused from there crimes. Kinda makes me wonder, why anyone would hire, vote for, marry, socialize etc, etc with such unstable people?
I highly doubt that REAL WOMEN are gonna be demeaned by that shit much longer!
Would you like a couple thousand examples? /millions
Chivalry is dead. . .by YOUR COMMAND!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 30, @07:10PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne,
I thought you were MS Law&Order. WE MEN seem to think statutory rape laws should exist. Here is a misapplication of "fairness". But SUDDENLY ... lol, this is rich .. NOW .. you want a reality check when little girls might go to jail.
I agree, the law is stupid. But once again Lorianne .... should I toss a few of your OWN phrases posted LAST WEEK into your face?
See, Lorianne is suffering from Feminst Theory Indoctrination Syndrome. All laws are good until they apply to women. Then it's a "patriarchial" conspiracy, "that's different" (the most classic one), or "[place-excuse-here]". Oh, I see you actually MENTIONED the KIDS this time. Funny, last topic relating to a misapplication of the law you forgot the victim in one post and never looked back. That young man is probably going to be raped in prison Lorianne. Where was your sympathy THEN?
Do you know who Marcus Dixon is Lorianne?
Keep thinking ...
any clue?
He was the VICTIM of the misapplication of the laws in our last verbal battle.
OHHHhhhhh ..... him. What does THAT selective memory tell you about how your "professors" teaching Misandy 101 ... errr .. "Feminist *(Conspiracy) Theory" have molded your mind.
Leave the cult Lorianne, the outside world is waiting.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The law is "unfair" in more ways than one.
If they're chopping of the hands of men in Afghanistan I'm not going to argue that they do the same to women for the sake of "fairness" .... I'm going to argue against chopping off of hands.
If I believe something is wrong, I'm not going to argue for another group to be included. Ever heard the expression "two wrongs don't make a right"?
By your logic, abolitionists should have argued that whites should be slaves as well as blacks ... instead of argueing against slavery period.
I don't believe in prosecuting teens for having consensual sex with each other ... so I'm not going to argue in favor of it. If you want to argue that, be my guest.
However, I, like over 90% of voters in my state, do believe in prosecuting adults having sex with minors .... which we consider a danger to kids.
Those who argue for prosecuting kids for having sex with each other have a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AGENDA. They work for one thing, others work for something else.
A common tactic of the anti-statutory sex laws is to conflate the two issues so as to portray those in favor of these laws as "anti-sex".
I'm not familiar with African laws but I'd be willing to bet their agenda are totally different than those working against adult/minor sex here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne,
New thread same tactics. I AGREE this law is wrong. I think it's "fairness" lies in the fact that for ONCE it's not just boys who are being made into the culprits. Another UNFAIR law would be to punish boys for having sex with girls when they are both young and of the same age group. And I would equally be arguing against putting girls in jail for this same silly notion. Kids have sex. I don't WANT them too, but they do it. Criminalizing it is just a sound bite political answer. And this answer, you may notice, takes all responsibility off of the parents who didn't do their job of raising the kids right. We've tried some laws here in the U.S. to hold parents accountable when kids do bad things. THAT is politically popular until it's YOUR (anyone's) kids and after a few people go to jail it loses popularity. This law, the premise of the thread, is a politicians answer to the problem. Take the group most likely to not be able to bite the politician in the ass come election time and make THEM the culpable one. Kids are the one's who are DOING it, but it's their parents who raised them. And it's our schools who teach them about birth control w/out teaching abstinance (or any real effort towards that end). In many ways on this issue we agree Lorianne (wow, huh?).
I do have a problem with one aspect of your thinking. Be fair on this, on our last debate you were all about "family groups" supporting laws and "it's the law" and "this is the prevailing societal attitudes". And you really need to be honest with yourself here: the only change now is that girls can go to jail too. Before you try the "older people - young kids argument" .... our last thread wasn't about that. It was about two kids of close age. And on THAT thread you were bringing up those points. Give it some thought.
Never thought we might almost agree did ya? lol.
Regards,
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the only change now is that girls can go to jail too.
Actually, we don't know what the result of the prosecutions will be or, for that matter, what they've been in the past. It could be that in the past boys were sentenced to some sort of containment (reform school, jail, whatever) but that, now that girls face equal prosecution, the kids will be more likely "sentenced" to counseling.
Fembots can deny it all they want, but unjust laws that are disproportionately applied to men and boys are unlikely to go away until they are equally applied to females.
Remember, we don't know what the sentences have been in the past or what they'll be in the future, but I doubt we're talking about lobbing off body parts. We may now see counseling and records erased if the convicted stay out of trouble for a certain amount of time. If that's the case, this may well prove to be a very good thing all around.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very true Thomas.
Hey Thomas (and anyone) this post may be a bit long, but it's gonna be one of my really good ones!
I know I didn't make all the points that you did, but I was concentrating on Lorianne. Did you read my "Lorianne has surrendered" post? You should (so what I say next makes sense). I am trying to keep my posts to her on very specific subjects and keep HER on subject. Loriannes main problem is her "feminist theory" indoctrination approach to thinking. And I know it's rude to talk about someone in the third person when they are "here", but I am upfront in what I am doing.
Let me restate something I said before as my premise:
I have BEEN in feminist Women's Studies classes. In the early 90's the colleges that didn't yet have "Women's Studies" had "anthropology", "psychology", and "sociology" that were basically "Women's Studies" but the Fems hadn't yet made an official Department yet. How do I know, by the way, that the courses were the same in "Women's Studies"? Fair question. Once the department was official it was the same teachers, the same material, presented the same way, with the same texts (well the constantly "revised" texts that students are scammed into buying every year - what a scam!!). Nothing changed except the name of the course. "Anthropology 101" was now "Anthropological Studies as relates to Gender Issues" (I made that up, but you get my point).
What I saw in these pre-"Women's Studies" classes was a very weird style of logic and analysis. To be honest until I had gone over to the MS boards and Jen pointed it out to me I had forgotten WHERE I had seen this kind of "sense".
Allow me to introdude you to "Feminist Theory Critical Thinking":(it was Anthropology 101 before it was "absorbed" by the Women's Studies Dept.)
The "professor" (don't even get me started on that title) in the younger classes would be asked a "what about this" question. The first thing the professor does is say: "hmmm, ok, lets look at something similar". So the "professor" uses an analogy. But she changes the premise slightly, and alters the facts a bit, and maybe puts the "oppressed/victim/protagonist" in female form and then the "bad person/system" (and its a male, before you ask) is presented. She THEN says : "and lets look at ANOTHER situation" and goes from the second to the third. Again the premise is just a bit more feminist, the facts arranged in an ever more female-sympathetic manner, and the questions were very leading. This may be the ending point or she may go for a few more evolutions. By the time she was done she would have a "patriarchy" (though the term wasn't so widely used them), a "victim", an "oppressor", and a system that supported such (and ONLY such). THEN, then she would go AAAALLLLLLllll...... the way back to the students question and say: "See? Now do you understand?"
Now when freshmen in "Women's Studies" get into their classes, and I saw this, and got this type of "education" they would be completely bewildered. But people can get used to anything. And since "Women's Studies" caters to women's WANTS and denies them any culpability or guilt it's easier to swallow. It feeds their entitlements. It strokes their egos. It washes them of their guilt for their acts. And it's not fucking different than: "Introduction to White-Power Thinking 101" or Mein Kampf. So those bewildered looks on the freshman quickly disappear and by sophemore year they can follow this looney "logic". To an outsider it looks like free form, tangental, results-determined-before-we-get-the-answers thinking. The answers are whatever makes their theory look good. Getting there from one topic to another by never sticking to a premise, dropping unwanted facts, constantly changing the situation ....... and then "POW" you have arrived at JUST the situation where the answer fits the theory. And their thinking is that since they arrive there, ALL THE OTHER SUBJECTS USED TO GET THERE prove the theory too. Tell me that is not just freaking INSANE.
I was at the MS boards and saw this pattern and something just kept missing my radar, then Jen brought it up, and it clicked where I had seen this before. "Women's Studies". Don't let the FACTS get in the way of the ANSWER you want.
Soooo, I am trying to pin down Lorianne and show her the cult she's joined. Make her answer valid questions, and keep her on topic. It's tough. She honetly just doesn't see it. Notice in the last thread she mentioned the railroaded victim ONCE and never looked back? That's because it wasn't convenient to her "facts". I mean... the STORY, the THREAD, the INJUSTICE to the victim WAS the point. But those facts were inconvenient, much like Mr Dixon himself, so she just kept SLIGHTLY going into different areas and then thinking THAT made her ORIGINAL premise valid.
That's why I am addressing her. She may yet see it. If not, it's a great mental excercise.
I have hope for Lorianne ...
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can ya help out a blond here? (me) ...
I see this constantly:
Subject: "Chocolate has sugar" - by MRAjoe
-------------"Chocolate has sugar"-by MRAmike
-----------------"Chocolate has sugar"-by AnonTroll
and by the time I get to the third one it's talking about spare parts for a '57 Chevy.
USE THE SUBJECT LINE TO HELP US BLOND PEOPLE FOLLOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON PLZ!!!!!!!
Momma always told me I was the mental runt of the litter, but could ya help a brother out here?
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas,
I love your sig line. Mine is getting old, but I want to use a good one. The one YOU use is GREAT.
Hmmmm ... (puts on thinking cap) gotta think this out a bit.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are dead right. It is the wonders of female logic. I do this to Dave sometimes and it drives him nuts. We tend to sqirm around until we are on solid ground, even if doing so moves us from the point.
Lorainne like to use her own examples which make her more comfortable, but her track record shows itself.
She is fighting a losing battle here. TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your logic is flawed here for one main reason Lorainne, and it shows your true colors. You have a problem with the law itself, and don't believe it is just. However you have no problem with A law being applied UNEQUALLY if it is applied to men or boys. Not once have you said "if the law is there, at least it is now being applied equally."
And please stop throwing out your statistics unless you have a source. Prove to me that 90% of your state voted at all, not to mention for your side, and I will believe you. Until then you are just wasting space.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 03, @02:07AM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Now I totally agree with you that two wrongs don't make a right. I am from India, and here there are some laws that are unfair to men and some that are unfair to women.
1. Traditionally, women members of the family don't have any rights in respect of property owned by Joint Hindu Families (which is an entity recognised by law). That's unfair to women. But this fact has been pointed out. Five states have already changed thelaw to rectify the imbalance.
More states will follow suit.
2. On the other hand, there are laws that discriminate against men, and nothing is being done about that. Rape laws in India are STILL gender specific. Rape is an offence only when it's committed by a man on a woman. A husband subjecting his wife to cruelty is an offence punishable with imprisonment and fine, but a wife subjecting her husband to cruelty is not an
offence at all.
Would like to know your views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That was a very wellbalanced post. India? I really don't know much about it, other than the food (I really love to cook Indian)
I think both those inequities are just that. Inequities. I personally feel laws should be equitable, and would support both laws to allow women to own land, and a change in the rape laws.
How do these laws effect the people there? Are women generally effected much by the land laws? From what little I know India is supposed to have much more strict family values and gender roles. Do many men actually suffer from cruelty?
Oh, and could you please take a moment to register and get a handle? It is much easier to follow conversations when the posters all have handles. Thanks. The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 04, @12:30AM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. I post on this site very infrequently, so didn't register. But yes, it's better if I do that. Maybe the next one from me will be under my username.
Yes, property laws have affected women, both in terms of lack of economic security, and lack of sense of belongingness in the family. But this is more of a rural phenomenon where families jointly own the property. In urban areas, it doesn't affect them much.
Traditionally, India has a culture of strong family values but things are changing and today's India is much more westernized in its outlook and values. Also, men being treated cruelly is not uncommon. I think it has less to do with gender and more with the individual. There are now about 4 to 5 men's rights groups in India and are gradually gaining legitimacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, I don't know how to address you. Plz get a handle, just so I don't have to say "you" and use awkward language.
Men's Activism definately would welcome someone from a different culture for perspective. Most of us are the type of people who like to learn and to engage in some useful thought.
I am glad you posted and hope you feel like returning.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> If they're chopping of the hands of men in
> Afghanistan I'm not going to argue that they
> do the same to women for the sake of "fairness"
> .... I'm going to argue against chopping off of
> hands.
If they are chopping men's hands off and women suffer nothing it is unfair. Women should suffer at least 1/5 of the consequence a man would have suffered.
Also without a middle finger it's impossible to taunt a man who complains of unfairness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can ya help out a blond here? (me) ...
I see this constantly:
Subject: "Chocolate has sugar" - by MRAjoe
-------------"Chocolate has sugar"-by MRAmike
-----------------"Chocolate has sugar"-by AnonTroll
-----------------------"Chocolate has sugar"-by RedHaired Pete
---------------------------"Chocolate has sugar"-byMuffinQueen
and by the time I get to the third one it's talking about spare parts for a '57 Chevy, Spock has died, come back to life, you had 3 kids, a divorce, and God knows what else.
USE THE SUBJECT LINE TO HELP US BLOND PEOPLE FOLLOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON PLZ!!!!!!!
Momma always told me I was the mental runt of the litter, but could ya help a brother out here?
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
PS___ Actually chocolate doesn't have sugar. The ancient Aztecs drank it straight and it was very bitter, but gave them a nice buzz.
Those Spanish adventurers had the bright idea to add sugar to chocolate. We owe the Spanish simply our lives in gratitude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Africa is THE hot bed of AIDS in the world. I would imagine that this law is being kept on the books because these kids are dying from having sex. Since girls did not have the consequences, and they have more power on when they have sex, it is the girls the law must target to put a stop to this. Something abstract like AIDS, which may not show itself for 10 years may not stop them, but perhaps immediate repricussions like jail might.
Girls SHOULD be held accountable, and I think that children should not be having sex. At 14, 16, even 18, kids cannot deal with the natural purpose of sex which is having children, so they should not be having sex. Every time you have sex, you CAN get a deadly disease or concieve. When I was that age I ran rampant, and someone was looking out for me because by all rights I should be dead now. Any tool to keep kids from doing the assinine things we did as kids will help. Perhaps the threat of social humiliation will force some of these parents to actually know where their kids are. God knows my parents had no clue. My kids would be grey before they have sex if it was up to me ;-)
As it is they will at least be armed with the devastating truth. Maybe a facts of life talk from Gonzo will keep it in their pants.
Uncle Gonz?
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorainne,
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec98/a ids_10-30.html
This is a link to just one of the many articles on AIDS in Africa.
I do not know for a fact that this was in their thinking. I never said I did know for a fact. I said "I imagine."
Education and health care is not making a dent in Afrca. Many of the people there do not believe in AIDS, they think it is a lie spread by Americans, or a wives tale (this was on a Canadian radio program a few months ago told by a woman who spent a year trying to educate the public in Botswana) Perhaps this is an attempt to use another method of getting abstinance, the only sure way of not getting AIDS.
I have never said only girls should be punished, nor has anyone else. We have said that the law needs to be equitable.
I am not for criminalizing sex between two adults. I am, however, all for making potentially dangerous activities about which children are unable to make rational decisions, illegal for children, just like cigarettes and alcohol. Sex is one of those activities.
It is illegal right now, in fact you yourself pushed for the laws to encompass older teens. Statutory rape laws cover any minor having sex, not just sex with an adult. If you don't believe in criminalizing sex, why did you and, what was it, 90% of your state, fight for it?
You were all for the law when it was convenient. What happened?
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just cause I rode the short bus doesn't mean they didn't give me good grades at wimmin school.
I am very hurt.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"who me"?
yes you TBQ.
(I DO love giving you a hard time, must be a guy thing)
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The short bus was the bus the kids who were in the special classes rode. Those with mental and physical handicaps.
Once you have to explain it it just seems kinda mean. ;-(
TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
