Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

Old subthreads
Locked
Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1621

Post by Gumby »

Apples wrote: I do find it quite odd that she feels the need to say, in her introduction to JVac's video: "Vacula’s delivery in the video is more melodramatic than dramatic, and as he mentions in the notes on the video, there’s a long stretch where he can’t stop himself from laughing."

True, Vacula's no Laurence Olivier, but then again, EEB ain't Shakespeare.
It's the same as Ophelia needlessly criticizing and nitpicking Shermer's writing skills*. It's a way to demean, and a way to fill out a blog post, inflame the bovine commentariat, and distract from the fact they have no real argument. FFS, it's just having fun, but leave it to FtB to demonize and turn it into dark threatening behavior :lol:

*Funny how Ophie didn't criticize Shermer's writing skills when they co-wrote that book...

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1622

Post by Metalogic42 »

[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/AzJ3DXx.jpg[/spoiler]

:clap:

debaser71
.
.
Posts: 841
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1623

Post by debaser71 »

another lurker, I think this is justicars video. I have no time to make sure though..it's 23 minutes long. My aologies if you watch the whole thing and I am wrong about the video or what was said.


EdwardGemmer
.
.
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:15 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1624

Post by EdwardGemmer »

Brain Box wrote:
Altair wrote:
We take steps to keep our stuff from being robbed (locks, padlocks, fences), we take precautions to avoid being hurt in accidents (seatbelts, helmets), and some people take precautions to avoid being shot (training, kevlar vests).

That's not saying they're to blame if something happens to them, or that they could have prevented their own rapes if they had followed the rules, it's acknowledging that we don't live in a perfect world and we can and should do things to minimize the risks we're exposed to.

It would be great if no one stole things, or killed people, or raped people, but until that happens, I'll try to do things that could increase my safety. That's common sense to me, I really don't understand why some people see prevention attempts as blame.

IMO, the parody doesn't work because the original "rules" make sense, they are things that someone can do to minimize risk (not only women, I know a lot of cases of people who have been drugged by strangers and then robbed or kidnapped), but these "parody rules" are just silly.

But I think you are ignoring the historical context for why this kind of feminist propaganda exist, which is that in the past, and in the present in some countries, rape cases have been thrown out because it was judged that the woman "brought it on herself" by wearing revealing clothing or whatever other bullshit reason was concocted by the defense which caused the accused to lose control of his senses and commit such an immoral act. It is far less common for "the victim brought it on themselves" defense arguments to be used when the crime isn't rape.
I don't know about that. Assault and Murder cases typically have self-defense written into the law. I can't imagine a defense that is more "blame the victim" than self-defense. Robberies are difficult cases to blame the victims, except where the victim is a drug dealer, which is often the case.

Rape cases usually are in "blame the victim" mode in the case of date rape, where the main issue is consent where it is clear the victim gave consent to some sexual activity but perhaps not what actually transpired. They are difficult cases. That's why education of men and women is very important. Young men do need to be told, repeatedly, that no means no and a an incapacitated person is not inviting sex. Women should be told, repeatedly, that they have every right to engage in some sexual situations, but if that's what they plan, make it clear what they want, and exercise their right to say no. Such strategies won't end rape, but they will help.

Brain Box
.
.
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1625

Post by Brain Box »

Where exactly is it addressed to all men? It simply lists 10 things that one should do to prevent rape (all of them basically being "don't be a rapist," TLDR #10). Who says that women shouldn't be responsible for their own safety? The poster is only ridiculing specific arguments that have been used to justify rape in the past, that women brought it on themselves, etc.

The point you continue to miss is that the poster is written to counter specific arguments that have been used to defend rapists.

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4024
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1626

Post by Pitchguest »

Ahhh! Enough!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... nt-page-2/

I am giving this comment section for the day. A Hermit was bad enough, but to deal with RahXephon as well? :snooty:

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4024
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1627

Post by Pitchguest »

giving this comment section "a rest" for the day***

Brain Box
.
.
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1628

Post by Brain Box »

EdwardGemmer wrote:
I don't know about that. Assault and Murder cases typically have self-defense written into the law. I can't imagine a defense that is more "blame the victim" than self-defense. Robberies are difficult cases to blame the victims, except where the victim is a drug dealer, which is often the case.

Rape cases usually are in "blame the victim" mode in the case of date rape, where the main issue is consent where it is clear the victim gave consent to some sexual activity but perhaps not what actually transpired. They are difficult cases. That's why education of men and women is very important. Young men do need to be told, repeatedly, that no means no and a an incapacitated person is not inviting sex. Women should be told, repeatedly, that they have every right to engage in some sexual situations, but if that's what they plan, make it clear what they want, and exercise their right to say no. Such strategies won't end rape, but they will help.
If someone is killed in self-defense it is by definition not murder... murder if the unlawful killing of another person. Otherwise I mostly agree with you.

Mark Neil
.
.
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:39 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1629

Post by Mark Neil »

debaser71 wrote:
another lurker wrote:
cunt wrote:When was the last time a rapist got off the hook when he said "she was asking for it"?
It can vary from 'clumsy down Juan' (happened in Canada) to "she didn't fight back hard enough". In these cases I am not sure if the men got off completely, but their sentences were reduced. The 'she didnt fight back hard enough' was a case where a man raped a girl who had cerebral palsy, and b/c the girl didn't 'fight', (well duh, she couldnt fucking move) the rapist got a lenient sentence. To be fair of course, the rapist was the boyfriend of the girl's mother - the girl's mother wanted her rapist bf to get outta jail free, so she lied about what a slut her most paralyzed daughter was. Piece of shit that woman!

There was also a case a couple of years ago that prompted slut walks in Canada - a cop said 'hey ladies, if you didn't dress sexy, you wouldn't get raped' or something to that effect.
I suggest you google what was actually said by that cop. I think justicar did a video of it too.
I've found that it is exceedingly difficult to find a direct quote. I've seen one (don't know where unfortunately) but it wasn't what feminists paraphrase it as. It was still stupid, but not the victim blaming people make it out to be.

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1630

Post by another lurker »

Mark Neil: I tried, I even checked the link the uni newspaper - and no luck.

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1631

Post by another lurker »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ances.html
A man was set free after allegedly raping a woman who had such severe cerebral palsy that she cannot speak.

Richard Fourtin was released from jail after his appeal was approved because the judges felt that even though she is extremely handicapped, she could have tried to make him stop sexually assaulting her by kicking or biting him.

The verdict sparked outrage as now victim’s rights advocates fear it sets a dangerous precedent by setting the bar extremely high for disabled individuals who try to press charges after sexual assault.
This is by no means the rule, but occasionally it seems rape trials get Todd Akin-esque judges who just love to engage in the worst kind of victim blaming.

Mark Neil
.
.
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:39 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1632

Post by Mark Neil »

Brain Box wrote:Where exactly is it addressed to all men? It simply lists 10 things that one should do to prevent rape (all of them basically being "don't be a rapist," TLDR #10).
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm keeping it in context of the message of "don't tell women how to not get raped, tell men not to rape", which is what was in the comment you responded to. Also in that comment was an image of a poster directed at men. Go back and have a look.
Brain Box wrote: Who says that women shouldn't be responsible for their own safety?
The feminists who say "don't tell women how not to get raped" are. Or do you have another interpretation for that portion of the message, a message you yourself asked "what's wrong with that message?". Or are you shifting the goalpost to only address that poster now?
Brain Box wrote:The point you continue to miss is that the poster is written to counter specific arguments that have been used to defend rapists.
And the one in the UofOttawa student council window? Shrodinger's rapist? You are now choosing to restrict the conversation to just this poster, but it is opposition to the message that you originally objected to.

Mark Neil
.
.
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:39 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1633

Post by Mark Neil »

another lurker wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ances.html
A man was set free after allegedly raping a woman who had such severe cerebral palsy that she cannot speak.

Richard Fourtin was released from jail after his appeal was approved because the judges felt that even though she is extremely handicapped, she could have tried to make him stop sexually assaulting her by kicking or biting him.

The verdict sparked outrage as now victim’s rights advocates fear it sets a dangerous precedent by setting the bar extremely high for disabled individuals who try to press charges after sexual assault.
This is by no means the rule, but occasionally it seems rape trials get Todd Akin-esque judges who just love to engage in the worst kind of victim blaming.
And as I mentioned earlier, this happens in both directions, but we don't seem to care when it happens to men.

http://stephenkimber.com/2010/05/the-te ... ment-77736

(read the comment section for the husbands side of the story)

debaser71
.
.
Posts: 841
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1634

Post by debaser71 »

Brian Box, there are two posters imaged. The first one I can see how it's sort of a parody of other types of anti-rape posters I've seen way back in the 80's when I was in school. About minding your drink, and not walking alone at night, etc. So I "get it". But if you look closer, women are still the only victims. Again, the parody is that those other kinds of posters were directed at women...again I "get it". The second poster, however, says "men men men men men" "be a real man" etc.

Corylus
.
.
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:59 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1635

Post by Corylus »

Aurelian wrote:I've been wondering what an actual definition for the FTB/Skepchick/A+ triumvirate's favourite hobby horse, privilege, would actually be, beyond that of being a white, straight, cisgendered man.
A suggestion from me to start: a person of privilege is someone who, not having the necessary intelligence or work ethic, is able to exercise influence through being born into a certain position (monarchy, aristocracy), through the use of wealth, or both. Examples would include the British royal family, or the Bush and Clinton families in America. Thoughts? Have I got the wrong end of the stick?
I think a little :)

However, it is a stick that has been poked in everyone's face for a while so it is almost impossible to not get the wrong end of it. Privilege generally refers to people being unaware of the lack of possible disadvantages that they encounter (well it used to). It is meant to be conceptualized as a ‘consciousness raising’ concept whereby no blame is attributed to the “privilegee”, but instead the understanding of general disadvantage increased. Such situations are accordingly highlighted with the aim of informing intellectual and societal change. In this model the notion of considering one's own privilege (I utterly refuse to use the word 'check') is just an instruction to consider whether other people have barriers against them that you yourself do not.

For example, I became aware of a lack of barriers for me when I recently accompanied a wheelchair-using friend on a trip involving lots of public transport and a flight. Yes, we could access the services, in that many physical barriers were removed for us, but the emotional barriers were still very much in place. For example, there was the general impression that we were too-much-bother; that is was OK to talk down to us like children; to think it was appropriate to marshal us into roped off areas, and to generally forget about us. It was "no fun" even if vicarious "no fun". Do I now feel guilty for having the full use of my legs? No of course not. Do I have some suggestions for travel companies and their staff? You betcha. Did the whole experience do me good? Why, yes. Yes it did. I was utterly exhausted by the end of it, and I now understand my friend better.

Privilege therefore can be useful tool for exploring issues of disparity and reduced access to employment/services/power etc. These disparities can be the result of historical and cultural artefacts, urban myths, emotionally conditioned reactions, or sheer bloody laziness on the part of service providers. A discussion of 'privilege can be a helpful and enlightening way to talk about reduced access. However, the way that the term is being currently mangled (as you rightly identify as exclusively about white, straight, cisgendered men) is destroying its' utility rather than increasing it. Sigh, to the extent that I actually fear the term is now irrevocably "fooked".

The hijacked notion of privilege that is currently being hawked is actually a great example of ‘essentialist’ thinking (aka ‘you is what you is’). This thinking tends to be rather lazy, and those prone to it seem to like the water of their thought to flow immediately downhill ... rather like those who dislike gay marriage for it is all about “a man and a woman” or those who dislike trans women because they can never understand the pain of those born female.

‘Privilege' itself is actually much more often context-specific as opposed to essentialist. In fact, it must be if we wish to talk about lack of barriers, because different barriers can be raised by different people (I am completely agreeing with Altair here). For example, I am privileged in class terms in that I use standard English pronunciation (with a few additional soft southern inflections). This not an essential part of me though, in that I could change my accent (with training) if I wished, and it is also completely context-specific in that there are areas of the country in which my speech could lead to my encountering problems with others. E.g. Those extreme frozen wastes are are “oop” from North London.

Of course if you fall into essentialist thinking it is very easy to go from noting that experiencing lack of barriers is more common in some parts of the populace ... to assuming that some parts of he populace are the only ones capable of being privilege ... to assuming that those with privilege are obviously part of the mechanisms of discrimination. This is very dangerous in that moral blame gets assigned without justification. It is stupid in that as we get the effortless; oft missed; move from the descriptive to prescriptive. (Oh noes!!) Lastly, and most importantly, it is also a mistaken classification in that when - what is called commonly called “privilege” - becomes essentialist in nature it is actually something better described as ‘discrimination’.

For example, I am discriminated against as a female in terms of my likelihood of access to a certain reserved seats in the upper chamber of British Parliament (the House of Lords) insofar as I am excluded from ever taking up a job as a “Lord Spiritual’. Women cannot be bishops in the Church of England. (OK, I don’t want the job, but that is not the point). This discrimination is enshrined in law, so this is not about privilege. This is not about a context specific barrier - this is about deliberate exclusion. This is thus separate from discussions on privilege.

Of course, discrimination does - and should - annoy us a very great deal, waaay more than privilege does. The above is an example of the law messing with my democratic engagement. This is an outsourcing of my concerns (bishops are very fond of talking about things that actually impact upon me more than them) to people that I have not voted for and who do not represent me. I reserve my true anger for cases like these. I do wish others could do the same.

Now, of course, you can get cases where both privilege and discrimination are present (let’s make it really complicated!). For example, I discovered, to my surprise, that I was more ‘privileged’ as a female than a male when seeking rental accommodation as a student. Landlords (unofficially but consistently) were more likely to take on groups of all females, or mixed gender groups, than they were to take on groups of all males. The rationale was that females were tidier; a civilizing influence, and were overall less likely to trash the house: the actual evidence for this position being distinctly mixed. However, housing discrimination is also explicitly codified against (aka, illegal) – which is why landlords are covert about their choices. So this is both privilege and discrimination.

So where to go from here? The major distinction between ‘privilege’ and ‘discrimination’ is what you do when faced with it. With discrimination you can codify against it and watch for people flouting the law, with privilege you become aware of the process, foster evidence about the intrinsic irrationality of certain positions, and generally make an effort to be equitable in all of your dealings. Sometimes you need to do both - in cases where both privilege and discrimination are present. However, laws and actions seeking to reduce privilege alone are often superfluous at best and ludicrous – or even repressive – at worst. Let's not go there.

Now, back to my example of speech patterns and how this is about privilege alone. There is no reason for me to feel guilty about my speech patterns; seek to change them, or (heaven forfend!) seek to outlaw them. I simply need to be aware that other accents are common and have a care to treat people in response to what they say, rather than the geographical/societal background that their intonation conveys. Privilege and moral condemnation should only go together when people seek to ignore the former in order to avoid the latter.

Of course, it is possible that some moral condemnation is based in an inchoate understanding that a feeling of guilt would actually be appropriate ....
Self-contempt, however vague, sharpens our eyes for the imperfections of others. We usually strive to reveal in others the blemishes we hide in ourselves. Thus when the frustrated congregate in a mass movement, the air is heavy-laden with suspicion. There is prying and spying, tense watching and a sense of being watched. The surprising thing is that this pathological mistrust within the ranks leads not to dissension but to strict conformity. Knowing themselves continually watched, the faithful strive to escape suspicion by adhering zealously to prescribed behavior and opinion.

Eric Hoffer, 1951.
Oh dear, I am sorry if I have whittered on a bit! Thank you very much if you have stayed with me so far. However, this really is the only way that I can adequately explain this.

As I say, I fear that the term is now no longer useful.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1636

Post by Scented Nectar »

Richard Dworkins wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote: A lot of people are starting to use freezepage and screenshots, but they probably still get actual hits from here too. I don't know if it's enough to buy them more than a coffee, but maybe it's enough to remind them that people are watching as they embarrass themselves, and maybe enough for them to cly "stalker" (as opposed to links are simply how the internet works).
Well that's just it Scented Nectar. They keep crying "leave us alone", I am suggesting people do exactly that. Don't go over, don't comment, starve them of the oxygen of attention and the $$ for hits. Impoverish them, because despite their faux-liberal/leftist stance, they are all good little capitalists and as we are witnessing on Atheism Plus, starved of others to lash out at, they will eat their own. Which would be marvelous to watch.

I do understand though for attentiveness in capturing their pernicious bullshit before it is doctored or erased, but outside that I do feel some people (no one in particular btw just in case anyone is offended) are dancing to their tune.

Yes, cry. Funny how not having an edit button makes tiny mistakes more obvious. I like it.
It was the love child of 'cry' and 'claim'. :D

It might be good to continue using freezepage and screenshots if it deprives them of a lot of views. But I think there should still be an initial referal url given (even if not made clickable) to show where the original article is that we're discussing/mocking/facepalming/whatever.

I don't think they make much on their blogs. I think they mostly suck money and jetsetting-like perks out of the community via the speaker's circuit and paid appointments to various organizations. They don't do actual charity (inviting friends to a drinking party convention is not charity). Most of them don't write books. None of them are experts in anything to do with atheism or related 'ism's. They are leeches both financially and in other ways. They use the social resources and networkings of the atheist communities to spread radical feminism instead of atheism, skepticism, secularism, or humanism.

It's like a bait and switch. Come for the atheism but stay for the feminist conversion.

Brain Box
.
.
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1637

Post by Brain Box »

Do you agree with this?

Women should take common sense precautions to make sure they are not raped, such as situational awareness, etc. Rapists should not be acquitted or have their sentences reduced because a woman is perceived to be a "slut" or "immoral" due to outdated ideas on gender roles or religious dogma.

The poster isn't "targeting all men" by telling male rapists not to rape. Saying that all men are potential rapists that should be eyed with caution, however, is attacking all men since it identifies maleness as prerequisite for being a rapist.

Brain Box
.
.
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1638

Post by Brain Box »

debaser71 wrote:Brian Box, there are two posters imaged. The first one I can see how it's sort of a parody of other types of anti-rape posters I've seen way back in the 80's when I was in school. About minding your drink, and not walking alone at night, etc. So I "get it". But if you look closer, women are still the only victims. Again, the parody is that those other kinds of posters were directed at women...again I "get it". The second poster, however, says "men men men men men" "be a real man" etc.
Hmm that might be a source of confusion. I am only commenting on the first poster.

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1639

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

cunt wrote:I have an idea to stop car thieves. We raise millions of pounds and run a bunch of adverts informing them that car thievery is just wrong. That just because somebody has left an iPhone 5 on the front seat of their car, that DOES NOT excuse you from breaking the window and taking it. That's bad. Then we get super pissy at the other PSAs put out by the police that victim blame people into taking precautions.

Alternatively, we take the money and set it on fire.
[youtube]5UE2tjRkaCw[/youtube]

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1640

Post by another lurker »

Mark Neil: I will take a look, and was just thinking 'I bet people don't care when it happens to men' so thank you for the link!

Thought I would share this while we are on the subject of 'victim blaming' in history:

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gfe_rape.htm
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife ...
Deuteronomy 22:28-9

This biblical passage clearly countenanced the rape of virgins, and Christians were generally prepared to follow God's guidance on the matter. If a Christian man wanted to marry an unwilling nubile woman one of the best ways to do it was to rape her and pay up. The idea held through the Dark and Middle Ages and into modern times.
Sometimes theologians ignored the words of Deuteronomy 22:23-27, which prescribed punishments for other categories of rape. Pope Gregory I confirmed explicitly that rape was not a defilement. On the other hand, women who invited rape by their looks were defiled, and thus sinful. In support he cited Matthew 15:11, which said that people are defiled by what goes out not by what goes in. Inviting looks went out, so that is where the sin lay, not with the rape itself*.

As in many non-Christian religious countries today, it was accepted that a women on her own out of doors was fair game for any man. Even knightly proponents of courtly love found "a little compulsion" acceptable
I agree with Justicar that telling women to be smart about where they go, how much they drink etc, is not victim blaming. It's really only true victim blaming, imo, when you attack the persons *character* which is a point that BrainBox made earlier. That somehow if a woman gets raped, it's all her fault cuz she's sinfully slutty! You wouldn't attack a mugging victim's moral character, would you? You'd just say 'man you're a dumb twat for being in the wrong place at the wrong time' and so on.

EdwardGemmer
.
.
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:15 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1641

Post by EdwardGemmer »

Brain Box wrote:
EdwardGemmer wrote:
I don't know about that. Assault and Murder cases typically have self-defense written into the law. I can't imagine a defense that is more "blame the victim" than self-defense. Robberies are difficult cases to blame the victims, except where the victim is a drug dealer, which is often the case.

Rape cases usually are in "blame the victim" mode in the case of date rape, where the main issue is consent where it is clear the victim gave consent to some sexual activity but perhaps not what actually transpired. They are difficult cases. That's why education of men and women is very important. Young men do need to be told, repeatedly, that no means no and a an incapacitated person is not inviting sex. Women should be told, repeatedly, that they have every right to engage in some sexual situations, but if that's what they plan, make it clear what they want, and exercise their right to say no. Such strategies won't end rape, but they will help.
If someone is killed in self-defense it is by definition not murder... murder if the unlawful killing of another person. Otherwise I mostly agree with you.
Well, yeah. Though if someone is charged with murder someone else isn't buying their self-defense argument.

EdwardGemmer
.
.
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:15 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1642

Post by EdwardGemmer »

another lurker wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ances.html
A man was set free after allegedly raping a woman who had such severe cerebral palsy that she cannot speak.

Richard Fourtin was released from jail after his appeal was approved because the judges felt that even though she is extremely handicapped, she could have tried to make him stop sexually assaulting her by kicking or biting him.

The verdict sparked outrage as now victim’s rights advocates fear it sets a dangerous precedent by setting the bar extremely high for disabled individuals who try to press charges after sexual assault.
This is by no means the rule, but occasionally it seems rape trials get Todd Akin-esque judges who just love to engage in the worst kind of victim blaming.
I don't know the facts of this totally, but "victim-blaming" is not the same as applying the law. Here, for the rape law to apply, the victim must be unconscious or physically unable to communicate a lack of consent. The court felt the evidence didn't prove this. This seems more like a problem with the law rather the court - clearly we feel that having sex with someone with these disabilities is rape, but the law didn't say that.

CommanderTuvok
.
.
Posts: 3744
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1643

Post by CommanderTuvok »

Tried to do a Doormat Dillahunty over at Svan's:

It is simply a lie to suggest Justin's video is harassment, as Oolon states. It is simply legitimate satire on the faux concern expressed on these boards, whipped up by Zvan and others by making lies and mistruths about Justin. It is also legitimate criticism at the bullying and harassment campaign against Justin initiated by Zvan and continued by many others.

Your frequent moans to Melody are noted, and the fact that Melody has not banned Justin from attending the event is ample evidence that your accusations of Justin's "harassment" is simply false. In fact, Melody should be offering Justin assurances that he will be protected at this conference.

There is only one person in the community who has repeatedly harassed women, contacted their employers, "doxxed" them on his website, and threatened other bloggers with violence. Needless to say, that is not Justin, but a close fiend of Zvan's. If this person is attending (I'm not not sure if he is), I will be contacting Melody to warn her about his past.


It did not/has not got through mdoeration. Just adding it to the large evidence pile showing what complete femistazis they are. Naturally, Svan probably saw the reference to Greg Laden as the person in the community who is the biggest threat to women (and fellow bloggers!).

d4m10n
.
.
Posts: 1526
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:17 am
Location: OKC
Contact:

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1644

Post by d4m10n »

AbsurdWalls wrote: Every time I read a post from you I think you spend your whole life on OK Cupid.
For years, I thought that was a *local* dating site, just because of the initialisation. No, really.

VickyCaramel
.
.
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:24 am
Location: Sitting with feet up
Contact:

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1645

Post by VickyCaramel »

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
VickyCaramel wrote:
Mr Danksworth wrote:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:Vicky, that tweet to Benson was a little naive. Out of context, it looks like direct threat.
Agreed. It was pretty fucking stupid, IMO.
What you might not know about twitter is that there is a little button that says 'view conversation' which instantly puts the tweet in it's context. And just incase it gets lost in the shuffle, it all got screen capped. So I can always put it back in context.

Do you really think Benson didn't click that button to see the context of this juicy 'death threat'?

The only one being naive was Benson in thinking she could get away with that.
don

True, but people can be sneaky. You never know where a screencap might turn up. It wouldn't stand scrutiny, but then people don't always do much scrutinizing. You can't be everywhere at once to correct when BS spreads. People spread lies long after they are debunked.
This is true. But at the end of the day.... I go to bed. And I sleep well with a clear conscience.

Mark Neil
.
.
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:39 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1646

Post by Mark Neil »

Brain Box wrote:Do you agree with this?

Women should take common sense precautions to make sure they are not raped, such as situational awareness, etc. Rapists should not be acquitted or have their sentences reduced because a woman is perceived to be a "slut" or "immoral" due to outdated ideas on gender roles or religious dogma.
Yes. This I agree with. I don't agree that the "Don't tell women how not to get raped, tell men not to rape" type campaigns (the idea you originally objected to from my first comment) fits this description.
Brain Box wrote:The poster isn't "targeting all men" by telling male rapists not to rape. Saying that all men are potential rapists that should be eyed with caution, however, is attacking all men since it identifies maleness as prerequisite for being a rapist.
And isn't "tell men not to rape" doing precisely that? Remember, it isn't the poster itself you objected to when you replied to me, but my mentioning it was part of the "Don't tell women how not to get raped, tell men not to rape" type campaigns. To which you replied "is that such a bad idea"? (paraphrasing)

CommanderTuvok
.
.
Posts: 3744
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1647

Post by CommanderTuvok »

Is anybody else witnessing the latest drama on Twitter regarding Sara Mayhew (gee, the Skepchicks really HATE her!) and Rebecca Watson, and the use of the word "ragging"? Rebecca is trying to say it is sexit, or summat, but Sara Mayhew is giving her both barrels.

BTW, can someone remind me. Did Greg Laden use the term "ragging"?

John Greg
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 2669
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:05 pm
Location: New Westminster, BC, Canada

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1648

Post by John Greg »

Commander, check my sig.

Zenspace
.
.
Posts: 923
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:13 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1649

Post by Zenspace »

Oneiros666 wrote:
rocko2466 wrote:This is my last for a week. Spent more time on this than the last one.
Took a little more poetic licence. Might not be as true to the source material.

[youtube]K8ll6poCsjA[/youtube]
Fantastic reading, Rocko!

Noticed a funny comment right after Tony:
Kate Waters on FfTB wrote:Your either with us or against us.
(Notice her excellent use of grammar, i.e. 'your', hehe.)

I thought these people didn't care for George W. Bush?

Also, PZ (who obviously doesn't have anything better to do than comment on his own blog. I mean, it's not like he has a book to write or a class to teach or anything) naturally jumps in on the bandwagon:
PZ McPottymouth wrote:Abear: with that “hit a nerve” comment, you actually hit a predictable low. Fuck off.
Seriously, isn't this guy in his fifties? Why does he write and comment as if he's 15? Oh..that's right. Syphilis is a hell of a disease.
Just catching up and watched this - another ace, rocko2466! You are really getting this down in a big way. Have you set up a youtube channel yet? I could see this stuff getting very popular. Justicar already gave you a good boost. This is great stuff. Maybe work some positive Pyt stuff in there with links to the Pyt, too.

Keep up the very good work!

VickyCaramel
.
.
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:24 am
Location: Sitting with feet up
Contact:

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1650

Post by VickyCaramel »

I thought 'ragging' came from bull fighting... a red rag to a bull. It certainly means nagging or teasing now. Usage is the ultimate arbiter of meaning.

Eucliwood
.
.
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1651

Post by Eucliwood »

CommanderTuvok wrote:Is anybody else witnessing the latest drama on Twitter regarding Sara Mayhew (gee, the Skepchicks really HATE her!) and Rebecca Watson, and the use of the word "ragging"? Rebecca is trying to say it is sexit, or summat, but Sara Mayhew is giving her both barrels.

BTW, can someone remind me. Did Greg Laden use the term "ragging"?
How is it sexist? If someone isn't referring to a period (I don't even think THAT'S sexist - it's simply lame to use hormonal changes someone can't help against them, but it's no different from saying a teenager, for example, is being generally hormonal (which happens in males and females), v. saying a woman is being hormonal because she's PMSing.), it's definitely not sexist. Just because people began saying "on the rag" doesn't mean now that the word RAG belongs to them.

debaser71
.
.
Posts: 841
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1652

Post by debaser71 »

ragging = menstruating = emotionally unstable = PMSing = bitchy = cuntlike etc

at least where I live

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1653

Post by Mykeru »

debaser71 wrote:ragging = menstruating = emotionally unstable = PMSing = bitchy = cuntlike etc

at least where I live
And where I come from (New York) ragging means to taunt. As in to shred someone. No menstrual implication.

CommanderTuvok
.
.
Posts: 3744
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1654

Post by CommanderTuvok »

Sara has pointed out that "ragging" has a far older usage and etymology than Queen Bee realised.

This is yet another "Galileo" moment. No doubt Queen Bee will "double down", because we all know SHE IS NEVER WRONG.

debaser71
.
.
Posts: 841
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1655

Post by debaser71 »

lol I live in New York....in my younger days it was called OTR (on the rag).

Maybe I'm just old school.

But now that you mention it, yes, another definition of ragging is to taunt.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1656

Post by KiwiInOz »

Corylus wrote:[spoiler]
Aurelian wrote:I've been wondering what an actual definition for the FTB/Skepchick/A+ triumvirate's favourite hobby horse, privilege, would actually be, beyond that of being a white, straight, cisgendered man.
A suggestion from me to start: a person of privilege is someone who, not having the necessary intelligence or work ethic, is able to exercise influence through being born into a certain position (monarchy, aristocracy), through the use of wealth, or both. Examples would include the British royal family, or the Bush and Clinton families in America. Thoughts? Have I got the wrong end of the stick?
I think a little :)

However, it is a stick that has been poked in everyone's face for a while so it is almost impossible to not get the wrong end of it. Privilege generally refers to people being unaware of the lack of possible disadvantages that they encounter (well it used to). It is meant to be conceptualized as a ‘consciousness raising’ concept whereby no blame is attributed to the “privilegee”, but instead the understanding of general disadvantage increased. Such situations are accordingly highlighted with the aim of informing intellectual and societal change. In this model the notion of considering one's own privilege (I utterly refuse to use the word 'check') is just an instruction to consider whether other people have barriers against them that you yourself do not.

For example, I became aware of a lack of barriers for me when I recently accompanied a wheelchair-using friend on a trip involving lots of public transport and a flight. Yes, we could access the services, in that many physical barriers were removed for us, but the emotional barriers were still very much in place. For example, there was the general impression that we were too-much-bother; that is was OK to talk down to us like children; to think it was appropriate to marshal us into roped off areas, and to generally forget about us. It was "no fun" even if vicarious "no fun". Do I now feel guilty for having the full use of my legs? No of course not. Do I have some suggestions for travel companies and their staff? You betcha. Did the whole experience do me good? Why, yes. Yes it did. I was utterly exhausted by the end of it, and I now understand my friend better.

Privilege therefore can be useful tool for exploring issues of disparity and reduced access to employment/services/power etc. These disparities can be the result of historical and cultural artefacts, urban myths, emotionally conditioned reactions, or sheer bloody laziness on the part of service providers. A discussion of 'privilege can be a helpful and enlightening way to talk about reduced access. However, the way that the term is being currently mangled (as you rightly identify as exclusively about white, straight, cisgendered men) is destroying its' utility rather than increasing it. Sigh, to the extent that I actually fear the term is now irrevocably "fooked".

The hijacked notion of privilege that is currently being hawked is actually a great example of ‘essentialist’ thinking (aka ‘you is what you is’). This thinking tends to be rather lazy, and those prone to it seem to like the water of their thought to flow immediately downhill ... rather like those who dislike gay marriage for it is all about “a man and a woman” or those who dislike trans women because they can never understand the pain of those born female.

‘Privilege' itself is actually much more often context-specific as opposed to essentialist. In fact, it must be if we wish to talk about lack of barriers, because different barriers can be raised by different people (I am completely agreeing with Altair here). For example, I am privileged in class terms in that I use standard English pronunciation (with a few additional soft southern inflections). This not an essential part of me though, in that I could change my accent (with training) if I wished, and it is also completely context-specific in that there are areas of the country in which my speech could lead to my encountering problems with others. E.g. Those extreme frozen wastes are are “oop” from North London.

Of course if you fall into essentialist thinking it is very easy to go from noting that experiencing lack of barriers is more common in some parts of the populace ... to assuming that some parts of he populace are the only ones capable of being privilege ... to assuming that those with privilege are obviously part of the mechanisms of discrimination. This is very dangerous in that moral blame gets assigned without justification. It is stupid in that as we get the effortless; oft missed; move from the descriptive to prescriptive. (Oh noes!!) Lastly, and most importantly, it is also a mistaken classification in that when - what is called commonly called “privilege” - becomes essentialist in nature it is actually something better described as ‘discrimination’.

For example, I am discriminated against as a female in terms of my likelihood of access to a certain reserved seats in the upper chamber of British Parliament (the House of Lords) insofar as I am excluded from ever taking up a job as a “Lord Spiritual’. Women cannot be bishops in the Church of England. (OK, I don’t want the job, but that is not the point). This discrimination is enshrined in law, so this is not about privilege. This is not about a context specific barrier - this is about deliberate exclusion. This is thus separate from discussions on privilege.

Of course, discrimination does - and should - annoy us a very great deal, waaay more than privilege does. The above is an example of the law messing with my democratic engagement. This is an outsourcing of my concerns (bishops are very fond of talking about things that actually impact upon me more than them) to people that I have not voted for and who do not represent me. I reserve my true anger for cases like these. I do wish others could do the same.

Now, of course, you can get cases where both privilege and discrimination are present (let’s make it really complicated!). For example, I discovered, to my surprise, that I was more ‘privileged’ as a female than a male when seeking rental accommodation as a student. Landlords (unofficially but consistently) were more likely to take on groups of all females, or mixed gender groups, than they were to take on groups of all males. The rationale was that females were tidier; a civilizing influence, and were overall less likely to trash the house: the actual evidence for this position being distinctly mixed. However, housing discrimination is also explicitly codified against (aka, illegal) – which is why landlords are covert about their choices. So this is both privilege and discrimination.

So where to go from here? The major distinction between ‘privilege’ and ‘discrimination’ is what you do when faced with it. With discrimination you can codify against it and watch for people flouting the law, with privilege you become aware of the process, foster evidence about the intrinsic irrationality of certain positions, and generally make an effort to be equitable in all of your dealings. Sometimes you need to do both - in cases where both privilege and discrimination are present. However, laws and actions seeking to reduce privilege alone are often superfluous at best and ludicrous – or even repressive – at worst. Let's not go there.

Now, back to my example of speech patterns and how this is about privilege alone. There is no reason for me to feel guilty about my speech patterns; seek to change them, or (heaven forfend!) seek to outlaw them. I simply need to be aware that other accents are common and have a care to treat people in response to what they say, rather than the geographical/societal background that their intonation conveys. Privilege and moral condemnation should only go together when people seek to ignore the former in order to avoid the latter.

Of course, it is possible that some moral condemnation is based in an inchoate understanding that a feeling of guilt would actually be appropriate ....
Self-contempt, however vague, sharpens our eyes for the imperfections of others. We usually strive to reveal in others the blemishes we hide in ourselves. Thus when the frustrated congregate in a mass movement, the air is heavy-laden with suspicion. There is prying and spying, tense watching and a sense of being watched. The surprising thing is that this pathological mistrust within the ranks leads not to dissension but to strict conformity. Knowing themselves continually watched, the faithful strive to escape suspicion by adhering zealously to prescribed behavior and opinion.

Eric Hoffer, 1951.
[/spoiler]

Oh dear, I am sorry if I have whittered on a bit! Thank you very much if you have stayed with me so far. However, this really is the only way that I can adequately explain this.

As I say, I fear that the term is now no longer useful.
You are a pleasure to read, as always.

debaser71
.
.
Posts: 841
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1657

Post by debaser71 »

Actually just the other day my daughter, who is 11 (no not that!!) was talking about "cutting" (no not that either). It's to rag on someone, to initiate a verbal showdown.

codelette
.
.
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1658

Post by codelette »

ragging/on the rag has to do with the women of yesteryear having to use pieces of cloth/rag to deal with the menstrual flow. So, yeah. Mayhew is right.

ERV
Arnie Loves Me!
Arnie Loves Me!
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:57 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1659

Post by ERV »

Twatson:
This is srsly how ridiculous and petty the people who bug us nonstop are: http://bit.ly/URJDCC Why'd I ever assume Sara Mayhew was smart?
LOL @ Twatson calling someone else stupid.

Not that Im not saying Rebecca Watson is dumb. I dont think shes stupid.

All Im saying, is that if Rebecca Watson was playing checkers with a chicken, you would have to drive a railroad spike though the chickens head before it would be a fair match.

Thats all Im saying.

Cunning Punt
.
.
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:50 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1660

Post by Cunning Punt »

surreptitious57 wrote:
Richard Dworkins wrote:
So how did attempts at your own personal style of olive branch waving go over at Atheism Plus ? Do a lot of bridge building or were you treated with contempt ?
I no longer post there as I am a restricted user, and could therefore be perma banned so decided that it was better to just be a lurker. But their site, so their rules. However, in defence I would like to say that I have learned much since joining. I now know about privilege, spoon theory and mansplaining for example, which I did not before. I also realise that some of them need to be in a safe place too, because they are damaged individuals, and that mocking someone for that is not fuuny or clever. And I do not condone that one iota either. I treat eveyone the same no matter who they are. I am interested in ideas not individuals. I continue to lurk at Atheism Plus but any discussion is on other fora. I am doing what they would want of me. And that is a win win situation as far as I am concerned because it shows I am listening instead of talking, which given how I am white and male would not be greatly appreciated now. So it is all good
You almost had me for a minute.

Eucliwood
.
.
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1661

Post by Eucliwood »

VickyCaramel wrote: See what i wrote earlier about self-censorship, taking responsibility and having respect for other people on the forum.
That's laughable. I'm the one who needs to take responsibility? Who has been disrespecting people on this forum? IMO, multiple people owe *me* an apology. They're not the victims. That's like an FtBer saying someone who was repeatedly flamed by one of their stupid comrades needs to apologize to them because they said "show me your ____." Um, no. That post was like asking me to be spit upon and request more saliva.

codelette
.
.
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1662

Post by codelette »

This "I need feminism" bullshit is getting more and more ridiculous...
http://24.media.tumblr.com/184a23a1465d ... 1_1280.jpg

Little girl, you don't feminism. You just need to grow your ovaries.

codelette
.
.
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1663

Post by codelette »

Argghh. That shit image up there said that little girl needed feminism because "society" tells women they cannot short hair because of vagina and shit.
Fun fact: I have very short hair, Halley Berry-short. I had my first pixie cut when I was 3-4 yrs old.

jjbinx007
.
.
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:16 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1664

Post by jjbinx007 »

The exchange between Mayhew and Watson was interesting. Watson, as usual, was utterly hyperbolic and nasty, calling Mayhew the dumbest person on Twitter.

Unfortunately, Watson's argument rests on the fact that there is more than one meaning for the word ragging, and Watson therefore decides that the oldest meaning trumps the newer one.

I'm sure I don't need to point out why this makes Watson the dumb bitch. And I don't mean "bitch" in the sense of female dog.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1665

Post by Apples »

I don't have the link or screenshot for the Sara/Becky "ragging" kerfuffle, but it sounds like a "niggardly nigger" argument. Yes, ragging/on the rag is slang for menstruating (i.e., you stuff a rag in your panties as an old-fashioned crude sanitary pad). However,

Per the Online Etymology dictionary:

rag (v.): "scold," 1739, of unknown origin; perhaps related to Danish dialectal rag "grudge." Related: Ragged; ragging.

http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed ... hmode=none

But if Brainy Becky wants to argue that the usage "to rag on someone" has something to do with women or menstruation and is therefore sexist, then I suppose we must concede that, and accept the fact that Galileo was executed by John the Other, who threw acid in his face as punishment for his heretical views on evolutionary psychology.

Zenspace
.
.
Posts: 923
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:13 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1666

Post by Zenspace »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Michael J wrote:Thinking about the future, I think that there is a population of people out there who are sick of FTB/Skepchick but probably think that the slymepit is a little obsessive. I can't imagine Shermer posting here but we know that he thinks that FTB are poisoning the movement.
I'm curious about the size of this group of people?
Could group actually outnumber for FTB/Skepchick supporters? You do hear about people leaving the movement because they think it has been taken over by the radfem crowd. Now I like that Tee-shirt worn at TAM about "I feel safe at TAM". We could have a logo like "Lets put the skepticism back into Atheism". This could go on people's blogs or their sig lines or worn at conferences. It's like a safe space for skeptics where you know the conversation is going to be about fun stuff like fake haunted houses and creationists and not how to refer to trans-gendered males who are also Lesbians. Most importantly you wont get banned just for asking about evidence.

Again I think it would be important to note that it isn't about supporting the slymepit it is about getting FTB out of the movement
I'd say that both groups, us and the FTB/skepchick bunch, are a small minority of skeptics/atheists.
The only 'movement' that FTB are interested in is the US conference scene.
Can we get them out of it?
I don't think it is possible to completely remove them. They firmly control a significant part of it (skepchickcon, skepticon, cfi conferences etc.)
Other conferences like TAM are currently out of their hands and so are more resistant to their stranglehold.

I am not sure that fighting for control of the conferences they have is the best option.
I suggest going down the atheismplus route, namely to give them complete control but make sure they have to placate their own social justice warriors demands.
Can you imagine a conference run by the mods of atheismplus?
Can you imagine the sort of anti-harrassment policy that would be required to placate them?
Well that's the sort of thing we should advocate for all FTB run conferences.
Give them their goose that lays the golden egg - and make sure it's well and truly gutted.
That is actually brilliant. It would take time, but no more so, and possibly less, than other options such as they are. Really. Give the asylum to the inmates.

The other half of that is to isolate them, if possible. Keep them out of TAM, et al. I don't go to conferences, but I really dislike thinking that these blowhards are out there profiting from their corrupted evangelism.

astrokid.nj
.
.
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:54 pm
Location: Atheist MRA MGTOW

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1667

Post by astrokid.nj »

another lurker wrote: Thought I would share this while we are on the subject of 'victim blaming' in history:
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gfe_rape.htm
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife ...
Deuteronomy 22:28-9

This biblical passage clearly countenanced the rape of virgins, and Christians were generally prepared to follow God's guidance on the matter. If a Christian man wanted to marry an unwilling nubile woman one of the best ways to do it was to rape her and pay up. The idea held through the Dark and Middle Ages and into modern times.
Ah.. interpreting 2000 yr old biblical passages through the lens of modern sensibilities, supported by a corrupted version of history. Here's an interesting take on corruption of history 'Defend the Humanities'--A Dishonest Slogan
And so "Defend the Humanities" is a most attractive flag to sail under. The trouble is that for those who are now using it, it is a flag of convenience only, and a deeply dishonest one. For the conception of the humanities set out above is despised by those who now ask for our help in saving the departments they run. Long ago, they took aim at it, defeated it and abolished it, and that is precisely the source of their present troubles. The story of how they did it and why is well-known. A virulent strain of Marxist radicalism took refuge in college humanities programs just as it was being abandoned in the real world because of catastrophic results world-wide. This created a mismatch of temperaments: humanistic scholars are naturally animated by a profound respect for the legacy of our past, but all the instincts of political radicals go in the opposite direction. Their natural instinct is to denigrate the past in order to make the case for the sweeping social change that they want. That's why they don't look at the past and see
accumulated knowledge and wisdom, but instead only a story of bigotry, inequality and racial and sexual prejudice that needs to be swept aside
. Political radicals are interested in the utopian future and in their present- day attempts to achieve it, not the cultural past which must be overcome to get to where they want to be.
Here's a modern rapist marrying the victim and avoiding punishment. How can this be explained in a "misogynistic" culture?
[youtube]J6ukzhmNB20[/youtube]

VickyCaramel
.
.
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:24 am
Location: Sitting with feet up
Contact:

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1668

Post by VickyCaramel »

Apples wrote:I don't have the link or screenshot for the Sara/Becky "ragging" kerfuffle, but it sounds like a "niggardly nigger" argument. Yes, ragging/on the rag is slang for menstruating (i.e., you stuff a rag in your panties as an old-fashioned crude sanitary pad). However,

Per the Online Etymology dictionary:

rag (v.): "scold," 1739, of unknown origin; perhaps related to Danish dialectal rag "grudge." Related: Ragged; ragging.

http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed ... hmode=none

But if Brainy Becky wants to argue that the usage "to rag on someone" has something to do with women or menstruation and is therefore sexist, then I suppose we must concede that, and accept the fact that Galileo was executed by John the Other, who threw acid in his face as punishment for his heretical views on evolutionary psychology.
Am I missing something? I have heard "on the rag", but who uses "ragging" to mean menstruating? That's a new one of me. Rag can be slang for a number of things, tabloid newspapers for example. But the meaning of "ragging" is teasing or bullying. I haven't seen a dictionary definition of 'ragging' which says it means menstruating.

Isn't Watson just plain wrong?

16bitheretic
.
.
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1669

Post by 16bitheretic »

codelette wrote:Argghh. That shit image up there said that little girl needed feminism because "society" tells women they cannot short hair because of vagina and shit.
Fun fact: I have very short hair, Halley Berry-short. I had my first pixie cut when I was 3-4 yrs old.
The very idea of there even being a controversy about hair length for either gender is an argument out of that girls' grandparent's time. Both guys and girls nowadays are free to have their hair short or long with all sorts of styling options commonly accepted either way.

16bitheretic
.
.
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1670

Post by 16bitheretic »

VickyCaramel wrote:Isn't Watson just plain wrong?
What could ever possibly make you think that?

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1671

Post by Lsuoma »

debaser71 wrote:ragging = menstruating = emotionally unstable = PMSing = bitchy = cuntlike etc

at least where I live
Don't forget wagging (at around the 2.30 mark):

[youtube]AX0XDHF3M60[/youtube]

debaser71
.
.
Posts: 841
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1672

Post by debaser71 »

Are you "ragging"? = Are you "on the rag"? = Why are you acting like a bitch?

Again, this is just one definition but I've heard it used many many times here in NY.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1673

Post by Apples »

okay STOP THE PRESSES

I'm going to have to disagree with jjbinx007 on this one.

I finally read the Skepchick thread, which makes it clear that Sara Mayhew is the one who implied "ragging" is sexist and then Becky spent 30 seconds on Google to correct her.

Even if Sara Mayhew is my favorite gender-traitor today, she's the one being the moron here. That doesn't make Becky smart, but at least she can use Google.

http://skepchick.org/2013/01/on-optimis ... ent-163360

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1674

Post by Metalogic42 »

codelette wrote:Argghh. That shit image up there said that little girl needed feminism because "society" tells women they cannot short hair because of vagina and shit.
Fun fact: I have very short hair, Halley Berry-short. I had my first pixie cut when I was 3-4 yrs old.
If anything, short hair on women has been somewhat popular since Halle Berry started her career. I see it fairly often nowadays, and no one thinks twice about it.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1675

Post by Gumby »

Metalogic42 wrote:[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/AzJ3DXx.jpg[/spoiler]

:clap:
I don't think Quontir is gonna last too much longer...

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1676

Post by another lurker »

Metalogic42 wrote:
codelette wrote:Argghh. That shit image up there said that little girl needed feminism because "society" tells women they cannot short hair because of vagina and shit.
Fun fact: I have very short hair, Halley Berry-short. I had my first pixie cut when I was 3-4 yrs old.
If anything, short hair on women has been somewhat popular since Halle Berry started her career. I see it fairly often nowadays, and no one thinks twice about it.

It was also popular in the 1920s...and with Twiggy, and Mia Farrow. Never really went out of style, just in cycles.

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1677

Post by Metalogic42 »

In other news, why is everyone on youtube talking about quiche all of a sudden?

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1678

Post by Metalogic42 »

Wowbagger wrote:(about Justin Vacula) With his capacity for rational thinking and rhetoric, combined with his low regard for people who aren’t him, he’d be a shoe-in as a spokeperson for the NRA right now.
No comments on this at the moment, just FYI.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1679

Post by Lsuoma »

another lurker wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:
codelette wrote:Argghh. That shit image up there said that little girl needed feminism because "society" tells women they cannot short hair because of vagina and shit.
Fun fact: I have very short hair, Halley Berry-short. I had my first pixie cut when I was 3-4 yrs old.
If anything, short hair on women has been somewhat popular since Halle Berry started her career. I see it fairly often nowadays, and no one thinks twice about it.

It was also popular in the 1920s...and with Twiggy, and Mia Farrow. Never really went out of style, just in cycles.
ISWYDT.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

#1680

Post by Apples »

Gumby wrote:I don't think Quontir is gonna last too much longer...
Yeah, he got in a few good jabs at Ceepolk, but for some reason the other Mods seem afraid of Ceepolk. Can't imagine why :?

Locked