Oh oh.somedumbguy wrote:I'd close them up in an iron maiden for a few weeks.
Perhaps this discussion should be diverted to the music thread before it gets too ugly.
Testing, testing, one two. One two.
Hey! Anyone here from Ulon Baton? Woo!!
Oh oh.somedumbguy wrote:I'd close them up in an iron maiden for a few weeks.
Oh christ I agree. Whilst there are some disturbing outliers, as in any nascent movement, within the MRM, on the whole I have been won over by the considered and rational way they deal with the viciousness of the feminists. Which is why it is so disappointing to see someone who usually articulates these ideas so well, screwing himself with two or three poorly written polemics i suspect he will regret in the morning.nippletwister wrote:For what it's worth, though I don't identify as such, I've read a good bit of MRA stuff and that kind of shit is very rare, even in the comments. The few who go there get banned on AVFM for that kind of shit.jimthepleb wrote:You were right.somedumbguy wrote:
The truth is that in my several months here, I've never seen one comment from anyone encouraging rape, torture, or death. And the equal truth is that all I've heard about from Atheism+ and Feminism is the reverse: restrictions on speech and behavior and the condoning and encouraging of making society manifestly unfair to many people based on the color of their skin or the speech they make.
Until today.
Whilst what you said above was not incitement nor a threat, it most certainly was a general societal suggestion that encouraged rape as a form of punishment.
Way to go dickhead.
I was actually beginning to warm to many of the MRA's here. Andrew is often perceptive and a font of data and others, including you, have impressed me with NOT being the revolting misogynist arseholes others would lead one to believe.
Then you come out with this utter bollocks.
Fuck off and sober up you cunt.
"We all have bloody thoughts"
I heard that on Deadwood.
She has somehow reached her current age without the realisation that there exist these "penal" institutions that we call "gaols", "prisons", or even "jails", where males being raped is at least an hourly occurrence.somedumbguy wrote:Taslima is a doctor who in 2013 spouts off that men can't be raped.
All I will say since I am leaving, but found this post, is that as the Deadwood quote goes, "We all have bloody thoughts". I think the mistake is to demand people suppress all acknowledgement of that or demand instabans, permabans, talibans for expressing out of frustration those bloody thoughts.Steersman wrote: (elided inner quotes to satisfy some piece of software)
That some people might well deserve to die, I can see some justification for. After all, Western society seems to have at least largely condoned that sentence, with more than a little justification, on Bin Laden and various Islamists. And maybe from some perspectives there might well be some who deserve to be raped – Catholic priest pedophiles, or most pedophiles, for examples – or to be tortured.
However to even suggest that that might apply in any particular case, particularly the latter two – you ok with that comment suggesting that Watson should be so targetted? – seems a rather slippery slope, that things can very quickly get out of hand when one lays about with gay abandon that two-edged sword.
Which, I think, relates to the general question of the harassment that Watson and company have been subjected to and which I referred to in an earlier comment. Seems to me that there is the rather problematic phenomenon whereby the epithets are chasing themselves in some cycle of escalation in which those voicing them try to outdo previous ones in terms of nastiness and venom. All good fun – until someone loses an eye.
Reminds me of having seen a documentary on the Green River Killer, in which the killer, Gary Ridgway, said something to the effect that he thought that he was doing society a favour by killing the prostitutes who were his primary targets. In which case one might reasonably question whether he was entirely culpable for those crimes, or whether some part of the blame might not be laid at the feet of society in general.
They should be optional as I do like them so why not have them as a smiley insteadLsuoma wrote:
The Slyme Pit : where everyone gets the ban hammer
Quite.masakari2012 wrote:I read through that JREF forum every couple of weeks to see what's going on. They had a few good points, which I took away from there. But the Pit is far superior.
Ah fuck you, you self-righteous prig. You have merely chilled my continuing exploration of a subject that is new to me. I did not dismiss anyone, even you, for your idiotic, semi-literate ramblings. You're too pissed to read with any comprehension or write with any coherence.somedumbguy wrote:I like that Deadwood quote.nippletwister wrote:For what it's worth, though I don't identify as such, I've read a good bit of MRA stuff and that kind of shit is very rare, even in the comments. The few who go there get banned on AVFM for that kind of shit.jimthepleb wrote:You were right.somedumbguy wrote:
The truth is that in my several months here, I've never seen one comment from anyone encouraging rape, torture, or death. And the equal truth is that all I've heard about from Atheism+ and Feminism is the reverse: restrictions on speech and behavior and the condoning and encouraging of making society manifestly unfair to many people based on the color of their skin or the speech they make.
Until today.
Whilst what you said above was not incitement nor a threat, it most certainly was a general societal suggestion that encouraged rape as a form of punishment.
Way to go dickhead.
I was actually beginning to warm to many of the MRA's here. Andrew is often perceptive and a font of data and others, including you, have impressed me with NOT being the revolting misogynist arseholes others would lead one to believe.
Then you come out with this utter bollocks.
Fuck off and sober up you cunt.
"We all have bloody thoughts"
I heard that on Deadwood.
Re: jimthepleb, it's like most stuff. Since I am not Paul Elam, and I am not Dean Esmay and I am not Warren Farrell, and I am not Glenn Sacks, then poor old jim the pleb's problem whereby up until tonight he was almost leaning towards MRAs but now after he perceives a stupid statement he thinks I made well it discredits all of them including Andrew --
Well come on, that says more about jimthepleb than it does about Mens Rights.
I still think of myself as a feminist regardless of all the shit that Marcotte and so many other feminists spew. Their stupid idiocy says nothing about whether women and men should be treated equally.
So poor jim the pleb.
Hey, somedumbguy, thanks for that. You were making me nervous. My faith is, tentatively, restored.You're right Lsuoma, that statement should be condemned and you are right to do so.
Fuckin hell, another Aunt Liz! Did you miss the retraction? Or have you no empathy, understanding, or awareness that we are all fallible; we all make mistakes; we all say things we do not truly intend and wish we had never said?So, until this is resolved in some way, I will have to abstain from further posting.
Oh, FFS, no Eddie, PLEASE!!!Michael K Gray wrote:Oh oh.somedumbguy wrote:I'd close them up in an iron maiden for a few weeks.
Perhaps this discussion should be diverted to the music thread before it gets too ugly.
Testing, testing, one two. One two.
Hey! Anyone here from Ulon Baton? Woo!!
http://humanfacebook.files.wordpress.co ... maiden.jpgLsuoma wrote:Oh, FFS, no Eddie, PLEASE!!!Michael K Gray wrote:Oh oh.somedumbguy wrote:I'd close them up in an iron maiden for a few weeks.
Perhaps this discussion should be diverted to the music thread before it gets too ugly.
Testing, testing, one two. One two.
Hey! Anyone here from Ulon Baton? Woo!!
[youtube]X3Hg-Y7MugU[/youtube]AndrewV69 wrote:Well you are probably familiar with the concept of not shouting fire in a crowded theatre...
While I sympathize, methinks the problem, at least in part, is that “the thought is party to the deedâ€. One thing to entertain the thought – rather problematic when that shades into setting up house-keeping with it. Although one might argue – as you may have suggested – that there is only some relatively small degree of difference between what passes for justice in Western societies, at least in some cases, and that in some Islamic ones ….somedumbguy wrote:All I will say since I am leaving, but found this post, is that as the Deadwood quote goes, "We all have bloody thoughts". I think the mistake is to demand people suppress all acknowledgement of that or demand instabans, permabans, talibans for expressing out of frustration those bloody thoughts.Steersman wrote: (elided inner quotes to satisfy some piece of software)
That some people might well deserve to die, I can see some justification for. After all, Western society seems to have at least largely condoned that sentence, with more than a little justification, on Bin Laden and various Islamists. And maybe from some perspectives there might well be some who deserve to be raped – Catholic priest pedophiles, or most pedophiles, for examples – or to be tortured.
However to even suggest that that might apply in any particular case, particularly the latter two – you ok with that comment suggesting that Watson should be so targetted? – seems a rather slippery slope, that things can very quickly get out of hand when one lays about with gay abandon that two-edged sword.
Which, I think, relates to the general question of the harassment that Watson and company have been subjected to and which I referred to in an earlier comment. Seems to me that there is the rather problematic phenomenon whereby the epithets are chasing themselves in some cycle of escalation in which those voicing them try to outdo previous ones in terms of nastiness and venom. All good fun – until someone loses an eye.
Reminds me of having seen a documentary on the Green River Killer, in which the killer, Gary Ridgway, said something to the effect that he thought that he was doing society a favour by killing the prostitutes who were his primary targets. In which case one might reasonably question whether he was entirely culpable for those crimes, or whether some part of the blame might not be laid at the feet of society in general.
Huge difference between thinking hell, I would gladly torture that SOB that did X, versus voting time and again, against the death penalty and for strong rape laws.
HTH
You were kidding about Eddie, right?Lsuoma wrote:3. Posting stuff that you have been explicitly asked/told not to. I MAY listen to communications here, but I may choose not to respond. If I tell you not to post stuff, the minimum reason is that I don't want you to.
"From ze day he was born,Metalogic42 wrote:You were kidding about Eddie, right?Lsuoma wrote:3. Posting stuff that you have been explicitly asked/told not to. I MAY listen to communications here, but I may choose not to respond. If I tell you not to post stuff, the minimum reason is that I don't want you to.
Thanks. Yes.Michael K Gray wrote:Lsuoma, I have a few more sheckels that I wish to shove up your in-box.
Will your original PayPal ID still work?
I loved the shit out of that album. Still to see the show!Lsuoma wrote: Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
And the followup:Lisa Smith, from Buckinghamshire, finds sex 'repellent'
Has had three lovers, and lived with two of them
Wants to find a man with whom she can have a celibate relationship
Will adopt children if she ever decides she wants them
Vegan Lisa, 29, from Buckinghamshire, who doesn't want kids, hopes to find a man who will embrace her asexuality
Says she wants potential partner to accept cuddling as extent of intimacy
If the man of her dreams wanted sex she would say no. 'I'd feel like I was compromising myself and I would detest them for it'
Since writing for the Mail Lisa has heard from other asexuals but also had spiteful comments like: 'You can't get a man and this is how you cover it up'
If you are an example of a "wonderful father" that the court if biased against I would say things are working as intended. You are a baboon, a fool who thinks committing acts of violence against others (i.e. rape) is justifiable since they say things you disagree with. I would say that you must be young and immature but that doesn't excuse the idiocy you have put to text.somedumbguy wrote:I have to deal with a court system where the norm, the default, the stock policy separates wonderful fathers from their children every day.nippletwister wrote:somedumbguy wrote:Good thing I don't influence the laws then like Dworkin, MacKinnon, Koss, and Marcotte have.16bitheretic wrote:Fair enough, I wasn't saying you shouldn't have a right to say it, I was just pointing out my opinion of such statements. I don't feel that calls for rape or torture have any use beyond just venting of anger or some way of trying to get attention through cheap shock value. I'd certainly never support any real life applications of said wishes, regardless of how much I dislike the person, especially after I've frequently called out and criticized the Catholic Church and the US prison system for their avoidance of responsibility in seemingly systemic problems of unprosecuted rape.somedumbguy wrote:That's my free speech talking.
Somedumbguy:I understand having some rage, dude...but come on, that was shitty wankery. You sound like a cross between a radfem and some of my religious-right-death-penalty-loving relatives. Well, three murders isn't a radfem genocide of all males, but the shittiness is the same. Get help if you're that fucking angry. If we killed every stooge that put forth a harmful idea, we'd have no more new ideas. And you are now in the "harmful ideas" area.
Am I angry to what radfems like Dworkin and Mackinnon have done to your courts? You bet. Am I angry as to how Marcotte practices her journalism (that is through terrible lies) you bet.
Am I saying every stooge that puts forth a harmful idea should be killed? Of course not.
Am I arguing that perhaps in some universe they would deserve it.... Hell that's just karma dude.
Saw it in NYC on opening night, and here in Seattle a couple of weeks ago. It really is a blast.rocko2466 wrote:I loved the shit out of that album. Still to see the show!Lsuoma wrote: Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
I was in NYC with my missus late 2011. We went to buy tickets, but the only tickets were obstructed view so we thought we'd give it a miss. Hugely regret it! I listened to the album on repeat for like two months straight.Lsuoma wrote:Saw it in NYC on opening night, and here in Seattle a couple of weeks ago. It really is a blast.rocko2466 wrote:I loved the shit out of that album. Still to see the show!Lsuoma wrote: Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
These seats are reserved for the A✠mental-cripples who claim to be blind-'enhanced'.rocko2466 wrote:I was in NYC with my missus late 2011. We went to buy tickets, but the only tickets were obstructed view...
Not even an acid resistant niqab, or a caustic burkha?rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
Hot.Michael K Gray wrote:Not even an acid resistant niqab, or a caustic burkha?rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
One does not need a pH D in chemistry to understand the benefits of one of these Burqas modelled by a misogynist:
Antacid بÙرقع‎
rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
Yes, I imagine that they would be.rayshul wrote:Hot.Michael K Gray wrote:Antacid بÙرقع‎
And very valid arguments in terms of social interactions and general identification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban ... e_coveringcomslave wrote:rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
This is, I think, a start:comslave wrote:rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b#CanadaIn December 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Muslim women must remove niqabs in some cases when testifying in court.
Whay SDG posted was, in my opinion, the first time anyone here has posted anything even close to the sort of rape threats that the FTB crowd claim is a constant feature of this place.Lsuoma wrote:I thought that at some time I would need to post something like this, but it has been longer than I expected.
There are a few things that will get you permanently banned as soon as I find out, with no appeal:
1. Being Mabus posting a la Mabus.
2. Posting child pornography.
3. Posting spam or warez or malware or links to same.
4. Posting if you have already been permanently banned for any reason.
Other things that MAY get you banned, but where the ban may be negotiable, or, if already imposed may be reversed, are:
1. Posting stuff that I am advised will possibly lead to personal legal liability for me. On of my (seven!) sisters-in-law is a criminal trial attorney whom I have consulted WRT the Pit, and will continue so to do. Her decision, as my attorney, informs my decision in every case of potential legal liability. I may or may not decide to discuss specifics in public (i.e. on the Pit), but I will post announcements if possible.
2. Boring my fucking arse off. It's a big arse, so this is not instantaneous. But once it hits the floor, it needs a lot of re-hoisting.
3. Posting stuff that you have been explicitly asked/told not to. I MAY listen to communications here, but I may choose not to respond. If I tell you not to post stuff, the minimum reason is that I don't want you to. In such a situation the following applies:
a) Is your name Lsuoma Californensis? If not, fuck off.
b) If so, are you the Lsuoma Californensis that owns this board? If not, fuck off.
Addendum: this has been a busy night, and I hope that nobody (in alphabetic order Decius, Somedumbguy)will leave the Pit permanently because of it. Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
ATTENTION ALL Citizens of the A+ State!comslave wrote:rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
And this is probably the reason why the whole of humanity is not doomed yet.Michael K Gray wrote:For the few animal lovers¹ amongst us:
Thirsty koala follows walker, drinks three bottles of water
Dateline, mid-summer, South Australia, (a bit up the road from here):
A THIRSTY koala has made the rare move of climbing down a tree before following a walker along suburban roads, drinking three bottles of water over an hour.
But that was not enough.Woo-Hyang Sun wrote:"I was walking near the Black Hill Conservation Park entrance (when) my husband spotted a koala in a tree," Mrs Sun said.
"We took some photos, and initially the koala looked scared.
"She kept looking at me and looked like she wanted something, so I poured some water in my palm, and the koala drank it at once.
As the temperature began to rise, the thirsty koala became even more ambitious.â‹®After sustaining long eye contact with Mrs Sun's husband for several minutes, the koala succumbed to the prospect of a cool drink of water and climbed down from the tree, not at all phased by her suburban surroundings.
Not only did the koala hit the streets of Athelstone for a leisurely stroll, it almost threatened to get behind the wheel of Mrs Sun's car.
"When I opened the car door, she was poking her head to look inside my car, I guess for more water?," she said.Read the whole story with more cute piccies at http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/thirsty-k ... s-of-water"After she finished the whole bottle, she was waving her hand, I guess, for more water.
"She followed me for an hour and ended up drinking three bottles altogether - definitely the friendliest koala I've ever seen."
_________________________
¹ Punishable by 5 years imprisonment and a $50,000 fine
Michael K Gray wrote:Too true. Nearly a "deepity"bhoytony wrote:There seem to be people here who assume that everybody who is posting on this blog want the exact same outcome as themselves. Sorry, but your goals aren't necessarily the goals of anybody but yourself.
About the only commonality between us is a distaste for hypocrisy.
And what evidence do you adduce to support that contention? For instance, how about this statement of SDG’s:Dick Strawkins wrote:<snip>Lsuoma wrote:I thought that at some time I would need to post something like this, but it has been longer than I expected.
There are a few things that will get you permanently banned as soon as I find out, with no appeal:
1. Being Mabus posting a la Mabus.
2. Posting child pornography.
3. Posting spam or warez or malware or links to same.
4. Posting if you have already been permanently banned for any reason.
Other things that MAY get you banned, but where the ban may be negotiable, or, if already imposed may be reversed, are:
<snip>
Addendum: this has been a busy night, and I hope that nobody (in alphabetic order Decius, Somedumbguy)will leave the Pit permanently because of it. Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
Don't make threats of violence against people - including the sort of youtube comment style 'threats' that Watson relies on - which is exactly what SDG did.
<snip>
Is that any more of a credible “threat†of rape than the similar one directed at Watson that virtually all and sundry here and have pooh-poohed as just the complaints of a bunch of “stupid, whiny, witless Baron Munchausens�I'd say Marcotte needs a shit ton more rape in her life. Mary Koss, Nasrim Tasleema who say that men can't be raped? Fine, fuck them both. Get raped chickadees. Fuck off AND DIE.
In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).DeepInsideYourMind wrote:And very valid arguments in terms of social interactions and general identification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban ... e_coveringcomslave wrote:The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
Riiight-on there brother Michael!Michael K Gray wrote:ATTENTION ALL Citizens of the A+ State!comslave wrote:rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
Citizen ComSlave has expressed the will of the goodthink Kommentariat admirably!
Big Bother admires ComSlave's willingness to change his name to comport with Newspeak, and deny the double-atheism-plus-ungood of personal privacy!
The A+Theism Executive Komittee has decided that the anti-state unthink misogynist dodge of face-coverings are to be countered by placing a Telescreen® in every home.
Thanks to de-rationing and the free market the price of nutrition-free bread has now gone down to eighty-five Roubles an ounce.
And here is good news for state house-persons, the following goods are now in the shops:
Plastic and sawdust elephant night-shirts
Second hand concrete parachutes
Artificial explodable woollen bloomers
Men's self igniting tailless shirts - with anti thunder-sheet attachment.
There are unlimited supplies in the shops!!
We love Big PZ!
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photo ... ture_3.jpg
I only JUST took you off "ignore" to find that, true to form, you are still your vapidly humour-free contrarian self.Steersman wrote:And aspirins inexorably lead to mainlining heroin and mother’s milk is the straight-and-narrow path to being a Bowery bum on Skid Road!
That is basically not true.rayshul wrote:In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).
I have to ask: did you mean this comment to be sarcastic, or did you fall off the crib in your infancy?ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:That's not a shaving accident, unless the woman (? Proof of gender?) has Parkinson's.rocko2466 wrote:
My fave picture from her post about "men hate woman's bodies" -
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/fil ... having.jpg
It's clearly self harm, either real or staged: check out the multiple slashes across the heel. Nice idea if you're into that kind of thing: gets nice chafed by shoes, but hidden by trousers, so provides an all-day reminder of how worthless you are while remaining hidden from the public.
I didn't say SDG made a credible threat. I think, however, he made the kind of idiotic, nasty wowbagger style remark that has always been criticized in the past by the pit.Steersman wrote: Is that any more of a credible “threat†of rape than the similar one directed at Watson that virtually all and sundry here and have pooh-poohed as just the complaints of a bunch of “stupid, whiny, witless Baron Munchausens�
Methinks you might find his other comments along the same line to be equally extreme but hardly credible as actionable threats. “Sauce for the goose†and all that ….
Cue Bhoytony to hypocritically observe that he doesn't give a tinker's toss about your opinion, yet bothers to post an intense selfish rant against it...Dick Strawkins wrote:I didn't say SDG made a credible threat. I think, however, he made the kind of idiotic, nasty wowbagger style remark that has always been criticized in the past by the pit.Steersman wrote: Is that any more of a credible “threat†of rape than the similar one directed at Watson that virtually all and sundry here and have pooh-poohed as just the complaints of a bunch of “stupid, whiny, witless Baron Munchausens�
Methinks you might find his other comments along the same line to be equally extreme but hardly credible as actionable threats. “Sauce for the goose†and all that ….
Is it too much to ask people to show some degree of responibility to the other members of the pit?
You don't post (legal) porn here because that will make the site inaccessible to those viewing at certain workplaces. You don't post spam or warez because it's illegal or timewasting.
If you can't behave in an adult and responsible way in the slymepit then you risk doing something that gets the entire forum closed. Isn't that why both Eucliwood AND that idiot who posted the (similated?) cp picture were banned?
Are you talking about Carnita Matthews? or someone else?Michael K Gray wrote:That is basically not true.rayshul wrote:In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).
In a case where a burka-wearing female was pulled over by Aussie cops for dangerous driving (by dint of obscured vision), she elected to take the case to court, rather than pay the fine. Her defence was based on Religious Privilege trumping state laws. In Australia!
If I remember rightly, her defence was dismissed, and the fine & demerit points upheld.
OK, so apparently the comments that SDG originally posted have been edited and his original words were much more in line with the sort of violent rape fantasies that we have collectively condemned.decius wrote:Dick Strawkins, check your PM please.
Jan Steen wrote:Deeply disappointed that Stephanie Zvan failed to include my photoshop of her:
http://i.imgur.com/8XKpPV4.jpg
If you look closely you will see that it's her face. It's a still from The Wicker Man, a thriller about a radfem society :) . She'll have to admit that I didn't make her look bad; not physically, at least.
It's the kind of thread Notung should approve of. No profanity, no gratuitous insults, "lively" but hardly acrimonious debate. I see at least one refugee from The Borg found there way there which, AFAIAC, is a still win for the good guys. The 'Pit isn't for everyone, but we're still here. And what would The Borg do for an enemy if we weren't? (That's not really a serious question - they can invent them out of thin air.)didymos wrote:It's not about which forum is teh bestest. I posted that because watching an APlusser deploy what is usually a winning SJW tactic and having it go completely awry is pretty funny.masakari2012 wrote:I read through that JREF forum every couple of weeks to see what's going on. They had a few good points, which I took away from there. But the Pit is far superior.
I couldn't agree more.Dick Strawkins wrote:
Part of the reason I post here is because I found it the one place in the online atheist community where people were taking seriously the problem of hypocrisy.
There is a line to be drawn in the sand here.
Bad taste jokes about someone being a fatty are juvinile and silly.
Calling for people to be raped is so far over the line that I am seriously wondering whether we have been set up.
The alternative, and probably closer to the truth is that we have some crossover with the MRA community who don't seem to take this sort of shit seriously.
I suggest we do take it seriously.
Yeah, that sucks. I deeply, deeply and most humbly apologise. :oops:Dick Strawkins wrote:I recognized the allusion - and I was going to complain to you about it.
Even though it's from the remake, the character you've painted as Svan is, I think, the same as the character called 'Willow' in the original 1973 movie, where she was played by the incredibly sexy Britt Eckland.
The dance scene in the pub bedroom is one of the most erotic scenes ever in a mainstream movie.
Well it was, until you done that photoshop.
Now I'll never be able to watch it again without thinking of Svan.
:twisted: