If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

cunt wrote:

Rystefn wrote:

cunt wrote:Actually, this is just Rystefn's subconcious working out it's issues. Let's go with the one you were offered after you complained about it being a 6 inch nail.

Bwahahahaha! Are you really trying to turn it around like I'm the one backing out for complaining about you moving the fucking goalposts. You dishonest little shit, I bet you think that was clever.

I didn't say you were backing out. Now who's being dishonest.

cunt wrote:

Rystefn wrote:

cunt wrote:Actually, this is just Rystefn's subconcious working out it's issues. Let's go with the one you were offered after you complained about it being a 6 inch nail.

Bwahahahaha! Are you really trying to turn it around like I'm the one backing out for complaining about you moving the fucking goalposts. You dishonest little shit, I bet you think that was clever.

I didn't say you were backing out. Now who's being dishonest.

cunt wrote:

Not boring at all to me, but I think I may have just heard Steersman's head hitting his desk. :lol:

The good news - I'm actually familiar with about 90% of what you provided above, so we are on pretty solid ground between us. I've seen first hand the effects here in the US of oil prices and your figures are spot on. Once the local price at the pump hits $4 a gallon the economy cycles downward again, so yes - we have already hit the upper limit of the oil/economy relationship.

Try $8.39 a gallon in the UK. $4 a gallon is not your upper limit (unfortunately).

cunt wrote:

cunt wrote:

Rystefn wrote:

cunt wrote:Actually, this is just Rystefn's subconcious working out it's issues. Let's go with the one you were offered after you complained about it being a 6 inch nail.

Bwahahahaha! Are you really trying to turn it around like I'm the one backing out for complaining about you moving the fucking goalposts. You dishonest little shit, I bet you think that was clever.

I didn't say you were backing out. Now who's being dishonest.

Also you did complain, and I did say it could be smaller than the original (because i'm generous like that). Right before you flounced for 6 months. I can go back and quote the posts if you'd really like, but it seems like most people are getting bored of it.

treestump wrote:well, here's the official Skepticon annoucement. Feel free to post comments on it. I put the second comment on there, no one else seems to be commenting. I think these people are mad to fall over themselves to support FTB / Skepchick.
http://skepticon.org/skepticon-says-goo ... urce=pubv1

Gefan wrote:

cunt wrote:

Not boring at all to me, but I think I may have just heard Steersman's head hitting his desk. :lol:

The good news - I'm actually familiar with about 90% of what you provided above, so we are on pretty solid ground between us. I've seen first hand the effects here in the US of oil prices and your figures are spot on. Once the local price at the pump hits $4 a gallon the economy cycles downward again, so yes - we have already hit the upper limit of the oil/economy relationship.

Try $8.39 a gallon in the UK. $4 a gallon is not your upper limit (unfortunately).

The economies and societies are configured differently. Comutes are shorter in the UK. Transportation distances are much shorter. The US is essentially designed on the premise of oil at not more than $20 a barrel.
The only thing that makes the UK potentially even more vulnerabke than the US would be its level of household debt which was even higher the last time I checked.

Aneris, [url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/oncampus/blog/entry/a_fifth_graders_response_to_the_cfi_boards_statement/]comment 14[/url] wrote:Ron Lindsay's head is a political agenda point placed on the menu by FTB/SkepChick/SecWomen. They often think they have prerogative of interpretation and naturally expect that their tricks go through unchallenged. In this instance, the gambit is about demanding that people have to take sides for or against Ron Lindsay. It's not important what people choose, as each works out for them. Demagogues like Stephanie Zvan or Rebecca Watson will exploit the result in any way. PZ Myers perhaps more hamfisted after the plot points are placed.

It's always the same trick: Some actual problem or real world issue is used to set the stage, typically in terms of stark Good/Evil terms (Aussie General vs. Aussie Army Rapists, see Watson's piece). Then they slowly slide over and associate people in the movement with the created sides (with them on the Good Team of course). You can't disagree with them, because when you do, you are in the camp of the evil side. The trick seems to be about a type of loaded question or situation ("do you still beat your wife").

This is how it plays out:

• If people vote "for Lindsay", it strenghtens their influence and they continue with narrative one: They are the go-to experts in these matters, more gigs, more influence, more money. Rumour has it, that their ingroup also hoped that one of theirs would inherit the position.
  
  If people voted "against Lindsay" instead, they just continue narrative two. That people allegedly support harassment. That sexism is rampant and so forth. Bingo, the movement needs those Knights in Shiny armour to save us all from the evils. They would again establish themselves as the go-to experts in these matters.

It is striking that they now refuse to support the organisation, even called for boycotts (Watson, as usual) of it, despite that organized the Women in Secularism conference in the first place. They stated and acted on that idea — even if the opening talk by Lindsay was completely botched.

CFI did well in ignoring the agenda point and had no real option as FTB/SkepChick/SecWomen escalated the issue rapidly. It was the best decision to just undercut it.

Meanwhile, Greta Christina who also withdrew all her support, has created yet another social warrior argumentation template, where any inclusive message like "hey all, let's work together toward X" can be criticised viciously as it (allegedly) also including harassers and the like. Watch out for it, they'll use it whenever convenient.

Mykeru wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

EdwardGemmer wrote:I see Black Skeptics is the first FtB site to actually do a writeup about the lawsuit.

And many of the commenters quickly descend into a game of "shoot the messenger".

Attention Black Folks.

We understand you people may be upset about this completely untrustworthy woman making accusations against our allies at American Atheists, but please don't get uppity. We suggest you check your complaining negro privilege and suck it up for the greater good. That is to say, for us, your betters.

Yours Truly,

The Free Thought Bwanas

How annoying would it be to refer to them as such?

Scented Nectar wrote:

codelette wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:

Gefan wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote: Yay! A lady garden adventure into the limelight at menopause time! Is she suggesting that I perform in some old lady fetish porn?

I don't think menopause means what the author thinks it means. Full bloom in a plant or garden is the time of peak fertility. Menopause in humans is the end of fertility. Pretty much opposites.

You think you have menopause problems?
A friend of ours, an ageless, naturally athletic woman of Central American descent, turned fifty last October. She had a cycle that was so regular that you could plot space missions by it.
At the party held in her honor last Fall she had announced her intention of fucking every single man in attendance. She'd have made good on it too had not Aunt Flo decided to make an unscheduled appearance at the event.
Her husband's reaction was discretely ambivalent but the lady in question did not see the humor in this development.

Periods can be a real party pooper.

I've heard some men refer to other men as 'warriors' at a place I used to work. The name referred to men who were willing to fuck a woman while she is on the rag. I've been told that some even prefer it due to things being extra lubed when Aunt Flo is flowing.

Yeah, I know. TMI. :D

Ugh. I have never being able to imagine myself as a sexual being while bleeding like a stabbed victim.
I even hate walking while on my period. The feeling of clots going doing is extremely uncomfortable to me.
That said, my periods right now are not that bad. My sis has some fibroids and is like a massacre whenever she's bleeding.
She's scheduled for an hysterectomy next month. No Fluevogs involved.

Walking always brings the worry of leaks, especially when one of those mini-floods happen mid-step. Ugh.

cunt wrote:

Gefan wrote:

cunt wrote:

Not boring at all to me, but I think I may have just heard Steersman's head hitting his desk. :lol:

The good news - I'm actually familiar with about 90% of what you provided above, so we are on pretty solid ground between us. I've seen first hand the effects here in the US of oil prices and your figures are spot on. Once the local price at the pump hits $4 a gallon the economy cycles downward again, so yes - we have already hit the upper limit of the oil/economy relationship.

Try $8.39 a gallon in the UK. $4 a gallon is not your upper limit (unfortunately).

The economies and societies are configured differently. Comutes are shorter in the UK. Transportation distances are much shorter. The US is essentially designed on the premise of oil at not more than $20 a barrel.
The only thing that makes the UK potentially even more vulnerabke than the US would be its level of household debt which was even higher the last time I checked.

I agree with that, but I don't think $4 is in any way a limit. People might have to change their situations (like moving closer to work) or significantly cut back on luxuries, but that's not really the same thing as making it economically unbearable.

Garlic wrote:

Mykeru wrote:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:From now on they will just be "con".

A+ should host their next event in France, and call it Con-con.

http://www.art-expertise.com/uploadVisu ... 7_zoom.jpg

I see what you did there.

Actually, I see what he also did there.

/French

sacha wrote: truly what the fuck. Except for some primates, (and bats?), most mammals have "covert menstruation" where the endometrium is completely reabsorbed by the animal. We can create a fucking cat that glows in the dark, but can't genetically engineer human covert menstruation.

Metalogic42 wrote:
This is not boring.

Jonathan wrote:

EdwardGemmer wrote:I see Black Skeptics is the first FtB site to actually do a writeup about the lawsuit.

And many of the commenters quickly descend into a game of "shoot the messenger".

Gefan wrote:

cunt wrote:

Gefan wrote:

cunt wrote:

Not boring at all to me, but I think I may have just heard Steersman's head hitting his desk. :lol:

The good news - I'm actually familiar with about 90% of what you provided above, so we are on pretty solid ground between us. I've seen first hand the effects here in the US of oil prices and your figures are spot on. Once the local price at the pump hits $4 a gallon the economy cycles downward again, so yes - we have already hit the upper limit of the oil/economy relationship.

Try $8.39 a gallon in the UK. $4 a gallon is not your upper limit (unfortunately).

The economies and societies are configured differently. Comutes are shorter in the UK. Transportation distances are much shorter. The US is essentially designed on the premise of oil at not more than $20 a barrel.
The only thing that makes the UK potentially even more vulnerabke than the US would be its level of household debt which was even higher the last time I checked.

I agree with that, but I don't think $4 is in any way a limit. People might have to change their situations (like moving closer to work) or significantly cut back on luxuries, but that's not really the same thing as making it economically unbearable.

There's some truth in that but a great many people in the US can't move because of the state of the housing market.
Most American families live paycheck to paycheck. There is no margin in those household budgets for a few hundred more dollars a month on gas.
When they start having to choose between energy (and food) and paying their mortgages what do you think that's going to do to the husk of banking system?
The country is so spread out that there's not much you can do about transportation costs. The average item in a US salad bar has traveled several thousand miles to get there. You could potentially change that by growing much more food locally - US suburbs are awash in wasted land (ie lawns) but idiotic land use restrictions prevent people from growing crops within neighborhoods.
Political sclerosis in America at every level makes solutions to this impossible. The country can't even renovate its existing rail network.

Gefan wrote:

cunt wrote:

cunt wrote:

Rystefn wrote:

cunt wrote:Actually, this is just Rystefn's subconcious working out it's issues. Let's go with the one you were offered after you complained about it being a 6 inch nail.

Bwahahahaha! Are you really trying to turn it around like I'm the one backing out for complaining about you moving the fucking goalposts. You dishonest little shit, I bet you think that was clever.

I didn't say you were backing out. Now who's being dishonest.

Also you did complain, and I did say it could be smaller than the original (because i'm generous like that). Right before you flounced for 6 months. I can go back and quote the posts if you'd really like, but it seems like most people are getting bored of it.

Bored? Hell no!
I'm quite serious here - that was maybe the greatest comedy routine I've read in my time here.
Encore! Encore! :popcorn:

Water wars could be a real prospect in coming years as states struggle with the effects of climate change, growing demand for water and declining resources, the secretary of state for energy and climate change warned on Thursday.

Ed Davey told a conference of high-ranking politicians and diplomats from around the world that although water had not been a direct cause of wars in the past, growing pressure on the resource if climate change is allowed to take hold, together with the pressure on food and other resources, could lead to new sources of conflict and the worsening of existing conflicts.

Even a small temperature rise – far less than the 4C that scientists predict will result from a continuation of business as usual – could lead to lower agricultural yields, he warned, at a time when population growth means that demand for food was likely to be up by 70% by 2060. By the same time, he noted, the number of people living in conditions of serious water stress would have reached 1.8 billion, according to estimates.

"Climate change intensifies pressures on states, and between states," he told the conference, gathered to discuss whether climate change and natural resources should be regarded as a national security issue. "[Its effects] can lead to internal unrest … and exacerbate existing tensions. We have to plan for a world where climate change makes difficult problems even worse."

Gefan wrote:

Metalogic42 wrote:
This is not boring.

I'll take your word for it.
I try to keep in mind Frank Zappa's warning against; "insisting others share the splendor of something only you may find interesting.

cunt wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote: Just finished. Going to review my notes for spelling tomorrow and file them.

It was not bad. Nothing new I am afraid though. Not even this:

49:11 case number called. First reads out she is 37. Pause. He is 37 .. and they all smile.
(*shrug* they are all serious when the victim is female and are amused when the victim is a 37 year old male)

No offence, but that's just the aspergers. They aren't smiling because it turns out they've got the case of a 37 year old man, they're smiling to reassure the woman who made the mistake. It's their way of acknowledging it without seeming hostile.

cunt wrote: Glad you liked it anyway.

cunt wrote: Apparently we're talking about a rise of 50 cents per gallon before getting into an economic meltdown. Is that really going to mean an extra few hundred bucks for the average american family over a month? Come on. What if they get a raise, or start demanding to be paid more to offset the travel?

Again, i'm not saying that the US has no limit or even that it can bear UK prices. I'm saying that limit is not $4 a gallon.

Zenspace wrote:
Not boring at all to me, but I think I may have just heard Steersman's head hitting his desk. :lol:

The good news - I'm actually familiar with about 90% of what you provided above, so we are on pretty solid ground between us. I've seen first hand the effects here in the US of oil prices and your figures are spot on. Once the local price at the pump hits $4 a gallon the economy cycles downward again, so yes - we have already hit the upper limit of the oil/economy relationship. Right now we are locally at $3.75 per gallon and are kind of in the top functional slot of economic cruise control. Global competition for the limited resource is in a fixed feedback loop now and will only get worse, so this window is certainly not an open ended condition.

How about this: lets side-step the boring numbers part as it appears we may not need to drag everyone else down with that part. Instead, lets go right into short-term speculation and maybe others can join in. With that in mind:

Given the geographical location of the primary fossil fuel assets outside of the territories of the greatest consumers (primarily USofA and China - both of whose economies are irretrievably intermingled and cannot function without said fuels), how do you see the global scenario playing out in the near future, say the next decade or two?

Metalogic42 wrote:

Gefan wrote:

Metalogic42 wrote:
This is not boring.

I'll take your word for it.
I try to keep in mind Frank Zappa's warning against; "insisting others share the splendor of something only you may find interesting.

I prefer Dawkins: "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off."

another lurker wrote:It's not just the low cost of transporting food that leads to low prices - it's cheap and abundant fertilizers - another petroleum product.

Also, I believe that various pesticides are also composed of petrochemicals.

Food is cheap in America because gas is cheap.

And I might be wrong on this, but wasn't the Arab Spring sparked by high food prices? Which was related to the price of oil?

Metalogic42 wrote:

Gefan wrote:

Metalogic42 wrote:
This is not boring.

I'll take your word for it.
I try to keep in mind Frank Zappa's warning against; "insisting others share the splendor of something only you may find interesting.

I prefer Dawkins: "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off."

Pitchguest wrote:http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights ... -marriage/

:violin:

I realise this may sound like a generalising statement even though it's a genuine question, but ... are all MGTOW's this whiny?

• She claims that this misrepresentation was the reason that nobody likes her (false!)
• Since people like people who admits mistakes, she courts for affection. (manipulation)
• Gives the "What's not to like" impression, and thereby tries to make other people look unreasonable. Especially as they exaggerate a small lapsus. (veiled attack)
• She begins the piece with sexism/pro-harassment myth arc that runs through all their stories by linking to CFI articles she wrote before. Then connects it via the topic of "mistakes" with her lapsus, giving the impression that people really hate her other reasons (veiled allegation of misogyny/sexism)

cunt wrote:

cunt wrote:

Rystefn wrote:

cunt wrote:Actually, this is just Rystefn's subconcious working out it's issues. Let's go with the one you were offered after you complained about it being a 6 inch nail.

Bwahahahaha! Are you really trying to turn it around like I'm the one backing out for complaining about you moving the fucking goalposts. You dishonest little shit, I bet you think that was clever.

I didn't say you were backing out. Now who's being dishonest.

Also you did complain, and I did say it could be smaller than the original (because i'm generous like that). Right before you flounced for 6 months. I can go back and quote the posts if you'd really like, but it seems like most people are getting bored of it.

Rystefn wrote:

cunt wrote:

cunt wrote:

Rystefn wrote:

cunt wrote:Actually, this is just Rystefn's subconcious working out it's issues. Let's go with the one you were offered after you complained about it being a 6 inch nail.

Bwahahahaha! Are you really trying to turn it around like I'm the one backing out for complaining about you moving the fucking goalposts. You dishonest little shit, I bet you think that was clever.

I didn't say you were backing out. Now who's being dishonest.

Also you did complain, and I did say it could be smaller than the original (because i'm generous like that). Right before you flounced for 6 months. I can go back and quote the posts if you'd really like, but it seems like most people are getting bored of it.

Never denied complaining. Of course I complained. The only rule I put up was "no moving the goalpost," and you moved it several times before I even started. Fuck, your very next post was moving the goalpost. Kindly explain to me why I should believe for a second that you won't move it again? Dealing with you is like playing checkers with a three year old - as soon as you suspect you're about to lose, you change the rules.

Gefan wrote:

another lurker wrote:It's not just the low cost of transporting food that leads to low prices - it's cheap and abundant fertilizers - another petroleum product.

Also, I believe that various pesticides are also composed of petrochemicals.

Food is cheap in America because gas is cheap.

And I might be wrong on this, but wasn't the Arab Spring sparked by high food prices? Which was related to the price of oil?

Yes. There's seems to be a correlation between food prices reaching (roughly) 45% of people's income and the Oolon hitting the fan.
In the US the figure - last I checked - was 14%. The problem is that there it would only have to go to (I'm guessing here) 20% for the banking system to implode because then millions of households could no longer service their debt and still eat.

FrankGrimes wrote:Ok, the world is against me. After spending two days building a computer for my son I can't d/l Gimp. Thought I'd d/l a proper installer but looks like it's just a plugin add on or something
.

Basket of lynx anyone?

deLurch wrote:

FrankGrimes wrote:Reminder to self - get a graphics program. Reminder to self - it's another piece of fucking software I'll have to learn how to use.

http://www.gimp.org/

Rystefn wrote:

cunt wrote:

cunt wrote:

Rystefn wrote:

cunt wrote:Actually, this is just Rystefn's subconcious working out it's issues. Let's go with the one you were offered after you complained about it being a 6 inch nail.

Bwahahahaha! Are you really trying to turn it around like I'm the one backing out for complaining about you moving the fucking goalposts. You dishonest little shit, I bet you think that was clever.

I didn't say you were backing out. Now who's being dishonest.

Also you did complain, and I did say it could be smaller than the original (because i'm generous like that). Right before you flounced for 6 months. I can go back and quote the posts if you'd really like, but it seems like most people are getting bored of it.

Never denied complaining. Of course I complained. The only rule I put up was "no moving the goalpost," and you moved it several times before I even started. Fuck, your very next post was moving the goalpost. Kindly explain to me why I should believe for a second that you won't move it again? Dealing with you is like playing checkers with a three year old - as soon as you suspect you're about to lose, you change the rules.

So I went to upload the video today and saw that my phone stopped recording partway through, so instead of a video of me driving a nail, I have part of a video of me driving a nail that stops suddenly and then another video that starts where I thought I was turning it off waving around all over the place while I walk back into the house. I can record a new ending of me waving the board with the nail in it around and you can trust the hands are mine, or I can record a new video of me doing it again and paying more attention to the samera. It's your money, so it's your call.

Karmakin wrote:Not necessarily, there are other ways to thread the needle. Personally, I'm fan of downward adjusting the work week in order to maintain full employment, along with subsidized housing/food/information (basically a computer and an internet connection) in order to maintain order in an increasingly under-worked world.

Dick Strawkins wrote:Now that they've followed master's lead and divorced themselves from the main skeptically based group in the US I'm just waiting for Skepticon to drop the reference to skepticism from their name.

From now on they will just be "con".

Metalogic42 wrote:Holy fucking shit, will you just make the goddamn video already so we don't have to see this pointless bullshit anymor?

J.D. wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:...
Yes. Every place I go on the 'net regarding A/S topics, Oolon the Asshat is there. Usually whining "slymepit this" or "slymepit that". One day...just one day I'd like to go to different forums/sites and not see his sniveling crap.

Don't let him get to you. Oolon only deserves mockery and ridicule.

http://i.imgur.com/g8m01Kn.jpg

Gefan wrote:

Zenspace wrote: Good point, the subject can be quite broad. Also, thanks for the warning! :lol:

Let's see, where to start...

My general approach to many subjects is to focus primarily on the broader, big-picture, so let's try that for starters: geographic global energy availability (fossil fuels) vs global economy, which would naturally segue into broad effects on individual countries. We can drill down from there if the interest holds. How's that?

So as not to divert the lulz-train into a brick wall how 'bout I recommend some reading.
Notice I didn't say "light reading".
Start with "Twilight in the Desert" by the late Matthew Simmons. Simmons spent most of his life in the oil industry and related capital fields. He said some fairly loopy things about the Deepwater Horizon but that came after the publication of Twilight and the couple of decades of research that went into it. The Deepwater stuff doesn't affect the math of his earlier work or that of M. King Hubbert before him.
If you're really overburdened with free time then go track down a bunch of Simmons' cited sources. Bear in mind that I am not responsible for your falling into a coma whilst trying to read a lot of them.

All my actual material is in boxes back in the US but I could make a few points from memory where the figures would still be about right. Even those would go on for far too fucking long for me not to likely get shit-canned by Lsuoma so I'll stick to just two for starters (followed by half a dozen salient facts)

1. The shale hype is about financial speculation. Even using the numbers quoted by the industry itself it's impressive only to people who don't understand the scale of the problem. It's at least one order of magnitude short of having a significant impact.
The only reason anyone's heard of shale is that the price of oil has finally gone high enough to make it (briefly) viable.
Which leads us to:
2. We're not running out of oil so much as we're running out of economically retrievable oil.
The absolute cap on what's recoverable is "net energy". Once it takes more than a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil out of a field the field is effectively "dry" regardless of how much goop may actually still be down there.
Before you even get to that point there is the problem of the financial cost of extraction. Vast oceans of $200 a barrel oil don't do anyone any good because the global economy is designed to run on $20 a barrel stuff and the higher the cost goes the worse the effect on the capital formation you need to pursue further extraction efforts. Some countries can bear higher oil costs than others but it seems pretty much impossible to grow the global economy by the time you get to $100 a barrel. By the time you get to $150 (or thereabouts) everything crashes.
Right now demand's being (somewhat) kept in check by the fact that any increase in economic activity tends towards driving up the oil price and resultant "demand destruction" when the oil price curtails further growth.
In the longer run you're nonetheless still stuck with the following facts:
1. We're burning (if you average out the estimates) 7 barrels for every new barrel we're discovering.
2. Annual consumption first exceeded discovery in 1981. The margin has widened steadily since.
3. The oil price increased by close to 1000% over the 1970s but discoveries dropped in the same decade despite that massive economic incentive to pursue them.
4. No "super giant" (300,000 to 400,000 barrels a day) field has been discovered anywhere on Earth since the 1970s (Cantarell in Mexico was the last one).
5.Saudi Arabia produces roughly 10% of global output and is (arguably) the world's largest producer. Five super giants produce 85% oftheir production. All these fields are many decades old.
6. "Proven Reserves" are only what national governments say there are. There is no independent auditing. Shortly after Kuwait, UAE and Iran all arbitrarily announced their "proven reserves" had gone from around 30 billion barrels each to 90 billion each the Saudis announced they'd suddenly gone from 150 billion to 250 billion. The only time there's ever been an independent audit of "reserves under management" was as a resultant of a whistleblower at Royal Dutch Shell and resulted in a revision downward (I forget the by how much by it was around 25%).
7. Out of the 80-odd oil producing nations 60-odd of them are in production decline.

See? I told you this would be boring.

ReneeHendricks wrote:
Yes. Every place I go on the 'net regarding A/S topics, Oolon the Asshat is there. Usually whining "slymepit this" or "slymepit that". One day...just one day I'd like to go to different forums/sites and not see his sniveling crap.

cunt wrote:Waahh, please cunt, let me off. I'm a real ubermensch I promise.

Karmakin wrote:

Pitchguest wrote:http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights ... -marriage/

:violin:

I realise this may sound like a generalising statement even though it's a genuine question, but ... are all MGTOW's this whiny?

I think it's built into the "pill".

The reality is that there's a problem with the entire memespace. It's based upon the notion that ALL women act/think in a certain fashion, which in reality is deeply sexist. Even though I think she's gone a bit off the deep end it seems, I can't blame WB but too much for getting really fucking pissed about the gaining traction of this memespace. It's the same reason that people get really fucking pissed at the gender feminists, who treat men the same way.

I understand the notion and I agree with the idea that there are some traditionally female cultural traits that are aggravating. But those traits are FAR from universal. I'm married to a women who hates those traits as well. I have female co-workers who hate those traits. It's NOT universal, and I think that's the point of contention here.

cunt wrote:

Gefan wrote:

cunt wrote:

Not boring at all to me, but I think I may have just heard Steersman's head hitting his desk. :lol:

The good news - I'm actually familiar with about 90% of what you provided above, so we are on pretty solid ground between us. I've seen first hand the effects here in the US of oil prices and your figures are spot on. Once the local price at the pump hits $4 a gallon the economy cycles downward again, so yes - we have already hit the upper limit of the oil/economy relationship.

Try $8.39 a gallon in the UK. $4 a gallon is not your upper limit (unfortunately).

The economies and societies are configured differently. Comutes are shorter in the UK. Transportation distances are much shorter. The US is essentially designed on the premise of oil at not more than $20 a barrel.
The only thing that makes the UK potentially even more vulnerabke than the US would be its level of household debt which was even higher the last time I checked.

I agree with that, but I don't think $4 is in any way a limit. People might have to change their situations (like moving closer to work) or significantly cut back on luxuries, but that's not really the same thing as making it economically unbearable.

codelette wrote:

Pitchguest wrote:http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights ... -marriage/

:violin:

I realise this may sound like a generalising statement even though it's a genuine question, but ... are all MGTOW's this whiny?

I was asking myself the exact same thing.
Maybe they should form an alliance with the radfems; buy some remote land and start their respective utopias.

Rystefn wrote:

Metalogic42 wrote:Holy fucking shit, will you just make the goddamn video already so we don't have to see this pointless bullshit anymor?

Why would you think it would stop? Seems to me that even if I put up a video of me driving a railroad spike into a cinder block, he'd just move the goalpost again, and it would keep going.

Rystefn wrote:

Metalogic42 wrote:Holy fucking shit, will you just make the goddamn video already so we don't have to see this pointless bullshit anymor?

Why would you think it would stop? Seems to me that even if I put up a video of me driving a railroad spike into a cinder block, he'd just move the goalpost again, and it would keep going.

Aneris wrote:More Myth-Making By Rebecca Watson (freezepaged)

In (fair) summary: people were bringing up the Galileo mistake, even though she corrected it some minutes after she uploaded the video (with an indicator in the video, and tweets), and that people dislike her because of it. But makes clear that this can't be the whole reason...

Some observations about this trickery:

• She claims that this misrepresentation was the reason that nobody likes her (false!)
• Since people like people who admits mistakes, she courts for affection. (manipulation)
• Gives the "What's not to like" impression, and thereby tries to make other people look unreasonable. Especially as they exaggerate a small lapsus. (veiled attack)
• She begins the piece with sexism/pro-harassment myth arc that runs through all their stories by linking to CFI articles she wrote before. Then connects it via the topic of "mistakes" with her lapsus, giving the impression that people really hate her other reasons (veiled allegation of misogyny/sexism)

:clap:

Ally wrote:#190: I have never known a single feminist who revels in the abuse of men the way Elam does in rape. The closest analogy was Valerie Solanas who was undoubtedly a deeply deranged woman, with only the saving grace of being a great writer.

FWIW I’m not actually saying Elam is a sociopath. As I say, I know nothing about the man. My hunch is he’s a’ mooth and no troosers, as we say in my neck of the woods. However his writing on this topic – the indifference to suffering, the total absence of empathy for rape victims, the political program he champions on rape jury duty etc – can quite comfortably be described as sociopathic.

#211: I am also saying that the Elam’s articles in their own right are more repulsive than anything I’ve seen coming from anywhere but the scariest extremes of feminism. You’ve been unable to demonstrate any evidence to the contrary.

Mykeru wrote:

Pitchguest wrote:http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights ... -marriage/

:violin:

I realise this may sound like a generalising statement even though it's a genuine question, but ... are all MGTOW's this whiny?

Pretty much. Although if you run through the comments you will see some cover it up with overt hostility, or a condescenting "I have revealed truth" evangelism.

And whatever legitimate gripes they have get swallowed up in self-pity masquerading as rugged individualism.

They've got the worst sort of ideology: One that takes all their shortcomings and blames them on the game being rigged by an external force. What happens is that they turn into a bunch of anti-social gender separatists drinking soothing Kool-Aid that ensures they never have to address those shortcomings.

tf00t wrote:It funny, if FTB/ skepchick occasionally found some discrimination or misogyny in the secular movement, you might think 'yeah thats possible'.

However the pattern is now CLEAR, they find misogyny driven by white male bearded privilege under EVERY rock they look under!
Every single place they look its run by backward, evil,hateful, discriminating, clueless misogynistic haters.

It really is difficult to reconcile that with reality. Further their ability to histrionically turn any mild disagreement into defcom 5 level mudslinging is unparalleled.

However I'm now well past the point where I took any of this seriously, now I just find myself putting my feet up and getting the popcorn in :-)

welch wrote:
I thought Venezula had a truly massive oilfield? Or is that natural gas?

cunt wrote:

Rystefn wrote:

Metalogic42 wrote:Holy fucking shit, will you just make the goddamn video already so we don't have to see this pointless bullshit anymor?

Why would you think it would stop? Seems to me that even if I put up a video of me driving a railroad spike into a cinder block, he'd just move the goalpost again, and it would keep going.

I'll stop when you admit that you're full of shit. I realise that this might shatter your extremely fragile, over-compensatory self image, but hey. That's whats so funny about it.

welch wrote:
I thought Venezula had a truly massive oilfield? Or is that natural gas?

AndrewV69 wrote:

Pitchguest wrote:http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights ... -marriage/

:violin:

I realise this may sound like a generalising statement even though it's a genuine question, but ... are all MGTOW's this whiny?

Try being more specific. What part(s) are whiny?

Many of the MGTOW have been through hell, and many have lost everything by associating with women. What critics of MGTOW (MGCritters, I call them) seem to fail to grasp is how badly those critics are hurting – hell, torturing – MGTOW by suggesting that we just jump back into relationships with, and thus, slavery to, the women who made our lives hell. There are still countries where women are forced to marry their rapists – that’s a pain the MGCritters might understand, because it is women who are being coerced, but because MGCritters refuse to allow men the space and time to process our anger, pain, and the resulting decisions about what we want in our lives, MGCritters think it is just fine to keep hitting us and hitting us with our own biological drives.

codelette wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:

Gefan wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote: Yay! A lady garden adventure into the limelight at menopause time! Is she suggesting that I perform in some old lady fetish porn?

I don't think menopause means what the author thinks it means. Full bloom in a plant or garden is the time of peak fertility. Menopause in humans is the end of fertility. Pretty much opposites.

You think you have menopause problems?
A friend of ours, an ageless, naturally athletic woman of Central American descent, turned fifty last October. She had a cycle that was so regular that you could plot space missions by it.
At the party held in her honor last Fall she had announced her intention of fucking every single man in attendance. She'd have made good on it too had not Aunt Flo decided to make an unscheduled appearance at the event.
Her husband's reaction was discretely ambivalent but the lady in question did not see the humor in this development.

Periods can be a real party pooper.

I've heard some men refer to other men as 'warriors' at a place I used to work. The name referred to men who were willing to fuck a woman while she is on the rag. I've been told that some even prefer it due to things being extra lubed when Aunt Flo is flowing.

Yeah, I know. TMI. :D

Ugh. I have never being able to imagine myself as a sexual being while bleeding like a stabbed victim.
I even hate walking while on my period. The feeling of clots going doing is extremely uncomfortable to me.
That said, my periods right now are not that bad. My sis has some fibroids and is like a massacre whenever she's bleeding.
She's scheduled for an hysterectomy next month. No Fluevogs involved.

Mykeru wrote:
Of course, all discussions of Oolon downloading kiddie porn, which should be made loudly and often at every available opportunity, should also include the reasonable assumption that he was the one who posted it in the first place.