Periodic Table of Swearing

[Darren]

Choosing a user name that is well-known and discussed here and somewhere else could be seen as a trollish move.

I think accusations of trollery are best left to the experts at the A+ forums. Let's not go down that path...

[cunt]

Fucking lol at Steph pretending to answer my questions, and then saying that she has.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

That is an incredibly odd house now you point it out.

*taps foot*

Still waiting for your creepy jokes, or were you just teasing?

If cucumbers could take out the bins, we wouldn't need men.

[Tigzy]

Fucking lol at Steph pretending to answer my questions, and then saying that she has.

Are you 'Thew'? Fuck, if you are then you're really making her squirm. Not that she doesn't deserve it.

From Angry Black Woman's 'good summary':

I would not wish actual physical harm on her ever. But you know that feeling in the gut you get when you’re anxious and upset and freaked out? I hope she feels that every day for a year. It still wouldn’t be enough.

Physical violence is not okay. But somehow, psychological torture is.

What Zvan thinks about this:

After them, and the commenters at their blogs, all I’ve got to say is that I’m proud WisCon is my con and that these are my people. And no one making nasty comments is having as much fun as my people are in those pictures.

Fuckin horrible creature.

[Steersman]

Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:20 am

….
If Oolon was arguing that the message – atheims plus social justice – was correct because it was more popular then you would be right that it was “arguing from popularity”. But he’s not – he’s simply saying that the message is well-received, i.e., more popular - something you've essentially agreed with in the summary above.

It is not that the message is correct, only that it is more popular – within some subset of the entire community that may or may not be representative of that community. It is not arguing from popularity to assert or accept that the definition for “popularity” is essentially “well-received”, at least in this case – even if it might be so only for 51% of the population.

But that doesn't tell you if the message is well received. There's nothing in either number to indicate that. To show that, you have to actually analyze the numbers. …. The ONLY thing those numbers show is how many people have signed up for the forums. …. I mean, obviously, you can try to extrapolate "approval" from the numbers, but it's beyond weak.

Yes, I generally agree with those statements. But I still think you’re missing the point – which is looking somewhat disingenuous at best. As Justicar put it several months ago:

Indeed, a sign of integrity is to concede points that one's enemies make that are, in point of fact, correct. And on this point with respect to the dishonesty of the people at the SP2.0, Stephanie was perfectly correct. I get that this [is] inconvenient for those who want to persist in dissembling; that is their problem, not mine.

More particularly and as I’ve said several times now, it was the claim of the Coffee Loving Skeptic [see previous links] that Jen’s idea was not well received and it was the assertion of Oolon that that claim was dodgy based on the memberships of two groups supposedly playing significant roles in the drama.

And while you might not be all that familiar with statistical sampling techniques, it is perfectly acceptable – and very common – to take some reduced fraction of the total population and extrapolate from that to the conclusion that some characteristics of the sample are analogously exhibited by the total population. For example, the Pew Forum surveys on religion in America have used, I think, about 30,000 respondents to draw conclusions about the entire US. Likewise with the US Justice surveys on the frequency of rape which used about 8000.

Similarly with the “sample” that Oolon suggested – the membership numbers. While you are quite correct to point out that those numbers are somewhat suspect and that they need to be analyzed, it should also be obvious that there is some significance to them. For instance, one could argue that even if that idea of Jen’s was “not well-received” by 25% of the total membership of AtheismPlus [2100] and “not well-received” by 100% of “The Pit” [300] it would still be true that the idea was “well-received” – seen as more popular – by a clear majority [1575 to 825] of that particular sample population [2400]. And therefore, by extrapolation, by all of those elsewhere having an opinion.

Most of which is, of course, largely speculative. And if it were not – if a proper survey had been done – then Oolon would been entited to have told CLS that their claim quite likely wrong. However, all he said, something that you apparently wish to deny or bury your head in the sand about, was that the claim was “dodgy”. A claim – one might add – for which CLS offered diddly squat in the way of evidence which was far less than that offered by Oolon to discredit the claim.

I really don’t think you have much of a leg to stand on with that particular criticism of that aspect of Oolon’s argument.

[AndrewV69]

Greg's book.
Maybe he is leaving it open to interpretation.
If we all cry "shite" he can come back with "duh, it's parody you doof" and if we say "epic saga of Tolstoyian proportions!" he can say "yeah...It is.".

I think the only reasonable take is that it is supposed to be some sort of parody.

dark and stormy night

I rest my case

[cunt]

Fucking lol at Steph pretending to answer my questions, and then saying that she has.

Are you 'Thew'? Fuck, if you are then you're really making her squirm. Not that she doesn't deserve it.

Yeah. I want a yes or no to this shit.

[AndrewV69]

I'm thinking he wrote it in all seriousness, saw that people kept laughing at it, and decided that yeah, erm, yeah, it's a sort of humourous novel too...

Oh come on! Not even Laden can be that stupid.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

After them, and the commenters at their blogs, all I’ve got to say is that I’m proud WisCon is my con and that these are my people. And no one making nasty comments is having as much fun as my people are in those pictures.

Wanna bet?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Just asking...

http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo35 ... CF2525.jpg

[Altair]

I'm thinking he wrote it in all seriousness, saw that people kept laughing at it, and decided that yeah, erm, yeah, it's a sort of humourous novel too...

Oh come on! Not even Laden can be that stupid.

After the whole testosterone = brain damage thing, he wrote a blog post saying that what he was doing was poking certain men in the eye.

But it was not meant to be a description of the biological and cultural processes associated with the development of individual personality, culture, and society. I am a little surprised that people thought it was such a statement, because it is so obviously a remark designed to poke certain men in the eye

I wouldn't be surprised if he did exactly what AndrewV69 thinks he'd do. I don't think he is that stupid, but he thinks everyone else is and won't notice.

[Tigzy]

I'm thinking he wrote it in all seriousness, saw that people kept laughing at it, and decided that yeah, erm, yeah, it's a sort of humourous novel too...

Oh come on! Not even Laden can be that stupid.

What Altair said.

I mean, where's the humour/parody/comedy tags on the book's Amazon and Smashwords pages?

[ReneeHendricks]

For shits and giggles, I went to the Special Snowflake Society and randomly checked a few forum posts. In almost *every* one, the thread ended up with people infighting and tossing up "fav words/phrases" to belittle and malign. Yeah. I should have just stuck with having another shot instead (What? It's noon here.)

http://www.alstefanelli.com/WWJD.jpg

So full of want!

[Reap]

http://godlessradionet.ipage.com/Animation2.gif

[AndrewV69]

That is an incredibly odd house now you point it out.

*taps foot*

Still waiting for your creepy jokes, or were you just teasing?

If cucumbers could take out the bins, we wouldn't need men.

That is funny, not creepy.

[d4m10n]

Ummmm, your avatar: if you're not going to eat that baby right away, can I have it, please?

I don't have anything against eating babies, as a godless nihilist, but alas, I *AM* the anxious-looking baby in that particular photo.

In effect, you just offered to eat me. :mrgreen:

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

That is an incredibly odd house now you point it out.

*taps foot*

Still waiting for your creepy jokes, or were you just teasing?

If cucumbers could take out the bins, we wouldn't need men.

That is funny, not creepy.

Ok:

A man is raping a young girl in the woods. She starts crying. The man says "why I are you crying". The girl answers "I'll tell my mom you raped me two times". The guy goes "hey, only raped you once!" And the girl goes "well, we still have five minutes..."

Satisfied now?

Only rape joke I'll do all year. More than my fair share*





*yeah right...

[Tigzy]

Fucking lol at Steph pretending to answer my questions, and then saying that she has.

Are you 'Thew'? Fuck, if you are then you're really making her squirm. Not that she doesn't deserve it.

Yeah. I want a yes or no to this shit.

:lol: She says no. In the meantime, you've got the virgin Ian Brown creaming his knicks in a fury, and Steffy's hubby has stepped in to defend the missus.

:popcorn:

[soldierwhy]

That Brownian is a lovely fellow ain't he?

No matter what anyone else has done, the people of the Slyme are a despicable collection of rotten, sorry-ass excuses for people.

I could shoot an orphan in the face for no good reason, and that would make me a terrible person. It might make me a more terrible person than the denizens of the Slymepit.

It would not redeem them. They would still be sick, repulsive, despicable, sorry excuses for human beings.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-134656

Who knew that submitting your e-mail and choosing a username for a message board got you all that? I am now apparently despicable, rotten and a sorry-ass excuse for a person. In addition I am sick, repulsive, despicable (again) and a sorry excuse for a human being (for added emphasis on the 'people' I presume).

I am so proud...

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

That Brownian is a lovely fellow ain't he?

No matter what anyone else has done, the people of the Slyme are a despicable collection of rotten, sorry-ass excuses for people.

I could shoot an orphan in the face for no good reason, and that would make me a terrible person. It might make me a more terrible person than the denizens of the Slymepit.

It would not redeem them. They would still be sick, repulsive, despicable, sorry excuses for human beings.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-134656

Who knew that submitting your e-mail and choosing a username for a message board got you all that? I am now apparently despicable, rotten and a sorry-ass excuse for a person. In addition I am sick, repulsive, despicable (again) and a sorry excuse for a human being (for added emphasis on the 'people' I presume).

I am so proud...

Charming.

[cunt]

Fucking lol at Steph pretending to answer my questions, and then saying that she has.

Are you 'Thew'? Fuck, if you are then you're really making her squirm. Not that she doesn't deserve it.

Yeah. I want a yes or no to this shit.

:lol: She says no. In the meantime, you've got the virgin Ian Brown creaming his knicks in a fury, and Steffy's hubby has stepped in to defend the missus.

:popcorn:

Dickheads, all of them.

[Tigzy]

It might make me a more terrible person than the denizens of the Slymepit.

Shit. Don't tell me that Greg Laden is now giving postal courses on how to write properly...

[justinvacula]

Yay, Chris Stedman and I get to be Witch of the Week together :)

[Gumby]

That Brownian is a lovely fellow ain't he?

No matter what anyone else has done, the people of the Slyme are a despicable collection of rotten, sorry-ass excuses for people.

I could shoot an orphan in the face for no good reason, and that would make me a terrible person. It might make me a more terrible person than the denizens of the Slymepit.

It would not redeem them. They would still be sick, repulsive, despicable, sorry excuses for human beings.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-134656

Who knew that submitting your e-mail and choosing a username for a message board got you all that? I am now apparently despicable, rotten and a sorry-ass excuse for a person. In addition I am sick, repulsive, despicable (again) and a sorry excuse for a human being (for added emphasis on the 'people' I presume).


I am so proud...

Well, someone beat me to it again (fuck you, soldierwhy!) but at least here's the screen shot for posterity.

http://i48.tinypic.com/zknays.jpg

Brownian's good for shrieking hysterical hyperbole, but not much else.

[Tigzy]

:lol: Steffy is now pulling a Greg (figuratively this time) and retroactively ascribing new motives to her rhetoric:

Stephanie Zvan says:
October 23, 2012 at 4:25 pm

Just as with the question having been answered several times, the argument has already been made several times, once in the form of a numbered list for simplicity. The fact that you’re not willing to read it and understand it is not my problem. It is, in fact, the sort of thing this post was created to demonstrate.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-134668

[ERV]

That Brownian is a lovely fellow ain't he?

No matter what anyone else has done, the people of the Slyme are a despicable collection of rotten, sorry-ass excuses for people.

I could shoot an orphan in the face for no good reason, and that would make me a terrible person. It might make me a more terrible person than the denizens of the Slymepit.

It would not redeem them. They would still be sick, repulsive, despicable, sorry excuses for human beings.

Stupid ERV and my sick, repulsive, despicable HIV vaccine research!

Yay, Chris Stedman and I get to be Witch of the Week together :)

Stupid Chris Stedman and his virtually constant volunteer activities!

[Guest]

Don't understand what his argument is with the baby shooting nonsense? Is he admitting that knows the people he worships do shitty, unethical things, but he's cool with it so long as there are "sexists" on the internet? The Slymepit covers a multitude of sins it seems.

[soldierwhy]

Well, someone beat me to it again (fuck you, soldierwhy!)

I accept your gracious offer, I am only sorry that I can not be there to collect it in person. Please pass it to Stephanie Zvan who has agreed to collect it on my behalf.

[Darren]

Brownian's good for shrieking hysterical hyperbole, but not much else.

His fake-rage filled posts are always good for a laugh.

[Al Stefanelli]

http://www.alstefanelli.com/chickflick.jpg

[cunt]

These idiots couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag. Fucking useless. Svan's now claiming that she's answered the question, when she fucking hasn't. I think she's closed all comments to moderation now.

[ReneeHendricks]

Fucking lol at Steph pretending to answer my questions, and then saying that she has.

Are you 'Thew'? Fuck, if you are then you're really making her squirm. Not that she doesn't deserve it.

Yeah. I want a yes or no to this shit.

:lol: She says no. In the meantime, you've got the virgin Ian Brown creaming his knicks in a fury, and Steffy's hubby has stepped in to defend the missus.

:popcorn:

Stephie's hubby *loves* doing that. I've been at the end of that crap before. Funny. I don't need my guy to stick up for me - um, ever :)

[Gumby]

Well, someone beat me to it again (fuck you, soldierwhy!)

I accept your gracious offer, I am only sorry that I can not be there to collect it in person. Please pass it to Stephanie Zvan who has agreed to collect it on my behalf.

Thanks, but I think I'd rather cut off my dick.

[oolon, slimy turd]

Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:20 am

….
If Oolon was arguing that the message – atheims plus social justice – was correct because it was more popular then you would be right that it was “arguing from popularity”. But he’s not – he’s simply saying that the message is well-received, i.e., more popular - something you've essentially agreed with in the summary above.

It is not that the message is correct, only that it is more popular – within some subset of the entire community that may or may not be representative of that community. It is not arguing from popularity to assert or accept that the definition for “popularity” is essentially “well-received”, at least in this case – even if it might be so only for 51% of the population.

But that doesn't tell you if the message is well received. There's nothing in either number to indicate that. To show that, you have to actually analyze the numbers. …. The ONLY thing those numbers show is how many people have signed up for the forums. …. I mean, obviously, you can try to extrapolate "approval" from the numbers, but it's beyond weak.

Yes, I generally agree with those statements. But I still think you’re missing the point – which is looking somewhat disingenuous at best. As Justicar put it several months ago:

Indeed, a sign of integrity is to concede points that one's enemies make that are, in point of fact, correct. And on this point with respect to the dishonesty of the people at the SP2.0, Stephanie was perfectly correct. I get that this [is] inconvenient for those who want to persist in dissembling; that is their problem, not mine.

More particularly and as I’ve said several times now, it was the claim of the Coffee Loving Skeptic [see previous links] that Jen’s idea was not well received and it was the assertion of Oolon that that claim was dodgy based on the memberships of two groups supposedly playing significant roles in the drama.

And while you might not be all that familiar with statistical sampling techniques, it is perfectly acceptable – and very common – to take some reduced fraction of the total population and extrapolate from that to the conclusion that some characteristics of the sample are analogously exhibited by the total population. For example, the Pew Forum surveys on religion in America have used, I think, about 30,000 respondents to draw conclusions about the entire US. Likewise with the US Justice surveys on the frequency of rape which used about 8000.

Similarly with the “sample” that Oolon suggested – the membership numbers. While you are quite correct to point out that those numbers are somewhat suspect and that they need to be analyzed, it should also be obvious that there is some significance to them. For instance, one could argue that even if that idea of Jen’s was “not well-received” by 25% of the total membership of AtheismPlus [2100] and “not well-received” by 100% of “The Pit” [300] it would still be true that the idea was “well-received” – seen as more popular – by a clear majority [1575 to 825] of that particular sample population [2400]. And therefore, by extrapolation, by all of those elsewhere having an opinion.

Most of which is, of course, largely speculative. And if it were not – if a proper survey had been done – then Oolon would been entited to have told CLS that their claim quite likely wrong. However, all he said, something that you apparently wish to deny or bury your head in the sand about, was that the claim was “dodgy”. A claim – one might add – for which CLS offered diddly squat in the way of evidence which was far less than that offered by Oolon to discredit the claim.

I really don’t think you have much of a leg to stand on with that particular criticism of that aspect of Oolon’s argument.

I suppose a broken clock will be right twice a day... I'd also add further evidence that it is a dodgy assertion to say 'not well received' ... 100+ blogs 'friendly to atheism+' --> http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1990
New Statesman Article: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/relig ... w-atheists

Now I know John Welch will point to the Guardian article that was less than flattering, but that is sort of the point, you will naturally seek out opinions that confirm your own bias. You don't want A+ to be 'well received' in the community so you assume it isn't because all the places you read say it isn't, completely missing the point that they are bound to say that!

[ReneeHendricks]

Yay, Chris Stedman and I get to be Witch of the Week together :)

Oh, ugh. Isn't Stedman the writer of that crap I just read on "faitheist"?

[ReneeHendricks]

http://www.alstefanelli.com/chickflick.jpg

Bwahahahahahaha! I *almost* spit my vodka shot :D

[ReneeHendricks]

These idiots couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag. Fucking useless. Svan's now claiming that she's answered the question, when she fucking hasn't. I think she's closed all comments to moderation now.

Because (and I say this as a woman who's been a feminist in the past and refuses to use the word any more as it means something dark and sick and twisted) she's a fucking pussy. End of story.

[CommanderTuvok]

Ah! So Oolon is a little butthurt. It seems he is now Opheliar's bitch, rather than PZ's catamite.

All that cod-nonsense about projection? Meh! I'm not the one scuttling back and forth from the Pyt to FfTB. Anyway, rather than fancying PZ (I don't like beards!) we at the Slyme Pyt are only concerned with "sniffing Abbie's pants".

:popcorn:

[CommanderTuvok]

Anybody got a linky to this book thing of Osama's? I think a Lulz Avalanche is on the way.

[cunt]

the best you can come up with is something I’d written elsewhere?

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

How long before it dawns on the stupid son of a bitch.

[CommanderTuvok]

Yay, Chris Stedman and I get to be Witch of the Week together :)

Oh, ugh. Isn't Stedman the writer of that crap I just read on "faitheist"?

I think Stedman is one of those who Ophelia once considered a co-worker/friend/associate, or summat. Ophelia often complains that she keeps losing friends and associates, but she can never quite grasp why!

LOOK IN THE MIRROR, OPHELIA.

[Tigzy]

Anybody got a linky to this book thing of Osama's? I think a Lulz Avalanche is on the way.

If you've got a Kindle or Kindle app, you can read the first few sample chapters free:
http://www.amazon.com/Sungudogo-ebook/d ... 306&sr=1-2

[ReneeHendricks]

Ah! So Oolon is a little butthurt. It seems he is now Opheliar's bitch, rather than PZ's catamite.

All that cod-nonsense about projection? Meh! I'm not the one scuttling back and forth from the Pyt to FfTB. Anyway, rather than fancying PZ (I don't like beards!) we at the Slyme Pyt are only concerned with "sniffing Abbie's pants".

:popcorn:

Oolon's nose couldn't be more firmly planted into Ophelias sphincter.

[Al Stefanelli]

Yay, Chris Stedman and I get to be Witch of the Week together :)

I think this is going to be a three-way

[Rystefn]

Now you have been told. Proceed as you will, knowing that in future you are making an informed decision.

I have been told a great many times by a great many people (indeed, I've been told that here on this very thread), I'm not sure why you would think you're saying something new. My response is as it always has been: When given the choice between living long and living well, I'll choose living well every time. I eat red meat and pie. I drink rum and whiskey. I run barefoot on the grass and swim naked in the sea. I dance like no one's watching, sing like no one's listening, and have sex without a thought for anyone who isn't in the room with us. I live every day like it's my last because one day I'll be right, and when I die, my tombstone will say "It was worth it!"

I do not consider my outlook to be new or radical. I don't say it to brag, and if it sounds like bragging to you, perhaps it's because some part of you wishes you could do it. I don't know, and I don't really care very much. If I inspire envy or pity or anger or apathy in any random person, those things are inconsequential side-effects to me, because I'm sure that everyone inspires them all to some degree or another.

There are those who call me selfish, and I can't argue against it except to say "so?" I will go out of my way to help people, even at risk to myself, because I want to live in a world where that's a thing that people do. I won't deny myself the life I wish to lead to preserve societal norms that I find useless or harmful. Frankly, I think the world would be a better place with more of that sort of selfishness.

[ReneeHendricks]

I put up my own .02 cents on Stephi-pookins blog. Seriously. It's all about ego. If you sincerely don't care, why the fuck are you whinging on about it?

[Rystefn]

Anybody got a linky to this book thing of Osama's? I think a Lulz Avalanche is on the way.

If you've got a Kindle or Kindle app, you can read the first few sample chapters free:
http://www.amazon.com/Sungudogo-ebook/d ... 306&sr=1-2

I really don't suggest it. Twilight is a better read (based on the admittendly limited amounts of either I've managed to hammer my way through just to see if they're as bad as advertised).

[cunt]

I put up my own .02 cents on Stephi-pookins blog. Seriously. It's all about ego. If you sincerely don't care, why the fuck are you whinging on about it?

Someone wrong on the internet or something. I don't know. It's dumb.

[ReneeHendricks]

Hey, as a complete fucking aside and apropos of nothing, tomorrow is my birthday. I would absolutely love it if you all would put out there to people to donate to http://www.smiletrain.org. You can't see it in my picture nor can most see IRL but I'm a person who was born with a cleft lip. So, in your rantings to ASSHAT Fftbers and ASSSHAT SpecialSnowflakeSociety members put out there that there are actual human being suffering from birth defects that not only cause them pain and humiliation but also, in some cases, starvation...I would be so fucking proud of being a member of the Slymepit!!!

Done now...back to my bottle of vodka - no, you can't have it!

[SPACKlick]

have sex without a thought for anyone who isn't in the room with us

snip

I will go out of my way to help people, even at risk to myself, because I want to live in a world where that's a thing that people do.

So you will willingly be a participant to violation of a bond of trust between two people, which is certainly not helpful to at least one of those people, but you will go out of your way to help people? Dissonance much?

I'm not saying you can't go around being a selfish cunt, but don't expect respect for doing so. Yes it;s the other person who is violating their bond of trust, not you. But by being a willing participant you are showing disrespect for and a lack of care apart harming another feeling human being you selfish fuckwit.

[ReneeHendricks]

have sex without a thought for anyone who isn't in the room with us

snip

I will go out of my way to help people, even at risk to myself, because I want to live in a world where that's a thing that people do.

So you will willingly be a participant to violation of a bond of trust between two people, which is certainly not helpful to at least one of those people, but you will go out of your way to help people? Dissonance much?

I'm not saying you can't go around being a selfish cunt, but don't expect respect for doing so. Yes it;s the other person who is violating their bond of trust, not you. But by being a willing participant you are showing disrespect for and a lack of care apart harming another feeling human being you selfish fuckwit.

The problem is associating sex with love/respect/etal. Sex is merely an act. Much like smiling, engaging in conversation, exercising, or a myriad of other things.

People tend to equate sex with feeling. In actuality, sex is merely an act. It's fun. It's exhilarating. It causes massive calorie burn (if done correctly). But it's not something many people equate with love/respect/etal. And it's at that point, I believe, that people make an erroneous connection.

If I come across a man or woman who is willing to be a participant in sexual activities, by their own agreement I put aside any sort of connection they may have with another human being. The only time this is halted is when that prospective person says "oh, you know...I shouldn't go any further as I have a partner who isn't ok with me being with other people'". That's it. And, believe it or not, I (as a *woman*) have come across so many more that totally don't take that bit into consideration. Because sex is just sex. It's a physical act.

The man I'm with gives me so much more and so much beyond the physical act of sex, I know that at the end of the day, in the early morning hours, and when I'm on my death bed, he's the one I want to see and be with. Sex has nothing to fucking do with it. When he and I have sex, it's making love. When I have sex with another person, it's fucking exercise and fun - nothing more. Why is that hard for some to understand??

Sigh. With that...and another shot, I'm done talking about this particular topic.

[Rystefn]

So you will willingly be a participant to violation of a bond of trust between two people, which is certainly not helpful to at least one of those people, but you will go out of your way to help people? Dissonance much?

I'm not saying you can't go around being a selfish cunt, but don't expect respect for doing so. Yes it;s the other person who is violating their bond of trust, not you. But by being a willing participant you are showing disrespect for and a lack of care apart harming another feeling human being you selfish fuckwit.

No one is being harmed except by themselves. All they have to do to stop hurting is to stop putting so much emotional investment into what other consenting adults are doing when they aren't around. I will go out of my way to help people who are trying but having a hard time letting go of their hangups. I will not fucking tiptoe around worrying about everybody's goddamned feelings.

[SPACKlick]

The only time this is halted is when that prospective person says "oh, you know...I shouldn't go any further as I have a partner who isn't ok with me being with other people'".

So you stop when you know are informed the act will have emotional consequences on another person, hence "not a cunt" as opposed to "selfish cunt" and "fuckwit".

Yes, sex can be just about fun and that's fine, but when someone has made an agreement to forgoe that fun for the sake of another, you;re helping them lie if you willing participate in breaking that agreement. I'm not interested that this is sex, I'll give you a for instance.

I know a couple who watch old university challenges together, and compete with eachother. They've done this for years, it's their thing. I also enjoy old University challenges. These guys have made the promise several times not to do it with other people, to keep it their special thing just for them. If either of them was with me one evening, and bored and asked if I wanted to watch an old university challenge with them, I'd say no, because I don't think it's right to help someone violate trust with another person.

[SPACKlick]

I will go out of my way to help people who are trying but having a hard time letting go of their hangups. I will not fucking tiptoe around worrying about everybody's goddamned feelings.

So you consider being hurt by having trust violated a hangup rather than a useful and productive social emotion, interesting. Remind me which school of sociopathy that comes from?

[KiwiInOz]

So you will willingly be a participant to violation of a bond of trust between two people, which is certainly not helpful to at least one of those people, but you will go out of your way to help people? Dissonance much?

I'm not saying you can't go around being a selfish cunt, but don't expect respect for doing so. Yes it;s the other person who is violating their bond of trust, not you. But by being a willing participant you are showing disrespect for and a lack of care apart harming another feeling human being you selfish fuckwit.

No one is being harmed except by themselves. All they have to do to stop hurting is to stop putting so much emotional investment into what other consenting adults are doing when they aren't around. I will go out of my way to help people who are trying but having a hard time letting go of their hangups. I will not fucking tiptoe around worrying about everybody's goddamned feelings.

FWIW, I understand what you are and have been saying (and have no moral problem with it). In another life I was totally there. In this one I have made my bed and will continue to lie in it. And right now I could do with a lie down, and it's only 8.50am.

[ReneeHendricks]

The only time this is halted is when that prospective person says "oh, you know...I shouldn't go any further as I have a partner who isn't ok with me being with other people'".

So you stop when you know are informed the act will have emotional consequences on another person, hence "not a cunt" as opposed to "selfish cunt" and "fuckwit".

Yes, sex can be just about fun and that's fine, but when someone has made an agreement to forgoe that fun for the sake of another, you;re helping them lie if you willing participate in breaking that agreement. I'm not interested that this is sex, I'll give you a for instance.

I know a couple who watch old university challenges together, and compete with eachother. They've done this for years, it's their thing. I also enjoy old University challenges. These guys have made the promise several times not to do it with other people, to keep it their special thing just for them. If either of them was with me one evening, and bored and asked if I wanted to watch an old university challenge with them, I'd say no, because I don't think it's right to help someone violate trust with another person.

Here's the really fun part - I've been with both men and women who I've found out *after* the fact that it wasn't ok. It's not on me. It's on the other person. So, if we stop and think about it, I've been with people and done the whole "I'm a fucking selfish cunt" after the fact.

[AndrewV69]

That is an incredibly odd house now you point it out.

*taps foot*

Still waiting for your creepy jokes, or were you just teasing?

If cucumbers could take out the bins, we wouldn't need men.

That is funny, not creepy.

Ok:

A man is raping a young girl in the woods. She starts crying. The man says "why I are you crying". The girl answers "I'll tell my mom you raped me two times". The guy goes "hey, only raped you once!" And the girl goes "well, we still have five minutes..."

Satisfied now?

Only rape joke I'll do all year. More than my fair share*





*yeah right...

Sorry, but that is only rape in Sweden
(Passive/agressive snark to you-know-who. Butt-Hurt? Moi?).

Which reminds me about this one seeing as a forest was mentioned:

If a man speaks in a forest with no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?

[KiwiInOz]

Hey, as a complete fucking aside and apropos of nothing, tomorrow is my birthday. I would absolutely love it if you all would put out there to people to donate to http://www.smiletrain.org. You can't see it in my picture nor can most see IRL but I'm a person who was born with a cleft lip. So, in your rantings to ASSHAT Fftbers and ASSSHAT SpecialSnowflakeSociety members put out there that there are actual human being suffering from birth defects that not only cause them pain and humiliation but also, in some cases, starvation...I would be so fucking proud of being a member of the Slymepit!!!

Done now...back to my bottle of vodka - no, you can't have it!

Given that it is already today in Australia, may I be the first to say Happy Birthday.

[SPACKlick]

Here's the really fun part - I've been with both men and women who I've found out *after* the fact that it wasn't ok. It's not on me. It's on the other person. So, if we stop and think about it, I've been with people and done the whole "I'm a fucking selfish cunt" after the fact.

I totally agree, I've been there, got found mid coitus by the boyfriend once. In that situation you're not a selfish cunt, you didn't know any different. My point to Rystefn was that if you DO know that the trust has been established, and you choose to ignore it, that's selfish cuntery, whether it's sex, university challenge or i shit you not cleaning the belly button fluff off a guy.

[Rystefn]

I will go out of my way to help people who are trying but having a hard time letting go of their hangups. I will not fucking tiptoe around worrying about everybody's goddamned feelings.

So you consider being hurt by having trust violated a hangup rather than a useful and productive social emotion, interesting. Remind me which school of sociopathy that comes from?

Like I said before: if your brand of kink is sexual denial, knock yourself out. If you expect me to join into your your collective social BDSM thing, though, you're wrong. You people who are into it can go play together all you like, but if someone wants out for an evening, you can't force her back in by dragging me in as well. I safeworded that shit years ago.