Periodic Table of Swearing

[somedumbguy]

Somedumbguy, I give you my word that I will post the stats. I just can't do so right now, but that doesn't prevent you from doing your homework rather than pontificating from the data-vacuum of your arse.
Hint, if you're in a rush, you can google items like, but not limited to, "wrongful rape convictions" and refer only to unbiased scholarly sources, to agencies akin to the innocence project or even the UN.

Renee, Phil, it was lovely talking to you. Take care and happy new year.

Well, I haven't seen your sources, so it's a bit unfair of me to say "there are lies damned lies and statistics" but I do encourage you to read COTWA and the Fathers and Families blog and listen to civil libertarians like Jonathan Turley, Jeralyn Merritt, and FIRE.

[Lsuoma]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ssuoft.png

[Tigzy]

Nobel Laureate Rita Levi-Montalcini died today. She was 103 fucking years old.

She, ladies and gentlemen, was a fucking proper feminist. There was no fucking whining white-girl bullshit from her! Read here obit here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/scien ... t-103.html

What are the odds anyone at FtB mentions her passing?

From the article:

Scientists had virtually no idea how embryo cells built a latticework of intricate connections to other cells when Dr. Levi-Montalcini began studying chicken embryos in the bedroom of her house in Turin, Italy, during World War II. After years of obsessive study, much of it at Washington University in St. Louis with Dr. Viktor Hamburger, she found a protein that, when released by cells, attracted nerve growth from nearby developing cells.

One of four children, Rita Levi-Montalcini was born in Turin on April 22, 1909, to Adamo Levi, an engineer, and Adele Montalcini, a painter, both Italian Jews who traced their roots to the Roman Empire. In keeping with the Victorian customs of the time, Mr. Levi discouraged his three daughters from entering college, fearing that it would interfere with their lives as wives and mothers.

It was not a future that Rita wanted. She had decided to become a doctor and told her father so. “He listened, looking at me with that serious and penetrating gaze of his that caused me such trepidation,” she wrote in her autobiography, “In Praise of Imperfection” (1988). He also agreed to support her.

She graduated summa cum laude from the University of Turin medical school in 1936, the same year that Mussolini issued a manifesto barring non-Aryan Italians from having professional careers. She began her research anyway, setting up a small laboratory in her home to study chick embryos...

An elegant presence, confident and passionate, she was a sought-after speaker until late in life. “At 100, I have a mind that is superior — thanks to experience — than when I was 20,” she said in 2009.

Most definitely not a skepchick.

[ReneeHendricks]

Renee, Phil, it was lovely talking to you. Take care and happy new year.

Happy new year to you as well. It's nice to put a voice with the name :)

[Sulaco]

About Joé McKen (Bio I found on-line). He does not hide himself at all on-line. :doh:

"My name is Joé McKen, though I'm usually known around the Web as Bumdark. I was born on December 29, 1991, in the heart of frigid Québec, Canada (meaning I'm currently 17 years old). I've moved a considerable amount of times already (over 14 at last count), ranging from Québec to Texas ('96–'01). I don't suppose my heart ever really left the Lone Star State, considering what a shithole this place is here ... but I digress. I'm currently out of High School and am slowly but surely pursuing my nascent music composition career. (And you may stress "slowly".) I basically live alone by myself in my room most of my days, but that's out of choice, not necessity – general people irk me. I don't trust strangers for crap. But I suppose my double-jackpot of mild Asperger's and mild Tourette's may count for that in some way or another. =( (Seriously, two rare neurological disorders at once ... someone up there doesn't like me, do they?) And so, deprived of any creative outlets, I originally created this blog to post my random thoughts and opinions on anything and anything that interests me, from current events to debates and social issues, to whatever. If anything, this blog is more of a personal journal than an actual web log in itself, so that one day perhaps I can look back and see how far I've come (if I've evolved). And so dear readers, I hope you'll forgive me if you find me to be particularly abrasive or trenchant in my posts, and especially my replies to people who just reek of stupidity or intolerable close-mindedness. My "defiance" is only as "respectful" as my patience and/or current mood allows me to be. ;) (Emotions are overrated.) You can check out my profile at IMDb.com for some "Top-10"-style favorites lists concerning various media and topics, and to check out my history there. Or whatever you feel like doing."

Welp, that explains a lot...

A complete, hipster bell end.

Mild Aspergers and mild Tourettes? Forgive my scepticism of that claim.

It makes perfect sense if you ponder it:

"If I am offensive, stupid, or continuously annoying, it's never my fault, I have conditions!. Also, if you aren't always supportive of everything I do or say, YOU'RE A BAD PERSON, YOU ABLEIST"

Yep, good ol' Assburger's Syndrome http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db ... 2832#comic
Mind you, I suffer from mild Tourette's as well. It develops every time I stub my toe.

[somedumbguy]

I mean, feminists pressure legislatures and society to roll back burden of proof, to roll back on Blackstone (10 guilty men) (http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm), to roll back on many protections that we offer to other people charged with other crimes.

They also insist that rates of rape charges and rape conviction increase. While denying that false accusations and false convictions are any sort of issue at all.

And this is mediated by prosecutors and judges that need to be re-elected and understand what tough on crime means as well as needing feminist support.

How could such pressure not increase rates of wrongful conviction above other crimes?

[Steersman]

To respond to a couple of comments from franc-the-crank:

Seems like an irc would remove most of that from the thread.

And how hard is that to do? This hard.

But like steersqueer, they probably expect someone else to do it.

Ah, Steersman, The beguilingly insufferable Steersman. How to quantify this character?

You neglected the chronic inability to look up even the most trivial piece of information for himself, instead expecting others to do it for him. Then when they fail to do so, or simply tell him to fuck off, dancing a victory jig of his own peculiar sort. "Derailing" doesn't even come close to expressing his talents.

All of that is rather rich coming from someone who seems unable and unwilling to follow a lead even when the link is readily available and when the information is to their advantage – although that it entails having to admit having made a mistake might have something to do with that. But more specifically, you say in your “Things baboons say [TBS] …”:

http://i46.tinypic.com/350maeb.jpg

Which is not at all true since Myers did not actually delete at least three posts from Skep Tickle /Skeptixx. And I informed you of that through a message on TBS and a post here plus a further message on TBS which I didn’t save but which included, I think, the required proof for those with limited skills in obtaining the “most trivial piece of information”. Not at all a case of “nit-picking trivia” to point out that Myers did not, in fact, “erase all traces of Skeptixx’s posts”.

But none of that led you to correct that TBS item. I really don’t give much of a rat’s ass that you shoot yourself in the foot – all lols gratefully received, after all – but when such activities diminish the credibility of the ‘Pit and, supposedly, authoritative and foundational source documents then I think one has an obligation to say something – even repeatedly where there’s some indication of someone having buried their head in the sand or some other place where the sun don’t shine.

[astrokid.nj]

Astro, a few pages back, was celebrity-mongering on account of Chaplin's alleged involvement with the MRA. This by itself is as impressive a move as promoting Scientology through Cruise's membership and constitutes a typical propaganda tactic. Chaplin and Cruise are actors, not public intellectuals, so who the fuck cares what they think.

I have no interest in discussing stuff with this fellow, and I am sure he returns the favour.. but Celebrity Mongering? Here's what I wrote..

After studying the looonng history of Fathers rights and mens rights (Did you know that Charlie Chaplin was a MRA?), and studying male/female/society psychology its clear to us that this is unlike other civil rights issues in recent memory

I could have instead mentioned this Unknown Writer from 1856 who analyzed the issue of unbalanced changes to coverture Putnam's Monthly Magazine of American Literature, Science and Art Volume 0007 Issue 38 (February 1856) Title: A Word for Men's Rights, or from the same era as Chaplin Samuel Reid and Sigurd Hoeberth.. Activists from 1925-26, but those neither roll out of my memory as easily and more importantly they wouldnt be intuitively familiar to readers would they?

[Eucliwood]

I mean, feminists pressure legislatures and society to roll back burden of proof, to roll back on Blackstone (10 guilty men) (http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm), to roll back on many protections that we offer to other people charged with other crimes.

They also insist that rates of rape charges and rape conviction increase. While denying that false accusations and false convictions are any sort of issue at all.

And this is mediated by prosecutors and judges that need to be re-elected and understand what tough on crime means as well as needing feminist support.

How could such pressure not increase rates of wrongful conviction above other crimes?

Wow, are you fucking SERIOUS? That's so wrong. There are already so many screwed up cases of people being unjustly thrown in jail, imo.

[Spence]

Mild = self diagnosed normally. I've seen so many self-diagnosed autistics online, but this is the first time someone has claimed Tourettes.

He declared that he had "mild tourettes" the day after he called someone a cunt while the prune was within earshot.

True dat.

LOL. Link?

Sorry, not sure if my "true dat" was sufficiently dripping with sarcasm. I should probably use smilies more :mrgreen:

[Lsuoma]

http://launiusr.files.wordpress.com/201 ... adter1.jpg

[Darren]

http://i.imgur.com/Dt73V.jpg

[Eucliwood]

Mild = self diagnosed normally. I've seen so many self-diagnosed autistics online, but this is the first time someone has claimed Tourettes.

He declared that he had "mild tourettes" the day after he called someone a cunt while the prune was within earshot.

True dat.

LOL. Link?

Sorry, not sure if my "true dat" was sufficiently dripping with sarcasm. I should probably use smilies more :mrgreen:

I don't see why that should be unbelievable for someone with Tourette's. There are people that have the unfortunate tic of saying "nigger" ffs. And you can certainly tell it is a *forced* tic. Bitch sounded like a strangled pig. Don't disagrace them or act like they're just lying racists just to frustrate this guy.

Alert: Joe McKen is 21 years of age. Not 17. Confirmation bias screw up. So no more ageism against teenagers. Kthnx.


And ugh, I am so pissed off at PZ FUCKING MYERS calling US sexists and misogynists too. Why doesn't he just come out and say it? "Everyone that doesn't like me is clearly a misogynist." I fucking hate his guts now. He's mislabelling at least most of us.

It'll be a cold day in hell when someone properly calls ME a sexist or calls me out on any sexism. It's like accusing me of filming children being beaten (which has happened to me...I was hurt and offended that that would happen to me of all people). Sexism makes my blood boil. People filming beatings make my blood boil.

god, I fucking hate PZ Myers. And I can't do anything about it.

[Lsuoma]

BTW, the eagle-eyed among you will have noticed a change in the editor.

[spoiler]See if you can guess what it is![/spoiler]

[Tigzy]

BTW, the eagle-eyed among you will have noticed a change in the editor.

[spoiler]See if you can guess what it is![/spoiler]

:clap:

[Gumby]

BTW, the eagle-eyed among you will have noticed a change in the editor.

[spoiler]See if you can guess what it is![/spoiler]

An edit button?

[Maximus]

@eucliwood

Go over to pharyngula and let him know what you think. I think it would lead to a wonderful discussion :popcorn: :popcorn:

[UnbelieveSteve]

BTW, the eagle-eyed among you will have noticed a change in the editor.

[spoiler]See if you can guess what it is![/spoiler]

Umm. I don't like the colour.

[Tigzy]

So no more ageism against teenagers. Kthnx.

Nice one - I'd even go so far as to say you should be awarded an honest to goodness Agincourt salute for that.

[Spence]

I mean, feminists pressure legislatures and society to roll back burden of proof, to roll back on Blackstone (10 guilty men) (http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm), to roll back on many protections that we offer to other people charged with other crimes.

They also insist that rates of rape charges and rape conviction increase. While denying that false accusations and false convictions are any sort of issue at all.

And this is mediated by prosecutors and judges that need to be re-elected and understand what tough on crime means as well as needing feminist support.

How could such pressure not increase rates of wrongful conviction above other crimes?

Yes, there are lobby groups. What does the existence of lobby groups prove? Nothing really. The people who make the decisions (legislators, lawyers, judges) are familiar with lobby groups and are unlikely to be severely prejudiced by them - unless you have evidence otherwise (but I note your evidence largely amounts to a mixture of hand-waving and anecdata).

Rape conviction rates are typically LOWER than other forms of violent crimes in the UK (which I'm familiar with, I know less about the US), so even though they are increasing, the absolute measure is almost certainly more relevant and is indicative that there are likely to be fewer wrongful convictions of rape than other crimes. In the UK in particular, this is often because a jury is unlikely to convict someone of a crime carrying such a heavy sentence on one persons word against another - so such cases rarely even reach trial.

Also, who is denying false allegations exist? Certainly the people that matter - the police, the CPS, legislators, lawyers, judges - are well aware that false allegations exist, and the court system is there to protect against that. These people know what they are doing - probably better than you do. But no justice system is perfect, and of course you can find innocent people wrongly convicted of rape, just as I can give you a long long list of people wrongly convicted for murder. That is not evidence that in any way supports your claim without a more complete and nuanced analysis, which you appear incapable of.

This is reminiscent of the gun debate we had earlier. The debate tends to consist of thoughtless polemic perspectives, giving out absolutes based on little more than anecdotes. Only a few made much sense - perhaps my favourite comments on this was by welch, who pointed out that no system was perfect, but you have to have some kind of a system, and you can work from there to refine and improve. But doing so requires you to objectively assess data, to understand how the present system works, and to be able to analyse where weaknesses in the system might be and how to improve them. Getting hysterical about one-off events and making absolute claims (feminists have lobby groups! therefore wrongul convictions!) doesn't get you anywhere.

[Mykeru]

BTW, the eagle-eyed among you will have noticed a change in the editor.

[spoiler]See if you can guess what it is![/spoiler]

Bite me, loser.

[Darren]

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

[Lsuoma]

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

You fucking winner!

[KacyRay]

I'm not sure what the deal is over there. I've made honest attempts to have conversations. Honest attempts to exchange points of view. What an incredibly tribal place!

From your posting history, I can see no attempts to have conversations. Lsuoma even pointed you in the right direction. What more do you require?

Sorry! I was pretty drunk when I posted that and I'm still getting used to the feel of this forum.

I was taking about FemiTribeBlogs (tribal)... I wasn't talking about here. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Is this just one eternal thread that just goes on and on forever?

[Maximus]

@kacyray, was that you that was over on Ed's blog kicking ass the other day? Pretty impressive the way you kept your cool, and stayed on subject despite all the morons trying to attack you.

[BarnOwl]

I knew Bora at SciAm would provide some links, and it wouldn't surprise me if he has a post up soon on his blog. Scientific American has made this 1993 profile of Dr. Levi-Montalcini available free online for the next 30 days:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... montalcini

[somedumbguy]

I mean, feminists pressure legislatures and society to roll back burden of proof, to roll back on Blackstone (10 guilty men) (http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm), to roll back on many protections that we offer to other people charged with other crimes.

They also insist that rates of rape charges and rape conviction increase. While denying that false accusations and false convictions are any sort of issue at all.

And this is mediated by prosecutors and judges that need to be re-elected and understand what tough on crime means as well as needing feminist support.

How could such pressure not increase rates of wrongful conviction above other crimes?

Yes, there are lobby groups. What does the existence of lobby groups prove? Nothing really. The people who make the decisions (legislators, lawyers, judges) are familiar with lobby groups and are unlikely to be severely prejudiced by them - unless you have evidence otherwise (but I note your evidence largely amounts to a mixture of hand-waving and anecdata).

What does the existence of lobby groups prove?

On the one hand, that is a reasonably skeptical question to ask. On the other hand, I do wonder what country you are writing from.

(but I note your evidence largely amounts to a mixture of hand-waving and anecdata)

And you respond to arguments drawn from economics and statistics with your own hand-waving argument that is summarized with the statement, "you say the color of the sky is blue, but you only cite anecdata for that!"

Rape conviction rates are typically LOWER than other forms of violent crimes in the UK (which I'm familiar with, I know less about the US), so even though they are increasing, the absolute measure is almost certainly more relevant and is indicative that there are likely to be fewer wrongful convictions of rape than other crimes.

Math error. "likely to be fewer wrongful convictions of rape than other crimes" only in absolute terms, I believe this discussion has been about rates of wrongful conviction. Your claim that having a lower conviction rate must mean rates of false conviction are lower is not logically or mathematically sound.

Also, who is denying false allegations exist? Certainly the people that matter - the police, the CPS, legislators, lawyers, judges - are well aware that false allegations exist, and the court system is there to protect against that.

"citation-needed", and no, the people that matter are among those that benefit from having high conviction rates. The people that matter as you say, are the ones targeted by feminists to understand that women don't like, to understand that children don't lie, to understand that to be re-elected they need to increase rape convictions and be tough on rape. They are also likely to be the ones to support the rape arrests or any arrest in their departments, because tribalism.

These people know what they are doing - probably better than you do. But no justice system is perfect, and of course you can find innocent people wrongly convicted of rape, just as I can give you a long long list of people wrongly convicted for murder. That is not evidence that in any way supports your claim without a more complete and nuanced analysis, which you appear incapable of.

Ya know, fuckhead, for someone that keeps on telling me how incompentent my arguments are, fuckface, your arguments rely on the same if not more hand waving analysis.

At this point retard, since you are incapable of discussing my arguments cogently asswipe without name calling me, and bullying, why don't you jam your keyboard up your ass and kill yourself.

At some point if you wish to have a discussion where you can argue without the name calling or slurs or disparagement, I am welcome to hearing what you have to say.

Until then, piss off.

[Mr Danksworth]

I'm not sure what the deal is over there. I've made honest attempts to have conversations. Honest attempts to exchange points of view. What an incredibly tribal place!

From your posting history, I can see no attempts to have conversations. Lsuoma even pointed you in the right direction. What more do you require?

Sorry! I was pretty drunk when I posted that and I'm still getting used to the feel of this forum.

I was taking about FemiTribeBlogs (tribal)... I wasn't talking about here. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Is this just one eternal thread that just goes on and on forever?

Aye, it just goes and goes. To infinity and beyond! Welcome to our little slice of paradise.

[Tkmlac]

I wanna try!

Django Unchained
[spoiler]uses the N word.[/spoiler]

[Al Stefanelli]

[spoiler]http://blog.mydot.com/image.axd?picture ... inch-1.jpg[/spoiler]

[somedumbguy]

Without stating I am an expert on any of these matters, I have given specific places, and named specific experts where people can learn more.

Returning my arguments that I provide with links and explanation with hand waving arguments, with disparagement of how incompetent I am and my arguments are, with assurances of how you "know" differently, and with refusal to look at the sources, or read the people I have listed is just as baboon as when the PZ Myers and Ophelia Benson commentariat state flat out they won't read "MRA Materials".

Why not just state you have no idea what skepticism is and you know I both wrong and a rapist, and be done with it. It would be much simpler and at least the baboons are smart enough to cut to the chase.

[Hemisphere]

@Kacyray

These might have been useful in your lengthy argument on Ed Brayton's FtB page:

"Pro-feminism
Main article: Pro-feminism
Pro-feminism is the support of feminism without implying that the supporter is a member of the feminist movement. The term is most often used in reference to men who are actively supportive of feminism. The activities of pro-feminist men's groups include anti-violence work with boys and young men in schools, offering sexual harassment workshops in workplaces, running community education campaigns, and counseling male perpetrators of violence. Pro-feminist men also are involved in men's health, activism against pornography including anti-pornography legislation, men's studies, and the development of gender equity curricula in schools. This work is sometimes in collaboration with feminists and women's services, such as domestic violence and rape crisis centers.[187][188]

And:

Anti-feminism

...

Writers such as Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Daphne Patai oppose some forms of feminism, though they identify as feminists. They argue, for example, that feminism often promotes misandry and the elevation of women's interests above men's, and criticize radical feminist positions as harmful to both men and women.[196] Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge argue that the term "anti-feminist" is used to silence academic debate about feminism.[197]"


Totally reasonable to support equality for women without automatically being labelled a 'feminist'.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#Reactions)

[somedumbguy]

Without stating I am an expert on any of these matters, I have given specific places, and named specific experts where people can learn more.

Returning my arguments provided with links and explanation with your own hand waving arguments, with disparagement of how incompetent I am and my arguments are, with assurances of how you "know" differently, and with refusal to look at the sources, or read the people I have listed is just as baboon as when the PZ Myers and Ophelia Benson commentariat state flat out they won't read "MRA Materials".

Why not just state you have no idea what skepticism is and you know I both wrong and a rapist, and be done with it. It would be much simpler and at least the baboons are smart enough to cut to the chase.

Trying to clarify that for me.

[ReneeHendricks]

ROFLMAO! This is hilarious. I've no clue why she's pulling up as malware but it cracks me up!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A_ZQu0fCEAAHXww.jpg:large

[Tkmlac]

ROFLMAO! This is hilarious. I've no clue why she's pulling up as malware but it cracks me up!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A_ZQu0fCEAAHXww.jpg:large

Chrome did that to me on another person's twitter profile. It's a Chrome thing. Google is trying to think for you.

[Al Stefanelli]

ROFLMAO! This is hilarious. I've no clue why she's pulling up as malware but it cracks me up!

[img]Huge%20fucking%20malware%20warning[/img]

Chrome did that to me on another person's twitter profile. It's a Chrome thing. Google is trying to think for you.

I got that when I pulled up Tweetdeck this morning. I clicked for the advance report and it told me that nothing happened, ever. Lmao.

[ReneeHendricks]

ROFLMAO! This is hilarious. I've no clue why she's pulling up as malware but it cracks me up!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A_ZQu0fCEAAHXww.jpg:large

Chrome did that to me on another person's twitter profile. It's a Chrome thing. Google is trying to think for you.

:D I'm sure. I still find it hilarious. It has something to do with twitpic, certainly. It just gave me a proper smile today!

[fascination]

On the topic of rape and false accusations, I saw rape conviction rates brought up here. This is a good article I ran across awhile ago about the conviction rates of rapists:
http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree ... tion-rates
Most people think rape conviction rates are low. Well, according to this article they're not low at all in comparison with other crimes. BTW, apologies for the poor spelling and grammar. My keypad is acting up.

[ReneeHendricks]

ROFLMAO! This is hilarious. I've no clue why she's pulling up as malware but it cracks me up!

[img]Huge%20fucking%20malware%20warning[/img]

Chrome did that to me on another person's twitter profile. It's a Chrome thing. Google is trying to think for you.

I got that when I pulled up Tweetdeck this morning. I clicked for the advance report and it told me that nothing happened, ever. Lmao.

To be perfectly honest, I know there's nothing wrong. But it gave me the biggest smile today :D

[Dan]

ROFLMAO! This is hilarious. I've no clue why she's pulling up as malware but it cracks me up!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A_ZQu0fCEAAHXww.jpg:large

Google has decided that twitpic is malware. http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/30/3818 ... suspicious

[BarnOwl]

Ophelia, Stephanie, Rebecca, Jen, and Greta all read the profile of Dr. Levi-Montalcini, and have summarily retracted and apologized for all their whingeing "poor little me" dishonest victim posts.

[spoiler]Not really.[/spoiler]

[fascination]

From the article:
"The conviction rate for rape is 58%. That bears repeating. The conviction rate for rape, is 58%. The conviction rate for reportable crimes of all types is 57%. I know you will have heard the figure of 6%. Everyone has. That figure is actually an attrition rate, not a conviction rate, and even as an attrition rate it is wrong – the attrition rate for rape is in the region of 12%."

These are figures from the U.K. I don't know the figures for the U.S.

[somedumbguy]

On the topic of rape and false accusations, I saw rape conviction rates brought up here. This is a good article I ran across awhile ago about the conviction rates of rapists:
http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree ... tion-rates
Most people think rape conviction rates are low. Well, according to this article they're not low at all in comparison with other crimes. BTW, apologies for the poor spelling and grammar. My keypad is acting up.

Interesting, and thank you.

[JackRayner]

I stated that those accused of rape, because of the very way the system is set up, do not get fair trials. [Or, if you would prefer, get trials less fair than those accused of any other crime.] I see no talk of "likelihood". I don't know the numbers, and none of us ever will, I suspsect, so it would be pretty foolish of me to speak about the likelyhood of the innocent being convicted. It happens, that much I know, and that much you will fucking concede.

It happens, and it's fucked up that it happens, no doubt: but does it happen more than any other alleged crime? Is there a greater number of false convictions for rape than other crimes?

Hart tot tell. I can't find it at the moment, but I remember reading that of almost 900 exonerations that the Innocence Project has tracked, over 200 were for rape/sexual assault. [Begging the question?->]Anyone that's done even a little research on the subject would have found that this is out of proportion with the actual rate of rape/sexual assault. [You could call rape a rarity when compared to the rest of violent crime...]

Anyways, if the case really is that there is a disproportionately large number of erroneous rape/sexual assault convictions, in comparison to the actual occurrence of rape/sexual assault, I'd feel safe in stating that the differing manner in which courts handle these cases is directly related to it...

[AchronTimeless]

Since I've been a vocal advocate of NOT having kids for a while now, I'm thinking about just putting my money where my mouth is and getting a vasectomy - this discussion from somedumbguy and sacha about being at risk for child support payments for 18 years every time one has sex makes the list of benefits even stronger.

Im only 25 though, and from what I hear its difficult at my age for a doctor to take you seriously if you say you want a vasectomy.

easy surgery, easy recovery, and easily reversed.

It is difficult for a woman to get her tubes tied at that age.

not so easy surgery, not such an easy recovery, and not so easily reversed, plus:

"Just wait, you will change your mind" *pat on the head* "All women want to be a mother, you'll see." "you will feel differently when it's your own" "You will regret it once you realise your time has passed"

That sort of patronising is what I received from women, when I was your age and mentioned I had no desire to have children, not from men.

The vast majority of real sexism I have ever experienced was from other women.

I've never wanted children, that conviction only got stronger as I got older. Nothing changed when "my clock was ticking", no regrets, no remorse, not for even a moment.

I do not have the maternal gene, and those like us should be taken far more seriously. Why would you want someone who has no desire to have children, to fucking have children?

Not so sure about "easily reversed". My advice would be to have some samples frozen at a sperm bank just as a back-up measure.

Ah, there's an easier route.

Go get yourself diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Not only will the hormones make you effectively sterile, but you'll get a nice set of tits to play with when you're bored. Win/Win

[Spence]

What does the existence of lobby groups prove?

On the one hand, that is a reasonably skeptical question to ask. On the other hand, I do wonder what country you are writing from.

Given that I said which country I am from, I'm surprised you're having so much trouble figuring it out.

And you respond to arguments drawn from economics and statistics with your own hand-waving argument that is summarized with the statement, "you say the color of the sky is blue, but you only cite anecdata for that!"

You haven't presented any arguments drawn from economics and statistics. Do you know what anecdata even is?

Math error. "likely to be fewer wrongful convictions of rape than other crimes" only in absolute terms, I believe this discussion has been about rates of wrongful conviction. Your claim that having a lower conviction rate must mean rates of false conviction are lower is not logically or mathematically sound.

I agree the argument was not mathematically sound, I was extending your own argument to its logical conclusion to illustrate why it was not mathematically sound. But I'm glad you've realised your own argument was bunk.

"citation-needed", and no, the people that matter are among those that benefit from having high conviction rates. The people that matter as you say, are the ones targeted by feminists to understand that women don't like, to understand that children don't lie, to understand that to be re-elected they need to increase rape convictions and be tough on rape. They are also likely to be the ones to support the rape arrests or any arrest in their departments, because tribalism.

Citation needed that most people know how to do their job? While I am willing to accept that some do not, such a claim would need supporting by solid and specific evidence. If you are claiming they do not, the burden of evidence falls on YOU, not me to show otherwise.

Ya know, fuckhead, for someone that keeps on telling me how incompentent my arguments are, fuckface, your arguments rely on the same if not more hand waving analysis.

No, when you make the claim, the burden of evidence is on you, not me. All I have to do is show that your argument is not on sound ground. As someone's sig here quotes hitch, that which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

At this point retard, since you are incapable of discussing my arguments cogently asswipe without name calling me, and bullying, why don't you jam your keyboard up your ass and kill yourself.

:lol:

At some point if you wish to have a discussion where you can argue without the name calling or slurs or disparagement, I am welcome to hearing what you have to say.

Until then, piss off.

Oh, bless your heart. :lol: I guess we're done here, which is probably a good job as I'm sure this would end up de-threaded eventually.

[Reap]

This is for Franc and just cause

http://reapsowradio.com/graphics/pzchallenge.png

on the feminist challenge post

[Spence]

From the article:
"The conviction rate for rape is 58%. That bears repeating. The conviction rate for rape, is 58%. The conviction rate for reportable crimes of all types is 57%. I know you will have heard the figure of 6%. Everyone has. That figure is actually an attrition rate, not a conviction rate, and even as an attrition rate it is wrong – the attrition rate for rape is in the region of 12%."

These are figures from the U.K. I don't know the figures for the U.S.

Conviction rate in the UK for violent crimes is 69% - higher than rape.

Also, crown court conviction rates in the UK are 83% (see here), much higher than rape. Note a rape trial is always heard in front of a jury and therefore is always heard in the crown court. Not sure where 57% comes from, probably includes magistrate courts etc (which are not relevant in this case, and would be an apples and pears comparison). However, the 58% sounds about right.

Bottom line: the conviction rate for rape in the UK is lower than other violent crimes, and significantly lower than other crimes on a like-for-like basis in the UK.

[JackRayner]

This is for Franc and just cause

http://reapsowradio.com/graphics/pzchallenge.png

on the feminist challenge post

That challenge has been out in the wild for a while. It's been revived a few times, too. I think it will be a cold day in Hell if P. Zachary ever steps up.

So don't noboby be goin' an' holding yer breaths!

[AndrewV69]

Why would I embrace a philosophy of life which essentially fosters divisiveness between sexes and thrives on bitter recriminations?
It's simply not my thing.

This is the nub I think, the MGTOW who have attached themselves to the MRM?

If so it is hardly surprising if you have never experienced nor observed a divorce involving children or any of the other forces that have informed some men.

I can hardly blame you if you do not want to become associated with the male version of CreepyBitterGirl. We certainly have more than enough of those.

However, if that is all you can see of the MRM. *shrug* Hopefully, being better informed you will never stumble unknowingly into one of the many traps so many others do.

Back in the day when I was a Feminist, SN was a Radfem. Now we are both out, perhaps in the end for similar reasons.

Because there comes a point when it becomes too difficult to deny the evidence before your lying eyes, and today we both apparently refer to ourselves as humanists if anything.

Good luck to you.

[Skep tickle]

... http://i46.tinypic.com/350maeb.jpg

Which is not at all true since Myers did not actually delete at least three posts from Skep Tickle /Skeptixx. And I informed you of that through a message on TBS and a post here plus a further message on TBS which I didn’t save but which included, I think, the required proof for those with limited skills in obtaining the “most trivial piece of information”. Not at all a case of “nit-picking trivia” to point out that Myers did not, in fact, “erase all traces of Skeptixx’s posts”. ...

I haven't been back to that thread since being banned, hadn't thought my posts were deleted, and now I'm a tad confused looking at the "Despise...feminism" thread at Pharyngula, which is said to have 1166 comments, but I'm only seeing #1001 on without a link to the older ones. (I think mine were in the 300's).

Not getting anything either w/ a search of "skeptixx" though a couple of people had used that 'nym in their post, while castigating me, including (come to think of it) PZ. But maybe their search function only searches the topic posts.

Don't feel like poking around to try to verify what's up w/ that, though. Instead, I was cheered up and distracted by this apparently mixed message that greeted me at Pharyngula:

http://i.imgur.com/cdRen.png

[Scented Nectar]

This is for Franc and just cause

http://reapsowradio.com/graphics/pzchallenge.png

on the feminist challenge post

That challenge has been out in the wild for a while. It's been revived a few times, too. I think it will be a cold day in Hell if P. Zachary ever steps up.

So don't noboby be goin' an' holding yer breaths!

Johntheother totally scares the pants off PZ (apologies if that became a visual image in anyone's mind). PZ knows that he can't hold up his end of a true debate. He can't discuss points without concluding an ad hom instead of an actual conclusion. All of PZ's premises are fucked too, and he knows it. His ideology is stronger than his honesty. It's all for a higher cause, so anything goes, and every valid point can be ignored.

[Al Stefanelli]

I'll just leave this here

[youtube]ELio6GKcW2M[/youtube]

[AndrewV69]

In the light of the above, consider that Andrew has just openly admitted to a personal recruitment campaign.

Not just now actually. I have been up front about it from day one.

At the same time, we were being loudly assured that MRA really stands for egalitarianism. Does it?

Some think it does. Those suffering under the jackboots of the Gynocracy just yearn to be free.

And here is what that MRA group stood for, in their own words:

“Charlie Chaplin is one of our most ardent supporters abroad” Herr Kornblueh declared, “and since his divorce, he has written to us assuring our organization of his sympathy and emphasizing the necessity of a world wide movement for the emancipation of the oppressed husbands.

“The tyranny of modern women, who demand all rights and refuse all duties, who are marrying men only to lead a careless, workless and childless life, or to obtain a divorce and a lifelong alimony, this shameful tyranny is the underlying cause of all evils.

“Look at the insane asylum Steinhof in Vienna. Fifty percent of the unfortunate inmates were brought to this place because of their marriage.’’

The congress passed a resolution demanding the abolishment of alimonies find other unequal pacts between the two sexes, and protesting against the favoritism of the authorities in favor of women, especially the siding of the police with the wives whenever a domestic quarrel develops.

The Justitia is the first organization in the world fighting for the “emancipation of men,” and makes its appeal to all those “in revolt against the oppression of the female sex.” Only the freedom of men can prevent the white race from decline and ruin, declares one of the organizations proclamations.

“The only trouble is,” confessed Kornblueh, “there are few courageous men. Husbands are too cowardly, while bachelors are perhaps too willing to join our organization.”

Some egalitarians, there.

If you are the average married man, you have every right to be scared of divorce.

And I would posit that the thought that men would have equall rights is what has some feminists up in arms.

There is a branch of the movement that is bent on denying all women everywhere the legal and societal means of retaining their personal packmule, on the grounds that the exchange of goods and services no longer provides any benefits to the man, and at the same time, women as a group acrue benefits without responsibility, acountability or any corresponding obligation.

The Quebec model is referenced from time to time in this regard. Whereas a significant number never marry but instead opt for cohabitation. The irony is that the Feminists were heavily involved in passing the laws which in effect stated that "we do not need no stinking man to provision for us.... we are women ... hear us roar! Equall standing before the law!!"

In any event, I dare ya to get married, have kids and get divorced (70-90% initiated by the woman apparently). Actually I double dare ya. Go ahead. Make my day. You will find out for yourself what provisioning is all about.

*cackles*

[Scented Nectar]

Why would I embrace a philosophy of life which essentially fosters divisiveness between sexes and thrives on bitter recriminations?
It's simply not my thing.

This is the nub I think, the MGTOW who have attached themselves to the MRM?

If so it is hardly surprising if you have never experienced nor observed a divorce involving children or any of the other forces that have informed some men.

I can hardly blame you if you do not want to become associated with the male version of CreepyBitterGirl. We certainly have more than enough of those.

However, if that is all you can see of the MRM. *shrug* Hopefully, being better informed you will never stumble unknowingly into one of the many traps so many others do.

Back in the day when I was a Feminist, SN was a Radfem. Now we are both out, perhaps in the end for similar reasons.

Because there comes a point when it becomes too difficult to deny the evidence before your lying eyes, and today we both apparently refer to ourselves as humanists if anything.

Good luck to you.

I don't mind being called a humanist, egalitarian or equalist, but I think we've both seen our way through and past the sexism intrinsic to the feminist ideology. Speaks well of us, I think. :)

[somedumbguy]

This is for Franc and just cause

http://reapsowradio.com/graphics/pzchallenge.png

on the feminist challenge post

That challenge has been out in the wild for a while. It's been revived a few times, too. I think it will be a cold day in Hell if P. Zachary ever steps up.

So don't noboby be goin' an' holding yer breaths!

Johntheother totally scares the pants off PZ (apologies if that became a visual image in anyone's mind). PZ knows that he can't hold up his end of a true debate. He can't discuss points without concluding an ad hom instead of an actual conclusion. All of PZ's premises are fucked too, and he knows it. His ideology is stronger than his honesty. It's all for a higher cause, so anything goes, and every valid point can be ignored.

And the reason for that, is that PZ is totally ignorant about what MRA issues are, or what the arguments are, or how they are defended.

PZ seems to get all of his MRA information via David Futrelle and Rebecca Watson and FTB bloggers. Like so many, he refuses to read what the MRAs and equity feminists have to say.

He would get his butt kicked by anyone prepared, which is why it's always stupid to refuse to read the primary sources.

[Scented Nectar]

Why would I embrace a philosophy of life which essentially fosters divisiveness between sexes and thrives on bitter recriminations?
It's simply not my thing.

This is the nub I think, the MGTOW who have attached themselves to the MRM?

If so it is hardly surprising if you have never experienced nor observed a divorce involving children or any of the other forces that have informed some men.

I can hardly blame you if you do not want to become associated with the male version of CreepyBitterGirl. We certainly have more than enough of those.

However, if that is all you can see of the MRM. *shrug* Hopefully, being better informed you will never stumble unknowingly into one of the many traps so many others do.

Back in the day when I was a Feminist, SN was a Radfem. Now we are both out, perhaps in the end for similar reasons.

Because there comes a point when it becomes too difficult to deny the evidence before your lying eyes, and today we both apparently refer to ourselves as humanists if anything.

Good luck to you.

I don't mind being called a humanist, egalitarian or equalist, but I think we've both seen our way through and past the sexism intrinsic to the feminist ideology. Speaks well of us, I think. :)

Also, I suppose I'm a WGTOW too. Never married or had kids, and never wanted either. Scented don't play that game. :)

[Al Stefanelli]

This is for Franc and just cause

http://reapsowradio.com/graphics/pzchallenge.png

on the feminist challenge post

That challenge has been out in the wild for a while. It's been revived a few times, too. I think it will be a cold day in Hell if P. Zachary ever steps up.

So don't noboby be goin' an' holding yer breaths!

Johntheother totally scares the pants off PZ (apologies if that became a visual image in anyone's mind). PZ knows that he can't hold up his end of a true debate. He can't discuss points without concluding an ad hom instead of an actual conclusion. All of PZ's premises are fucked too, and he knows it. His ideology is stronger than his honesty. It's all for a higher cause, so anything goes, and every valid point can be ignored.

And the reason for that, is that PZ is totally ignorant about what MRA issues are, or what the arguments are, or how they are defended.

PZ seems to get all of his MRA information via David Futrelle and Rebecca Watson and FTB bloggers. Like so many, he refuses to read what the MRAs and equity feminists have to say.

He would get his butt kicked by anyone prepared, which is why it's always stupid to refuse to read the primary sources.

Getting information from a closed source of individuals who share your beliefs, while telling them to stay away from any sources who disagree and provide counter-information that requires critical thinking skills?

Where have I heard that before...?

[Scented Nectar]

This is for Franc and just cause

http://reapsowradio.com/graphics/pzchallenge.png

on the feminist challenge post

That challenge has been out in the wild for a while. It's been revived a few times, too. I think it will be a cold day in Hell if P. Zachary ever steps up.

So don't noboby be goin' an' holding yer breaths!

Johntheother totally scares the pants off PZ (apologies if that became a visual image in anyone's mind). PZ knows that he can't hold up his end of a true debate. He can't discuss points without concluding an ad hom instead of an actual conclusion. All of PZ's premises are fucked too, and he knows it. His ideology is stronger than his honesty. It's all for a higher cause, so anything goes, and every valid point can be ignored.

And the reason for that, is that PZ is totally ignorant about what MRA issues are, or what the arguments are, or how they are defended.

PZ seems to get all of his MRA information via David Futrelle and Rebecca Watson and FTB bloggers. Like so many, he refuses to read what the MRAs and equity feminists have to say.

He would get his butt kicked by anyone prepared, which is why it's always stupid to refuse to read the primary sources.

I wonder if PZ and Futrelle are the same person, with Futrelle being his more scandalmaking/gossipy side.

[KacyRay]

@Hemisphere

@Kacyray

These might have been useful in your lengthy argument on Ed Brayton's FtB page:

.................

Totally reasonable to support equality for women without automatically being labelled a 'feminist'.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#Reactions)

Thanks. I knew I wasn't crazy... until I began questioning my motives for remaining engaged in that conversation in the first place. Then I wasn't so sure.

I am most certainly in favor of pornography, by the way. I don't think I'd qualify as a pro-feminist.

I just don't think that equality means what those feminists say it means.

I perused over to Greta's blog for the first time last night and attempted to strike up a conversation. I was banned almost immediately. Apparently the mere suggestion that a woman who is being gang-raped (or otherwise victimized) may find that she has choices to make - choices that might determine whether she lives or dies - and that some choices might be better than others in terms of survival strategy - was a capital offense. Instant ban. And I received a few "fuck you"s once I was banned from her peanut gallery. Classy bunch over there.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... rrendered/

I just now checked up on it, and it appears that one guy spoke up for the fact that I was asking a reasonable question, and Greta put him on "comment moderation" status. Then she proceeded to explain that she not only allows dissent but encourages it.

heh...