ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2014 05:38 pm
@hawkeye10,
Oh, Christ. Tool on rollerskates. I can start to understand, but then I see tornados.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2014 05:49 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

So, now it is time for you not to throw feminists into one barrel of evil.

no can do, i will continue to blame every individual who is on the bus for where it is being driven until/unless they object to the driving.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2014 06:09 pm
@hawkeye10,
Well, then, the rest of us will continue taking you as stupid.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2014 06:18 pm
Quote:
Men who objectify and threaten women often strategically obscure their actions from other men, taking care to harass women when other men aren’t around.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/05/_yesallwomen_in_the_wake_of_elliot_rodger_why_it_s_so_hard_for_men_to_recognize.html

This is garden variety manipulation of language to take it anti-male. All or almost all men objectify women sometimes, it is a part of us being visual creatures. If objectifying women sucks then almost all men suck sometimes. What is up with the " and"? this places objectifying on par with threatening. Really? What is your case, because the objectifying could very easily take place completely in the guys head so why should we assume that it hurts anyone where as threatening is a long agreed violation of another. AND the insinuation is that we cant objectify but not threaten, says who? What proof is the basis for this claim? I promise that there is none.

Call this out and the feminist will respond " well, you are one uptight asshole who is reading into the quote what you want to read". Really? Well, this is what the words say using common definitions and evaluation of sentence structure. Why does this anti-male messaging happen All. THE. *******. TIME? Is your argument that it is an accident? Are we really supposed to believe that these kinds of pieces get proof read and almost never does the proofreader say " well of course you meant to say objectify and/or threaten. right?" The claim that this anti male messaging is sloppy works not meant to be anti-male gets to be impossible to believe after awhile.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2014 06:20 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

Well, then, the rest of us will continue taking you as stupid.


that is interesting, because just yesterday Panzade I think it was accused me of having a load of minions here. About 12 hours ago Vikorr said that he almost always finds my opinions thought provoking even when he does not agree. Firefly has found my opinions to be so worthy of confrontation that we have sustained arguments for years at a time ..and so on and so on.

Please dont turn into a bullshit peddler like Firefly. One is plenty.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2014 06:37 pm
@hawkeye10,
I am who I am. Firefly and I are not the same but we usually get each other more or less.

One difference is that I have no patience for extended arguing, where she is whip smart at it. To me, you think what you think. I listen most of the time. Conversation good, and I'm not here to change other posters. But - I find her savvy invaluable.

But you argue on and on for years, why do you get to whail at her for similar?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2014 06:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Men who objectify and threaten women often strategically obscure their actions from other men, taking care to harass women when other men aren’t around.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/05/_yesallwomen_in_the_wake_of_elliot_rodger_why_it_s_so_hard_for_men_to_recognize.html

This is garden variety manipulation of language to take it anti-male. All or almost all men objectify women sometimes, it is a part of us being visual creatures. If objectifying women sucks then almost all men suck sometimes. What is up with the " and"? this places objectifying on par with threatening. Really? What is your case, because the objectifying could very easily take place completely in the guys head so why should we assume that it hurts anyone where as threatening is a long agreed violation of another. AND the insinuation is that we cant objectify but not threaten, says who? What proof is the basis for this claim? I promise that there is none.

Call this out and the feminist will respond " well, you are one uptight asshole who is reading into the quote what you want to read". Really? Well, this is what the words say using common definitions and evaluation of sentence structure. Why does this anti-male messaging happen All. THE. *******. TIME? Is your argument that it is an accident? Are we really supposed to believe that these kinds of pieces get proof read and almost never does the proofreader say " well of course you meant to say objectify and/or threaten. right?" The claim that this anti male messaging is sloppy works not meant to be anti-male gets to be impossible to believe after awhile.




My point is that after seeing this kind of stuff happen constantly it is impossible to believe that what this sentence is about is anything other than a feminist mis-using language to try to manipulate men into feeling badly about being a man while retaining a thread of deniability if they should ever get called on it. The feminists do this kind of thing so often that they probably dont even think about it anymore.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  4  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2014 07:30 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
that is interesting, because just yesterday Panzade I think it was accused me of having a load of minions here.

It wasn't an accusation you knucklehead, it was a statement.
You have a minion(if you don't know the definition look it up) called Bill and maybe a few others.

I like the fact that you don't fly into a rage like some others and you generally treat your opposition with respect.

Your posts are sometimes supported by facts but mostly are just opinions and I've been watching with some amusement as firefly has carved you up like a Christmas turkey for the last so many years.
But hey! Somebody's gotta be hawkeye on a forum.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2014 08:31 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
Well, then, the rest of us will continue taking you as stupid.

Funny how low-IQ types always go around seeing stupidity in anyone but themselves.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2014 08:32 pm
@panzade,
panzade wrote:
I've been watching with some amusement as firefly has carved you up like a Christmas turkey for the last so many years.

The only thing Firefly has ever done is spew name-calling at anyone who points out facts that she finds inconvenient.
nononono
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2014 09:58 pm
@vikorr,
If aliens landed on Earth and observed that women can create life and men can't, what conclusion do you think they would draw about our biology based solely on that factor?

Women ARE genetically superior to men because of that.

That doesn't mean men aren't superior in other aspects (logic, creativity, and empathy come to mind immediately.)

Don't put words in my mouth or project YOUR own meaning on my words. I wrote them and I know exactly what I meant.
nononono
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2014 10:11 pm
Something to think about in regards to how society views violence against men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PgH86OyEM
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2014 10:43 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

panzade wrote:
I've been watching with some amusement as firefly has carved you up like a Christmas turkey for the last so many years.

The only thing Firefly has ever done is spew name-calling at anyone who points out facts that she finds inconvenient.


Wrong, she will also argue that you are wrong using words that she has completely redefined (misuse of language for the purposes of deceit) ....or just completely lie and say that you have been proven wrong on the facts so there is no point in arguing the point, when it is she who has been proven wrong.

Then we get people who we want to think are fair, honest and smart like panzade clapping because people that they want to see beaten up are being subjected to the firefly treatment.

It would be nice if more people around here cared about ideas enough to honestly debate them.
0 Replies
 
FOUND SOUL
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2014 12:13 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Ya, pretty much...their job was to convince him to become a drugged up zombie, the only solution they have to messed up young men created by the hostile environment that we have created for young males, and they did not get it done. He refused.


Actually, he saw three in total on-going and the aim seemed to be more so on social skills, psychology, whereas the parents stated they did not send him to a psychiatrist and now wish that they had. There is a big difference in treatments.

Just seeing if I can find any facts to back up something I'm reading about the school he attended at 7, (where he dyed his hair blonde) verses something he said as well about the woods in his doc.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2014 12:18 am
@FOUND SOUL,
My boy dyed his hair at about that age, did not mean anything, it was for fun. I have seen no reason to take your fascination on the dye job seriously.
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2014 12:32 am
@hawkeye10,
Women have intuition right?

You haven't read the 140 pages right?

It wasn't for fun, he got so mad that they only coloured the tips throughout his hair, that the next year, he got his entire head coloured blonde.

Then at 10 he was fixated on a blonde and then off course till he death he was fixated on blondes.

You haven't seen it as I haven't worked it out yet, but I will, (unless the dead can't speak which they can't) but there is something in it..
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2014 12:38 am
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:
Then at 10 he was fixated on a blonde and then off course till he death he was fixated on blondes.


I am pretty sure that I liked blonds best by then, and I married a blond. Hair length and color matters a lot to a lot of men and has for at least generations. I see nothing wrong with that. People should have what they want so long as people dont get hurt. Liking blonds hurts no one.

In 1974 when I was 12 I have a strong memory of liking the blond ABBA girl the best, in fact I could not imagine why anyone would like the other one better. It was not till about 10 years ago that I began to appreciate the looks of the redhead. My tastes have changed (that does not mean that I am going to divorce my wife).

Sure, I am guilty of " LOOKISM"

Guess what...I really dont give a ****!
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2014 12:47 am
@nononono,
Quote:
If aliens landed on Earth and observed that women can create life and men can't, what conclusion do you think they would draw about our biology based solely on that factor?

Women ARE genetically superior to men because of that.
What rubbish. They are simply different.

Quote:
don't put words in my mouth or project YOUR own meaning
Rolling Eyes you notice that every single time, I am mentioning how you focus on things you can't control? You feel inferior by something that is simply different? Justify yourself all you want...until you start focusing on what you can control (that is, who you are), you will always feel a victim.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2014 12:49 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
If aliens landed on Earth and observed that women can create life and men can't, what conclusion do you think they would draw about our biology based solely on that factor?

Women ARE genetically superior to men because of that.
What rubbish. They are simply different.


Agreed. Men are better at some things, women others. I am on board the theory the the genders are different but should be considered generally equal (but not equal in specific skills) ....especially legally egual. This does violate the feminist general view that the sexes are the same, or should be, that we should all be "its". Not that going against the abusive and dishonest feminists is a problem for me. natch!
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2014 12:55 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Agreed. Men are better at some things, women others. I am on board the theory the the genders are different but should be considered equal....especially legally egual. This does violate the feminist general view that the sexes are the same, or should be, that we should all be "its".
Over the decades, there do seem to be more and more areas where men & women aren't considered equal legally.
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Elliot Rodger
  3. » Page 20
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/01/2022 at 11:48:55