You missed the point. By incorrect usage I meant having sex with a minor (the common usage).
Pedophile, yes. Child molester, no.
So where are you when people are getting prosecuted (and persecuted) for pictures? Or when a minor consents with an adult.
Your reasons for saying, in absolute, that a minor cannot consent with an adult and therefore it is harmful is completely as arbitrary as homophobes saying that homosexuality is harmful.
Homosexuality is safer because it really cannot harm anyone- I agree there. But you can't just throw words like "legal rights" around. Why is one a legal right while the other is not?
If you are opposed to homosexuality, but you tolerate them, then you support full equal rights for gay people and then you go out and try to tell them to stop being gay.
Again, replace that with pedophile and see if you still agree with it. Are you still going to tolerate the characteristic (by your definition of tolerance)?
This is why I am opposed to using "tolerance" as the moral mallet to silence others. It is an emotional argument and not a rational one. You are right that homosexuality harms no one and there is no reason to fight it. Full stop. Relying on emotional arguments does more harm than good.
You just proved my point in its entirety. You think one is wrong and the other isn't. Others believe both are wrong. You even use the same language as homophobes. They think that homosexuality is not normal, healthy or acceptable.
That said, in the broad sense you mean, I am supportive of pedophiles who refrain from acting on their desires. I don't know all that much about pedophilia, but I am under the impression that, as with attraction to a specific gender, attraction to children is innate and cannot be altered through willpower or other known means.
But someone that says they are fine with gays as long as they don't act on it (like getting married) is still a homophobe and intolerant. That is what the whole Eich fiasco was about.
Finally, stop trying to create some sort of equivalence over, for example, being fired for a political opinion and being fired for being gay. Both are generally wrong, but they are not the same.
Other than being fired unjustly I guess they are different. I never tried to make them "equivalent". They are both wrong. Just because you think one is "more" wrong doesn't justify the other nor excuse it from criticism. I'm perfectly capable of criticizing both.
I have to stress that I do not in any way, shape or form condone any kind of homophobia and I believe that not allowing gay marriage is against your Constitution (and would require an amendment if it wasn't). I am only against the huge number of people that get very sanctimonious about it. That only retards progress.
All that you actually done is an intense bit of handwaiving. You even italicized it for extra wave. You say that everyone misses your point (I say you are unclear purposefully). I see your point perfectly clear; it just isn't as solid as you think it is. You know what you are supporting is counter to political freedom so you have latched on to something else you think you can pin it on. The fact that you think you have more justification in three simple sentences he made as opposed to his opinions is laughable.
His statement was true even if you don't want it to be. He had no obligation to defend his political opinions to you in the first place. You do not approve of his politics- that is why you say he is unfit. It was not his response you had a problem with. It was that his response wasn't a full repentance of his sins of offending your morality. You say that clearly enough in that little journal post.
You say strike one was donating and the second was not apologizing for it and saying he was wrong. Your metaphor got a little mixed when you didn't find a strike three though (shouldn't that mean he's still fit?)
So how, exactly, are you not simply opposed to his politics when you say his only recourse was to change his politics?
AmiMojo counts sentiments like yours as proof of hate. If you disagree (or ask for meaningful evidence) that the problem is all around us and unbearable then you obviously support misogyny. He's now in a feedback loop because he gets himself into more and more of a moral panic which just brings more people to tell him he's overreacting and looking for problems that don't exist.
It wasn't because "he didn't like gays". It was because he "happened to be anti-gay marriage" and donated to a campaign which you disagree with so therefore he has bad judgement and wasn't fit to lead. Aren't those two statements effectively the same thing? Do you think someone could be anti-gay and not have "bad judgement" to you? Are you sure it is not you that is making the rhetorical slight of hand? (love the gay; hate the sin comes to mind here).
I read your little journal- you do know that constantly repeating "objective" doesn't actually make something "objective", right?
Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change. It is not a political opinion, and it is not acceptable.
Scratch homosexual and put in pedophile (used in the broad, incorrect way) and are you still so strongly supportive? How about the rest of the "fire Eich" brigade? I don't see too many people defending their rights. You think one is morally wrong and some people think they're both morally wrong. Eich did "tolerate" homosexuals by the way- he just didn't think they should marry. You may disagree with him but disagreeing with his right to have a political opinion is a bit different than wanting him to "tolerate". Which is the problem with using the term. "Tolerate" is a nebulous concept and is often (mis)used as a moral mallet to make others look bad and the user to feel superior.
Now before you go and think I am saying something I am not I happen to largely agree with you- and probably for mostly the same reasons. I disagree with using it as a means to morally elevate yourself above others- which is pretty much what the whole debacle was about. Trying to legislate or force morality on others never turns out well. Moral superiority is far too addictive and unstable.
That was my whole point. "Their" has as much historical usage as a singular possessive pronoun as "yours". The pronoun "you" is also a plural pronoun- the singular was "thou". So you accept "you" as a singular because of popular usage. Well "they" as singular has popular usage as well and is perfectly understood.
"Their" is about as plural as "you". They have both been used in the singular for approximately the same amount of time. It is only the arbitrary opinion of a few prescriptivists that say "their" cannot be used in the singular.
It's actually pretty immature to get into a power struggle with your employer because they think you aren't dressing up to their standards. "Let someone tell you how to dress" (The immaturity in that statement is palpable). Do you have the same mentality about people telling you what the requirements are?
This is a good example of why people laugh at C purists. You seem to think C is the best only because it is all You know.
I assure you that you do not need C or C++ to do a linked list. They can be done in pretty much any language- even Java. Most people just wouldn't because there are already robust standard libraries to accomplish the task.
If you really that opposed to this legal concept the least you could do is read up on what "corporate personhood" means. For one, corporate personhood is the reason you can sue a corporation. You seem unable to grasp the fact that a corporation is made up of a group of persons. Other associations of individuals maintained certain protections under the Constitution. Way back in the day it was decided that since corporations are also associations of individuals the same rules should apply. Are you saying that because a group of persons incorporates they should lose their Constitutional protections? That sounds a little fascist to me.
If it is legal for a person to 'buy' an election then what difference does it make if a corporation does it instead?
Apparently they were not "good enough" when the customers signed up. They cannot offer the advertised service. If cable TV quality degraded as you watched it more and it was advertised as a certain quality of course they have the responsibility to upgrade. An HD TV signal doesn't drop to SD because you watched too many movies.
Corporations are persons. The constantly repeated statement that "corporations are people" is purposefully ambiguous. You think it means "a corporation is a person"- it does not. A corporation is a group of persons. This statement should be self-evident and with that it should also be self-evident that they are provided the same protections as other groups of persons.
A user that purchases a connection advertised as a certain bandwidth with no cap would be pretty justified to honestly believe that's what they will/are entitled to get.
It's "all you can eat" not "all you can waste". If you could actually eat all of those garbage bins they wouldn't stop you. Most buffets try to keep supply slightly below or slightly above demand. They don't take away your plate and make you use napkins if you eat too fast. If they find they can't actually offer an all you can eat model they stop advertising and selling it.
Feminism has only been poisoned by itself. Hit jobs were never needed. You cannot go anywhere that there is feminists without finding a bunch saying moronic and completely hateful things.
Feminism is the belief that women are just as capable and deserving of respect as men.
Corollary: Feminism is the belief that women are denied respect and men oppress them.
Unless you believe women deserve less respect or fewer opportunities, simply for being female, congratulations, you are a feminist.
Leave these lame slogans to Twitter. "Do you believe in fiscal responsibility? Congratulations! You are a conservative." I think we can both agree that's a pretty stupid thing to say. Feminism is the base belief that women are oppressed for being women which leaves men as oppressors.
or whatever other stupid idea you have been taught feminists believe, these are categorically not feminism.
I was taught what feminists believe by feminists themselves. How do you think a "feminist" would react to a man telling her that she's not a "real" feminist? You even provide many insights.
Feminism is basically a social criticism that in many spheres of our society an elite group of men has taken control for their own benefit, to the exclusion of others.
Those men usually have women in their lives that benefit quite well and happily encourage those men to get them more. But feminism believes strongly that women take no part in any ills of society. This nonsense is more often used as "proof" of "male privilege" from feminists than anything else.
Aspiring to equality with men is a terrible mistake, since men live and work in a frighteningly unfree and tyrannical society, one built on confederacies and conspiracies, on initiation and blooding rituals, on shared antisocial behaviour, on ostracisms and punishments, practical jokes, clannishness and discrimination.
Your Greer quote is exactly why people see feminism as hateful. That is hate rhetoric. Purposefully painting a group as inferior, "antisocial" and all-around bad. I swear you could do a find-and-replace on "Jew" in Mein Kampf and replace is with "man" and feminists would eat it up.
What logical fallacy? You said people that smoke are "not fine" and anybody that thinks otherwise is stupid. I merely told you you were wrong. It is not a fallacy to tell you that you are wrong. The "false cause" of "smoke marijuana -> not fine" is the logical fallacy here.
You don't just get to assert that most people that smoke have their lives ruined because of it.
Then you're a fucking stupid kid who can't tell the difference between people looking fine and people being fine.
You are the stupid one here. There are millions of people that have smoked marijuana and continue to smoke marijuana that are more stable, more successful and more happy than you are. It wasn't just those "popular" kids that smoke; it is people form every walk of life.
My point was that survey was designed specifically to prove the authors' biases. That men rape women at alarming rates. It is an immediately visible flaw in their methodology. I did not have time to look through it in depth to find how many other flaws it has. I predict a few more. The original sentiment put forward was that results of these studies are wildly inconsistent. I am suggesting that is because of bias from those performing them.
It is also relevant because if you look up a bit you will notice Rei using these kind of numbers to show why women have more to fear about these things than men. Well when these numbers are so specifically tailored to completely erase female perpetrators and male victims then of course women are going to be the primary victims.
White men do. But the point about this article is that women get it much, much more.
And others disagree which is why they're trying to give you evidence to the contrary. I would say that this dogmatic belief of yours causes you to ignore and overlook any contrary information and thus reinforces your bias. Some might even think that's a bit "special".
I was kidding.. I actually agree with you completely. I was saying that if you assert it is not a problem for men and ignore/write off any occurrence then of course it will look like only women suffer from it.
I think you just proved the parent's point. "These days, it's men who are being 'carefully socialized' to dance around feminist gynocentric expectations and value systems." To which you respond: "Listen to the answers and then start looking at your own behavior."
Then tend to dial back the blatant bigotry and use other hand waving to come to basically the same conclusion. "Men are the problem", "Women are held back by men", "Men hate and harass women", etc.
Third and "Fourth" wave feminism took radfem rhetoric and gave it a sugar coating. And simply say "you just don't understand what feminism is about" and "you're talking about radfems" if anyone points this out. They "loathe" radfems because they needed a sacrificial lamb.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the point. By incorrect usage I meant having sex with a minor (the common usage).
Pedophile, yes. Child molester, no.
So where are you when people are getting prosecuted (and persecuted) for pictures? Or when a minor consents with an adult.
Your reasons for saying, in absolute, that a minor cannot consent with an adult and therefore it is harmful is completely as arbitrary as homophobes saying that homosexuality is harmful.
Homosexuality is safer because it really cannot harm anyone- I agree there. But you can't just throw words like "legal rights" around. Why is one a legal right while the other is not?
If you are opposed to homosexuality, but you tolerate them, then you support full equal rights for gay people and then you go out and try to tell them to stop being gay.
Again, replace that with pedophile and see if you still agree with it. Are you still going to tolerate the characteristic (by your definition of tolerance)?
This is why I am opposed to using "tolerance" as the moral mallet to silence others. It is an emotional argument and not a rational one. You are right that homosexuality harms no one and there is no reason to fight it. Full stop. Relying on emotional arguments does more harm than good.
You just proved my point in its entirety. You think one is wrong and the other isn't. Others believe both are wrong. You even use the same language as homophobes. They think that homosexuality is not normal, healthy or acceptable.
That said, in the broad sense you mean, I am supportive of pedophiles who refrain from acting on their desires. I don't know all that much about pedophilia, but I am under the impression that, as with attraction to a specific gender, attraction to children is innate and cannot be altered through willpower or other known means.
But someone that says they are fine with gays as long as they don't act on it (like getting married) is still a homophobe and intolerant. That is what the whole Eich fiasco was about.
Finally, stop trying to create some sort of equivalence over, for example, being fired for a political opinion and being fired for being gay. Both are generally wrong, but they are not the same.
Other than being fired unjustly I guess they are different. I never tried to make them "equivalent". They are both wrong. Just because you think one is "more" wrong doesn't justify the other nor excuse it from criticism. I'm perfectly capable of criticizing both.
I have to stress that I do not in any way, shape or form condone any kind of homophobia and I believe that not allowing gay marriage is against your Constitution (and would require an amendment if it wasn't). I am only against the huge number of people that get very sanctimonious about it. That only retards progress.
All that you actually done is an intense bit of handwaiving. You even italicized it for extra wave. You say that everyone misses your point (I say you are unclear purposefully). I see your point perfectly clear; it just isn't as solid as you think it is. You know what you are supporting is counter to political freedom so you have latched on to something else you think you can pin it on. The fact that you think you have more justification in three simple sentences he made as opposed to his opinions is laughable.
His statement was true even if you don't want it to be. He had no obligation to defend his political opinions to you in the first place. You do not approve of his politics- that is why you say he is unfit. It was not his response you had a problem with. It was that his response wasn't a full repentance of his sins of offending your morality. You say that clearly enough in that little journal post.
You say strike one was donating and the second was not apologizing for it and saying he was wrong. Your metaphor got a little mixed when you didn't find a strike three though (shouldn't that mean he's still fit?)
So how, exactly, are you not simply opposed to his politics when you say his only recourse was to change his politics?
AmiMojo counts sentiments like yours as proof of hate. If you disagree (or ask for meaningful evidence) that the problem is all around us and unbearable then you obviously support misogyny. He's now in a feedback loop because he gets himself into more and more of a moral panic which just brings more people to tell him he's overreacting and looking for problems that don't exist.
Just to make sure I'm clear on your meaning:
It wasn't because "he didn't like gays". It was because he "happened to be anti-gay marriage" and donated to a campaign which you disagree with so therefore he has bad judgement and wasn't fit to lead. Aren't those two statements effectively the same thing? Do you think someone could be anti-gay and not have "bad judgement" to you? Are you sure it is not you that is making the rhetorical slight of hand? (love the gay; hate the sin comes to mind here).
I read your little journal- you do know that constantly repeating "objective" doesn't actually make something "objective", right?
Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change. It is not a political opinion, and it is not acceptable.
Scratch homosexual and put in pedophile (used in the broad, incorrect way) and are you still so strongly supportive? How about the rest of the "fire Eich" brigade? I don't see too many people defending their rights. You think one is morally wrong and some people think they're both morally wrong. Eich did "tolerate" homosexuals by the way- he just didn't think they should marry. You may disagree with him but disagreeing with his right to have a political opinion is a bit different than wanting him to "tolerate". Which is the problem with using the term. "Tolerate" is a nebulous concept and is often (mis)used as a moral mallet to make others look bad and the user to feel superior.
Now before you go and think I am saying something I am not I happen to largely agree with you- and probably for mostly the same reasons. I disagree with using it as a means to morally elevate yourself above others- which is pretty much what the whole debacle was about. Trying to legislate or force morality on others never turns out well. Moral superiority is far too addictive and unstable.
That was my whole point. "Their" has as much historical usage as a singular possessive pronoun as "yours". The pronoun "you" is also a plural pronoun- the singular was "thou". So you accept "you" as a singular because of popular usage. Well "they" as singular has popular usage as well and is perfectly understood.
"Their" is about as plural as "you". They have both been used in the singular for approximately the same amount of time. It is only the arbitrary opinion of a few prescriptivists that say "their" cannot be used in the singular.
It's actually pretty immature to get into a power struggle with your employer because they think you aren't dressing up to their standards. "Let someone tell you how to dress" (The immaturity in that statement is palpable). Do you have the same mentality about people telling you what the requirements are?
This is a good example of why people laugh at C purists. You seem to think C is the best only because it is all You know.
I assure you that you do not need C or C++ to do a linked list. They can be done in pretty much any language- even Java. Most people just wouldn't because there are already robust standard libraries to accomplish the task.
If you really that opposed to this legal concept the least you could do is read up on what "corporate personhood" means. For one, corporate personhood is the reason you can sue a corporation. You seem unable to grasp the fact that a corporation is made up of a group of persons. Other associations of individuals maintained certain protections under the Constitution. Way back in the day it was decided that since corporations are also associations of individuals the same rules should apply. Are you saying that because a group of persons incorporates they should lose their Constitutional protections? That sounds a little fascist to me.
If it is legal for a person to 'buy' an election then what difference does it make if a corporation does it instead?
Apparently they were not "good enough" when the customers signed up. They cannot offer the advertised service. If cable TV quality degraded as you watched it more and it was advertised as a certain quality of course they have the responsibility to upgrade. An HD TV signal doesn't drop to SD because you watched too many movies.
Corporations are persons. The constantly repeated statement that "corporations are people" is purposefully ambiguous. You think it means "a corporation is a person"- it does not. A corporation is a group of persons. This statement should be self-evident and with that it should also be self-evident that they are provided the same protections as other groups of persons.
A user that purchases a connection advertised as a certain bandwidth with no cap would be pretty justified to honestly believe that's what they will/are entitled to get.
It's "all you can eat" not "all you can waste". If you could actually eat all of those garbage bins they wouldn't stop you. Most buffets try to keep supply slightly below or slightly above demand. They don't take away your plate and make you use napkins if you eat too fast. If they find they can't actually offer an all you can eat model they stop advertising and selling it.
Some people like to get wifi outside as well you know.
Feminism has only been poisoned by itself. Hit jobs were never needed. You cannot go anywhere that there is feminists without finding a bunch saying moronic and completely hateful things.
Feminism is the belief that women are just as capable and deserving of respect as men.
Corollary: Feminism is the belief that women are denied respect and men oppress them.
Unless you believe women deserve less respect or fewer opportunities, simply for being female, congratulations, you are a feminist.
Leave these lame slogans to Twitter. "Do you believe in fiscal responsibility? Congratulations! You are a conservative." I think we can both agree that's a pretty stupid thing to say. Feminism is the base belief that women are oppressed for being women which leaves men as oppressors.
or whatever other stupid idea you have been taught feminists believe, these are categorically not feminism.
I was taught what feminists believe by feminists themselves. How do you think a "feminist" would react to a man telling her that she's not a "real" feminist? You even provide many insights.
Feminism is basically a social criticism that in many spheres of our society an elite group of men has taken control for their own benefit, to the exclusion of others.
Those men usually have women in their lives that benefit quite well and happily encourage those men to get them more. But feminism believes strongly that women take no part in any ills of society. This nonsense is more often used as "proof" of "male privilege" from feminists than anything else.
Aspiring to equality with men is a terrible mistake, since men live and work in a frighteningly unfree and tyrannical society, one built on confederacies and conspiracies, on initiation and blooding rituals, on shared antisocial behaviour, on ostracisms and punishments, practical jokes, clannishness and discrimination.
Your Greer quote is exactly why people see feminism as hateful. That is hate rhetoric. Purposefully painting a group as inferior, "antisocial" and all-around bad. I swear you could do a find-and-replace on "Jew" in Mein Kampf and replace is with "man" and feminists would eat it up.
What logical fallacy? You said people that smoke are "not fine" and anybody that thinks otherwise is stupid. I merely told you you were wrong. It is not a fallacy to tell you that you are wrong. The "false cause" of "smoke marijuana -> not fine" is the logical fallacy here.
You don't just get to assert that most people that smoke have their lives ruined because of it.
Then you're a fucking stupid kid who can't tell the difference between people looking fine and people being fine.
You are the stupid one here. There are millions of people that have smoked marijuana and continue to smoke marijuana that are more stable, more successful and more happy than you are. It wasn't just those "popular" kids that smoke; it is people form every walk of life.
The model you are talking about is called boids. It is a relatively simple AI model that demonstrates emergent behaviour.
My point was that survey was designed specifically to prove the authors' biases. That men rape women at alarming rates. It is an immediately visible flaw in their methodology. I did not have time to look through it in depth to find how many other flaws it has. I predict a few more. The original sentiment put forward was that results of these studies are wildly inconsistent. I am suggesting that is because of bias from those performing them.
It is also relevant because if you look up a bit you will notice Rei using these kind of numbers to show why women have more to fear about these things than men. Well when these numbers are so specifically tailored to completely erase female perpetrators and male victims then of course women are going to be the primary victims.
White men do. But the point about this article is that women get it much, much more.
And others disagree which is why they're trying to give you evidence to the contrary. I would say that this dogmatic belief of yours causes you to ignore and overlook any contrary information and thus reinforces your bias. Some might even think that's a bit "special".
I was kidding.. I actually agree with you completely. I was saying that if you assert it is not a problem for men and ignore/write off any occurrence then of course it will look like only women suffer from it.
I think you just proved the parent's point. "These days, it's men who are being 'carefully socialized' to dance around feminist gynocentric expectations and value systems." To which you respond: "Listen to the answers and then start looking at your own behavior."
Then tend to dial back the blatant bigotry and use other hand waving to come to basically the same conclusion. "Men are the problem", "Women are held back by men", "Men hate and harass women", etc.
Third and "Fourth" wave feminism took radfem rhetoric and gave it a sugar coating. And simply say "you just don't understand what feminism is about" and "you're talking about radfems" if anyone points this out. They "loathe" radfems because they needed a sacrificial lamb.