Yeah, and RAPE stats always include all "sexual assault"? Notice it only specifies penetration. Much like the UK, being "forced to penetrate" isn't classified as criminal "penetration" as per "sexual act" merely "sexual contact" which is just "sexual battery". The CDC didn't class "forced to penetrate" as not rape for a reason, You pretentious, deluded little shit-stain.
I referenced how the crime against nature law was used in the past. I'd say you're reading comprehension needs work, but you're just a femitroll, so it doesn't matter.
It takes a real WOMAN to own up to the fact that this harassment of men is insidious and pervasive in the tech/geek communities. But the girls will just continue to try and explain why it is the men's problem, not theirs.
Yep. They just won't admit it, like so many things. See so much shit as a long time moderator of a dating site and getting roped into unpaid tech support. Chick brags about putting her ankles behind her head but bitches about a guy directly asking her about sex yet has multiple dick pic guys on a rotating booty call schedule. Offered me anal sex first time I spoke to her. Worst example, ignoring my personal abusers who were/are easily my vocal majority, but at least near a majority of chicks do shit like that at some point, usually on and off for at least a decade. Most reports of inappropriate messages I ever saw were from females that'd lost an argument they'd started and were just pissed about it. Sadly, it still counted against the guys.
NC requires victims have a vagina. I think sodomy used to fall under the obsolete "crime against nature" law though that was primarily for convicting homosexuals and was as likely to get a male victim convicted as his male attacker when actually enforced. Females using implements still didn't count as attackers of males under that one either, natch.
Damn. Second sentence should be "That's NOT respect"....and why's this taking more than 4 mins to let me post again? What happen to less that the better part of a minute?
"Respect" that's special treatment only of women by only men defined only by women. That's respect. That's chauvinistic-narcissism-based deference. I've yet to meet a single woman in my life that wasn't sure she deserved special treatment. Even the relatively nice (in the rare non-PC bullshit sense of the word) ones were myopic as hell and admittedly treated women differently even when going on about general "humanity". One stranger says "creep" and they're off trying to blacklist the guy with no details much less any reason to believe the accuser, and you can NEVER call them on this no matter how blatant and recursive the contradictions.
Religion is no "higher moral authority" and has an impressive track record in terms of justified atrocity. Combining it with government is even more of a clusterfuck which sanctimonious idiots like the AC, I was replying to, proudly ignore.
Odd, after exposure to geek culture, I concluded that people lost value to me "as people" at age 2, and that we had nothing meaningfully in common that didn't outright make us rivals. Conventions, specifically, make me wonder who the fuck are all those blatant extroverts who love shopping in swarms.
Yeah, it's always been a tradeoff personally. Rage in the gym, ornery out. Intervals or distance cardio just make me even more restless and hornier (yes, that's bad...) in addition to extra arthritis flareup and increased insomnia (since teens, so that's sadly not age...yet). The alternative is a weak, dazed (if more comfortable) zombie though, so even the dark side of slowly downward spiraling hypomania is still more useful this decade...
A year plus of eating oatmeal, cold cans of salmon, and water says you're full of shit about any form of taste recalibrations. BTW, that dressing and especially dip are probably unhealthy. Of course, most salads aren't actually healthy either. Might as well drink slightly chlorophyll dyed water and lay off the dressing/dip for all they're worth.
"Gender equality" as defined by "feminist theory" AKA an proudly unscientific, contradictory system of redefinitions and buzzwords meant for equivocation for when the special pleading just isn't enough, like how "male privilege" openly doesn't require males having any until that's exactly what's desired. "Patriarchy" is a system that favors males regardless of the genders of the leaders until policy explicitly favors females; then, it's still "patriarchy", now because of the genders of the leaders. If you wonder why any of us paying attention won't take your word for "equality", don't, but that's why "we need more feminism", right? Too much oldspeak, needs more crimestop.
With the likes of Mickey Mouse verifiably consistently voting Dem, I don't think it matters. They'll just kart the homeless around a few more times on voting days with a few more fake papers.
Religious psychosis is "normal" thus officially (in the shrink bible from both sides of the pond) not "mentally disordered", thus you're just "socially disordered" for not fitting into THEIR world.
Ontological argument is necessarily epistemologically based, duh. Of course, it's circular. Ontological argument inconsistent with scientific epistemology necessarily constitutes a rejection of science, which sanely raises derision. There's a reason cosmology's now under epistemology not "metaphysics" (reducing metaphysics to only ontology) because otherwise pretends asspulling's legitimate as any claim of fact. Solipsism for instance as an ontological claim constitutes a claim of fact, which should be a serious problem to anyone (not that a true solipsist would care...). Some form of pragmat(ic)ism is a necessity for any coherent argument, even with yourself. It's "epistemological" but necessarily defines the limits of coherent ontology too.
Materialism is based on physics. "Spiritual" leaders don't get passes for scientific ignorance, so calling out the appeal to false authority isn't fallacious ad hominem. You've got no case. "Aping Mankind" is just a religious-humanism-based appeal to consequences to handwave science for fear that humans aren't fucking magic, just animals. Tallis even states this as his prime motive.
How many eugenics programs were based on scientific rigor or even half-assed logic? When multiple genes contribute it's harder to remove "a" trait since it's an emergent property of multiple traits.
The Soviets never even tried killing all theists. They just somewhat haphazardly killed groups and individuals that were causing problems at the time. They ignored any that weren't a problem. It was about propaganda not remotely genes. Homosexuality might not even be genetic. Very early developmental issues seem to be involved, so you'd possibly have to change how our sexual dimorphism physically works to remove the possibility. Humans aren't special though. Genes still dominate our behavior.
Dualism is based on nothing. There's literally no basis for it. It's not open. It's not a coherent question. It's a bizarrely unnecessary collection of contradictions. It's an asspull by faithers that want "mind" to be more than brain, when they don't know shit about "mind" beyond their baseless dogma and refuse to learn about brains. You get the woo leaders smugly condescending to scientists when the former's got nothing but buzzwords he verifiably doesn't even understand. Dualism's less sensible on its face than evolution ever was, which even the likes of Hippocrates could've told you.
Men ought to know that from nothing else but the brain come joys, delights, laughter and sports, and sorrows, griefs, despondency, and lamentations. And by this, in an especial manner, we acquire wisdom and knowledge, and see and hear, and know what are foul and what are fair, what are bad and what are good, what are sweet, and what unsavory; some we discriminate by habit, and some we perceive by their utility.
He won nothing. Pakistan still split off (as "Muslim India"), and Britain only left due to increasingly violent resistance, huge war debts and related internal issues, and too many military issues elsewhere due to the World Wars.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and RAPE stats always include all "sexual assault"? Notice it only specifies penetration. Much like the UK, being "forced to penetrate" isn't classified as criminal "penetration" as per "sexual act" merely "sexual contact" which is just "sexual battery". The CDC didn't class "forced to penetrate" as not rape for a reason, You pretentious, deluded little shit-stain.
I referenced how the crime against nature law was used in the past. I'd say you're reading comprehension needs work, but you're just a femitroll, so it doesn't matter.
It takes a real WOMAN to own up to the fact that this harassment of men is insidious and pervasive in the tech/geek communities. But the girls will just continue to try and explain why it is the men's problem, not theirs.
Yep. They just won't admit it, like so many things. See so much shit as a long time moderator of a dating site and getting roped into unpaid tech support. Chick brags about putting her ankles behind her head but bitches about a guy directly asking her about sex yet has multiple dick pic guys on a rotating booty call schedule. Offered me anal sex first time I spoke to her. Worst example, ignoring my personal abusers who were/are easily my vocal majority, but at least near a majority of chicks do shit like that at some point, usually on and off for at least a decade. Most reports of inappropriate messages I ever saw were from females that'd lost an argument they'd started and were just pissed about it. Sadly, it still counted against the guys.
NC requires victims have a vagina. I think sodomy used to fall under the obsolete "crime against nature" law though that was primarily for convicting homosexuals and was as likely to get a male victim convicted as his male attacker when actually enforced. Females using implements still didn't count as attackers of males under that one either, natch.
Damn. Second sentence should be "That's NOT respect"....and why's this taking more than 4 mins to let me post again? What happen to less that the better part of a minute?
"Respect" that's special treatment only of women by only men defined only by women. That's respect. That's chauvinistic-narcissism-based deference. I've yet to meet a single woman in my life that wasn't sure she deserved special treatment. Even the relatively nice (in the rare non-PC bullshit sense of the word) ones were myopic as hell and admittedly treated women differently even when going on about general "humanity". One stranger says "creep" and they're off trying to blacklist the guy with no details much less any reason to believe the accuser, and you can NEVER call them on this no matter how blatant and recursive the contradictions.
Religion is no "higher moral authority" and has an impressive track record in terms of justified atrocity. Combining it with government is even more of a clusterfuck which sanctimonious idiots like the AC, I was replying to, proudly ignore.
Families are mostly feudalistic, and faith based orgs are unsurprisingly cults with charismatic leaders fleecing flocks. What planet are you on?
How about oppression under religion? Divine right of kings sure made them and theirs "moral"...for circular sociopathic definitions of moral.
Odd, after exposure to geek culture, I concluded that people lost value to me "as people" at age 2, and that we had nothing meaningfully in common that didn't outright make us rivals. Conventions, specifically, make me wonder who the fuck are all those blatant extroverts who love shopping in swarms.
Yeah, it's always been a tradeoff personally. Rage in the gym, ornery out. Intervals or distance cardio just make me even more restless and hornier (yes, that's bad...) in addition to extra arthritis flareup and increased insomnia (since teens, so that's sadly not age...yet). The alternative is a weak, dazed (if more comfortable) zombie though, so even the dark side of slowly downward spiraling hypomania is still more useful this decade...
A year plus of eating oatmeal, cold cans of salmon, and water says you're full of shit about any form of taste recalibrations. BTW, that dressing and especially dip are probably unhealthy. Of course, most salads aren't actually healthy either. Might as well drink slightly chlorophyll dyed water and lay off the dressing/dip for all they're worth.
Someone's never heard of the Innocent Project and what they've proven where a proper chain of genetic evidence even allowed.
"Gender equality" as defined by "feminist theory" AKA an proudly unscientific, contradictory system of redefinitions and buzzwords meant for equivocation for when the special pleading just isn't enough, like how "male privilege" openly doesn't require males having any until that's exactly what's desired. "Patriarchy" is a system that favors males regardless of the genders of the leaders until policy explicitly favors females; then, it's still "patriarchy", now because of the genders of the leaders. If you wonder why any of us paying attention won't take your word for "equality", don't, but that's why "we need more feminism", right? Too much oldspeak, needs more crimestop.
Why wasn't this modded funny? That list clearly was ironic, right? Anyone actually believing that would be fucking creepy...
Who are veritably as genetically Hebrew as any Ashkenazi, so...
With the likes of Mickey Mouse verifiably consistently voting Dem, I don't think it matters. They'll just kart the homeless around a few more times on voting days with a few more fake papers.
If you can kill everyone behind him. Same thing as getting fire upon by cops. You got to kill all present and probably any that come later.
Religious psychosis is "normal" thus officially (in the shrink bible from both sides of the pond) not "mentally disordered", thus you're just "socially disordered" for not fitting into THEIR world.
Ontological argument is necessarily epistemologically based, duh. Of course, it's circular. Ontological argument inconsistent with scientific epistemology necessarily constitutes a rejection of science, which sanely raises derision. There's a reason cosmology's now under epistemology not "metaphysics" (reducing metaphysics to only ontology) because otherwise pretends asspulling's legitimate as any claim of fact. Solipsism for instance as an ontological claim constitutes a claim of fact, which should be a serious problem to anyone (not that a true solipsist would care...). Some form of pragmat(ic)ism is a necessity for any coherent argument, even with yourself. It's "epistemological" but necessarily defines the limits of coherent ontology too.
Materialism is based on physics. "Spiritual" leaders don't get passes for scientific ignorance, so calling out the appeal to false authority isn't fallacious ad hominem. You've got no case. "Aping Mankind" is just a religious-humanism-based appeal to consequences to handwave science for fear that humans aren't fucking magic, just animals. Tallis even states this as his prime motive.
How many eugenics programs were based on scientific rigor or even half-assed logic? When multiple genes contribute it's harder to remove "a" trait since it's an emergent property of multiple traits.
The Soviets never even tried killing all theists. They just somewhat haphazardly killed groups and individuals that were causing problems at the time. They ignored any that weren't a problem. It was about propaganda not remotely genes. Homosexuality might not even be genetic. Very early developmental issues seem to be involved, so you'd possibly have to change how our sexual dimorphism physically works to remove the possibility. Humans aren't special though. Genes still dominate our behavior.
Men ought to know that from nothing else but the brain come joys, delights, laughter and sports, and sorrows, griefs, despondency, and lamentations. And by this, in an especial manner, we acquire wisdom and knowledge, and see and hear, and know what are foul and what are fair, what are bad and what are good, what are sweet, and what unsavory; some we discriminate by habit, and some we perceive by their utility.
The man himself from ~400 BC
He won nothing. Pakistan still split off (as "Muslim India"), and Britain only left due to increasingly violent resistance, huge war debts and related internal issues, and too many military issues elsewhere due to the World Wars.