The Gaming Den

Kaelik wrote:

name_here wrote:

Stahlseele wrote:http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/scie ... es-on-men/
reading the article, i am bracing for impact from feminist screeches of outrage over this.

Were you always a crazy misogynist and I just never noticed, or is this new?

Yeah it is confusing.

Thirded. What the fuck, stahlseele? But also... what the fuck, stahlseele? Even in the context of stupid shit people believe about feminism, how is "they would hate men's genital transplantation*" one of them?

*Transplantation definitely isn't the correct term here. What is the medical term for "growing a new penis (or whatever) in a vat from the patient's cells and then attaching it to them?"

"Phalloplasty from laboratory-grown tissue."

Most feminists seem to like penises just fine, they just don't like random guys sending them pictures of their penises. Occasional penis, not penis all day and all night...

Maybe Stahlsteele believes this is merely the first step to walking, talking, sapient penii that waddle around on their testes and pop up where you least expect them, keen on doing so to women.

It is called an "autograft." So if a woman says "can I have your autograft?" that's a good sign.

-Username17

Ancient History wrote:Why? Feminism isn't anti-men, it's pro-women.

That depends on where you live I guess. People here don't want to be called feminists because it often is associated with being anti-men here.

What backwards hellhole are you from, Iowa?

Ancient History wrote:What backwards hellhole are you from, Iowa?

Don't get me started on Iowa right now, I'm angry that a teabagger is running for Senate... and seems to be ahead in the polls. I guess that's what they mean by Idiots Out Walking Around.

(Beats Virginia though, where even the Democrats are teabaggers... Or does this belong in the political thread?)

Ancient History wrote:What backwards hellhole are you from, Iowa?

Zing!

That's actually a frighteningly huge thing with conservatives. Conservatives never actually conceded that equality for women was a legitimate cause. They 180'd from "these uppity women need to get back in the kitchen" to "feminists won, equality achieved, why are they still talking? Because they hate men." There was never a time inbetween when they acknowledged and embraced equality, they just shifted from trying to kill feminism with moral condemnations of egalitarianism (yes, really) to trying to kill it by declaring its victory and painting the remaining feminists as extremists.

I love it when people force the entire universe into two groups: their own faction, and the grotesquely evil faction that everyone who doesn't agree with them swears allegiance to.

Occluded Sun wrote:I love it when people force the entire universe into two groups: their own faction, and the grotesquely evil faction that everyone who doesn't agree with them swears allegiance to.

Occluded Sun wrote:If people really wanted to stop rape, they wouldn't be trying to change how men behaved. They'd be trying to change how women behaved.

why did I think taking you off ignore was a good idea

Occluded Sun wrote:I love it when people force the entire universe into two groups: their own faction, and the grotesquely evil faction that everyone who doesn't agree with them swears allegiance to.

Personally, I love how fucking dumb you are. Without fail. Everytime you post. Seriously, let's walk through this real slow: I made a statement about the modern conservative movement, and your immediate response was that criticizing conservatives is nothing but petty us vs them tribalism and demonization.

Hint: the only way to reach the conclusion that attacking conservatism is dividing the world into two factions for the purposes of demonizing all those who disagree with you is if you begin from the premise that conservatism is one of the only two factions in existence. If there exists three or more factions of which conservatism is only one, then it is very clearly the case that criticizing conservatism is not at all a sufficient benchmark for the criticism you have levied against me.

Which leaves us with one of the following possibilities:
1) You are a petty tribalist attempting to gain the moral highground by claiming you are above petty tribalism in an effort to protect your tribe from criticism from "the other tribe" (i.e. all those people who aren't conservatives).
2) You are a boring and pretentious fuckwit who wants to argue semantics about "what does conservative really mean, anyway?" Simple: it means the people who identify as conservative and support causes that identify as conservative and elect politicians who identify as conservative. It's a label people voluntarly apply to themselves, and the argument you are trying to have is obnoxiously useless. Conservatives are real people you can touch and poke and evaluate.
3) You do not believe it is fair to criticize the modern conservative moment for the things it says, advocates, and does at basically every level of its existence. In which case, fuck you are dumb.

Given the fact that you are a "libertarian" who constantly uses bullshit pseudo-evolutionary arguments to justify social conservative positions (like women being to blame for their own rape), it is actually the first. You are a petty tribalist protecting your side from criticism, and the reason you think this is blues vs reds bullshit is because you cannot imagine those who disagree with you have enough nuances among them that they could be anymore than one faction.

Kind of funny how that works out, isn't it?

Sam wrote:

Occluded Sun wrote:I love it when people force the entire universe into two groups: their own faction, and the grotesquely evil faction that everyone who doesn't agree with them swears allegiance to.

Occluded Sun wrote:If people really wanted to stop rape, they wouldn't be trying to change how men behaved. They'd be trying to change how women behaved.

why did I think taking you off ignore was a good idea

Because your ideas are bad and you should feel bad...

name_here wrote:

Stahlseele wrote:http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/scie ... es-on-men/
reading the article, i am bracing for impact from feminist screeches of outrage over this.

Were you always a crazy misogynist and I just never noticed, or is this new?

In Stahlseele's defense: Last month there was a feminist outcry against an imaginary rape-preventing nail polish. SJW internet outrage is pretty arbitrary.

Dean wrote:

name_here wrote:

Stahlseele wrote:http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/scie ... es-on-men/
reading the article, i am bracing for impact from feminist screeches of outrage over this.

Were you always a crazy misogynist and I just never noticed, or is this new?

In Stahlseele's defense: Last month there was a feminist outcry against an imaginary rape-preventing nail polish. SJW internet outrage is pretty arbitrary.

Literally the only things I read about that were "you know what would be better than equipping women to test their drinks for drugs? If women didn't have to worry about being raped," "drugs other than alcohol are involved in a startingly small number of rapes and this is little better than a placebo," and "they don't actually work."

Criticizing a "rape-preventing nail polish" that will prevent (let's be realistic) zero rapes while offering a false sense of security and progress is exactly what a reasonable and ethical person would do. It's the same reason faith healers are murderers; selling a solution that isn't actually a solution hurts real people.

There's also the problem that as soon as that exists, every time a woman is raped the immediate response will be "Why weren't you wearing the special nail polish?" Even in cases where roofies weren't used.

Ancient History wrote:What backwards hellhole are you from, Iowa?

No I'm not. I don't know anything about Iowa in fact.

DSMatticus wrote:Literally the only things I read about that were "you know what would be better than equipping women to test their drinks for drugs? If women didn't have to worry about being raped," "drugs other than alcohol are involved in a startingly small number of rapes and this is little better than a placebo," and "they don't actually work."

I believe your first argument is a paraphrasing of an article which got around a lot during that uproar. It was titled "Is it easier to invent an anti-rape drug than to stop rape?" and that's probably the least valid way to make an argument. The answer to that question is yes but that question is also retarded.

"You know what would be better than fighting corporate tax dodges? Getting rid of greed".
"You know what would be better than these diplomatic efforts? Getting rid of war"

It's only a gotcha if you possess the naivete of a homeschooled hippie kid and it can be applied to literally anything. It is a non-argument on such a level that saying it at all implies dishonesty or ignorance and you are definitely smart enough to see that. Secondly date rape drugs are found in approximately 2% of rapes which is about 4000 a year which is not an inconsequential amount. Your third statement is correct, the drug definitely doesn't work because it's fictional and it doesn't exist but the SJW's thought it did so that last one's moot.

If that drug did exist and it did stop even one out of 50 drug assisted rapes it would still be preventing thousands and thousands of actual rapes. There is no logical reason to fight against a rape preventing device. It is especially absurd to do so on the platform that something which people could use or not use of their own free will which could stop some actual rapes should be fought against unless no rape exists anywhere.

Koumei wrote:There's also the problem that as soon as that exists, every time a woman is raped the immediate response will be "Why weren't you wearing the special nail polish?" Even in cases where roofies weren't used.

That was a common statement and it is wrong in two ways. The first is that if ignorant people are saying ignorant shit and there are less rapes then we are winning. If rape goes down and ignorant people saying ignorant shit stays at the same 100% rate as ever then I don't give a shit about that. The second reason that complaint is absurd is that the idea that an anti-rape product would cause more victim blaming is based on literally no evidence whatsoever. As time has moved forward multiple products have been made for the purpose of women's safety, from rape whistles to pocket mace, and these things have not been met with increasing victim blaming over time. If anything victim blaming has become less common over time and products in common culture making people aware that women are regularly in danger are undoubtedly a piece of that. So the accusation that a new anti-rape product would lead to increased victim blaming is not only completely baseless. it is also historically invalid.

All of the memes of that last bout of SJW outrage were just statements. They aren't arguments they are just baseless illogical statements and they are about a product that no one even took the time to find out was fictional.

Dean wrote:If that drug did exist and it did stop even one out of 50 drug assisted rapes it would still be preventing thousands and thousands of actual rapes. There is no logical reason to fight against a rape preventing device.

Or you know, if that existed, the tremendously low success rate would not prevent many rapes, but the increased feelings of safety would cause people to recklessly drink shit their really ineffective nail polish told them was safe, and it would actually increase the number of date rapes.

Kaelik wrote:

Dean wrote:If that drug did exist and it did stop even one out of 50 drug assisted rapes it would still be preventing thousands and thousands of actual rapes. There is no logical reason to fight against a rape preventing device.

Or you know, if that existed, the tremendously low success rate would not prevent many rapes, but the increased feelings of safety would cause people to recklessly drink shit their really ineffective nail polish told them was safe, and it would actually increase the number of date rapes.

I didn't mean the polish would only work 1 out of 50 times. I meant that if it was functional and only had a small impact on the number of rapes overall then that's still a positive even if it's only a reduction of 1 in 50. I don't know how most druggings and rapings go and I don't know how often they occur in drink form. I know very little about the mechanics of date raping someone so I don't know what percentage of the time a drugged drink detector would even be relevant. But even if the impact of the polish was to only reduce drug-assisted rape by 1 rape out of every 50 it would still be responsible for preventing thousands of women from being raped over my lifetime.

Ha! It's like when someone reports a bomb to the police only it's not a real bomb and people get upset and the police are everywhere and shit gets cancelled? How stupid are all those people not even taking the time to find out it was fictional before going off like that.

And the police? Ha! So called criminal investigation of things that aren't even real. Talk about stupid. Just baseless and illogical reactionary control freaks. Typical.

I mean, if the bomb did exist, calling it in would be a good thing! Fuck, what is wrong with people.

Occluded Sun wrote:I love it when people force the entire universe into two groups: their own faction, and the grotesquely evil faction that everyone who doesn't agree with them swears allegiance to.

No, you pretty much fall into your own group. I really can't lump you in with any currently existing group. Congratulations, I guess.

Kaelik wrote:Or you know, if that existed, the tremendously low success rate would not prevent many rapes, but the increased feelings of safety would cause people to recklessly drink shit their really ineffective nail polish told them was safe, and it would actually increase the number of date rapes.

Wow, sanity and reason applied to an emotionally-charged issue. That certainly wasn't expected.

...You Lost Me wrote:News about spiders

Now I can't sleep. Thanks.