Gibberish of the day!

[JonSetanta]

J_E, religionfags operate by "faith" to the core. There's no logic to be had; you can't perceive their motives in rational, sane terms.
It's also known as emotional appeal, as we know, but also Because I Said So.

The laziest strategy is to call in the Because My God(s) Said So, since who can challenge the unseen and untouchable? It's the perfect social offense and defense.

The cliches are practiced and evolve to the form we know today; the ineffective ones fell out of favor long ago, and the effective ones are refined to razor-sharp verbal precision.
Bible-thumping is merely 2000 years of pulling random discourse-ending lines from a collection. They've made an art of it. No atheist could ever hope to win... on those terms.

And that's why it's best to not engage religionfags on their social territory. It's a 'fight' no sane, rational person can win.

---

On another note, here's language that might sound like gibberish but actually has roots in almost every spoken language in the civilized world(s).

http://spokensanskrit.de

For instance, type "wolf" and translate.
You'll notice that the word is strikingly similar to eastern european words for wolf, which directly affected our own language for both "vampire" and "werewolf".
vrka (Sanskrit) -> varka (Iran/Persian) -> vrykolakas (Greek) -> vampire

[tzor]

They're trying to take over our history with this whole "America was founded on Christianity" bullshit.

And actually, since people used Biblical passages to justify slavery, we should tell Rep. King that slavery is part of our Christian heritage.

The argument is often hand waved nonsense, but has a kernel of truth. One could argue that "American was founded on Judea/Christian ethics," even the great agnostics of the time, (Jefferson) was fond of using them, even if they didn't believe in the religion stuff. (All that "inalienable right" stuff, for example.)

You can make an argument for "slavery" but you cannot make an argument for American colonial racial based slavery. Slaves under the old testament were significantly limited in terms of length of servitude and even slavery in Roman times had options to end that servitude. Shortly before Columbus even found the "New World" the question of racial slavery was written in a Papal Bull in regards to the enslavement of the natives of the Canary Islands and it was considered abominable.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I like your new avatar. Did you manage to teabag Obama?

[Crissa]

So, tzor, do you actually make enough money to be taxed more via any of the plans Obama has put before congress?

-Crissa

[mean_liar]

These damn Muslin terrorists are... doing something. Spending money, I think. DAMN THEM.

[Maj]

[Crissa]

Pandagon and Salon[/url])]When women get scare men want them more but I think if men were irrelevant to the functioning of the society women would lose interest altogether. It is not at all clear that a male body is intrinsically compellingly interesting to women simply because it is a male body (and mind).

Uhh... Say what?

So anyhow, Parthenogenesis is now humanly possible, so the MRAs are all out in arms that women will kill them all off for their inborn poor social skills which come with being a man.

-Crissa

[Meikle641]

That article is full of shit. I'm surprised his eyes aren't brown.

[CatharzGodfoot]

The synthesizing sperm thing is cool. The MRA article is an amazing bastion of trolls on all sides of the issues.

But seriously, why do people bother quoting the LCD of the web when they're attempting to write news?

Real stoners would think "more weed for me". [EDITED]

LET'S SEE SOME MUTHAFUCKIN FIREWORKS!!!
BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

Gadget porn was here yesterday, and here it is again...

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERAPERAPERAPERAP
ERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAP
ERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAP
ERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPE

Bitch, we don't ruin lives for no reason, we do eet for teh lulz.

They got crank day soulja boy, crank dat superman, crank dat spongebob, crank dat calvery kid, crank dat spiderman... Howabout soulja boy does CRANK DAT HEAD OFF?

This is not news!

[Meikle641]

Well yeah, the MRA article is a total strawman, trolling attempting, etc. Fuck him.

[CatharzGodfoot]

For the most part I think that the OP has the MRA's number. Remember that MRA is purely reactionary; somebody who was actually really concerned about fairness would be a human rights activist, not a men's rights activist.

[Meikle641]

Then guess that means the feminists should change their name, too? Same deal.

The point is that there are a lot of cases where men are getting a shit deal, and it's somehow taboo to dare to say that there may be a need for a men's rights group.

Let's have some examples:

1) Demestic Abuse: The numbers for abuse is nearly equal for each gender, but men are far less likely to report it or believed if they do. And if one does report it the man is typically the one taken away in cuffs or told to leave.

Oh, and while men typically do tend to be more physical, women are more likely to kill their spouse in domestic violence, due to weapon use.

2) The supposed glass ceiling on wages is a crock. If women want their wage average to go up they need to get into the same shit jobs men do. In my experience in the workplace, very few women are willing to do hard, physical labour, work overtime, etc.

Oh, and while men do make more on average, something like 98% of workplace deaths are male.

But again, saying this labels you a crazy sexist pig.

3) Ah fuck it, there's a ton of shit like this, and if I really need to I'll hunt down some links again. The point is that there honestly is just as much of a need for a Men's Rights Association as there is a Women's.

But what do I know?

[CatharzGodfoot]

Then guess that means the feminists should change their name, too? Same deal.

The point is that there are a lot of cases where men are getting a shit deal, and it's somehow taboo to dare to say that there may be a need for a men's rights group.

Let's have some examples:

1) Demestic Abuse: The numbers for abuse is nearly equal for each gender, but men are far less likely to report it or believed if they do. And if one does report it the man is typically the one taken away in cuffs or told to leave.

Oh, and while men typically do tend to be more physical, women are more likely to kill their spouse in domestic violence, due to weapon use.

2) The supposed glass ceiling on wages is a crock. If women want their wage average to go up they need to get into the same shit jobs men do. In my experience in the workplace, very few women are willing to do hard, physical labour, work overtime, etc.

Oh, and while men do make more on average, something like 98% of workplace deaths are male.

But again, saying this labels you a crazy sexist pig.

3) Ah fuck it, there's a ton of shit like this, and if I really need to I'll hunt down some links again. The point is that there honestly is just as much of a need for a Men's Rights Association as there is a Women's.

But what do I know?

If the MRA really was concerned about equality, they would be feminists. The label "feminism" has been tarnished by the accusations of those who misunderstand it or fear gender equality, and to a much much lesser extent by "feminists" why don't actually follows it's ideals--much like Christianity has been tarnished anti-abortion terrorists, except even anti-male nuts don't tend to go around killing people. Feminism isn't the most appropriate label, but you have to work with what you've got.

As far as the wage gap, you might find this eye-opening.

[IGTN]

Then guess that means the feminists should change their name, too? Same deal.

You're equating two things that aren't the same. Women are actually worse off in many ways than men are. Not that men don't have problems, or even unique problems, or that some men are worse off than some women, but women have it worse overall.

Also, most of the people who actually work to get rid of these differences are, guess what, feminists. Women don't work in certain dangerous male-dominated fields because when they do so they are harassed and threatened (same event, different details: the only two female firefighters at a station were subjected to death threats). Get rid of that environment, and you'll see more women going into those occupations. The people trying to get more women into these jobs aren't MRAs, they're feminists.

Also, claiming the wage gap is due to men taking dangerous scut work is disingenuous. Currently there are a total of 10 women Fortune 500 CEOs. Fortune 500 CEO was, last I checked, not an occupation with a high rate of workplace death or much hard physical labor. Men make up 98% of the workforce in that job, and a bit less than 50% of the general population. The glass ceiling totally exists.

[Meikle641]

I find the article questionable given how the statistics are usually shifted around. Then again, it could be true.

I'd be interested in seeing the full stats on the industries their female samples were in. Typically women seem to work in different industries then men, ones that often have less physical strain or risk of death. Usually these shitty and/or dangerous jobs pay more than white collar jobs, as shocking as that may sound. The average tradesman makes more than a whitecollar worker in many cases.

So yeah, I'm still standing by my statement here. Once more women go to typically male industries the gap will decrease, same with more men living as at-home parents or doing service/white collar jobs.


As for the labels...Fuck that noise. Equality isn't for feminists only. Want it to be really equal? Give it a fucking gender-neutral name then, such as Human Rights, as you said before.

I'm all for equality, but it has to be both ways. And frankly, discrimination in the past doesn't justify discrimination in the future. Tell that to some of the more radical feminists and lawmakers, then we'll talk.

How about that the suicide rates for adolescent boys and elderly men is a decent amount higher than women? That abuse lines only cater to women? That marriage counseling frequently forces men to act as the bad guy, even if this is false?

Or how about that prostate cancer gets like, maybe half as much funding as breast cancer, despite having a very similar death rate?

Or there's the custody bullshit. Or the abuse of restraining orders, which often are auto-accepted in the case of the ladies.

Whatever. There are a lot of issues on this, and the fact is that men do need some representation on this. Would it be awesome if it wasn't needed? Fucking right it would be, but to simply dismiss it is plain sexist.



On a related note, this was a neat podcast. The guest speaker was a 3 time head of some feminist group before his opinions changed after witnessing the change in the movement.

http://pendulumeffect.libsyn.com/index. ... _id=423368


EDIT: Hmm, your link does mention a suppossed gap in identical professions, but I'm not too sure on that. But then, I only have anecdotes rather than hard data.

[Crissa]

Get out of the fucking thread, MRA. Ancedotes ≠ data.

Feminism is defined that women are equal to men. Full stop. Out in the real world, they are not. They are encouraged to be pretty, look for a husband, be bad at math and have to find out their paycheck is lower than an equivalent male employee within 180 days of the difference - you know, instead of 180 days of finding out there's a difference.

WTF, man? I didn't make a thread so you could make shit up.

-Crissa

[Meikle641]

Now, I don't have numbers for *all* of them, but my last link did discuss many of my points.

Also, here's some more links.

http://www.batteredmen.com/gjdvdata.htm Domestic Violence numbers vs Men

http://www.batteredmen.com/cyoungdv.htm Unequal treatment in Domestic Violations. Doesn't have the citations of the above, but I'm sure the supposedly female author would be willing to provide.

I'm not surprised you call me a liar, but whatever. And hey, moar anecdotes:

Neither I nor anyone my family knows has seen wages unfairly affected by gender. None. But yeah, it's not cold hard facts. But get enough anecdotes and it becomes something of a sample.

[Cynic]

sigma: I hate the online Devanagiri fonts and usage because they never do it right.

There are two diacritics in sanskrit and many of the indus valley languages and subsequent follow-ups such as hindi, gujarati, punjabi, Urdu, Bihari, etc..

I dont know about the Indo-Iranian languages because I really aven't looked at them. This follows for the Dravidian familiy as well actually as well as a tangent even though it is a completely different language tree.

But the diacritic is treated as one.

Language log had a very good article on this a while back. Let me see if I can find this to explain it better as I am never able to do a very good job.

But in the mean time what I really am pointing at is the little loop thing that goes over the straight line. The intended usage is that there is a there is one to the left and one that goes to the right. But the devanagiri fonts on the web and one the computer only go to the left. It's like our D&D spelunking, when in doubt, always go to the left. :-D.
^_~
---

[Koumei]

but I'm sure the supposedly female author would be willing to provide.

Don't be stupid, there are no girls on the Internet.

Wait, fuck.

[CatharzGodfoot]

but I'm sure the supposedly female author would be willing to provide.

Don't be stupid, there are no girls on the Internet.

Wait, fuck.

Didn't we already establish that you were really a secret front for Heinz Fischer or something?

[JonSetanta]

Cynic: It's better than nothing. I've been 'corrupting' the words in to vaguely plausible forms for use in fiction anyway; the setting is over 100,000 years in the future...

Thank you for informing me though. I know English, Spanish, and German, but Hindi & friends are completely... alien.

[mean_liar]

Feminism is defined that women are equal to men. Full stop. Out in the real world, they are not.

Most notably because they have and raise children.

Women are bearing the brunt of the familial work. I've always felt, rightly or wrongly, that it's not women that are discriminated against so much as families themselves are discriminated against. There's limited-to-no support in America for child care, regardless of who provides it. The fact that women do it is a self-perpetuating financial reality: if I stopped working to take care of my son, none of my friends would care but our bank accounts would scream in terror.

[Judging__Eagle]

Pandagon and Salon[/url])]When women get scare men want them more but I think if men were irrelevant to the functioning of the society women would lose interest altogether. It is not at all clear that a male body is intrinsically compellingly interesting to women simply because it is a male body (and mind).

Uhh... Say what?

So anyhow, Parthenogenesis is now humanly possible, so the MRAs are all out in arms that women will kill them all off for their inborn poor social skills which come with being a man.

-Crissa

People are retarded.

If anything this is better for the survival of human males in the long run than anything else possible.

Given enough time human males will stop being able to exist due to fuckups in our genes, foreign substances poisoning our bodies and genetics and the like.

This "fake sperm" thing seriously means that no matter what, we can still make guys, even if we fail at everything and males die out naturally, we can still bring them back artificially.

People being scared about this are morons. Mostly b/c they didn't realize that there was a bigger problem, that this event actually now solves.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Eh, if they can make synthetic sperm, then they can make more men.

which means men can all fulfill their duty without having to worry about supporting offspring: Doing something suicidal and/or awesome in order to benefit the species as a whole.

Men are meant to be an expendable resource. Either we die young or we accomplish something awesome. That's what we do. And if we fail in large numbers, you only need one male to impregnate many females and the population comes back.

Doesn't bother me, that only cements my goals of becoming an adventurer scientist. If I succeed it'll be awesome, if I fail no big loss. It's not like women find my genetic code particularly desirable, might as well find some other way to benefit the species.

[Meikle641]

That's pretty much my view on it. I don't feel particularly threatened by it since I don't plan to reproduce anyhow.

Besides, it *is* a handy backup plan in event of mass population death.