[QUOTE=Lankist;36883290]why are you critiquing feminism if
you don't make any goddamn sense.[/QUOTE]
Just because I'm criticizing something doesn't mean I oppose it. I criticize to make things better.
[editline]22nd July 2012[/editline]
I don't want feminism to go away, I want it to be equal for everyone.
[QUOTE=Simski;36883302]Just because I'm criticizing something doesn't mean I oppose it. I criticize to make things better.
[editline]22nd July 2012[/editline]
I don't want feminism to go away, I want it to be equal for everyone.[/QUOTE]
yeah you're making it better by [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1190566&p=36397064&viewfull=1#post36397064]denigrating "soccer moms"[/url], claiming that women are [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1190566&p=36380085&viewfull=1#post36380085]incapable of working a computer/game console[/url] and [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1190566&p=36339407&viewfull=1#post36339407]generally mocking feminist initiatives any time they enter the public eye.[/url]
Here's some fun tid bits from you!
On someone implying straight white males don't need help:
[quote][url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1190566&p=36330283&viewfull=1#post36330283]Why the fuck not? I want equal treatment, without any deviations. No over-representation of one gender, no special treatment, no discrimination is any less severe than the other. White males deserve equally good or equally bad treatment, because everyone no matter their skin color, gender or sexuality should be proud or ashamed of something they were born with. Things you can not control should not be held against you.[/url][/quote]
(i.e. FEMINISTS SHUT UP! White male power!)
On male objectification (and a picture of a cross-dressing man):
[quote][url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1190566&p=36330990&viewfull=1#post36330990]Oh please, both women and gay men would enjoy if men were objectified more.
Just not like that though, eww.[/url][/quote]
Not only does this reinforce the fact that you only give a fuck about "misandry" when you're using it to discredit feminists, but it's pretty fucking misogynistic and homophobic in its own right. You're A-Okay with the objectification of men up until the point where you can try to use it against a feminist.
[editline]22nd July 2012[/editline]
Yeah you sure do such great things in support of feminist causes, like denigrating women and on a regular basis and generally assailing/mocking feminists who ever have the audacity of talking about female issues.
Pal, before you paint yourself like a member of the fucking rainbow coalition, maybe you should try to remember that all the shit you've said before is still here. That's all from the last few pages of [I]one thread.[/I] I can keep going.
are we saying white males should be excluded from any form of affirmative action?
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36883486]are we saying white males should be excluded from any form of affirmative action?[/QUOTE]
We're saying they don't need it because there's nothing to indicate white males are now being or have ever been systematically discriminated against within government, business or society at large.
White males have absolute political, financial and social license. They comprise a vast majority of our government, so you'll excuse me if I'm skeptical that they're discriminating against themselves. I'm pretty sure white dudes have got themselves covered already. You sort of need to be a minority in the annals of power to qualify for discrimination.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36883429]yeah you're making it better by yadda yadda links[/quote]
I never thought of soccermoms as a sexist insult, and was really quite confused that it was considered such a big deal. It just feels like common knowledge that most people have overprotective parents that just don't understand games and gets all paranoid over the media. It was a simple joke that I thought was pretty harmless, turned out it wasn't.
I don't see how that post in any way said that women are incapable of working on games, I quite frequently advocated the thought of more female developers making games to even out the large number of male developers. Because I don't think it's a sane thought to think that every man understands women enough that they would be better than women to make games for women. That post was about how female gamers tend to not have the same interests in genres and platforms as male gamers, which is why some genres and platforms are less profitable for developers to have a female focus on. I never said "incapable", I said "less likely".
In the third post I did not mock female initiative, I mocked absurd and ineffective ways to deal with real issues.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36883429]
Here's some fun tid bits from you!
On someone implying straight white males don't need help:
(Strawman)[/quote]
Because I do not fucking understand why white men should be separated from the group. Even if discrimination of white males is less severe, I think it's hypocritical and wrong to think discrimination should ever be considered less of an issue because of someones skin color.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36883429]
On male objectification:
Not only does this reinforce the fact that you only give a fuck about "misandry" when you're using it to discredit feminists, but it's pretty fucking misogynistic and homophobic in its own right. You're A-Okay with the objectification of men up until the point where you can try to use it against a feminist.[/QUOTE]
Teh interwebs is srs bsns. It was a joke, get fucking over it.
[editline]22nd July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36883429]That's all from the last few pages of [I]one thread.[/I] I can keep going.[/QUOTE]
You could, from my experience you really do care more about attacking your opponents than actually doing something progressive.
I don't get the feeling that you're the kind of person that cares about feminism and equality, I get the feeling that you're just an extremely competitive person with a superiority complex.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36883498]We're saying they don't need it because there's nothing to indicate white males are now being or have ever been systematically discriminated against within government, business or society at large.
White males have absolute political, financial and social license. They comprise a vast majority of our government, so you'll excuse me if I'm skeptical that they're discriminating against themselves. I'm pretty sure white dudes have got themselves covered already. You sort of need to be a minority in the annals of power to qualify for discrimination.[/QUOTE]
what about the poor white males? i agree with you that, from a racial basis, whites are generally free from racially-based discrimination in the USA, as opposed to blacks, latinos, etc - ditto for males on gender basis. that said, i think it's a fallacy to limit the concept of affirmative action to race - the usa's legions of poor certainly number white males amongst them, and when you're born into the cycle of poverty your colour really doesn't mean jack shit. hence, i'd argue that primarily affirmative action should be advanced from a socio-economic standpoint, because if faced with a choice, i'd rather help was given to the poor white boy than the rich black man or white woman. i'm not ruling out race/gender based affirmative action, but i think that it /alone/ should certainly not be deployed. in fact, you can certainly argue against racially/gender based AA without being a sexist/racist - aside from the issue i highlighted above, racially/gender-based AA can often create a social stigma /against/ its proposed recipients which does more harm than good.
but i really do digress.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36883601]what about the poor white males? i agree with you that, from a racial basis, whites are generally free from racially-based discrimination in the USA, as opposed to blacks, latinos, etc - ditto for males on gender basis. that said, i think it's a fallacy to limit the concept of affirmative action to race - the usa's legions of poor certainly number white males amongst them, and when you're born into the cycle of poverty your colour really doesn't mean jack shit. hence, i'd argue that primarily affirmative action should be advanced from a socio-economic standpoint, because if faced with a choice, i'd rather help was given to the poor white boy than the rich black man or white woman. i'm not ruling out race/gender based affirmative action, but i think that it /alone/ should certainly not be deployed. in fact, you can certainly argue against racially/gender based AA without being a sexist/racist - aside from the issue i highlighted above, racially/gender-based AA can often create a social stigma /against/ its proposed recipients which does more harm than good.
but i really do digress.[/QUOTE]
poverty is different from racial issues, amigo.
social welfare applies to all races.
[editline]22nd July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Simski;36883552]Rant that doesn't respond to anything an particular.[/QUOTE]
It isn't a strawman if it's shit you actually said, buddy. A strawman is a stereotypical detraction. You actually said those things.
Do not pretend you give a shit about anyone but yourself. All of those demonstrate a complete lack of respect for anyone but [I]your[/I] particular side of things. Stop acting like you support feminism when all you do is denigrate it.
You've done nothing to exemplify an "everyone is equal" attitude, despite your insistence. All you've done is cried misandry any time someone so much as says you're privileged.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36883607]I AM A FUCKING JACKASS THAT IGNORES ENTIRE POSTS AND REWRITES QUOTES TO MAKE MYSELF LOOK BETTER[/QUOTE]
NO, FUCK YOU
Since you ignored fucking EVERYTHING to just nitpick about some fucking minor detail, I am going to ignore the rest of your fucking post and do nothing more than to repost my own quote which you do so fucking well at reinforcing
[quote=Simski]I don't get the feeling that you're the kind of person that cares about feminism and equality, I get the feeling that you're just an extremely competitive person with a superiority complex. [/quote]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Orkel))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Simski;36883552]I don't get the feeling that you're the kind of person that cares about feminism and equality, I get the feeling that you're just an extremely competitive person with a superiority complex.[/QUOTE]
step 1: accuse your opposition of making ad hominem, strawman attacks.
step 2: make ad hominem, strawman attacks.
case and point:
[QUOTE=Simski;36883637]
[quote]I AM A FUCKING JACKASS THAT IGNORES ENTIRE POSTS AND REWRITES QUOTES TO MAKE MYSELF LOOK BETTER[/quote]
NO, FUCK YOU
Since you ignored fucking EVERYTHING to just nitpick about some fucking minor detail, I am going to ignore the rest of your fucking post and do nothing more than to repost my own quote which you do so fucking well at reinforcing[/QUOTE]
Yeah okay, bye.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36883639]step 1: accuse your opposition of making ad hominem, strawman attacks.
step 2: make ad hominem, strawman attacks.
case and point:[/QUOTE]
No, you are the fucking king of personal attacks. You are the most hostile most rude and plain fucking EVIL person I have ever had the misfortune of talking to.
[quote=Simski]I don't get the feeling that you're the kind of person that cares about feminism and equality, I get the feeling that you're just an extremely competitive person with a superiority complex. [/quote]
[QUOTE=Simski;36883648]No, you are the fucking king of personal attacks. You are the most hostile most rude and plain fucking EVIL person I have ever had the misfortune of having an argument with.[/QUOTE]
I'm [I]evil?[/I]
How is that not a personal attack.
Please, do quote something I've said which stands up to your accusation that I am [I][B]EVIL.[/B][/I]
EDIT:
officially requesting my title be changed to "gay [highlight]EVIL[/highlight] mexican"
[QUOTE=Lankist;36883652]I'm [I]evil?[/I][/QUOTE]
You are extremely hostile and rude no matter how civil I try to to be. You constantly make terrible fucking misinterpretations, you put words in your opponents mouth, you ignore valid arguments, you mock your opponent, you have absolutely no sense of humor what so ever, you take things out of context, you throw around accusations, you absolutely fucking refuse to not treat your opponent like someone you hate. You are plain EVIL, and the worst person I have ever had the misfortune of trying to reason with.
[QUOTE=Simski;36883689]You are plain EVIL, and the worst person I have ever had the misfortune of trying to reason with.[/QUOTE]
Yeah okay.
This is "mass debate," which means if this is all you have left to contribute, this exchange is over.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36883699]Yeah okay.
This is "mass debate," which means if this is all you have left to contribute, this exchange is over.[/QUOTE]
I fucking tried to have a civil debate with you, and I mentioned countless times that I have a short temper when arguing especially when subject to hostility. I have fucking had it with trying to reason with you when my attempts at trying to keep things civil is constantly met with your fucking hostile nature. It's like trying to cuddle a porcupine.
[editline]22nd July 2012[/editline]
If you can't fucking stop changing your opponents posts to mock them, to throw around accusations of racism, homophobia, and misogyny over wrongful interpretations or mere jokes, to make dumb generalizations of other peoples quotes to make yourself seem smarter or make people say things that had nothing to do with their arguments so you can be a big man fighting your own strawmen, if you can't fucking stop referring to old statements out of context saying they have forever nullified the persons ability to be right about anything... There is absolutely no what so ever reason anyone should EVER consider a single post from you with any sort of credibility.
Why are you even getting angry at Lankist? He's so far up/down his own trench of opinions, that he'll never ever get anywhere. If you prove him wrong or make some kind of retort, he will just ignore it and maybe throw in a few insults here and there.
[QUOTE=Thaard;36883819]Why are you even getting angry at Lankist? He's so far up/down his own trench of opinions, that he'll never ever get anywhere. If you prove him wrong or make some kind of retort, he will just ignore it and maybe throw in a few insults here and there.[/QUOTE]
You're right... Damn, I've just lost control of myself right now. Heh, the Internet is basically the only place I ever let myself get angry these days :v:
Really, if it would turn out that Lankist wasn't actually serious about any of these things... I'd have to applaud him as mastermind of a troll.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36883167]Megafan has asked countless times and no one has answered:
Do any of you have any definite, empirical proof tying the cited statistics to the existence of institutional misandry?[/QUOTE]
If you'd like to address this, feel free.
Otherwise, you can also feel free to quote any personal attacks or insults that I have made in between bouts of calling me [highlight]EVIL[/highlight].
[QUOTE=Lankist;36883855]If you'd like to address this, feel free.[/QUOTE]
Why, so you could ignore them and call them a white homophobic sexist pig who supports child labour?
[QUOTE=Simski;36883928]Why, so you could ignore them and say that they're a white homophobic sexist pig who supports child labour?[/QUOTE]
No because you've spent ten posts calling me evil and absolutely zero of them presenting any kind of substantial evidence.
((FYI you have to provide evidence in this subforum))
Pony up or leave.
Why throw pearls at swine?
[QUOTE=Simski;36883942]Why throw pearls at swine?[/QUOTE]
Because you get banned here otherwise.
Did you read the rules before you started mouthing off?
There is no institutional misandry. If there was, it would be the first subject of every new report and a million new organizations aimed at preventing misandry would appear to stop it. Men control almost every aspect of the world. They wouldn't let misandry exist.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36883946]Because you get banned here otherwise.[/QUOTE]
Well I didn't see you doing that, why should I?
I came here for a casual discussion, and I was met with hostility and hypocrisy.
If you want me to get out unless I provide evidence, then I will be pleased to do so because honestly I don't want this to be any more than a casual debate. However (and you are a fucking jackass if you snip this part in the quote and only have the previous sentence out of context), you guys have not been treating it any less casual than anyone else. Therefor, I don't see why its important that I provide evidence when arguing against someone that doesn't have any evidence for their claims either. It helps, but it doesn't seem like a must.
[QUOTE=Simski;36884002]you guys have not been treating it any less casual than anyone else. Therefor, I don't see why its important that I provide evidence when arguing against someone that doesn't have any evidence for their claims either. It helps, but it doesn't seem like a must.[/QUOTE]
?????????????
[QUOTE=Lankist;36859859]On divorce and child custody:
Correlation does not imply causation. You cannot cite women getting custody at a much higher rate as evidence of misandry.
The statistics outside of the courts are not in favor of men.
In the US:
~25% of women are victims of domestic abuse at some point in their lifetimes. 85% of all abuse victims are women.
1 in 6 women in the US have been the victim of rape or attempted rape (compared to 1 in 33 men). Of those one in six, 40-45% of cases occur in a preexisting, abusive relationship (e.g. with a husband or boyfriend.)
~50% of domestic abuse cases against wives also entail physical abuse of children.
Homicides:
In 70-80% of all intimate partner homicides, the man had physically abused the woman prior to the homicide, [I]regardless[/I] of which one got killed.
~1/3 of all female homicides are perpetrated by an intimate partner.
Now, compare that to the MUCH lower marriage and divorce rates:
The national marriage rate is ~7 per-capita. The national divorce rate is ~3-4 per-capita.
[url]http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet%28National%29.pdf[/url]
[url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm/[/url]
If you're going to argue statistics for the existence of institutional misandry, you should probably recognize that the statistics also indicate that men are usually the party at fault in serious breakups. If you're going to argue statistics, then the statistics indicate that it's perfectly reasonable that women obtain child custody at a much higher rate than men considering men are usually the aggressors. Women are the victims far more frequently than men, and thus you can't go around saying it doesn't make sense that women win custody more frequently than men.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;36863540]Oh well golly gee look at this;
[URL="http://news.ufl.edu/2006/07/13/women-attackers/"]Woman more likely to be perpetrators of abuse as often as victims according to University of Florida study[/URL]
[B]Although women were the predominant abusers, they still made up the largest number of victims in both surveys, accounting for 70 percent of those being stalked, for example.[/B]
[URL="http://pubpages.unh.edu/%7Emas2/ID41E2.pdf"] [B]International[/B] study shows men more likely then women to be victims of abuse.[/URL]
[B]The results in the first part of this paper show that almost a third of the female as well as male students physically assaulted a dating partner in the 12 month study period, and that the most frequent pattern was mutuality in violence, i.e. both were violent, followed by “female-only” violence. Violence by only the male partner was the least frequent pattern according to both male and female participants.[/B]
[URL="http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/men-the-overlooked-victims-of-domestic-violence/"] Then look at this as well.[/URL]
[B]Everyone quotes the statistics given by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence: 1 in 4 women will be victims of domestic violence at some point in their lives, 1.3 million women are assaulted by their partner every year, 85% of domestic violence reported is against women. However, in a conflicting survey taken by the CDC in 2010, it was found that 40% of the victims of severe, physical domestic violence are men.[/B]
[B]
Men are largely silent on the issue because of the perception that men are physically stronger and should be able to subdue a female attacker easily. Those men who do report physical violence are more likely to be ridiculed–both by law enforcement and by the public–than women are.[/B]
[B]According to one study, 63% of males as opposed to 15% of females had a deadly weapon used against them in a fight with an intimate partner.[/B]
[B]
Men who suffer domestic violence can only receive help if they break the silence. Not reporting domestic violence because of the stigma attached is the main reason that men currently receive few services, and one of the reasons that studies on the issue are so few.[/B]
[I]Sources this website used:[/I]
[I]
Figure taken from MenWeb: CDC/DOJ Survey Men more often victims of intimate partner violence. [URL]http://www.batteredmen.com/NISVS.htm[/URL]
Philip Cook,”The Truth About Domestic Violence”. From the book Everything You Know is Wrong (Russ Kick, 2002). Published by The Disinformation Company.
Domestic Abuse Hotline for Men and Women. [URL]http://dahmw.org/[/URL][/I]
What does my post sum up? Men who are domestically abused never report it because they are afraid of what will happen to their image. They're afraid of being laughed at, [I]ridiculed[/I], losing their image of being 'strong'. Hence why studies usually only mention women victims and why there is few services for abused men. Because men don't admit to being abused or being victims. If they do try to stop themselves from being abused(self-defense which the women can cry out 'abuse!', or leave and call for a divorce(Which some people do to their divorced partners after a divorce actually, both genders.) it will only make things worse.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36863742]The first and third citations are news articles which make no direct reference to any study.
It's just "a new study says X."
That isn't proof for anything. I give no shits about what some po-dunk, rinky-dink blog has to say about a study it can't reference directly.
Here's some bits on the second source you fail to recognize:
"Student Sample. This study is based on a sample of university students rather than a sample of the general population, and it is a convenience sample rather than a probability sample of students. Therefore, the conclusions apply to this sample and it remains unknown whether they also apply more broadly."
Straus, who doesn't make the same kind of dumbass claims you're making with no foundation of reason, indicates that this study only applies to the specific sample group, and its implications on broader groups is indeterminate and shouldn't be assumed.
"Self-Defense. An important limitation of the study is that there is no direct evidence which contradicts the belief that PV by women is primarily an act of self-defense. However, self-defense is unlikely to apply to the roughly one quarter of cases where the only violence was perpetrated by the female partner."
TL;DR ~75% or more of all female-on-male domestic violence can possibly be attributed to self defense against an abusive male.
"Theoretical Implications. The results showing that mutual violence is the most prevalent form of partner violence in this sample and that Male-Only violence is the least prevalent form, and the results showing that dominance by either the male or the female partner, rather than just male dominance increases the probability of partner violence, call for a basic reorientation of the way partner violence is conceptualized..."
Note that he doesn't fucking say "MISANDRY EXISTS!"
He says that violence has a way of becoming mutual in violent relationships. He doesn't dispute that men are, by and large, the aggressors in domestic violence.
The interpretation of the results also contradicts itself multiple times, claiming non-mutual violence is rare and then immediately going on to expound on the idea of female-only violence as a large portion of domestic violence cases.
Did you read this study, like, at all? You do realize statistical studies are very rarely a solid foundation for theory, right?[/QUOTE]
sorry what was that about nobody else using evidence
We were doing pretty well until you showed up and started throwing the word "evil" around.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36884030]sorry what was that about nobody else using evidence[/QUOTE]
That wasn't YOU providing evidence. So if I should get banned for not providing any evidence, you should too, since we have both technically not provided any evidence personally. However people on both our sides have provided evidence, as you have shown with that post.
[QUOTE=Simski;36884048]That wasn't YOU providing evidence. So if I should get banned for not providing any evidence, you should too, since we have both technically not provided any evidence personally. However people on both our sides have provided evidence, as you have shown with that post.[/QUOTE]
oh my god really?
did you not read any of that? (no. You didn't read that entire block in two minutes.)
Right there at the fucking top of the post, broski.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36884057]oh my god really?
did you not read any of that? (no. You didn't read that entire block in two minutes.)
Right there at the fucking top of the post.[/QUOTE]
Touché, I skimmed it and saw the name of some other poster as the author.
I am going to try and take Thaard's advice now and just leave. I am horrible at leaving, since I am a very curious (and stubborn) person, however I will attempt it.
I however still hold firmly to my former statements about your actions as a debater, your hostility makes it very hard to think of you with any respect and you are not a pleasant person to have a serious discussion with. This forum would be a much better place if you would at least TRY to be nice, even if you disagree with someone.
[editline]22nd July 2012[/editline]
Eh, either way. I did post that video about how people react to women abusing men in public, compared to how they react when a man abuses a woman.
[editline]22nd July 2012[/editline]
I mean... I posted this earlier, and I was widely ignored. So I didn't take this as a dead serious forum where every post needed an answer.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks[/media]
Perhaps not proof of the former statement, which was not my claim... however I think the general attitude of the women questioned here proves well that it's a problem, even though it doesn't prove quite how widespread it might be.
how many times are you going to say you're leaving before you actually leave?
None of that is empirical evidence to answer Megafan's question:
[QUOTE=Megafan;36863142]So we get back to the question I asked: is there any proof that the men did not win custody because of misandry?[/QUOTE]
FYI before you pimped on in and started calling me evil, we were talking about child custody cases, so you aren't proving jack shit right now.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36884192]how many times are you going to say you're leaving before you actually leave?[/QUOTE]
Like I said earlier, I have issues leaving because when I leave... I'm still curious what's going on, and I'm a stubborn jackass and feel compelled to answer most things directed at me.
With you threating that I might get banned, I feel even more compelled to stay around and explain myself. So yeah, you effectively found a way to force me to keep hanging out with you.
We'll be best friends forever in no time.
[editline]22nd July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36884192]FYI before you pimped on in and started calling me evil, we were talking about child custody cases, so you aren't proving jack shit right now.[/QUOTE]
I was still keeping the subject of the thread, just not the subject you were talking about.
[editline]22nd July 2012[/editline]
I called you evil because you ignoring my entire post that answered everything you said to nitpick on a small insignificant detail sent me off the edge, it was the straw that broke the camel's back.
[editline]22nd July 2012[/editline]
I came here for a casual debate, and the only things I have argued as a fact is the existence of misandry as a problem which I feel the video showed. I did not post anything more serious because I did not intend or even want to get as involved as I did, but I do not react well when met with a hostile attitude.
[editline]22nd July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36883938]No because you've spent ten posts calling me evil and absolutely zero of them presenting any kind of substantial evidence.
((FYI you have to provide evidence in this subforum))
Pony up or leave.[/QUOTE]
Alright, I'll post it now simply so I can feel a bit more safe leaving. I didn't think you were actually serious, because it feels like a rather off topic thing to debate.
Here are a few posts of you acting hostile, intentionally misinterpreting posts, and calling names
[QUOTE=Lankist;36882342]Also, haha, isn't that precisely what you do every single time someone mentions feminism?
shit, aren't you the guy who said jeffrey dahmer was romantic?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36883429](i.e. FEMINISTS SHUT UP! White male power!)[/quote]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36883429]Yeah you sure do such great things in support of feminist causes, like denigrating women and on a regular basis and generally assailing/mocking feminists who ever have the audacity of talking about female issues.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36883607]Do not pretend you give a shit about anyone but yourself. All of those demonstrate a complete lack of respect for anyone but [I]your[/I] particular side of things. Stop acting like you support feminism when all you do is denigrate it.[/QUOTE]
[editline]22nd July 2012[/editline]
I also don't understand how you could think that joke I made about the crossdressing man was meant in any way as homophobic. It was a joke. I'm bisexual, I fuck men. I was not seriously implying that men should really be objectified more. I am not a tight arse prude, I sometimes say things I am not serious about as jokes.
[QUOTE=Simski;36883928]Why, so you could ignore them and call them a white homophobic sexist pig who supports child labour?[/QUOTE]
No, because I asked for evidence of an assertion. If you check the rules I believe you'll find that it's required when challenged.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.