Andreas on April 27, 2012, 05:00:20 am
I believe I was the first to make the racist/sexist call in this instance, and I can't actually say I am sorry. I feel those were entirely factual, relevant evaluations of your arguments. A racist/sexist argument is one based on a racist/sexist fallacy. I did not, however, make an ad hominem attack, so I believe it was within the rules of engagement so to speak.

mellyrn on April 27, 2012, 06:21:12 am
Quote
The typical slut

As I said, liking sex makes one a monster.  Of one sort or another.

Quote
nor did unpleasant speculations and accusations about my personal sex life.

You started it.  It seems I am a mere female, a heartless, scheming slut, incapable of self-governance, who must be kept on a leash by a "good" person aka a man since it is not possible to "civilize" my kind.  Or did you think that all the posters here are male and that it's OK to talk adversely about people -- women -- behind their backs?  I'm telling you as much to your face as is possible in this format what I infer of you, you personally, from your own writing -- and not, please notice, from an ideology about any category in which you could be placed.  It's not random speculation and accusation.  I also don't think it qualifies as "ad hominem" when it functionally relates to the nature of the discourse.  Speculating adversely on, say, someone's mommy issues when discussing cosmology would likely be an ad hominem attack*; speculating on them when discussing child-rearing practices, however, would certainly be relevant.

Granted, I don't get points for restraint when no one can know all the stuff I'm thinking but am civilly not saying.  Heh.

Quote
And then, unsurprisingly, you proceed with a string of perjoratives. (emphasis added)

The only word (singular) that followed that could possibly be taken as pejorative was "misogynistic", but it's also accurate as well as relevant, and thus belongs in the discussion.  What's that about "heat" and "kitchens"?




*It would be an interesting cosmological discussion in which mommy issues were relevant . . . :)

sam on April 27, 2012, 02:07:38 pm
Quote
nor did unpleasant speculations and accusations about my personal sex life.

You started it.  It seems I am a mere female, a heartless, scheming slut, incapable of self-governance, who must be kept on a leash by a "good" person aka a man since it is not possible to "civilize" my kind.

Make up your mind.  If I am accusing women of being incapable of self governance, I cannot be accusing them of being heartless and scheming.  

Rather, I accuse them of being led by their pussies into bad places.

If women were heartless and scheming, they would marry nice guys, and would marry them at an early age, when their own sexual market value is at its highest, and then stick by them like glue as their own sexual market value declined with children and aging while that of the man they married rose.  Obviously, most of them don't, except in societies where their fathers coerce them to do what is rational and in their own best interest.

If women were making rational choices, they would marry an affluent nice guy when their own sexual market value is near its peak, which rather few of them do.

That woman are incapable of self governance is evident from the sexual choices that most of them make, which, unlike the choices traditionally made when woman's choices were narrowly limited by their parents, or completely ignored, tend to be foolish, frivolous, and self destructive.  Woman are attracted to power, cruelty, and violence.  They will bang the CEO, which superficially appears rational, but are twice as apt to bang him if he is already married with three children, and are four times as apt to bang a gay biker gang leader, a hundred times as apt to bang the guy who is famous for being famous, a thousand times as apt to bang the guy who is famous for mistreating women.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 02:11:45 pm by sam »

myrkul999 on April 27, 2012, 02:43:54 pm
They will bang the CEO, which superficially appears rational, but are twice as apt to bang him if he is already married with three children, and are four times as apt to bang a gay biker gang leader, a hundred times as apt to bang the guy who is famous for being famous, a thousand times as apt to bang the guy who is famous for mistreating women.

fun fact: Did you know that 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Seriously, though... listen to yourself. "four times as apt to bang a gay biker gang leader". Wut?

Not sure if trolling...

mellyrn on April 27, 2012, 04:35:20 pm
Quote
If I am accusing women of being incapable of self governance, I cannot be accusing them of being heartless and scheming. 

Rather, I accuse them of being led by their pussies into bad places.  (emphasis added)

And you can't come right out and say, "I am accusing you, mellyrn, of being led by your pussy"?  Maybe you think I'm only claiming to be female for some reason?

Wow.  Just, wow.

"It's been said, Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.  The reason for this, however, is not often appreciated:  refrain from engaging such a one not because the battle is unfair to him, but because it is unfair to you.  For in lacking the means to wage a meaningful battle, he also lacks the means to perceive when he has lost, making him an indefatigable, if inept, opponent."*

As there is apparently nothing potent enough to break through sam's impressive confirmation bias, I retire.  Carry on, sam, by all means, carry on.



*would love to give this correct attribution, but I don't know it


wdg3rd on April 27, 2012, 05:19:23 pm
*It would be an interesting cosmological discussion in which mommy issues were relevant . . . :)

There would have to be religion involved.  Obviously not a religion that claims a masculine deity with no navel.
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

sam on April 27, 2012, 08:50:54 pm
It seems I am a mere female, incapable of self-governance

Some guys pranked the girls in the mall by pretending one of their number was famous http://youtu.be/ES16IHsTQ9M.

Do your really think that any of the girls in this video should make decisions about their sex lives without paternal supervision.

sam on April 27, 2012, 09:04:46 pm
fun fact: Did you know that 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Seriously, though... listen to yourself. "four times as apt to bang a gay biker gang leader". Wut?

Well I have not observed a criminal gay gang leader interacting with girls, at least not that I know of, but I have observed criminals, gays, and gang leaders interacting with girls and it is strikingly obvious that that girls markedly prefer criminals, gays, and gang leaders, so I conjecture that a criminal gay gang leader would have to beat them off with a stick.  That is unkind conjecture, but that they prefer criminals, gays, and gang leaders is not. Being out of jail after seven years for manslaughter is an even bigger help in picking up chicks than a wedding ring.

If someone is in prison for rape, murder, and false imprisonment, he gets hot love letters from chicks he has never met.  Doubtless those chicks are from the crazy end of the spectrum, but the unmarried guy who lands the Foster's advertising account does not get hot love letters from chicks he has never met.

sam on April 27, 2012, 09:17:55 pm
And you can't come right out and say, "I am accusing you, mellyrn, of being led by your pussy"?  Maybe you think I'm only claiming to be female for some reason?

Obviously there is variation among females, just as there is among males, but, to judge by the prank video http://youtu.be/ES16IHsTQ9M, a fairly large proportion of the girls at the mall are mindlessly led by their pussies, and really should not be allowed unsupervised contact with males.

myrkul999 on April 27, 2012, 10:41:34 pm
"It's been said, Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.  The reason for this, however, is not often appreciated:  refrain from engaging such a one not because the battle is unfair to him, but because it is unfair to you.  For in lacking the means to wage a meaningful battle, he also lacks the means to perceive when he has lost, making him an indefatigable, if inept, opponent."*

I got nothing. The internet failed me on a quotes search. Excellent quote, but I don't know who said it, either.

If someone is in prison for rape, murder, and false imprisonment, he gets hot love letters from chicks he has never met.  Doubtless those chicks are from the crazy end of the spectrum, but the unmarried guy who lands the Foster's advertising account does not get hot love letters from chicks he has never met.

Again with the correlation/causation problem. Perhaps the difference is that the first man's name and address are a matter of public record, whereas the second man's info is private? If you put your face, name and phone number on a billboard, you'd get calls from all sorts of people, I guarantee.

While we're at it, let me break a few things down for you.

Women hang out with gay men because they are non-threatening.  Women do not "bang" gay men. That's what gay means. That is the literal definition of the word, that women do not have sex with them.

Secondly, not all bikers are criminals, not even all the biker "gangs". They're bikers. that means they ride motorcycles.

Finally, while not all women prefer criminals, those that do obviously seek the leader, because that is the best provider in the group. You can bet the White House mailroom gets some crazy letters. (Again... Name and address a matter of public record...)

Now. I've said my piece, and I doubt it will sink in. I don't have much hope it will, but It is in my character to at least try. Likewise, I doubt I will be motivated to reply to any of your postings in the future. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Andreas on April 28, 2012, 12:18:26 am
It seems Sam believes everything he sees on the Internet (selectively, too, obviously).
Talk about requiring parental supervision!

sam on April 28, 2012, 12:35:34 am
Secondly, not all bikers are criminals, not even all the biker "gangs". They're bikers. that means they ride motorcycles.

But it helps to pick up chicks if you are a biker who plausibly pretends to be a criminal.  Helps even more if you are a biker who firmly denies being a criminal, but has done seven years for manslaughter.

Finally, while not all women prefer criminals, those that do obviously seek the leader, because that is the best provider in the group.

If women went after the best provider in the group, then software engineers would be hot stuff, while powerful men with wives and numerous children would pick up far fewer chicks than they do.  Having a wife or girlfriend would be a handicap.  It is not.  It is more power.


myrkul999 on April 28, 2012, 05:02:36 am
You know, I had a whole response typed up, but I scrapped it, for one simple reason: It wasn't needed.

Any person armed for the aforementioned conflict doesn't need my help seeing the flaws in your logic.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2012, 05:04:11 am by myrkul999 »

Oneil on April 28, 2012, 08:09:51 am
I have to agree, was away since my last post and was set to counter the reply,,
However, this thread has gone beyond deserving a civil reply....


The Internet has a long, long memory. 
Someday your Daughter, Wife, or Mother might
ask what was meant when you posted that.


Corydon on April 28, 2012, 12:08:13 pm
What I love about sam's fantasies is how weirdly specific and fetishized they are.  Single mothers hooking up with gay bikers, forsooth!  It's impressive that he can manage the shift key on something that's so obviously typed one-handed.

 

anything