So you are saying that Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, and Mahatma Gandhi were all pussies because they advocated societal change without unnecessary bloodshed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#MK.2C_the_SACP.2C_and_African_tour:_1961.E2.80.931962

lol you nearly slipped that one by me. you are so wrong about everything. you should gouge out your eyes and improve your vision, and maybe if you were castrated you might finally grow a pair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#Compensation

Do you agree with that, out of curiosity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi#Women

Did I say you should support it? No. But you should damn well respect righteous fury when you see it.

I'm sure we all have some reason or another for some righteous fury. We're all oppressed one way or another, but if we have everyone trying to act on their "righteous fury" the whole world would burn. Or maybe that's what you're aiming for? ;P

And fuck it, maybe they should turn the tables, get themselves on top for a while and make you powerless, see how you like it.

...because I obviously should suffer for something my forefathers MAY have done, obviously. You wanna talk about second class citizens? Try being a German with a funny accent in a hick-ass American town for a few years.

What were you saying? A few guys lost some money in divorces?

No, I'm saying a precedence has been set for injustice and inequality before the law that's the equivalent of taking one step forward and three back. I'm saying that the current generation of American and European women who complain about oppression have NO CLUE what real oppression is, because they don't live in the Middle East, where you can be imprisoned for driving a car or wearing jeans.

The radical feminist movement is largely comprised of opportunistic middle class career women who don't wanna kiss corporate ass to get to the top.

Punishing the current generation for the crimes of the last generation breeds contempt in the next generation. It's a vicious cycle and your suggestion for the way things should be done is a great way to keep it fueled.

I don't know. You're the one posting in drag. But it's like a turkey voting for christmas, it's incongruous.

Alright. If it doesn't fit into your world view that me or Karen could possibly be women, you don't have to believe it. We're both just turkeys voting for Christmas, not aware how much we are being oppressed by society. Please keep on telling that we must be men in drag and that only if we were women, you could believe us.

Please give me the video and time where she says that men are raped as often as women. I would really love to see that.

A quick search gives me 4 videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot-54S2ZE1k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0edkrT1nMZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx4hx_3JfcY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXVpalqXdIk

There she advertises a radio show that she holds with a couple of other women. They talk about rape and how men are being discriminated against by society. This becomes clear from the four quick clips already (maybe the radio shows themselves could be found somewhere too, I don't know).

Here you have the statistics, by the US Center for Disease Control (starting at 5min):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt1ZFZrbDJw

Men are being raped as often as women. What's also interesting in this clip is that it shows how the UK law doesn't even recognize such thing as a rape by a woman. The legal text literally states that a person commits rape if he penetrates the vagina with his penis. How could a rape by a woman even be properly taken into statistics in the UK?

I just wanted to hear you say it explicitly.

Let me guess ... you're a big fan of Ayn Rand? And Ron Paul too? Have you exchanged your savings account into bitcoin?

As a matter of fact, I'm neither an Ayn Rand nor a Ron Paul supporter, neither have I ever owned bitcoins. But certainly male genital mutilation is not a problem if Ron Paul says it is. It's the wrong person saying it again, isn't it? Your message came across. If Paul were a woman, then you would take the claim seriously.

...Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, and Mahatma Gandhi...

I'm frankly not sure what you are trying to say with these links. Are they pussies now or not?

Mandela's path as a human rights advocate has not been one covered with blood. The Wikipedia article says that he was interested in some kind of ability to threaten others with arms, however, it also says that "MK agreed to acts of sabotage to exert maximum pressure on the government with minimum casualties". Just like I said, he wanted to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, even if applying pressure was sometimes necessary.

King advocated a fixed fund of $50 billion to help blacks as well as other disadvantaged races in schooling and the like. This program should last for 10 years, not for an eternity. I find it very reasonable.

Gandhi advocated equality between the sexes, just as I do. You just need to realize that India in the 40's is not exactly the same as the western world in the 2010's.

You're heavily (wilfully) misinterpreting that statistic, which is bound to be invalid anyway (most rape statistics are worthless guesswork and I don't like it when people start reciting them as gospel).

But what does rape of men have to do with radical feminism?

I mentioned rape.

You assumed I was only referring to rape of women.

You started (mis)quoting statistics on rape of men, like it was some kind of competition over which gender gets raped more.

What does that have to do with anything? (Not a rhetorical question.)

You wanna talk about second class citizens? Try being a German with a funny accent in a hick-ass American town for a few years.

[Sheds a single tear.]

I'm saying that the current generation of American and European women who complain about oppression have NO CLUE what real oppression is, because they don't live in the Middle East, where you can be imprisoned for driving a car or wearing jeans.

You're right. Only Muslim men can be misogynists. Patriarchy only exists in Saudi Arabia.

Guys with funny accents are the real victims of western society. Those ignorant feminists just don't know what it's like :'(

I'm frankly not sure what you are trying to say with these links. Are they pussies now or not?

I never said a single thing about Gandhi. I looked up him and MLK on the old wiki because I wanted to check something. Found a couple of interesting things. As for Mandela, it is absurd for you to group him with Gandhi and MLK who were staunch pacifists for religious reasons, while Mandela was a terrorist at one point and used all means necessary. You also posited a dichotomy between him and the very people who influenced him.

I never said they were pussies. I said you were. Is the word bothering you? I was only using it ironically. Maybe you would prefer 'spineless'?

MAKE IT STOP!!! Nothing productive can come of this. There is evidence to support and attack both sides. All that will happen is that you will become were entrenched in your views. MAKE IT STOP!!!

I know that no one will probably listen to me, but I've already read some, for lack of a better word, bad arguing, I post this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacious_arguments

At least please stop with the fallacies. The one I most object are the ad hominen arguments. I think a number of recent posts have mentioned (true or not) personal information about another person or themselves to boost their arguments.


Sincerely,

Internet Police

Oh! Maybe Gror? xD

I is L.O.quint?

P.S. Missed that link on Gandhi for a minute. I was going to highlight his repootAshin wif women. Hilarious that he was inserted into this thread. We love you Great soul!

Edited 2/14/2014 07:35:45

You're heavily (wilfully) misinterpreting that statistic, which is bound to be invalid anyway (most rape statistics are worthless guesswork and I don't like it when people start reciting them as gospel).

But what does rape of men have to do with radical feminism?

I mentioned rape.

You assumed I was only referring to rape of women.

You started (mis)quoting statistics on rape of men, like it was some kind of competition over which gender gets raped more.

What does that have to do with anything? (Not a rhetorical question.)

How am I misinterpreting that statistic? Please educate me. So now that I present you with a statistic, you deny it and say that all statistics are just lies, and can't be believed. And certainly there are difficulties making those statistics if the law in some countries prevents a male rape from being classified as a rape.

It has a clear connection to feminism and radical feminism, as feminism markets itself as being an egalitarian movement, striving for equal treatment for both genders. Thus, they get many egalitarians to support and vote for them without really deserving that support. Their complete ignorance of these issues perpetuates their existence. You can see what radical feminists (i.e. today's mainstream feminists) think about male rape in the clips I gave you, or in the link I gave in the starting post already:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1xi1fd/a_woman_against_feminists_a_repost_since_two/

I assumed that you talk only about female rape as a real issue, as you explicitly said that only female genital mutilation is a "real" problem, and due to the fact that raping of men and boys gets no mainstream media attention whatsoever. I asked you to correct me if I'm wrong, and it took you many posts to do that. Maybe you just changed your mind?

I was simply referring to the fact that boys and men are being raped just as often as girls and women, and that despite this being a huge problem, it receives no attention in the public life. It's like it didn't exist.

I never said a single thing about Gandhi. I looked up him and MLK on the old wiki because I wanted to check something. Found a couple of interesting things. As for Mandela, it is absurd for you to group him with Gandhi and MLK who were staunch pacifists for religious reasons, while Mandela was a terrorist at one point and used all means necessary. You also posited a dichotomy between him and the very people who influenced him.

I never said they were pussies. I said you were. Is the word bothering you? I was only using it ironically. Maybe you would prefer 'spineless'?

You said that criticizing radical feminism is like choosing MLK over Malcolm X and Mandela over Castro, i.e. basically being spineless/a pussy. So if MLK and Mandela are the spineless choice because they weren't as radical as Malcolm X or Castro (or Stalin), that implies that what MLK and Mandela did was more or less spineless, doesn't it? Certainly, your comment makes it apparent that you value Malcolm X's and Castro's work more that the others'. I simply pointed out that I find this evaluation peculiar.

Also, you use the word "influenced" very liberally. In your logic, you could claim that every person who thinks that male genital mutilation is bad, is being "influenced" by Ron Paul. Thus, they all must be libertarians too. This is not the reality, however. That Mandela considered using terrorist tactics in some part of his life (though avoiding unnecessary casualties) is something completely other than what Stalin did when in power. There were no "Great Purges" in South Africa when Mandela was president, or were there?

I think a number of recent posts have mentioned (true or not) personal information about another person or themselves to boost their arguments.

Using examples gained from your personal experiences is not wrong. Whether they're true of not is up for you to decide, but they provide useful insight. I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, but then maybe you should stay out of the debate?

Also, X is technically the only one who's using ad hominen, but he generally does that from what I've seen, it's just part of his competitive personality.

X comes off as being a masochist, who wants to be punished, though I'm not sure why or to what end.

dead piggy says you are all too stupid and this thread is beneath me.

i do still look forward to reading about how circumcision and rape of men are related to to radical feminism.

...because I obviously should suffer for something my forefathers MAY have done, obviously.

Punishing the current generation for the crimes of the last generation breeds contempt in the next generation. It's a vicious cycle and your suggestion for the way things should be done is a great way to keep it fueled.

King advocated a fixed fund of $50 billion to help blacks as well as other disadvantaged races in schooling and the like. This program should last for 10 years, not for an eternity. I find it very reasonable.

maybe you two could fight while i just watch?

I'm still waiting for you to confess that Karen is a wonderful person and you were wrong all along. But I guess that will never happen :D

It's very reasonable to make a fund to educate people that have potential but lack the means for education. What does that have to do with women? 2/3 of university graduates are female. Maybe we should establish a large fund to help boys and men in schooling and education ;D

Helping people like that is not punishing anybody...

Oh and by the way, here's another interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2p1OvGhyFw

How am I misinterpreting that statistic? Please educate me.

I was simply referring to the fact that boys and men are being raped just as often as girls and women

Just to save people from watching the video themselves - the statistic only referred to 'intimate partner rape'.

Who the fuck is karen? your nom de cunt is emily, stupid.

Edited 2/14/2014 14:18:27

I disagree, she finds it reasonable. There may be a debate there, but the only change I would ask for in such a case of compensation is that fund be extended to all underprivileged children. Every great nation has been built on the backs of the poorest, be they slaves or working class, minorities or not. In my opinion we all suffer, you can either wear your suffering as rags or armor.

Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King were all great men. They all made mistakes and they all did and supported things that I don't necessarily agree with, but they were still great men.

X, you're still a great player and it's fun to talk/debate/argue with you, so don't take any of this as a personal attack on you (even the masochist comment was poking fun, I don't actually think you are one...).

Emily, I agree with you on radical feminism for the most part. Truth is, I still don't know where I stand because I'm torn between the belief in social responsibility and individual liberty and I don't know where to draw the line on the two, not yet anyways.

5 - no one called the internet police, go back to your virtual donuts and cyber coffee.

Lawlz - Way to read between the lines ;)

Edited 2/14/2014 14:41:19

Who the fuck is karen? your nom de cunt is emily, stupid.

Karen? I guess she must be a man in drag. Everything else is impossible. Like a turkey voting for Christmas.

But Zap, you're certainly a nice guy even though we differ in opinion. It's difficult to understand what the other is saying if one hasn't had similar life experiences.

@Hauptmann: I think there are situations where social responsibility trumps individual liberty and vice versa. It's not always straightforward to draw the line. To a limit, past evils can be compensated in my opinion. In the MLK proposal, this compensation even seems to go hand in hand with the common good, as more educated people enter the workforce. With women, I don't see any need for compensation. Women are better educated, live longer etc. so it doesn't seem like we need any help to get to men's level.

But Zap, you're certainly a nice guy even though we differ in opinion. It's difficult to understand what the other is saying if one hasn't had similar life experiences.

X, you're still a great player and it's fun to talk/debate/argue with you, so don't take any of this as a personal attack on you

Oh my, how polite and diplomatic! You can both fuck off. Like I said at the beginning, you repulse me. And I wasn't debating either of you. Emanly was having a one-sided argument with itself and still lost somehow.

Most of your "debate" centred on a two-line post where I was obviously being intentionally incendiary and contrarian. And yet Emanly still contrived to misrepresent what I said.

That pitiful creature lawlz is a better "debater" than either of you. Emily in particular is so incapable of logical reasoning that I'm almost tempted to believe he is female.