About these ads

Highlights of Tom Martin’s recent visit to Man Boobz. KEYWORDS: London School of Economics, Lawsuit, Tossed Out, Whore.

In fact, the correct figure is 97 percent.

The other day we met an MRA named Tom Martin, who filed an “anti-male discrimination” suit against the London School of Economics, only to have his case thrown out of court by a deeply unimpressed judge.

After I blogged about this, Mr. Martin showed up here to offer some commentary on his case, and on matters of wider import. As a public service of sorts, I would like to present to you all some selected highlights from his comments here, in case you didn’t have the time to read through the entire 1000+ comment thread that ensued. And even those who did make it through the comments will no doubt be pleased to be reminded of some of their favorite Tom Martin bon mots.

In case anyone suffers from the delusion that Mr. Martin actually is some sort of egalitarian, these comments should clarify matters for you.

And yes, it has been confirmed via email that this is the real Tom Martin commenting. Accept no substitutes!

The word of the day is: whore.

Are you sitting comfortably? Then let’s begin. These are in chronological order; each title links to the full comment in context.

The Misandrist Chair Conspiracy:

One year prior to joining the university, when visiting its library, I did complain, that the seating being hard created a greater disadvantage for men than for women, as men have considerably smaller weight-bearing buttock pads than women, and men are heavier too – so for men, on average heavier than women, have more weight bearing down onto a pad which is approximately four times smaller than women’s on average – according to a BBC documentary on the subject.

The Misandrist Chair Conspiracy 2: Misandrist Boogaloo

The EHRC actually agreed with me, that hard chairs are inappropriate for a library, as they impact men more. When we consider that only 2 out of 5 degrees go to men, the gender gap widening, then anything we can do to make men more comfortable taking the academic route, the better.

Given that higher educational attainment increases life expectancy for men, and given that increased educational attainment in men also decreases their violence against women among other things.

Too bad, ladies – he’s taken!

Anti-male shaming tactics are always used at the point of losing an argument, Hellkell.

When someone asks me “What sort of woman would go out with a men’s rights activist?” I reply “the sort of woman who isn’t a whore.”

Tom Martin’s 14 Point Anti-Prostitute Program:

Some of you want to know why I think prostitution is bad.

1. Sex is only ever any good when it is based on mutual attraction.

2. Charging for sex excludes men who cannot afford it, thus heightening male-on-male competition for money, which generates the conditions for war.

3. Prostitutes spend so long being pounded on, without orgasm, that it causes a condition akin to ‘blue balls’ in men – I think it’s referred to as ‘pelvic block’ in women, but has other names too, where veins in the female pelvic region become over-pressurized, causing pain and swelling. In some cases, an operation is required to release the pressure. You will see it in some porn stars. Their rectum will look swollen, and the tissue either side of the vaginal area too.

4. Prostitutes spend so long on the job, it stops them making better use of their lives. It hinders their emotional and intellectual development.

5. Prostitutes express more misandry than the average woman. Being a prostitute is misandry-inducing, or perhaps misandrists are more likely to choose prostitution, but either way, prostitution correlates with misandry – and misandry is bad, as it perpetuates fear or mistrust of men, which perpetuates sex segregation, which perpetuates male-on-male competition, which increases brain capacity for aggression (in both sexes), whilst decreasing brain capacity for empathy and higher thought.

6. Prostitution is an aggregate sex segregation, as prostitutes take themselves out of the free association and free sex zone, and wait for paying customers – and though paying customers and prostitutes are not sex-segregating whilst having sex, she quickly has to get him out to do the next customer, so there is less organic natural association between the sexes throughout the course of the day – and the association which does take place is fake or bought, rather than free association.

7. Prostitutes are boring.

8. There is no Nobel Prize for services to prostitution for a reason.

9. Gold-diggers are more stupid than average women.

10. Housewives are more fascistic than average women.

11. Economically inactive female model societies are more fascistic than normal societies.

12. Men associating with prostitutes or economically inactive gold-digger housewhores etc are more fascistic than average men.

13. Prostitution was the historic norm, and civilizations have less prostitution as they advance, so less prostitution probably related to advancement.

14. Less prostitutional sex-segregated societies produce better more balanced ratio of women to men (more women), causing men to make more sensible, less rash or flashy spending decisions.

I’m sure there are many more related reasons I could go into, about why prostitution is bad.

I think it should be fully legalized, but that these women should pay the highest rate of tax, and be first draft in any military conscription.

He’s writing a book!

I do have a book, on the way, based on some experimental psychology I’m conducting. As soon as I put this gender studies industry out of its misery, I’ll let you know.

Fems: It’s time to renounce your whoredom!

I’m asking feminists in particular to renounce prostitution in all its forms. …

It is my estimation, that as little as 3% of women have actually made a conscious decision to treat men as equals, never expect any money from men, and actively promote more egalitarian gender roles (rather than begrudgingly suffer them), by celebrating the less worky roles afforded men. …

From a straight male perspective, the potential mate pool is quite full of hypergamous gold-diggers and prostitutes, the stand up egalitarian women few and far between, so yes, not only should women renounce prostitution in all its forms, but they should buy the T shirt or get the tattoo as well or something.

Just like it being polite to inform someone first if you have a social disease, you should inform someone first if you are a gold-digger/whore/housewife wannabe etc.

But then, there are a lot of women who swear blind they’re not whores who are – so some kind of renouncement on their part, where they’re putting a bit of heart into it, might be in order. Maybe an fMRI lie detecting brain scan certificate to show you’ve passed the test.

But if fems just want to go with “I can’t believe you think women are whores. How misogynistic” then its really falling well short of the mark – given women’s woeful track record in this department so far.

So come on then, who is going to be the first to renounce prostitution in all its forms?

At least Rosa Parks got a seat:

Be honest, you’re not sitting on a hard seat right now, so why should you when you’re in a library?

My position was vindicated by the authorities taking it seriously at the time. …

They also put a three piece couch and seats into the library after my successful complaint,

so I am actually very pleased about that, and you suck….

[I]n Saudi Arabia, two men have to vacate a bus seat for one woman. …

So, we all know who Rosa Parks was. The black person who didn’t want to sit at the back of the bus – and quite right too, but at least she got a seat.

But when it is men being forced out of their seats, and by economically inactive Saudi whores – professional whore feminists just laugh it off or make BS excuses.

Scum.

Saudi Arabia: A Whorish Matriarchy

In many ways, Saudi Arabian men are probably the most discriminated against men in the world.

Firstly, it costs more for a Saudi Arabian men to marry than for any for other men in the world on average (in relative to national average earnings).

Secondly, Saudi Arabian women are the laziest whores in the world, with just 22% of them in even a part-time job (and that 22% figure bolstered by the foreign women shipped in to do certain work).

Thirdly, Islamic law says what a man earns, he must share, but what his wife earns, she can keep. …

[O]n balance, given Saudi men are doing all the hard work, not only should Saudi women be giving up their seats to Saudi men if anything, victim-feminists should be ashamed of themselves for portraying Saudi women as the uniquely oppressed class. Far from it.

Saudi Arabia is an advanced country, where the female population is highly educated. Saudi scientists are among the best in the world. Saudi doctors successfully separated conjoined twins at the head – both twins living – but that same scientific community has so far been unable to separate Saudi Arabian women’s enormous asses from their couches. There is a way though. When Saudi men learn to stop giving women money and gifts, the women will have no choice but to rise up, get a job, demand driving licenses, etc.

Saudi women just laugh at patriarchy theory. They know they’re lazy whores pulling all strings. Saudi men on the other hand, have never had their issues addressed, and are very receptive to change.

Islamic states are whoriarchies – which neither men or women would want to be associated with, once they’ve had it properly explained.

Did I explain already that Muslim women are whores?

Muslim women are quids in the whores.

Their civilizations are down the pan, but as long as they’ve got one over on the men, they don’t seem to give a shit.

I would totally take my anti-Muslim-whore crusade to the streets, but Muslim women are too scary:

[I]f Muslim women want Muslim men to change the laws, then they can simply order their husbands or suitors to do this.

Similarly, they could order their husbands to vote for full female voting rights. …

I would be standing on a street corner in some Muslim land explaining it, but that would be too risky for my personal safety, or any man’s personal safety. It is easier for women to rise up without getting shot than for men, on gender politics issues.

Nevertheless, I will be translating my experiments’ findings and book into Arabic.

All those people who say I’m “whoring” by asking for donations to my legal fighting fund, are missing the point

Whore whore whore whore:

“Whoriarchy” is not a perfect term, but a more accurate description of the state of affairs on gender relations everywhere than “patriarchy” – and a lot less glamorous. …

Professional feminists are whores. This includes David Futrelle. His job is not to reflect accurately, but mock, so he is a delaying gatekeeper, attempting to exclude men’s equality debates, by making misleading representations about the men’s rights movement’s core values and goals.

We need a word for women who aren’t whores:

[C]urrently, to my knowledge, there is no word in the English language, for a woman who is not a whore. For a woman who has rejected all forms of prostitution.

“Independent” – okay, could mean “has a job”, but not specific enough. I mean Beyonce claims to be an “Independent” woman, but then she also wants men to pay her telephone bills, and put a ring on it – so, no. If Beyonce has a job, it’s as a prostitute.

“Egalitarian” – too general. Sounds like she’s weighing up whoring options equally.

“Feminist” – too much gold-digging of government resources, and sucking cocks for money, so no.

Women who have chosen to have nothing to do with prostitution in any of its forms should not even have to mention the word when describing their awesome credentials, and credo. Most women are prostitutes to some extent, so ‘woman’ doesn’t do it either for the time being.

We need a new word…

Ladies, make yourself useful!

Ladies, you have had expensive educations, surpassing men’s in duration. Your parents assisted you more with university fees than they did their sons. The jobs market is set up to positively discriminate in your favour if you’ll only put the effort in. Men are willing to do more childcare if you will only stop complaining about them not doing it right etc, and actually transfer the parental leave to them. Men have put men on the moon. All you need to do, is express some breast milk and get it into the fridge so you can return to your glorious careers and create or invent us all something useful. Please don’t invent us any more cupcakes though. …

The human race needs you to put down the crockery, and make a proper contribution to the advancement of civilization. Feminism’s “glass ceiling” story is the metaphorical glass ball and chain excuse for defeatism and inertia required for you never to have to leave the kitchen. We have microwave meals now – go and make yourselves a tad more useful.

March of the Penguin Whores:

Female penguins are whores

Not ALL women are whores:

For the record, I would never claim all women are whores. I’d put it at around the 97% mark in my estimation – so back off, haters.

What do we want! To inconvenience whores! When do we want it? Now!

Liberating men involves mildly inconveniencing whores. It’s a win/win.

Ladies! Stop being whores and invent something.

There is a limit to just how un-whorey you need to get. Once you’ve hit zero, then you’re at your target whoring level, of not being a whore. Move on. File a patent. Write a joke. Find a cure for something. Not being a whore isn’t a vocation in and of itself. “And the Nobel Prize for not being a whore goes to… .”

9 out of 10 patents are awarded to men, and yet in factual media, men are portrayed positively only 1 time out of 10. Don’t be one of those media douches pretending men aren’t anything other than freaking awesome.

Tom Martin: Boy Inventor

I have invented something, and am working on prototypes.

I have previously sought a patent application for another invention.

And I’ve built lots of things too.

I’ve also made daisy chains.

My cat made a hairball, but you don’t see her bragging about that.

About these ads

Posted on March 20, 2012, in $MONEY$, actual activism, antifeminism, crackpottery, evil women, grandiosity, I'm totally being sarcastic, irony alert, it's science!, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, patriarchy, reactionary bullshit, shaming tactics, Tom Martin, TROOOLLLL!!, whores. Bookmark the permalink. 412 Comments.

  1. BigMomma – The 14th Amendment was the one that made black people citizens of the US.

    Therefore, in racist-ese, black people are subject to the government, because the 14th Amendment specifies that they’re citizens, but white people, who were citizens all along, clearly get to make up their own laws.

    No, don’t try to make it make sense.

  2. What is it with the US?

    We got a serious case of Fantasy Roleplaying Game:

    Let’s pretend that our unremarkable lives of quiet desperation are actually epic quests in the service of something meaningful. Let’s pretend our lives are driven by some purpose. Let’s pretend we are engaged in the great moral struggle of our time — that we are opposing some massive and twisted evil. Let’s pretend that this struggle requires courage and commitment and let’s pretend that we possess those things. Let’s pretend that we are all that stands between this country and brutal chaos — that we and we alone are the ones keeping it all together.

    Which is all well and good if it stays at the game table*, but not when people arm themselves and start really shooting cops and people who looked at them funny.

    *And in fact is only one of many well-established kinds of imagined scenario.

    NB: The linked article is about the fervor with which the pro-life movement identifies itself with the abolitionist movement.

  3. help me out, i’m British and therefore fumbling my way through the complexities/politics of state v federal.

    I am sure someone else will do a great job explaining this so I am just going to quote SPLC on the other stuff.

    what is a 14th Amendment citizen?

    14th Amendment citizen
    Sovereign citizens describe 14th Amendment citizens as subject to federal and state governments, unlike themselves. Because the amendment gave citizenship to freed slaves, a racist variant of sovereign-citizen theory holds that blacks are subject to the governments and that being white is a prerequisite to being a sovereign citizen. Others claim all state citizens were converted by the constitutional amendment to “Federal Citizens,” who can only be freed by a process known as “asseveration.”

    why is a Citizen subject to state and federal law but citizens are not?

    Citizen/citizen
    In the 18th-century colonies, nouns were usually capitalized, although the practice was going out of style by the time of the Revolution. Based on that, sovereigns see secret meaning in the use or non-use of capitalized letters. For example, a “citizen” is a sovereign citizen imbued with all natural rights, whereas a “Citizen” is a 14th Amendment citizen subject to the rules and regulations of government.
    ——-

    This is all nonsense of course.
    They also appear in Canada:

    http://www.natural-person.ca/artificial.html

  4. To be fair, sometimes it’s not racist, sometimes it’s just gibberish. Like a Citizen is a real Citizen and gets to be sovereign, but a citizen (lower case) is just a 14th Amendment citizen and doesn’t.

    Yeah. I know. But at least that’s not racist!

  5. help me out, i’m British and therefore fumbling my way through the complexities/politics of state v federal.

    states have sovereignty separate from that of the federal government and certain powers associated to that. that’s in contrast to your system, where lower governments only have power by grant of a higher government

    what is a 14th Amendment citizen? why is a Citizen subject to state and federal law but citizens are not? my head, it spins.

    that is some shit these dudes made up

  6. why is a Citizen subject to state and federal law but citizens are not? my head, it spins.

    Because, while words mean things, the sovereigns are desperately trying to prove that grammar means things.

    peter-andrew:nolan(c)

    … pull the other one.

    Wait, you’re serious. That’s what he calls himself?

    finally dude is like, ‘if you want to stand awkwardly in the back of the room, fine. there’s only so much i can do to stop you from screwing up your case”

    lol.

  7. there are certain powers that ONLY the federal government has, like printing money and making treaties, there are some powers they share with the states, and there are some areas where they don’t have the power to intrude on state affairs at all

  8. Dammit I am supposed to be getting something together so we can have an RPG session on Saturday.

    I’m going to catch you on the ante meridian, peeps.

  9. I always liked this appellate comment:

    “The record clearly shows that the defendants are fools, but that is not the same as being incompetent.”

    regarding some of these guys.

    source

  10. Me haz the POWER!!!

    I say challenge, name terms and POOF!

    Tommy go bye bye!

  11. THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO FUCKING PARTIES IN THE US!

    Fuck, asshead of assheads. Opposing war is the fucking status quo for a number of third parties. Supporting the war involves fundamental disagreements with my party’s platforms. This is the presidential candidate’s website’s foreign policy section http://stewartalexanderforpresident2012.org/issues/foreign-policy/

    Also, the US has committed mass murder and human rights violations against brown and black people domestically, and through corporate exploitation as well.

    Again, you haven’t told us why a state government is less oppressive per se than a federal one. It is certainly not the case that states are consistently better on liberty issues than the federal government. Some states have behaved in utterly ridiculous manners, and most big first and fourteenth amendment issues in the courts involve states. Slavery was abolished as a matter of federal action, segregation ad lidem was abolished as a matter of federal action (Jim Crow laws were, on the other hand, state action), “state’s righters” argued that anti-Jim Crow Civil Rights Laws should be thrown out. State governments have in the US engaged in eugenics, the last of the official state eugenics boards were in existence until the 70s and 80s. Why would you assume state governments would be less oppressive than a federal government? How does giving the states more power reduce the risk of oppression?

    As someone who has studied US legal history, there were massive fights over the meaning of the Constitution from its outset. So claims that it isn’t subtle or subject to dispute are rather silly. It’s also worth noting that privacy rights, free speech rights, and non-discrimination rights are largely more modern fields of law. Issues of free speech rarely came before the Supreme Court until the early 1900s, and the Court did not begin to develop strong laws regarding any sort of free expression other than prior constraint (such as licensing) until that point. It was not strongly established as a matter of US law that the federal and state governments could not punish you afterwards for even political speech until the WWI era. Virtually all of the large early cases around this issue involved Marxists and other far leftists arguing in favor of free expression. It wasn’t right wing douchebags crying about how the federal government didn’t like them having slaves that built up free speech law in the US, it was leftists.

    “the UK makes it’s own laws (or not) on abortion, so do other EU states, why shouldn’t US states??”

    Because the EU involves separate fucking countries, the US is one single country with one single national government. Also, the Constitution was created in large part specifically because a looser confederation was absolutely not working (see this thing called the “Articles of Confederation” which was the initial charter for the US government after the revolution).

    The “just leave” thing is total fucking bullshit too. First, getting citizenship and entry into other countries isn’t always easy, especially for the poor or otherwise marginalized. I can’t afford a passport to leave my country legally. Not to mention the fact that I am disabled and trans would make it extremely hard to gain legal longterm residence anywhere else. In addition, I shouldn’t fucking have to. I should not have to live in exile or be separated from my family to survive. And what do I do about it if I get caught and locked up, killed, etc. before I manage to flee? What about indigenous peoples? Do they have to cede their lands to colonizers and live in other’s lands as refugees?

    The policies you advocate are oppressive, colonialist, and brutal. Fuck off fuckhead.

  12. @Holly

    thanks for explanation..i had a sneaking suspicion 14th Amendment Citizens would be black people.

    Nope, nothing racist in this sovereign stuff, nothing at all…move on folks, nothing to see here…

  13. that’s also complicated by the fact that the federal government can get the states to do things by conditioning handing out federal money on certain acts, so long as the condition is related to what the money is for

    for instance, the federal government wanted the drinking age raised to twenty-one, which they couldn’t do because the power to regulate the sale of alcohol is explicitly reserved to the states. so instead, they told the states they wouldn’t get any highway maintenance funds unless they raised the drinking age, which is okay because the goal of reducing drunk driving is reasonably related to highway safety

  14. Damn you Elizabeth Dole! You make my life more complicated!

  15. “asseveration.”

    Sorry, still LOLing at that word.

  16. Ohh Greeaaatt! The US is breding huge groups of people with Don Quioxite syndrome? That really does explain so much!

  17. peter-andrew:nolan(c) also has his own weird version of sovereign citizenship where your ‘corporate citizenship’ is enforced by the uniform commercial code, a set of laws for commercial transactions has been adopted by every state because everyone agrees that is one area where having different laws in every state would be stupid. it doesn’t have anything at all to with corporations. the model business act does have uniform laws for the creation and maintenance of corporations, although not every state has adopted that one. i guess it didn’t sound as scary as ‘uniform commercial code.’

    also the model business act doesn’t say anything about citizenship because after the 14th amendment the states don’t have any power in that area.

    also, none of that is relevant to peter-andrew:nolan(c) because he is australian

  18. Ohh Greeaaatt! The US is breding huge groups of people with Don Quioxite syndrome? That really does explain so much!

    Well, I’m sure there’s a formal definition of that kind of delusion, and I don’t mean to diagnose all these people seeing as I’m no kind of psychiatrist or psychologist.

    It’s just that there are so many people in this country for which their pet issue is the burning question of our times.

    If you seriously believe that abortion is murder, then sometimes you’re going to get someone who believes that society condones their murder of abortion doctors, such as the shooting of Dr. Tiller in his church. That wasn’t the first attempt to harm him; it was just the most successful.

    If you seriously believe that the federal government is the Galactic Empire then you’re going to stockpile weapons and have shoot-outs with Imperial stormtroopers … uh, state troopers and local law enforcement.

    I’m actually surprised that there are so few incidents each year, considering how armed we are as a society. I’m pretty glad, because it implies that most people don’t seriously believe these sorts of things.

    Okay, I said I was going. Laters!

  19. @everyone, thanks

    i was more confused by the notion that laws applied to one group of people but not another when those groups are technically all in the same country. i get federal v state as i am now living in Australia, but USian federal/state poltics seem a lot more convoluted.

  20. It took me a while to get caught up on the thread, but this is for you, Joe! (Although personally I give your flounce three days at the most.)

    From Making Light:

    To flounce… the professional flounce
    To sigh… when the comments are cruel
    To weep… when the posters turn nasty
    Just like … all those mean girls in school!
    To write … only one comment more
    Before … I am so out of here
    I hope … that you people are happy
    When I’m … laid out cold on my bier!

    You’re jealous folks, but I am a pro,
    The people will love me wherever I go
    My words are my pearls and they’re all of them true
    I’m not wasting my time any more on such piggies as you!

    And you know when I’m finished at last
    With this glorious flounce
    I’ll go off to my own Facebook page
    And your lot I’ll denounce.
    And the world will be better for this
    That one pro told you all what was what
    Then left all you sniveling babies!
    I’ll only be back to rebut….

    http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/013677.html#013677

  21. @Hippodameia,

    thumbs up!

    b (^_^) d

  22. Thank you, BigMomma! XD I saw it on Shakesville last week and really loved it.

  23. Joe wrote: “And I can’t imagine that if those allegations against Hillary were untrue, that she wouldn’t have sued both authors of those two books into the ground. Whatever my regard for her attitudes and politics, there can be no question that Hillary Clinton is a formidable political operator and lawyer, i.e. someone most sensible people would hesitate to cross, without being sure of their ground.”

    No, that doesn’t follow at all. I believe you’re in the UK and might not know this, but Hillary Clinton has been attacked for years by the Radical Right in the US. At one point, Jerry Falwell was selling a video on his program that accused her of killing Vince Foster (or having him killed). As far as I know, at no time has she sued anyone for their lies about her – lies that she and Bill were drug smugglers, lies about Whitewater, or lies about her (them) killing Vince Foster.

    So, the fact that she didn’t sue the authors of those two biographies doesn’t mean they’re true. If they are true, I don’t approve of her hitting her husband or throwing things at him. OTOH, she’s been so demonized, it’s hard for me to accept accusations against her without definite proof.

  24. We bombed Fallujah because person or persons unknown killed four Blackwater mercs there in 2004. Four! And they weren’t even U.S. soldiers! And these families are paying the price.

    We did worse than that. We denied males of, “combatant age” the right to leave, and then said anyone who hadn’t left was an insurgent, and went in to root them out.

    I know that, were I told I couldn’t leave, and that for not leaving I was a legal target… I be an insurgent.

    I also know that the way the Blackwater guys were targetted was specific. It was a form of retaliation. It might even have been terrorism. But it wasn’t random.

    vast numbers of civilians died too, so far more women died than in WWI, however the bias MAY have still been towards male deaths

    Citation needed… recall that you said that absent citation, the presumption is BS, and that was about someone whom you agreed was correct.

    You are a known liar, so what makes your pulling things out of your imagination… quick, how many people died in Germany of bombs, starvation, and the diseases that came of damaged infrastructure? What was the, “excess death toll” (which is the people who would not have been expected to die, actuarially, in a given period of time when the combat was taking place… in Iraq the estimate, at the end of five years was… depending on whose numbers you were using, somewhere in the range of 250,000-600,000, if we split the difference and round down, it’s still more than 50 times the combatant deaths), for WW2? For Vietnam? For the Thirty Years war (you know the one I cited yesterday)?

    War was my business. I studied it. Analysing what was going on was a large part of what I was being paid to do in Iraq.

    You haven’t the faintest clue what you are talking about, and it shows. Maybe you can buffalo the amateurs, but actual scholars are going to shoot you full of holes.

  25. Joe: Unh-hunh. Who were those people she was saying were ending up dead? their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat….. ”

    You know, the men she is, “disappearing” from the equation. It’s hyperbolic, but there is something to be said for the men who were choosing to engage in all that killing being something less than innocent bystanders.

    And I can’t imagine that if those allegations against Hillary were untrue, that she wouldn’t have sued both authors of those two books into the ground.

    That would be because you don’t understand US libel laws, and that public figures are very hard to libel, and judgements in libel cases which are seen to be unfounded are often made; putting the court costs on the plaintiff, as well as the, not inconsiderable, costs of mounting the suit.

    So those claims are to be taken with a grain of salt. Not dismissed out of hand, but needing a bit more support to be deemed “presumed true”.

    I have a problem with the AWARD.
    If society / gov’t hands out approval to people who kill their abusive spouses and are released from jail early (you or someone else said 3years) that implies:
    “Hey, if your spouse does X to you, it’s ok to kill them”.

    Which you continue to misrepresent the case. She wasn’t “released early” her case was reviewed and a different sentence was deemed the proper one.

    Let’s try your little rubric for the correctness of social treatment of people.

    Let’s say a man is convicted of manslaughter, and he gets out of jail and spends 10 years working to make it easier to prevent the circumstances that led to his committing manslaughter.

    Should his efforts be recognised? Or should he be treated like a pariah all his days?

  26. It might even have been terrorism.

    Not under general international and ordinary international legal uses of that term. Generally, it is considered impossible by definition to engage in terrorism against combatants. It is extremely clear that Blackwater operatives in Iraq and Afganistan are not non-combatants. Guerrilla warfare and being the smaller or weaker force in a combat is not typically classified as terrorism. This bullshit attempt by sections of the US government and public to pretend like people attacking soldiers and other combatants is properly considered terrorism is an attempt to redefine and render virtually meaningless, the term. If you are a member of an occupying force who engages in violent activity within a combat zone, asserting you are a non-combatant and therefore attacks against you may be properly considered terrorism is fucking absurd.

  27. DSC: It’s debatable as to whether the boys of the “Independent Military Contractors” are combatants. Part of that is clouded even further by “General Order 17″ which exempted a slew of non-combatants from both US, and Iraqi law.

    Combatant is a fairly specific term, and the issues with Blackwater, et al. having to do with chains of command, oversight, and (most relevant), adhering to the laws of war, puts their status as legitimate combatants into serious question.

    And if they aren’t legitimate combatants, then what is being done in response to them is a different kettle of fish.

    The terrorism I had in mind was a very specific sort, aimed at Blackwater, with the intent of making them come a bit closer to adhering to the Laws of War, as defined in the Hague, and Geneva Conventions.

    My personal opinion is they had all they got, and more; actually, coming to them, and they were made examples of. Then again, there’s a reason I never took a job with them, or any of their ilk; even though they’d be glad to have me.

    It’s because they are both hired-guns, and agents of an agenda, and the person driving those agendas (esp. in the case of Xie, née Blackwater) is usually a sick fuck.

  28. We did worse than that. We denied males of, “combatant age” the right to leave, and then said anyone who hadn’t left was an insurgent, and went in to root them out.

    Fuck my life! Fucking fuckers! Fuck!

  29. So, do armies that commit warcrimes suddenly become noncombatant? Just unilaterally declaring your armed, violent mercenary invasion force “noncombatants” doesn’t make them so, nor does their committing warcrimes suddenly convert them into civilians.

  30. I just shared this with my flatmate and we tried reading through his reasoning in sexy voice -and fell about laughing before reaching half way and deciding we needed more alcohol. This is surreal. A semester of tuition on the fact that if he’d actually stayed in long enough to submit an assignment – he would have either a) failed or b) been kicked out based on the schools code of conduct
    jeeeebus!

  31. Have any of you renounced prostitution yet?

  32. Have you given any reason for us to renounce it yet?

    By the way, which three rapes of women do you believe actually occured Martin?

  33. I haven’t renounced prostitution because I don’t have sex for money.

    If by prostitution you just mean “baddy badness,” then you need to ask “have any of you renounced being baddy baddersons yet?”, and then the answer is no.

    How did you ever get into grad school.

  34. Hey I’m still waiting for that detailed list of instructions Martin, so that I don’t use my preferences and then accidently mention I have them. As you have not provided such instructions on how to complete any of my tasks, how can I renounce being a whore, other than to use societies definition….which means I’ve never had any such thing to renounce.

  35. Have any of you renounced prostitution yet?

    Not me! But wait, I’m a pacifist too. So does that mean I’m the opposite of myself?

  36. It makes them mercenaries. Which are not “combatants” in the ways in which Geneva (and Hague) define them. Which means they don’t have any more protection than any other civilian for the things they do.

    That, despite the precedent of Nuremburg, it’s still pretty much a “victor’s justice” sort of world doesn’t do that. But simply saying, “someone engaging in violence in a warzone is a combatant” and therefore can get away with murder… I’m not for it.

    Them being non-combatants means they aren’t able to appeal to the laws of war to excuse their crimes as being necessities of combat. It strips them of the privilege to commit violence, and raises the burden to that of self defense. They don’t get to shoot anyone who is a target under the combatant rule of engagement, but only those people who are posing an immediate threat to their lives.

    It’s the opposite of giving them a pass.

  37. To elaborate: Who is/isn;t a non-combatant, and what happens as a result of that was a large part of my job. A combatant has to have violated the laws of the country he serves; or the Geneva Conventions (for nations which are signatory), or have committed, “crimes against humanity” to be tried for war crimes.

    A non-combatant is, no matter what country they come from, subject to local law. That’s what made CPA General Order 17 so egregious. It was handwavium on the part of the Bush Administration to exempt US nationals from Iraqi Law. The War Crimes Act still applies (which makes all Americans, no matter where they are subject to US laws relating to war crimes/the Geneva Conventions), but the Bush Administration (and subsequently the Obama Administration; to my regret and their shame) refused to use it to prosecute, claiming that the CPA General Order preventing applying Iraqi law, and that the crimes (e.g the bus shooting) were outside the territorial US: they ignored the universal jurisdiction of the War Crimes Act: which was promulgated by Reagan, and then reinforced by Clinton.

    The Laws of War apply to everyone in a combat zone; what they do it grant extra protections to soldiers, for the legal things they do in combat. There are things which make otherwise non-combatants into combatants (e.g. l’evée en masse) and the protocols of 1948 extended the definitions of combatants to make insurgencies and resistance/partisan organisations obviously legitimate combatants. But mercenaries don’t get that coverage unless they obey the laws of war.

    They are given less leeway in violating them than partisans, etc., because they are making it their profession, and as such they have a greater requirement to adhere to them; since the presumption (as shown by Blackwater) is the country from which they come, and the nations which hire them, will look the other way when they violate them.

    Which is part of the reason professional soldiers tend to look askance at mercenaries. They make our jobs more dangerous, and our lives harder. Which is neither here nor there; but trust me, I have no love, nor any respect, for Blackwater, Xie, or whatever the hell they are calling themselves now.

  38. Is it just me, or did the group wipe the floor with Tom pretty quickly?

    In the other blogs I saw him appear in, he got banned pretty quickly (and understandably so)–since he never descended into the personal attack (and yeah, after 2853892 repetitions of “whore” I found it nearly meaningless), David didn’t ban him–which meant we got to play with him the WHOLE time…..and wore him out?

  39. David Futtrelle is a hairball.

  40. Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom: Is that really all you have to say! I did a total insult of you just above the comment you left (it’s always hilarious when trolls try to sneak back into old thread to get the last word). And somehow, they almost always fail.

    C’mon, don’t you have anything better than that????????????????????????

  41. David is sticking in your craw is he martin?

  42. Tell us more about the chairs, Tom. XD

  43. This guy can’t be for real…..

  44. Have you stopped beating your wife, Tom?

  45. Tom Martin | March 24, 2012 at 8:52 pm:
    Have any of you renounced prostitution yet?

    Nope. I am the 97%!

    Tom Martin | April 3, 2012 at 9:46 pm
    David Futtrelle is a hairball.

    And you are a Warwickshire shithouse.

  46. CassandraSays

    Tom Martin is a hemorrhoid, which does explain his fixation on chairs.

  47. @Cassandra

    Naww, he’s too forgettable to be a hemorrhoid. He’s more like gum under your shoe: annoying when he’s here, and completely forgotten when he’s not except for that random moment when you’re like “Remember that gum under your shoe, how fuckin annoying was that?”

  48. CassandraSays

    I have it! He’s like the sand that gets in your swimsuit at the beach – trivial, but sort of annoying, and every time you think it’s all gone another bit shows up.

  49. I have it! He’s like the sand that gets in your swimsuit at the beach – trivial, but sort of annoying, and every time you think it’s all gone another bit shows up.

    Tom Martin, you have been defined

  50. Whoa, Tom you’re really pathetic now. You come back to Manboobz to say that? That’s the weakest insult I’ve heard in a long time.
    So, what’s a whore?

  51. Creative Writing Student

    Whore (noun, pronounced: hoor)

    1. Someone who sells out their principles for money
    2. An unflattering term for a sex worker
    3. Someone Tom Martin doesn’t like, usually reserved for women and girls.

  52. This is what I come back from Paris to find? Not so much as one, “whore”? Tom, what’s happened to you? Where is the fire, the passion, the drive to be the best?

    You were so young, so full of promise? You could have been a contender.

  53. The first time someone called me a “whore” I was 8 and in Primary School. I’m pretty sure they (the boys taunting me) used it for reason 3. then as well.

    I remember my 8-year-old brain struggling with the comeback: Whoremonger? I think this is when I first realized the power of unequal binaries.

    I think what I’m TRYING to say is that this Tom Martin fellow seems to have the intellectual capacities of a slightly stunted 8-year-old boy (wouldn’t want to tar all Primary school boys with the same brusht).

  54. ‘ After graduating from college, Einstein still did not locate a job associated
    with his field, physics. This implies that an online
    site cannot offer an article on Wikipedia mainly because it does not
    take largest of the company’s kind. In addition, Wikipedia can be very helpful any time that the student encounters
    a phrase, name, or any other amount of information that’s
    unfamiliar.

  55. I’m confused.

  56. I think spambot is confused.

  57. LOL. That is spambot is funny.

  58. Paraphrased some places, quoted elsewhere:

    Women who have sex for money are whores.
    Gold diggers are whores.
    Housewives are whores.
    Wannabe housewives are whores.
    Women who ever expect any money from men are whores.
    Feminists are whores.
    Saudi women are whores.
    Muslim women are whores.
    Men who mock MRA’s are whores.
    Female penguins are whores.
    97% of women are whores.
    If you ever “pretend” men are “anything other than freaking awesome” you are … a douche. (Gotcha! Thought I’d say “whore”?)

    Women who go out with MRA’s are not whores. (“

    Actually, his definition of non-whores has to be larger than that, cause I can’t imagine that as many as 3% of women will go out with MRA’s.
    But perhaps that last quote gives it all away. In his mind: Whore = “woman who does not want to go out with me”

  59. I can’t imagine that as many as 3% of women will go out with MRA’s.

    Win!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,997 other followers

%d bloggers like this: