>
 |
| “We hunted the mammoth”: Always hilarious! |
My second guest post has gone up on Feministe. In it, I introduce the Feministe audience to a Man Boobz classic: the “we hunted the mammoth to feed you” quote, in all of its original glory. (By the way, t-shirts are still available, and they’re pretty snazzy!)
Also, Scott Adams himself has responded in the Feministe comments section to my post about him. Some highlights of his, er, argument:
Is this an entire website dedicated to poor reading comprehension? I don’t think one of you understood the writing. You’re all hopping mad about your own misinterpretations. …In this case, the content of the piece inspires so much emotion in some readers that they literally can’t understand it. The same would be true if the topic were about gun ownership or a dozen other topics. As emotion increases, reading comprehension decreases. This would be true of anyone, but regular readers of the Dilbert blog are pretty far along the bell curve toward rational thought, and relatively immune to emotional distortion. …You’re angry, but I’ll bet every one of you agrees with me.
Wow. Just, wow. How narcissistic and delusional do you have to be to even type out that last bit, much less post it on the internet for all to see?
I wonder if Scott Adams would agree with the “we hunted the mammoth to feed you” guy? I’m sort of thinking that he just might.
>Look at this stupid asshole. He thinks women will keep talking to him after he's revealed himself to be a rapist apologist, a sexist scumbag, and a desperate loser who wants attention.I don't respect your intelligence enough to care about your attention. You are entertaining, but I couldn't care less what you think of me. After all, you're just a feminist.Good luck on the censorship and shine on!
>Cold-so what do you think should be done about those sentences? Do you think women should go to jail for seven or more years because a guy was exonerated?
>e4919, you really think that posting quotes from a feminist saying that being raped is worse than paying child support for a child you fathered — a statement which is pretty self-evidently true and reasonable to anyone who is not an MRA –is going to win people over to your side?Best of luck with that, then.
>So if a woman lies about being on the pill and then has a child without my consent and then does everything in her power to keep me away from said child, it's my responsibility to pay child support. And this should be self-evident. Oh, and somehow that role resembles fathering.I hope you're getting laid for this, or at least raking in some serious dough. It won't excuse you, but at least I'll understand why you do this to yourself.
>As feminists are not good at seeing anything that is not spelled out to them, it is not just the child support that is a problem. It is the fact that the mother:1. Wins sole custody of the child for being a woman2. Does everything in her power to keep the father away from the child3. Then demands payment for a child he never even sees and most likely hates him for being a "deadbeat dad"If a mother forces a father to have no parental role in a child's life, he should also have no financial role. That's not too hard, is it?
>O noes, he posted about you on his Livejournal. Whatever shall you do?Seriously though, guys, you've got a troll problem. I'd hang out here more, but I don't want to talk to this joker every time.-katz
>The last post of yours String makes some assumptions-1. the woman will win sole custody because she is a woman in a court action.2. the Court will prohibit father's access to the child3. will raise the child to hate the father while forcing the father to pay for the child.———————-If the father wants to have sole custody, that is highly unlikely unless there is some kind of evidence the mother should not have any custody. If he wants joint custody-that is much more likely to get as more and more states are moving to joint custody. If he wants just visitation rights, he can also ask for those. If the mother is refusing to give access to the father absent a court order, he should go file for that court order and if she fails to comply afterward, the court can hold her in contempt. He can bring up to the court he is making child support payments and he would like to have a relationship with his child beyond a financial one. And yes, this requires him to do something more beyond just sitting there complaining.
>You're a lying sack of shit if you dare say that society doesn't blame rape victims for rape.Naturally, no citations are provided to show that society blames rape victims for rape.
>Cold-so what do you think should be done about those sentences? Do you think women should go to jail for seven or more years because a guy was exonerated?When a guy is exonerated, the next step for the prosecutor's office should be to review the case and determine if there is a compelling evidence that the false accuser was lying(as opposed to being merely mistaken). If such evidence exists, that false accuser should get a fair trail for her crime, with the burden of proof on the prosecution.Upon conviction, the false accuser should get the same sentence that was faced by her victim. In addition, if her victim would have been put on a sex offender registry then the false accuser should be but on an equivalent false accuser registry which would have the same level of public availablity as the sex offender registry.To argue for anything less than this is to trivialize the harm suffered by victims of false accusations, and is most likely motivated by plain misandry.
>So do you also think that someone who falsely accuses someone of a different type of crime-say murder-should also face the same penalty? Even if that penalty was the death sentence?Or is it only false rape accusations that are somehow so evil and wrong that deserve seven years or more?
>Um, Coldie, the problem with you loses is that you're NOT hiring a cleaning service. You're demanding that everybody suck up your dirt for free and furthermore rejoice over the opportunity. Somebody's delusions of adequacy.Ginmar, I know this is a really tall order for you, but could you at least ACT sane for a minute and explain exactly how I am demanding that anyone clean my place for free?
>You're a scumbag. Especially seeing as how, in this scenario, YOU are minimizing rape while standing in the position of rapist.You're a lunatic. How am I standing in the position of rapist when I have never raped anybody?
>Anyone who falsely accuses anyone else of any crime should get the same sentence as they would for committing that crime themselves, as long as it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they were lying and not merely mistaken.
>If the person filing a false report is being sentenced the same if the original person had been sentenced despite no one having an idea because there was no sentence for that person, you support giving that false report person the death penalty if that was a sentence a victim of the false report could have gotten.
>Anyone who falsely accuses anyone else of any crime should get the same sentence as they would for committing that crime themselves, as long as it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they were lying and not merely mistaken. Either lying or mistaken, those are the only possibilities? How about all the cases in which the victim is neither lying nor mistaken, and the rapist walks anyway?
>David, I hate to tell you, but you're just encouraging MRA porn. It's like terror porn, or like torture porn. I won't be tuning in anymore. I quite believe I've seen more than enough.
>Huh?
>Coldie wants a cite for proving a basic fact, like the earth is round. And then he has a tantrum when he doesn't get it. David, I believe what they're saying is the MRAs need to be reined in more. None of this is new and a little goes a long way. Can't you crack down on at least the most egregious misogyny?
>Hey ginny, I did a piece on you. I guess that "pre-emptive ban" didn't quite work out the way you thought, huh?