Those of you who aren’t regular readers of the comments here may not appreciate the true genius of David K. Meller, an excitable and exclamation-point-loving MRA I’ve mentioned once or twice in my posts, but who shows up in the comments here with some regularity – ending each comment with his trademark “PEACE AND FREEDOM!!”
Mr. Meller is a great lover (not physically) of men:
Men, by and large, are a wonderful sex! We are more intelligent than women, more creative, at least in the areas outside the home. We are, also, as a rule, physically stronger as well …
He claims to love women, too – though not feminists, whom he seems to consider something other than human:
Women ARE people, and often wonderful people at that! Feminists, on the other hand, AREN’T! …
Women are people, and properly raised, educated, and loved,, are beautiful, charming, and lovely!
Despite his alleged love of women – at least the non-feminist ones – he often says utterly horrible things about them. The examples are too numerous to catalogue. But let me draw your attention to one rather telling comment of his I found recently on The Spearhead.
In the midst of a discussion of Sharon Osbourne’s now notorious comments about a woman who cut off her husband’s penis, Meller offered the following musings on the subject of women and cancer. I am having trouble finding much love of women in them:
It is .. possible that the breast cancers (not to mention ovarian and vaginal cancers) have a psychosomatic aspect to their development. … The feelings of vicious sadism, brutality, and callous indifference to another’s pain in such harpies must inexorably work on the molecular, genetic, and cellular level to generate consequences! I hope that you girls find these consequences as hilarious as I do when you annoy me with your next women’s health campaign against cancer!
Maybe women don’t strictly speaking, DESERVE cancer, but it will be hard for me to stop laughing at them …
Isn’t the thought of cancer-ridden women going under the knife amusing? Isn’t thought of women losing part, or all, of a sexual organ that is precious to them FUNNY? The pain women experience when recovering from surgery (and radiation or chemo, which is almost as bad) is still less than the agony which that poor man underwent when he underwent castration at the hands of a deranged, sadistic, and vicious she-weasel (my apologies to weasels)!
[F]or every man who is abused and tortured by his woman, it almost warms my heart that the same hatred and spite characteristic of the female human(?) sets THEM up for a similar fate down the road, as that bitterness, vicious sadism, and bloodthirstiness so characteristic of those who would LAUGH AT the suffering caused by a “woman” committing such a vicious crime predisposes them toward cancer, and (I hope) a similar fate!
Karma is always there, girls, and it is a bitch!! HA HA HA HA HA…LOL!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
That “PEACE AND FREEDOM!!!” always gets me.
This being The Spearhead, Meller’s comments garnered more than a few upvotes. Not as many as he usually gets, admittedly, but some.
At some point I will do a Best of David K. Meller post, highlighting some of his “best” comments here. He is one for the ages.
@ Rutee
I knew you were dim, but I didn’t know you were purposefully ignorant. Of course you don’t want to do the research. You don’t want to know the answer, because it doesn’t fit into your faith based ideology.
@Sharcluese
You’re an intellectual light weight. But the ad hominems really help your arguments, pretty much cause your arguments suck. Good luck with that.
no… we were talking about whether or not congress passes laws that benefit women to the detriment of men. i was part of the conversation. you werent. i dont need you to explain it to me.
Have you read the law?
i have. ive also read us v morrisson like five fucking times. it may not satisfy your fantasy version of gender neutral, but it certainly satisfies the legal definition of the term, no matter how desperately you might wish it to be otherwise.
You’re an intellectual light weight. But the ad hominems really help your arguments, pretty much cause your arguments suck. Good luck with that.
im sorry you feel that way, magdelyn. would you like to explain why my arguments suck, or would you like to stomp your feet and bleat about ad hominem some more? honestly, im open to either.
“I knew you were dim, but I didn’t know you were purposefully ignorant. Of course you don’t want to do the research. You don’t want to know the answer, because it doesn’t fit into your faith based ideology. ”
No, I recognize I don’t know everything and don’t have the time or inclination to know everything everywhere forever. I also know how to substantiate my claims, and I don’t throw a hissy fit when I’m too lazy to do it. I don’t mind if you want to admit that, but you have to understand that it doesn’t magically make it my job to do so. Granted, it’s not your job to educate, but it’s not my job to always take your truth claims seriously either.
@ Rutee….
Agreed. I buy that argument.
I was saying you were too lazy to substantiate your claims right now, in case that was unclear. Which is itself fine, since you also seem to be dropping the expectation that I instantly believe you.
The substantiate your claims argument of course is silly. I could pretty much pick apart every one of your arguments with the manipulative “citation?” argument. That, of course, on a forum board is not only silly, but a weak argument. But, you are certainly more than welcome to not believe me, and you certainly don’t know everything.
For instance, I am not going to summarize with selective quotations the VAWA to satisfy shar- what’s her name. She quotes US v. Morrison for a proposition that the S.Ct. didn’t even address. But, hey, I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince her. And, being that you don’t know everything, and refuse to educate yourself, that’s fine as well. Just as long as you know, that I know, that you know, that i know (that you know) that i’m right, and you don’t wanna do the research to educate your argument becuase it would disprove your own bias.
And NWA plays the bigot card.
/golf clap
Good day to you, sir.
i didnt quote us v morrisson, magdelyn. you might have noticed the um.. total lack of quotes in what i wrote.
i noted that ive read us v morrison multiple times to clue you in to maybe im familiar with this field of law. shockingly having read the case multiple times, i know it doesnt address the point your trying to make. that doesnt change the fact that were still not talking about vawa as applied, were talking about vawa and congressional intent, and that neither the text nor the legislative history supports your wild innuendo.
also, if magdelyn, if you want to pretend to know about the law in future arguments, heres a terminology tip: you dont quote cases for propositions, you cite cases for propositions
All right, legal briefs at ten paces!
“The substantiate your claims argument of course is silly. I could pretty much pick apart every one of your arguments with the manipulative “citation?” argument.”
Yes, I’m aware I didn’t substantiate these particular claims I made today. I would not whine about it as you are if you chose to do so; but doing so would require you to admit you’ve done nothing but assert as well.
“That, of course, on a forum board is not only silly, but a weak argument.”
It’s skepticism. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Don’t whine when people don’t take your unsourced fact claims seriously.
“But, you are certainly more than welcome to not believe me, and you certainly don’t know everything.”
You think you do? Please, you’ve already gotten some basic shit wrong in your attempt to pretend you’re a mighty law expert. You don’t know everything either, you’re human, the depth of human knowledge is sufficient that it’s not possible to learn it all yourself.
such a weak rebuttle
Yes, what a weak rebuttle! Rebuttling this weakly is practically like being buttled!
Notice that this Zarot fella is only replying to the comments he wants to, and completely ignoring the ones that make a point that challenge his perception?
A troll once posted an actual instance of the VAWA funds being denied to a men’s domestic violence help group. The problem is that the law’s author, the law (excluding in one instance of tribal funding), the program director and the guidelines all state it is gender neutral. Which means someone ignored the law when denying this request and yes Magdelyn, that is a problem that needs redress. So go do it.
I have a question for David Futrelle
I’ve not long been active on this site, but it’s wonderful – it shows MRAs to be what they are; delusional, reactionary fools.
I have a suggestion though. I’m not sure it’s necessary to rely on those who comment on the MRA sites; maybe it would be better to rely on the actual writers and leaders themselves? For example, Avoiceformen’s pseudo science ramblings about alpha/beta/zeta/hypergamy, Paul Elam’s recent blog post about how domestic abuse is actually a feminist ploy to “shame” men and last but not least, Angry Harry’s assertion that watching child pornography is a “thought crime”. On every blog on the net you will find imbeciles writing incoherent and delusional comments – but the MRM is almost unique (there are also White Supremacist sites) in that the feature writers are themselves as disturbed. With leaders like these, we don’t need the “foot soldiers” to make the case for us.
Keep up the good work, David.
magdelyn: The problem isn’t that the research “doesn’t fit” it’s that you’ve set a trap. You have decided what the law is. You won’t explain what you used to come to that conclusion; and challenged her/us to do the same.
Rutee disagrees,and shows why. You have, qu’elle surprise, decided this is the wrong conclusion, and proves a lack of understanding. We are expected to replicate your work, and come to your conclusions.
What, actually, you need to do is defend your position. Setting us a magical mystery tour of the internet won’t work. You are trying to disabuse us of the facts we know, without sharing the refutatory information. Of course we aren’t likely to suddenly see the brilliance of your claim.
Tossing about you misunderstood use of ad hominem isn’t helping. No one said, “She’s a sex worker, so she can’t understand the law”, what was said is your explanations showed a very basic, and one-dimensional understanding of the law.
Which isn’t even insult, it’s analysis.
Rebuttling must be what your replacement has to do when you perform your duties as a butler poorly and get fired.
Kristin: That’s unbuttling.
Kristin: I misread it. Getting rid of the Butler is unbuttling.
rebuttling is what the replacement has to do.
debuttling is reducing the staff of the buttery (which is where the word butler comes from).
@Bagelson – “(Also, all deleterious mutations and harmful recessive genes are from the mother’s side. Because father’s have pure manly essences. True fax.)”
lmao.
Oh, Magdelyn is the woman who writes Fauxwhore. You know, I’m not going to say sex workers don’t know anything, but you, personally, have written some blatantly stupid shit on sociology. I sent your article on Kimmel and sociology in general on a rounds through sociology students, and we all had a hearty laugh at your ignorance on that topic. It seems all you MRIs and MRI allies are really angry about a field you know nothing about, given other places like Anglobitch. I know /why/, because sociology produces some of the best research to support claims of kyriarchy, but it’s still fucking hilarious of you to pretend I’m special for not knowing everything given that.
Not ONE measly comment, not ONE remark, not ONE condemnation, not one bit of notice, here among my many fans in manboobz.com of the issue that I was replying to–all too inadaquately, I should add–about swarms of females in and through the ‘entertainment (?)’ media, screeching with keen delight about a man being castrated, his “family jewels” being hacked off.
Not one bit of consideration from ANYONE of the fact that I was RESPONDING to the last of a vile, unspeakable, and loathsome incidents of “women” butchering men, and then finding it hilarious! My all too passive and moderate response cited above was intended to highlight the sheer barbarity of modern women, and to show them what can happen when such vicious malice and venom is turned the other way! I was using THEIR behavior for negative example. That is all!! If even a thousand, or five hundred, or two hundred so-called women feel the agony, both physical and psychological, of what those unfortunate men felt while being castrated, justice will be served!
I am not in the least interested in hearing from you apologists–if not co-conspirators with this hateful action–that “not all women are like that”! Those who aren’t didn’t do a damned thing about those who are, and even ONE is too many.
Thanx for proving me right, anti-misogynists!
PEACE AND (no not freedom, this time) JUSTICE!!
David K. Meller
Meller: Ah… the plaintive cry of the three year-old: “Jimmy did it first”.
That and your willful blindness to the people (more than one), in this thread; and previous, who said mocking the man who was mutilated is wrong, unconscionable, etc.
Nope. You, with your usual thoughtful deliberation are saying how great it is that thousands of women are suffering because not enough said the things you wanted to hear, and lying about your motives.
So I will repeat your words… that one person is gleeful at the suffering of hundreds of thousands is too many.
But I will be kinder than you, I don’t want all the MRAs in the world to suffer. I just want everyone to know what hypocrites you are. Let them point at laugh.
Let it start with me.
David K. Meller – Believe me, it’s only my faith that not all men are like you that keeps me a productive member of society.
PEACE AND FREEDOM FOR MEN AND WOMEN!!!
Holly K. Pervocracy