So someone on Reddit posted a video showing time-lapse video of a girl from infanthood to 12 years old. Naturally, Redditors responded with creepy pedophilia jokes, and one Redditor (speaking for many, judging by the numerous upvotes) took the opportunity to complain about just how hard it is for dudes to not have sex with underage girls. Apparently these girls deliberately develop earlier than boys as part of an elaborate plot to entrap guys and send them to jail.
Thanks to ShitRedditSays for pointing me to this latest bit of egregious Redditry.
You want more women in field supposedly but with their biological urges and all to not work and go find the man with the most cash it seems sort of pointless to say that. Your views may not be from hatred but they are from ignorance and upkeeping the status quo that holds women down.
Cloudiah, thanks!
@katz, I really want that to be a real journal. Can you start by running that article that Ruby found on oprah.com? Instant academic street cred ‘R’ us!
On the contrary, jumbofish, I cited scientists from four different universities now.
What kind of feminists asserts is women’s biological destiny to be a housewife only?
Ruby: The Univeristy of HuffPo?
How about these Three studies, which all contradict the articles you keep telling us are, “science”.
Or This study which also says your theory isn’t supported by research in the real world.
It’s no skin off my nose if you keep ingoring me. I have an advantage (and no, it’s not that I can craft a limerick).
Other people can read. They will follow the arguments. They may follow the links. Encouraging them to do so is why I write the limericks; so people will wonder why it is I am making fun of you.
I can do things you can’t. I can seperate the insults, the mockery and the personal comments/attacks from the merits of the arguments.
I am sure the things people say stings. You have options.
1: You could read what they say, and compare their arguments to yours; then respond. You could make new arguments. You could try to shoot holes in their arguments. You could go for the gusto and do both.
2: You can keep doing what you are doing.
3: You can leave.
4: You can stop trying to defend yourself.
The reason you are in the present pickle is you were an asshole. Happens to all of us sometimes.
But you aren’t willing to move on. You aren’t willing to accept that people might have reasons for thinking you were an asshole. No, you want to ignore the comments in reply to the bad arguments you made, and you want us to pretend you weren’t an asshole.
Ain’t Gonna Happen.
Not with me, in any case. You have called me a liar. You have said I am intelectually dishonest.
All the while you have pretended I wasn’t engaging with you at all. Even Brandon wasn’t that much of an asshole.
I don’t want an apology. Honestly, I don’t think you can make one. I don’t even want amends (though I think you owe them to me, and to others).
I’ll settle for you not treating us as if we were too stupid to see that you are treating us as if we were stupid.
BUt I’m not going to hold my breath.
this is fucking rich coming from you. but seriously, i think your opinions are cruel, hateful, and destructive. why should i tolerate them?
your view are totally based in hatred. i know you want to believe your different from an mra, but you’re really not. it’s just a different breed of irrational hatred.
well, i guess if we water down the definition of feminsim to where it’s basically pro-cotton candy and rainbows then lots of people are feminists, but why should we do that?
Who would therefore not be rich, so you would be going against your genetic programming, according to you, and the quote you just posted.
Are you starting to see why you may be thought of as full of shit?
Wut.
You aren’t even reading what I am saying now are you because your response makes no sense unless random sources are suppose to disprove that you as a person want to hold women down.
On the contrary I am a very large fish! haha eat that!!
i don’t think we can really appreciate the delicate conundrum ruby is is. she’s too certain that women are people for the manosphere, but not certain enough for sane people. what is a bigot to do?
RUby: hellkell, women knew those guys were only after a fling
Citation needed.
I’m using big letters so maybe Ruby will read them:
PROVING A THING HAPPENS DOES NOT PROVE IT IS GENETIC.
You have cited studies proving that Western women are attracted to rich men. This makes sense, because Western society values wealth, and it impairs women’s abilities to earn their own wealth, meaning that finding a rich mate is the only way for many women to guarantee a decent standard of living.
THIS HAS FUCK-ALL TO DO WITH BIOLOGICAL DESTINY.
Oh wow people! Ruby has just scientifically proven that I’m not a woman. I’m not sure what that makes me, since I’ve kinda been thinking I was for decades…
Also, all of my experiences and preferences simply don’t exist! Thanks science!!!
Ruby: And yet I fell in love with a broke geek who wouldn’t be able to work until he got a major organ hacked out. Explain this, please. I’m all ears. (until the rain makes my hip go huts and I’m forced to lie on a heating pad for awhile, at least)
Prest. J. Sci. Psych. is also accepting submissions (it’s peer-reviewed).
pro-cotton candy and rainbows
That’s not feminism?
I…have been sorely mislead.
Ruby: Honestly people, try to have more tolerance for those with different opinions. It’s not like my views are based in hatred like the MRA idiots.
We do tolerate you. Have you been banned?
Have you been shunned?
Have people refused to respond to your arguments with reasoned responses?
No, across the board.
We tolerate you. What we don’t do is agree. It’s not incumbent upon me to say, “that’s cool” when someone says something patently absurd. I don’t have to be polite to misogynists. They dislike this. The come here and tell me that makes me intolerant.
I tolerate their presence, AND I laugh at their arguments.
Oh, God, Ruby is at it again?
…did she even read my response about “moochers” and General Relief programs? If not, she has obviously changed topics just to save face.
nope she never reads anything red_locker XD
You should know this by now!
Hellkell, that’s what I was wondering: by her rules, shouldn’t she want the guy with the sports car? Her rule is “guy with the most money,” not even “guy who will be the best supporter” (which would incorporate things like maturity and reliability).
red locker: She hasn’t actually changed the subject. She’s moved into the defensive zone. She has decided it’s not about what she says, but what she believes.
It’s all about her, you see. Not that she’s quoting newspaper articles. and blog-posts and TV shows, and making up “just so” stories and calling that science.
It’s not that we might be offended because she’s called us liars, or a blight on the body politic. Nope.
It’s all because we don’t like her.
basically if you cite the huffington post as a source for anything science related youre betraying your total ignorance of the subject
Katz: yeah, according to her rules, women want the richest guy. Science.
“nope she never reads anything red_locker XD
You should know this by now!”
Oh, of course I do, it’s just that she’s…doing it again.
Seriously, Ruby, do you get Achievement Points for this shit?
ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Annoy a bunch of anonymous people on a blog with psuedoscience.