Reddit MRAs, heeding the call to service, once again prove what dedicated activists they are. Check out the upvotes on this baby!
Today Urban Dictionary, tomorrow the world! (Also, check out those tags!)
Oh, and in case you were wondering, Reddit MRAs also wield a mean downvote; see definition numero dos.
Of course, Man Boobzers reign supreme where it really counts: the Rationalization Hamster meme!
At some point Manboobz needs a poetry slam. My contribution will be “I Heard a Fly Buzz When Feminism Died” from way back in the “like a fly spreads germs” thread.
Hellkell: Are you being stupid on purpose? I’m saying the reason I brought it in was because he brought it up. That doesn’t translate to “he started it” in any measure of reality or world I live in, but merely that I responded to what the hell he was saying. I was addressing it. I understand that because you’re a sycophant you feel the need to defend David, but in this case you’re unnecessarily obtuse. It’s what you do. David questioned me about TAA and Todd, I responded. That’s called an exchange. Learn to spot the difference.
Pitchy, what is your position on public masturbation? Let’s have an exchange, as you call it.
@lauralot There’s been some great poetry here, which I’m trying to document on my parasitic blog. I’ll have to dig up your poem and post it there! (Unless you object.)
Pitchy: Are you obtuse, otiose, mendacious or just stupid?
I didn’t read the entire thread. Why should I? You claimed there was a specfic charge. You gave what you purported to be evidence in support of your claim. I read it.
Are you defending piegasm’s insinuation that a male rape victim would be better off dead than raped?
I didn’t see such an insinuation. Perhaps if you linked to the specific comments I’m supposed to be appalled by (as I said, show your work).†
I see you reading that, but I also see you with a propensity to read what you want in things, viz. In other words, better to be dead than raped. I’m not surprised at your obfuscation.
I didn’t say one was better off. I said there is no aftermath to being murdered. Show me where I said it was good/bad; one to the other.
† though to be honest, I don’t think I can say anything; other than pretending I agreed with you, which you would accept as honesty on my part. You obviously have a strong opinion, not to be swayed by argument, and aren’t really hear to present a case, but rather pursue an agenda; which is to put up a wall of, “facts” and then complain that we aren’t convinced by them, purely because of our idolatry of Dave, and our desire to please him with our sycophantic obsequities. You may even choose to bookmark the page so you can use it as evidence the next time you are challenged to prove your credentials of manliness.
Good luck with that.
Pitchy, we don’t really want to know about the world you live in where you dance on dead children’s graves and ejaculate on stranger on the street.
@cloudiah: Feel free! I don’t think it was that great, but if you like it, definitely.
@PitchSchtickGuyWhatever:
Oh the irony.
Cloudiah: Look, I completely understand that you people are willing to overlook important context to make a point, or to get that “gotcha” moment. It’s what you people do; like modern art. It’s shit and no one understands it but you. However, for those who are not keen to remain ignorant all their lives would examine the situation closely and objectively figure out what is wrong with Jen McCreight’s comment. The most important aspects are these;
Homeless.
No home.
No privacy.
Little food.
Little water.
Maybe mentally deficient.
These aspects are to be considered before you make a judgement call.
Jen McCreight did not consider these aspects. In fact, it’s very clear in her Twitter messages that she did not consider these aspects. First of all by being so disgusted by this homeless person that she had to tweet about it without pity for the man being homeless and in what state of mind you would have to be to do not masturbate in public. Secondly, she makes the immensely remarkable statement that the homeless person should ask for her consent. What? The arrogance and narcissism that goes with that statement is unreal. Thirdly, he’s fucking homeless. He has no home. He has no privacy. Along with the other aspects I noted, where is he going to go to have a wank? I mean, are you fucking kidding me with your comment? The moral relativism in this place is amazing.
Do I think it’s fine for anyone to masturbate in public? No. But I think I would have some pity or at least an understanding if a *homeless person* did it. Furthermore, I wouldn’t feign my disgust about it on Twitter for attention, I would report it to the police so he’d get picked up and given a warm meal, which is more than what Jen “I care about social justice” McCreight did.
Does that answer your question?
At this point, he’s got to be engaging in some sort of social experiment, right? No one can possibly be this dense and unaware.
Apparently now homeless people cannot jerk it in bathroom stalls or other places out of view; no, they have to make sure other people see them, too, cuz homelessness. And now one moderator saying a shitty thing stands for all of atheism+.
But, ya know, schticky pitch here is real concerned about balance.
So you think being hassled by the cops, maybe arrested; and perhaps put on a sex-offender registry (which happens to be something I am strongly ambivalent about: I happen to think making them public ought to be criminal), is worth it, in the hope they get a “hot and a cot” for the night.
You also know that any disgust mentioned is, “feigned”.
Tell me Carnac, what else do you know? Could you give me the numbers for this weekend’s Powerball drawing? I’ll give you ten percent of the winnings?
When I am more awake I think this will need another screenplay treatment.
I’m not sure what the connection is between little food and water, and public masturbation. So let’s leave those aside, okay?
I am pro-masturbation. I am anti-inflicting your sexual activities on other people. Unlike food or water, sexual release is not a necessity for survival. Privacy, while it can be hard to come by, is not impossible to find if you’re homeless, as others have pointed out.
You say maybe the guy is “mentally deficient.” What does that mean, and what is your evidence of that? How do you know that when the person who was actually there did not? Is it not the case that you are simply taking the most uncharitable view possible of offhand remarks made by someone you have a beef with?
Well, now clearly, you’re overlooking the important context that starvation and dehydration lead to an insatiable need for sexual gratification. You feminists will just dismiss anything for a “gotcha,” won’t you?
Pecunium: Well, I’m not surprised you don’t see that kind of insinuation even though it’s right in front of you. I’ll repeat what I said,
the rape victim very clearly outlined his propensity for being dubbed a potential rapist. Piegasm chimes in that in a woman’s point of view, the possibility that the man is a rapist is 50/50 to which Cuduggan2K2 says this is whack and asks piegasm if he/she thought this about murderers as well
Leading, again, to the following exchange,
Cuduggan2K2:
“Agreed, but does it increase it beyond that of murder? If you are murdered, you cease to be, surely that is a higher cost than having been the victim of something with no recourse.”
piegasm:
“You just said it. You cease to be after being murdered, thus you’re not continuing to endure any costs related to having been murdered.”
So since this seems to be difficult to decipher, I’ll break it down. They talk about the threat assessment of rapists, and Cuduggan questions this and asks if this would apply to murderers as well and piegasm says no. Piegasm goes on to claim that rape is a higher cost to pay than being murdered. Basically, they rated the threat assessment based on what is the higher cost. Rape is the higher cost according to piegasm, which means, in the context of Cuduggan’s question of murderers being seen with the same threat assessment, if Cuduggan had been murdered instead and not murdered he would have paid less cost. Which if you read between the lines would mean that piegasm implies that that Cuduggan would be better off dead (murdered) than raped.
As for the specific comments, they’re all in the same thread, I said so. But since you’re too lazy to even go back a page, I’ll just link to the specifics here,
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=22246#p22246
You’re welcome.
That should be “murdered and not raped”
Oh hey, look what schticky pitch wasn’t telling us:
CRUSADER FOR BALANCE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE AND STUFF
Awww, it’s like watching a three year old think he’s outsmarted his daddy by knocking his Brussels sprouts onto the floor…while his parents are watching. It’s so adorably fruitless.
Lauralot: Idiot.
Cloudiah: For the love of all that is good in the world, what the hell are you babbling on about? Little food and water, a shortage of food and water, maybe drinking foul remains from droplets in the street or rummaging in garbage cans to find something salvageable to eat wouldn’t be healthy, and could potentially lead to tempororary dementia. It’s possible. I didn’t say I had absolute 100% evidence that this was the case, I said it were aspects that you would need to consider before making a judgement call. Especially when it’s a homeless person. The man was masturbating in public, apparently not caring that people walked on by as he was doing it; how far gone would he have to be mentally to do that?
Also, seriously, again, what are you talking about? Sexual release is obviously not a necessity for survival, but at the risk of sounding like a broken record; he’s fucking homeless. Maybe he had been homeless for quite a while. Maybe his sanity had begun to break. Maybe he just didn’t care anymore. I don’t know. Moreover, what evidence is there that he even was masturbating? Moreover, what evidence is there that he was masturbating to Jen McCreight? As stated in the tweet, she happened to walk by. How much of a narcissist does she have to be to make it all about her in that situation? Maybe instead of using it a crutch for attention seeking, subsequently using it to create more drama, she should’ve cared about the homeless guy with the apparent mental instability to masturbate in public.
You aren’t linking to the specifics. This is the comment you direct linked to:
Now, to what passes for analysis in your comment.
1: Schrödinger’s rapist is a model. Is 50/50 a good ratio? No. There is no ratio. A person is either a rapist, or the aren’t. It’s a binary state.
For a different take on it, I made a comment to someone else on the subject: my take on threats
To proceed. You are, still, misreading the comments you are quoting, and my response.
Two different metrics are being used. Is being dead worse than being raped? Depends on what you are measuring. If being alive is of crucial importance, then yes. But there is a phrase, often used of rape; perhaps you’ve heard it, “A fate worse than death,”.
But if one is measuring ongoing trauma, then being raped is worse than being dead. Once you are dead, nothing more can happen to you.
But you are conflating those two metrics (and as I said before, piegasm did a poor job of explaining it).
That you continue to pretend I am equating those two things, is asinine. That you also pretend I am, at the same time, equating them; well, my previous question about you still stands unanswered.
Tulgey Logger: No, I very clearly informed you of this further up. Still, I don’t see how it makes any difference. In one instance, piegasm tells a rape victim that he’d be better of dead than raped. In the second instance, being ignorant of Cuduggan being a rape victim, piegasm tells someone who he/she doesn’t know is a rape victim that he’d be better off dead than raped. The only difference being that if the situation had been purely hypothetical in Cuduggan’s case, piegasm would still have told someone they would have been better off dead than raped. It’s not better anyway you slice it. Except for, you know, the people who are keen to shift the goalposts.
Sorry, that you pretend I am equating them, while at the same time excoriate me for not equating them.
Pitchy: The man was masturbating in public, apparently not caring that people walked on by as he was doing it; how far gone would he have to be mentally to do that?
Not at all. I’ve seen dudes wanking on the beach. Not homeless, not drunk, just not giving a shit.
. Moreover, what evidence is there that he even was masturbating?
So which is it? She should have him arrested, so he can sleep warm, with a hot meal (have you ever been in jail? Dinner on intake is a sandwich, just sayin’), or he wasn’t, and she was just being offended over nothing?
Make up your mind.
Except for, you know, the people who are keen to shift the goalposts.
The irony… it burns.