Categories
evil sexy ladies imaginary backwards land men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA whaaaaa?

Fight for the real victims of prostitution: Pimps and Johns, idiot demands

Evil prostitutes exploiting men
Evil sex workers exploiting men

So The Independent recently ran a piece by Catherine Murphy of Amnesty International, explaining why the organization is calling for the decriminalization of sex work.

In the comments, someone calling themselves THEMISHMISHEH offers a unique take on the issue.

And by “unique” I mean “seemingly from another planet.”

Shades of Tom Martin, huh?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

614 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Catalpa
Catalpa
4 years ago

Ah, bugger, I made a typo in the first paragraph. The TAIL and head of a crane, not the wings and head.

Kat
Kat
4 years ago

I think we might have scared off the CAPSLOCK individual.

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
4 years ago

@Kat

It’s either that or the righteous banhammer caught up with him. If David had nothing to do with it, I shamelessly claim full credit even though I only posted once and it was pretty half-arsed and irrelevant, just because I was the first to respond to his last message. As he said, “this is the internet” and I can totally do that. Probably.

Also, not to beat a dead horse, but I also have full, exclusive footage of you and everyone else taking down his “arguments”.

EJ (The Other One)
4 years ago

Capslockguy really irritated me, probably more than any troll since orange tango drinker. A man who wastes everyone’s time being wordy whilst being that intellectually dishonest and vacuous is just… argh.

It shouldn’t make me angry, but it does.

Kat
Kat
4 years ago

@Sinkable John

Ha, ha!

Yeah, that’s us. We is an orange cat!

@EJ

Yeah, he’s annoying. OTOH, I get to sharpen my skills when I debate these trolls, not least by reading what other sharp, well-informed Mammotheers have to say.

THEMISHMISHEH
THEMISHMISHEH
4 years ago

@Kat

THEMISHMISHEH:

Protesting physical and sexual abuse of females by physically and sexually abusing males makes a lot more sense now that you have put it into context.

Kat:

Yes, the context being that almost one woman a day dies in Argentina for the crime of being female.

How does this put feminists physically and sexually assaulting men into context?

I don’t condone violence. But I can understand how a group under siege might resort to it.

Did logic play any part in you reaching that understanding?

The conduct of the feminists in that video, is it becoming of a people under siege? If I am under siege, I forcefully rub my breasts against people? I suck on my friend’s breasts in public? I forcefully spray paint over people’s genitals? I sexually assault people? is that conduct becoming of a people under siege/victims? or victimisers/a perverted, mentally disturbed joke of a people? Additionally, why would you protest sexual assaults and violence by committing sexual assaults and violence? Does logic and making sense matter to you feminists, at all!?!?!

This further reinforces the following statement:

“You people are BLIND followers of a vile, sexist cult.” You will go to any lengths to justify your rotten ways.

Quoting 4chan is like quoting a Ku Klux Klan newsletter. Or a kidnapper’s ransom note.

Are you testifying at a trial? Then quoting any of the above makes sense.

Are you explaining how your philosophy intersects with the philosophy of 4chan commenters? Then you are admitting that your philosophy is bankrupt – it is based on hatred.

My reference to 4Chan was in regards to the KillAllMen hashtag and the ‘feminists who adopted it’ on twitter. That is how I came to reference them. I think this is another one of those things that you need to give a little more thought.

THEMISHMISHEH

This is the same Ms. Magazine who’s editor Robin Morgan wrote that:

“I feel that man-hating is an honourable and viable political act”?

Kat

Here, have some more context:

I feel that “man-hating” is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.

What a disgustingly sexist comment. One that confirms that you follow a sexist ideology. An ideology which is about advocating hate on the basis of gender, which is the very definition of sexism.

This comment goes a long way to explain why people call you feminists Nazis, in that your ideology is similar to that of Nazism but based on sexism rather than racism.

: Robin Morgan has never murdered a man.

waow…what can you say to a comment like that.

Most women’s rights groups are allies

That goes without saying really. You follow a distinct system of ideals and beliefs. You all fall under the same umbrella, so one can generalise about you. This same thing cannot be said of anti-feminists. Anti-feminism is not a manifest system of ideas and beliefs, like feminism. It simply refers to anyone who is against feminist ideology. I think this should answer the question a couple of you have asked in regards to that Nuke Mecca girl.

sunnysombrera
sunnysombrera
4 years ago

I’m bored with this endless cyclical conversation. Anyone else up for banning CAPSLOCKGUY?

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

I’m happy to waste a few minutes so mind if I chip in?

Did logic play any part in you reaching that understanding?

Do you acknowledge a difference between understanding (or seeking to understand) and condoning?

You’re very keen on definitions so I’m sure you’d apprentice that whilst understand can be a colloquial synonym for sympathise, its formal use is just that of acquiring knowledge as to the reasons for things.

Very few people in our intelligence services condone terrorism for instance, but anti-terror experts spend a lot of time trying to understand terrorists.

As to the underlying point, my experience of feminists (and social justice people generally) is that they’re very anti-violence. I’m probably one of the few (maybe only?) people who hangs around here for example that thinks it’s a valid response to oppression and harm. With regard to the specific protest example I’d just raise two points:

1. There’s a difference between initiating violence and responding to it.

2. There’s a proportionality aspect. That’s a protest about actions that literally result in serious harm and death to people. A bit of minor contact is actually (IMO) showing massive restraint.

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
4 years ago

*wakes up from shitty day-sleep, sees this*

Oh come on, this got old the first time.

Welp, time to stock up on popcorn and gifs of cats taking down babies.

ETA : @Alan

YOU’RE showing massive restraint.

… alright, alright. I’ll get my coffee first, and then I’ll consider making jokes.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
4 years ago

comment image

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
4 years ago

@Scildfreja

Now that‘s ominous. I’ll get extra popcorn.

EJ (The Other One)
4 years ago

There will come a day when Scildfreja runs out of My Little Pony pictures, but it is not this day.

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
4 years ago

By the what what’s with the “BLIND followers of a vile, sexist cult” thing ?

Are we a cult ? Why did no one tell me ? Do I get to wear cool robes ? Or a silver mask that blinds me ? I like silver, it goes pretty well with my complexion.

Are we basically Daredevil Jedis or something ?

Is there a dental plan ?

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
4 years ago

(well, now I gotta pull out the pony stops, don’t I? Thank you for reminding me of my mantra! It does help.)

comment image

@Mishmisheh, you are doing it wrong. The it being interpreting-the-world-around-you.

There is a principle in argument called the Principle of Charity. It is a heuristic like the Principle of Parsimony, better known as Occam’s Razor. The Principle of Charity implores the individual to take any opposing argument at its strongest. In this way, the outside argument has the best chance of knocking you off your horse (ohoho, pony metaphor) and making you re-think your position. That’s the idea – it forces you to frequently re-evaluate your beliefs. This is a good thing, because it prevents you from settling into a rut.

You are doing the opposite of the Principle of Charity. Look at how you replied to Kat. Right there, at the top of the post you’re replying to, is Kat’s thesis. In reply to you asking about the terrible behaviour of some feminists, Kat says:

I think that these feminists’ tactics are a bad idea.

Kat then continues on to talk about the problems the women in Argentina face, and how they’re struggling to deal with them. Generating empathy for the women there while not agreeing with the tactics that a small number of women there are choosing.

You ignore the thesis of the argument in favour of picking out what you consider the weakest points of it – this is colloquially called cherry picking, and is the heuristic opposite to the Principle of Charity.

Tragically, you also follow this behaviour when choosing the people to respond to. I’m not sure if this is conscious on your part or if it is an involuntary aversion to critique you don’t know how to confront. Either way, it prevents you from growing or learning. And yes, that’s a general statement, not just a statement about feminism or gender issues. Learning strategies are relatively stable across domains.

Either way, this has gone on long enough, Mishmisheh. Your tone-deaf cherry-picking Gish-gallop (pony pun) is exhausting and depressing, and I wish you would either grapple with the topic honestly or just go away. You’re migraine-inducing.

http://iambrony.steeph.tp-radio.de/mlp/gif/115195__UNOPT__safe_fluttershy_animated_putting-your-hoof-down.gif

EJ (The Other One)
4 years ago

Are we a cult ? Why did no one tell me ? Do I get to wear cool robes ? Or a silver mask that blinds me ? I like silver, it goes pretty well with my complexion.

Pictured: Feminism.

http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_640x430/public/eyes_wide_lead.jpg

(The person in red in the middle is Anita Sarkeesian, our empress. The people in purple flanking her are her most trusted minions, Hillary Clinton and Leslie Jones.

I think that’s Glinda from Wicked in the bottom left.)

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
4 years ago

(As an addendum, I have to say that Mishmisheh’s interactions are much like the stereotypical right wing interpretations of Islam and Muslims.

Interpret a massive group of diverse people with real problems as being represented by the absolute worst amongst them. Interpret their ideology as being represented by the actions of those people, and plug your ears whenever someone from the vast bulk of humanity disagrees. He’s doing the exact same thing.

I guess we can thank Fox News for making this mode of thinking so prevalent in the past decade or so? Mishmisheh isn’t so much a cherry-picker as someone who frequents the cherry vendor. Requires less effort if someone just gives you the basket to eat.)

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg78/evalana/blog%202/mlpfim_ep4040.png

Viscaria
Viscaria
4 years ago

Hey y’all, want to see my SMASH SMASH impression? Here goes:

@Alan

I’m happy to… condone terrorism… [F]eminists… they’re… oppression and harm…

And may I just say, Alan, that I am shocked to see you saying such things. Shocked and appalled.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
4 years ago

@Viscaria, you said,

SMASH SMASH .. Alan, …. I .. shocked …. you..

That’s assault, Viscaria! How very dare.

Viscaria
Viscaria
4 years ago

Masterful, Scildfreja.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ viscaria & scildfreja

Heh, I should have known Scidlfreja would get there before me. I was literally here with a whiteboard and marker pen crossing out words; and I still couldn’t come up with anything 🙂

(I got as far as “I am o…k to…”)

ETA: Ooh, I could have had ‘sing’!

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
4 years ago

@Viscaria, Scildfreja

My father (who could be described as a proto-MRA) does exactly that with recordings of conversations. He then goes on to show people the doctored recordings to support his “point” that some woman or other is the absolute worst.

Guess it explains why I’m absolutely not surprised GISHGISHEH does it. Much less masterfully too, I mean it’s easy with text, at least sound recordings demand certain skills.

Step it up dude, your trolling is so half-arsed it got boring pages ago.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
4 years ago

@Alan, I bet you can get a triple word score out of that one 😮

@Sinkable John, a lot of people do it. Mostly unconsciously. It’s sort of a confirmation bias thing. The sound or sentence triggers the activation of a bunch of neurons related to the argument which the person is eventually going to make in reply, whereas the others are suppressed due to making the person feel uncomfortable. The only points which the person really identifies or remembers are those which they can make solid arguments against.

The best way (in my opinion) to get such a person to actually confront the situation honestly is to get them in a very good mood. That sort of behaviour implies a background level of depression which makes engaging with the world difficult; only the things that the person has an argument against really penetrate the bubble. So, deal with the depression and you can start having reasonable arguments about things.

Not trying to diagnose your father or anything, and I’m not a psychologist or neurologist by any stretch, but that’s how I understand it. Depression is a very big issue!

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

You know why Mishmash and his whines about how women are so exploitative and feminists are so violent are pushing me off today?

It has a giant trigger warning for murder, sexual assault and violence against children.

The dominant news story in my state this week is about a man who sexually assaulted, beat and strangled to death a five year old girl. And here the troll is whining about the way feminists protest.

Fuck you, troll. Gain a little perspective.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
4 years ago

That’s really the thing, isn’t it.

Mishmisheh, if you can judge us by the worst of us, we can judge you by the worst of you.

you’ve already supplied examples of the worst of us.

weirwoodtreehugger has just provided an example the worst of you.

We can play the game of “who’s the worst human” if you want. You’ll lose.

<3 WWTH

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
4 years ago

@Scildfreja

You make a very good point but I don’t think it applies anymore here.

First off, to get this out of the way : doctored sound recordings ? As in, carrying a mic in your pocket for the express purpose of recording what people say, then rearranging everything to make them say something else ? How is that unconscious ?

In the same vein, I don’t think GISHGISHEH does it unconsciously either. At this level I think it’s just plain dishonesty. Sure it’s easy to just “skip” the parts you don’t wanna deal with, but in this case, those parts have been brought back up repeatedly by other commenters – ignoring them at this point cannot be unconscious.

Also I do understand your point regarding depression, but I don’t think it applies here either. And it certainly can’t be used to explain the behavior of a troll (or my asshole of a father, for that matter). I mean, I struggle with depression daily, and half my life is spent either doing my best to not be an asshole to people or apologizing for when I am. So I get how it does affect one’s behavior, up to cognitive processes like selecting the information you want to deal with and ignoring the rest. But I think there’s a distinction to be made.

I replied to someone else on another thread regarding the distinction between behavior that may be influenced by mental illness, and general assholery. I think I worded it as a difference between “asshole mode” and “asshole as a default setting”.

@WWTH

Fuck you, troll. Gain a little perspective.

Didn’t he lecture us on “first world problems” at some point ? Or was that another troll ? They all sound the same to me.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
4 years ago

@Sinkable John, oh dear. Yes, that’s not unconscious behaviour.

(The unconscious behaviour can lead to that sort of thing, but it’s certainly not excusable!)

I’m very much with you on the idea of depression not being an excuse for terrible behaviour. I am on the tail end of a decade of terrible depression (it’s so nice being on the way out from there, let me tell you!), and I agree, there’s no excuse.

Apologies, I’m in Brain Mode at the moment I guess! I’ll speak generally about people stuck in the mode you’re talking about. Could apply to your father or to our resident troll. Im’a ramble, feel free to ignore.

Depression can still be at the root of it – it could be that being right, and being oppressed (by us mean stinky feminists), gives him good feels to the point that they have overcome the bad feels one normally gets by being so duplicitous. I.e. the desire to be right has overcome his desire to be good.

Hm, I guess that’s a superposition of the Drive to Defend and Drive to Acquire over the Drive to Bond? Dd+Da > Db? Would suggest stress due to either not accomplishing all of the things he thought he’d accomplish, or was told he’d accomplish. I don’t have any findings to back it up, but it follows from gender theory – boys are taught from a young age that they’re supposed to win, supposed to achieve and accomplish. If they haven’t managed that, it could easily overwhelm a desire to fit in and cooperate.

(Pursuing Da+Dd, of course, makes it much harder to fit in and bond, making Db stronger over time. Interesting feedback loop, I wonder if there’s a tendency in growth of Db to increase Da+Dd? Could be – if boys are taught that their value is in accomplishing tasks, then they might see the acquisition and defense of goals as a path to bonding with others. It’s wrong, but it’s pretty much what they’re taught.)

Huh. I guess Four Drive theory predicts the toxicity of patriarchal attitudes towards men. There you go!

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ scildfreja

if boys are taught that their value is in accomplishing tasks, then they might see the acquisition and defense of goals as a path to bonding with others. It’s wrong, but it’s pretty much what they’re taught.

One day we’ll have to have a chat about ‘Command Task Excercises’. That’s those practical ‘lateral thinking’ puzzles that the military use. You know the sort of thing. A team will be given a bunch of random objects and then be told (sometimes deliberate vaguely or ambiguously) what objective they must achieve (“Get the atom bomb across the ravine without falling in or dropping it” etc.)

You might find them interesting. They’re both a training excercise but also an evaluation tool. The name is a bit of a misnomer. It’s not just about command. There’s an army maxim “If you don’t know how to follow, you’ll never be able to lead” but it’s also about how people contribute to the task. There may be one dominant character barking out orders, but we’ll be keeping an eye on the quiet guy who’s unassumingly uncoiling the ropes and sorting them by length in the background,

It’s particularly interesting what you say about achieving. Some of the tasks deliberately have no solution. It’s a real life ‘Kobayoshi Maru’ thing.

One of their key roles though is as a bonding excercise. That’s why they’ve been adopted by a lot of businesses.

They also can be quite good party games.

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
4 years ago

@Scildfreja

I uh… err… well… wait.

Brain Mode

Isn’t that your default setting ? 🙂

This is literally the only response I have right now.

Okay, maybe not. I think I understand the points you’ve made, and I think I totally agree with you. I couldn’t have expressed that as formally and clearly as you did (my studies ended rather abruptly and I tend to often lack the words for my ideas, which is ironic for a writer) but if I’m not completely off in my interpretation of what you said about the desire to be right, then I think I got it.

I think.

Also… did you just call what you said, “rambling” ? I… need more coffee.

joekster
joekster
4 years ago

@schildfreja: your summary of cognitive bias pretty much matches what I already know about the topic, so thanks.

If you (or anyone else) is interested in more reading on the subject of cognitive error, there are three books I have on my kindle that may be of interest:

How we Decide, by Jonah Lehrer

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman,

Blink: the Power of Thinking Without Thinking, by Malcolm Gladwell.

It’s a fascinating topic.

@Catalya: I haven’t had time to try out the dragon fold yet :(. I promise I will sometime this weekend.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
4 years ago

@Alan, “Command Task Excercises”: I’m aware of them! Not from the army perspective, but the general thing-what-peoples-do-for-evaluatin’. It can be very effective, and a lot of fun! don’t really know much about the psychology behind them, they may be ineffective evaluation tools, but I can see them being worthwhile.

@Sinkable John, i’m wired a bit funny that way. My rambles are sort of big-wordy for some reason, and it only gets worse if I’m intoxicated or really tired. Like, at one point a few years ago I was in the hospital on three kinds of painkillers and in pretty incredible pain that would come and go in fifteen-minute bursts. Apparently I apologized for the trouble of the two-hour-excruciating-ultrasound they put me through in crystal-clear big-wordy complete sentences while full of enough morphine and tramadol to put me in the clouds. They finally managed to find some other painkiller (Started with an I, i think?) that took off the edge of the pain. I guess I’m resistant to a lot of painkillers!

@joekster, I’ll look those up, thank you for the suggestion!

EJ (The Other One)
4 years ago

Echoing what joekster said about Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow. I don’t know anything about cognitive science but I found it extremely worthwhile.

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
4 years ago

@Scildfreja

Ooh I know that, it also happens to me. And yeah, especially when under the influence (that phrase always makes me chuckle). I think alcohol and various drugs extrapolate traits like manners of speech, etc. For example I’m much more “eloquent”* when drunk-posting and adressing a troll. I’m a bit big-wordy when I speak french (a great example of how the same person speaking different languages may end up sounding like multiple different people) and it also gets much more obvious after a few drinks.

My takeaway from this though is that I am never, ever, debating against you. Especially if you’re drunk at the time.

*And by that I mean that I become an unsufferable asshole, but hey, I only do it with trolls.

THEMISHMISHEH
THEMISHMISHEH
4 years ago

@Alan Robertshaw

Do you acknowledge a difference between understanding (or seeking to understand) and condoning?

its formal use (that of understanding) is just that of acquiring knowledge as to the reasons for things.

Dear Alan, you sound like an intelligent man. Let me tickle your mind a little bit and present this argument to you in a different format:

1. According to Kat, women in Argentina suffer sexual and physical assaults.

How can this previous comment lead to an understanding of this following comment?:

2. Feminists sexually and physically assault catholic men.

(Important) Before you answer the previous question, ponder this additional question; can there ever be a reason to justify things such as sexual assaults? if the answer to this question is ‘no’ then comment 1 can never lead to an ‘understanding’ of comment 2 because you lack that essential ingredient to gaining that understanding, reason. Reason is the bridge between the two comments without which there is no link…what conclusion can you draw about an ‘understanding’ that is lacking reason? that it’s driven by ulterior motives. In this case a refusal to condemn the evil without putting a condition on the condemnation because that would be too damaging to fellow feminists and that is not the feminist way:

Kat

Because political action (a la feminism) doesn’t work that way.

Any way, I find this “I condemn the sexual/physical assault by these feminists but I understand why’, argument particularly hypocritical coming from feminists. I think you guys have a name for this sort of thing, ’rape culture’, no? where you erode the sympathy for and lay the blame on the victims of the sexual violence and in a way attempt to normalise the crime. Another example of the double standards of feminism.

As to the underlying point, my experience of feminists (and social justice people generally) is that they’re very anti-violence. I’m probably one of the few (maybe only?) people who hangs around here for example that thinks it’s a valid response to oppression and harm.

I agree with you somewhat. Violence is not necessarily a bad thing, but, and this is a huge but, (no pun intended) it is only permissible or justifiable or excusable under very specific conditions. For example you must have exhausted all other options, you must be subject to violence yourself and your response must be measured and fair and just (emphasis on the word response, in that you are responding not initiating, but you already appreciate the difference between the two).

ISIS follows an islamic sect that believes that all those who don’t conform to its interpretations deserve death. They also believe that debate is not permissible with infidels (everyone but them is an infidel in their eyes) and they enact violence on an industrial scale, so they leave their enemies with no other choice but to resort to violence. Violence and war are not always a bad thing.

With regard to the specific protest example I’d just raise two points:

1. There’s a difference between initiating violence and responding to it.

I agree. The feminists in the video are initiating the violence and the Catholic boys are NOT even responding to it…so according to your logic, which I agree with, the Catholics come out as clear winners in this encounter in the way they responded to the violence and the feminists come out losers in the way they initiated the violence and the sexual assaults against a people who quiet literally made a point of just standing there and turning the other cheek. The conduct of both groups speak for what they stand for perfectly, I think.

2. There’s a proportionality aspect. That’s a protest about actions that literally result in serious harm and death to people. A bit of minor contact is actually (IMO) showing massive restraint.

Again, I am going to ask you this same question I asked Kat.

If you are protesting against sexual assaults and violence. If you detest such things, how much sense would it make for you to resort to these very same tactics, sexual and physical violence in your protest of sexual and physical violence? it is insanely contradictory.

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
4 years ago

Y’know, the thing that impresses me the most about Scildfreja’s analysis and prediction of troll behavior, is how GISHGISHEH then went on and did the exact thing that was predicted.

Congrats, troll. You had a giant hole in the ground with a sign saying “BEWARE GIANT HOLE IN THE GROUND” and you still managed to run right into it.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ mishmisheh

I’m having to use my phone at the moment so that limits my ability to use the quote facility. So please forgive me if I just go straight to my answers.

As to your query about linking the two statements, it does seem you are still conflating understand with condone/approve.

It’s fairly easy to understand why the women did this. Possible reasons include anger, vengeance, making a point etc. That doesn’t however imply that understanding the reasons means one must approve or endorse. And Kat made it quite clear she didn’t.

To use your ISIS example, ISIS are one of the best understood terrorist groups in the world. They set out their aims, motivations and rationalisations very clearly. In essence they wish to restore the Caliphate as a necessary prelude to Fitnah. Every relevant intelligence agency completely understands that. Do any of those agencies supper or approve of ISIS or their actions? With the possible exception of the ISI and elements of KSA security the answer is clearly no.

As to whether sexual assault is ever justified I’ll wager that 99.9’% of the feminists on this site unequivocally say no. But compare that to non feminists. It’s ‘blokey’ society that makes approving jokes about paedophiles and other unpopular offenders getting their just desserts in prison.

We also need to consider the difference between regular assaults and sexual assaults. In England at least the key element is that the motivation must be sexual gratification. To give a trite example, if a man grabs a woman’s crotch for no other reason than gratification then that’s a sexual assault. If she then kicks him in the bollocks in retaliation then it’s not a sexual assault. They both involve contact with genitals, but they have a fundamental difference.

With our specific example, whilst the women may have found revenge gratifying I doubt they felt any sexual gratification. This was just a case of “see how you like it”.

So without necessarily condoning that action I can fairly point out there’s a moral difference.

isidore13
isidore13
4 years ago

@mishmisheh, so what you’re saying is, you conflate the word ‘understanding’ with ‘agree with’ even though these two things are entirely unrelated to each other? For example, I comprehend (another word for ‘understand’, fyi) the reasoning behind you coming in here to have an argument with yourself and to call the rest of commentariat stupid sheep when they didn’t agree with every word you wrote. I don’t agree that it was the most rational or best choice for you to make. Does that clarify the difference?

Joekster
Joekster
4 years ago

I’m surprised this guy is putting so much work into defending an ill thought out, throwaway comment to a news story about Amnesty international over a year ago. This is Bush II level determination.

‘Stay the course’

‘We’re rowing into a waterfall’

‘Stay the couuuuuuuu..”

Smithshadow
Smithshadow
4 years ago

@MISHMISHEH

It can hurt to be criticised and have your words held up for ridicule. Being called an idiot may seem ‘negative and destructive’. Mockery can be painful, especially if the mockery is directed at a strongly held belief.

It must be shocking when doing a ‘vanity’ search (this is an internet search using only your username as the search parameters) to find two entries mocking your words. (If you were not doing a ‘vanity’ search, please accept my apologies but in typing in your username, WHTM was the first result shown and the second was Fundies Say The Darndest Things (FSTDT).)

The quote you attribute to Aristophanes:

“The butts of the most savage jokes are opportunists who prey on the gullibility of their fellow citizens,”

is an incomplete quote and does not support your argument that mockery is evil. It is rather confusing to see why you included it, except, it is possibly one of the easiest quotes to find when scanning a Wikipedia article. I am sorry, but I find it difficult understand the evil you see in this quotation where Aristophanes is saying he mocks people who take advantage of gullible people.

To fully discuss Aristophanes and his use of mockery would require a discussion of the historical context, an overview of his plays and other factors which would consume far too much of my time and possibly be incredibly boring to read.

Reading through your many comments, you return to the idea of mockery being ‘bad’ (paraphrased for the sake of brevity). You repeat the refrain ‘Only a simple mind engages in mockery or enjoys it,’ which you do not properly attribute. (On Mockery, Mohamed Ghlian / September 3, 2013.) It is sad that you quote other parts of the article in some of your replies without attribution. You even use the Webster’s definition (slightly expanded) included in this Mohamed Ghilan’s article. The article is interesting, but the premise is based on the evils of the mockery of religion.

Mockery may be seen to be an enemy to religion as it is a criticism of the faith and the people who follow that faith. Both The Koran and The Bible deplore the use of mockery possibly because it may lead to people taking a step back and questioning the basis of their religion and their faith. This is problematic for belief systems which rely heavily on conviction.

Many writers with complex and/or brilliant minds have engaged in mockery. Examples have been provided by a number of commentators. It would seem this assertion of ‘simple minds’ is in doubt.

Discussing anything further with you holds no interest for me.

@Scildfreja
It is always a pleasure to read your interesting and informative comments.

LindsayIrene
LindsayIrene
4 years ago

Dealing with MISHMISHEH’s galloping gishing reminds me of this for some reason:

https://youtu.be/Qj-yAHTfVeE

Handsome "These Pretzels Suck" Jack (formerly Pandapool)

What’s happening now? Mizzenmast is still here?

comment image

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

For some reason “Mizzenmast” really cracked me up.

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
4 years ago

I don’t get “Mizzenmast” ._.
Is this a language thing I’m missing ?

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
4 years ago

(A mizzenmast is the mast in the middle of a sailing ship. Best known for its relationship to large gusts of wind.)

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko
4 years ago

Best known for its relationship to large gusts of wind.

That’s the part I was missing 😀

Thank you. There are things Google can’t help with, and figuring out the link between our troll and a mizzenmast fell into that category.

So it wasn’t language, I’m just slow.

Handsome "These Pretzels Suck" Jack (formerly Pandapool)

Well, I called Mixmatch “Mizzenmast” because it’s better than whatever their actual name is.

THEMISHMISHEH
THEMISHMISHEH
4 years ago

@Alan RobertShaw

As to your query about linking the two statements, it does seem you are still conflating understand with condone/approve.

I am not. Let me elaborate. To understand something you need reason based on strict principles of validity. Reason being ‘the act of thinking in a logical, sensible way’. It is an essential ingredient to forming an understanding. Without valid reasoning I cannot form a valid understanding of an issue. Without valid reason to justify things like sexual assault you cannot come to an understanding based on logical reasoning. It is not an issue of conflating ‘understanding’ with ‘condoning/approval’. You cannot through reasoning (if sexual assaults are never ever justifiable) come to understand a behaviour of a people doing such a thing.Let me tell you what does help me understand their despicable actions; their following feminism.

Additionally, You follow an ‘ideology’ that believes in something called ‘rape culture’. Based on feminism ‘rape culture’ is one that erodes sympathy for victims of sexual abuse and lays the blame on victims as apposed to the victimisers in an attempt to normalise the crime. An example of this feminist ’rape culture’ issue is people condemning rape but saying they understood why it happened because for example the woman was dressed provocatively. You and Kat are doing the exact same thing here. You are doing the exact same thing that your ideology claims to be part of ‘rape culture’. You are condemning the sexual and physical assault but saying you understand why it happened.

Please follow the link below to a feminist blog condemning a comment left by someone saying they condemn a rape but understand why it happened. It is the exact same thing that is happening here but reversed…over there feminists are condemning this person’s comment whilst here you are using the very same tactic as that person and condemning me for telling you it is wrong. This is the definition of double standards. if you don’t approve of such methods why use them to justify your actions?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/indelible/2014/03/27/i-do-not-condone-rape-but/

As to whether sexual assault is ever justified I’ll wager that 99.9’% of the feminists on this site unequivocally say no.

is putting sexual assault (when feminists do it) into context agreeable with the word ‘unequivocal’? if the answer is yes, then please don’t question those people who put rape of women into context by discussing what they were wearing before they were raped because you just as easily apply your argument here to theirs.

But compare that to non feminists. It’s ‘blokey’ society that makes approving jokes about paedophiles and other unpopular offenders getting their just desserts in prison.

‘blokey society’? are you making a sexist implication? You are a man who follows an ideology that is supposedly against sexism, yet here you are using gendered, sexist terminology. Feminism has that effect on people. It renders them illogical and senseless to its hypocrisy and double standards.

I agree with you. People who make light of pedophilia are disgusting, despicable, lowlifes. The biggest victims of this culture are usually boys. Speaking of this culture and lowlifes who make light of pedophilia and its victims; Barbara Ellen a feminist, Guardian journalist had this to say about the imprisonment of pedophile and child rapist Madeline Martin. The following is not a joke but rather serious which makes it that much more disgusting and despicable.

“Looking at the case of Madeleine Martin, the 39-year-old RE teacher and mother of two, jailed for 32 months and placed on the sex offenders’ register for sleeping with a 15-year-old male pupil, do we seriously think that a female teacher sleeping with a male pupil is on a par with a male teacher sleeping with a girl pupil? I don’t. And neither, I’d wager, would most 15-year-old boys.”

Do you know what else is disgusting and despicable? After decades of activism, in 2003 feminist groups successfully campaigned for reforms of the sexual offences act in the UK. Part of this reform involved redefining rape to exclude most female perpetrators of the act as well as their male victims. Previously, in 1994, male victims of rape had been included in the criminal justice and public order act (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/pdfs/ukpga_19940033_en.pdf). That year the words ‘raping any woman’ were exchanged to ‘raping any person’ as a definition for the crime of rape. In 2003 this was successfully changed in response to feminist ‘activism’ (http://nicolewestmarland.pbworks.com/f/Rape+Law+Reform+in+England+and+Wales+-+Westmarland+2004.pdf ) such that rape became defined as it effects women by men and excluded female perpetrators and their victims (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/pdfs/ukpga_20030042_en.pdf):

Rape in the UK become define as follows:
A person (A) commits an offence if—
* (a)  HE intentionally PENETRATES the VAGINA, ANUS or MOUTH of another person 
(B) with his PENIS, 

* (b)  B does not consent to the penetration, and 

* (c)  A does not reasonably believe that B consents. 


So thanks to feminism a woman cannot be charged with raping a man in the UK.

We also need to consider the difference between regular assaults and sexual assaults. In England at least the key element is that the motivation must be sexual gratification. To give a trite example, if a man grabs a woman’s crotch for no other reason than gratification then that’s a sexual assault. If she then kicks him in the bollocks in retaliation then it’s not a sexual assault. They both involve contact with genitals, but they have a fundamental difference.

If this is not sexual violence/assault, then I do not know what is. Would you approve of anti-feminists showing up to a feminist rally and perhaps rubbing their bare genitals against you or your wife or other feminists in the same sexual manner as was in this video, in protest of feminism? Most feminist would be crying rape and ‘rape culture’ to no end.

With our specific example, whilst the women may have found revenge gratifying I doubt they felt any sexual gratification. This was just a case of “see how you like it”.

Waow…sucking each other other’s breasts and forcibly rubbing their private parts against other human beings in a sexual manner is ‘see how you like it’??? what kind of person who despises sexual violence uses it as weapon to prove their point????? what kind of logic is this!!!????!!?????? besides, haven’t you been arguing that you don’t condone these behaviour, yet here you are clearly trying to do just that. I am so surprised that a person who is obviously intelligent can stoop to this level of irrational thinking.

Catalpa
Catalpa
4 years ago

Ah, we’ve reached the “I have found a commentor who is clearly identified as male and will now address specifically him to the exclusion of all others, because a fellow man is worth my attention and will clearly see and agree with the logic of my arguments!” stage of a troll’s life cycle.

The end is near.

Handsome "These Pretzels Suck" Jack (formerly Pandapool)

The end is near.

Fucking finally.

End it all.

Catalpa
Catalpa
4 years ago

Can we email David to finally ban the troll? I think he used up any entertainment potential he had a long long time ago. (I would do it but I can’t find the link to email David in the sidebar anymore. Did it get removed at some point?)

EDIT- Nevermind, just the baby head got removed, the link is still there. (Jeez that’s an ominous sounding sentence isn’t it.) Invoking the dark lord now.