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?
It’s “subscribe” to your way of thinking, not “ascribe.” To ascribe is to attribute an explanation; to subscribe is to follow.
For example:
“I ascribe Valizadeh’s lack of success in neo-Nazi circles to his lack of hygiene.”
This means that I believe that if Roosh wiped his ass, the alt-Right might be willing to associate with him.
“I subscribe to the school of thought that Valizadeh is growing a beard in order to hide the fact that his face is still stained with beer.”
This means that I agree with the theory that Roosh hasn’t washed since his beer-ing in Canada.
I normally wouldn’t be this pedantic about language use, but since you’ve taken it upon yourself to suggest that WWTH has limited mental capacity (despite being one of the most intelligent and literate people on the site, as you would know if you had read much of it) then you really should make sure to come correct in every particular.
Does that help?
Also, if you could kindly fuck off, that would be ever so gracious.
I’d like to point out that Capslock Dude is proud of being on the same level as a baby smearing the walls with their own poop.
It’s a bit lower than that actually : unlike the baby, he don’t try to do something artistic with it.
I would also put him under the intellectual level of cats, who at least make a decent act when they try to express “I meant to do that” after a fall or another misshap.
My estimation is that he is barely as intelligent as a portion of the intergalactic void. But the void have a bit more matter to its arguments.
Please don’t be dissing on the intergalactic void. I wrote a piece about it and it’s actually quite interesting.
Were I to make an intelligence comparison, I would suggest that he is as clever as Carl Benjamin thinks his audience are.
I do like astronomy, and wrote that knowing that the intergalactic void isn’t totally empty and give interesting insight on the universe. Still, as far as I know, it’s the place with less information in it who isn’t the brain of an extremist (MRA or otherwise), purely due to how empty it is.
It’s alway strange to think that thoses places are significantly emptier of everything than any void we are able to create on earth. I tend to be more attracted to black holes, neutrons stars on one side as utterly alien stellar body ; and neutrinos and dark energy/matter for their faculty to just ignore the material world. But in the end, it’s not like there is a single part of astronomy who isn’t interesting. Even papers on the geological activity on the moon are fascinating.
Trufax.
I see you’re still under the mistaken impression that your ideas are worthy of debate or consideration. They are not. I’m not sure who you were quoting in your last post, but I have another quote for you that I think is quite fitting here. It’s by Isaac Asimov
Your opinion doesn’t deserve to be treated seriously simply because you decided to spew it on to the internet.
I’ve noticed that a lot of MRAs seem to confuse the concepts, “posting a lot on the internet,” and “being successful.”
I am assuming that WWTH is an acronym for this website, which you, if I understood you correctly, seem to suggest is a hang out for intelligent people. I assure you I was not referring to this website, on which I stumbled by accident, in my previous comment but rather feminists and feminism as a collective.
Your reply as a whole and your insults, they do nothing more than enforce what I have written about you people. You focus on irrelevancies, you distort facts and manipulate statistics, you rely on deception, hate and mockery, all weapons of a weak people who’s cause is devoid of logic.
Intelligence is a very loose, subjective word. What qualifies as intelligence in your eyes might be considered stupidity in the eyes of another person. By your standards mockery is a form of intelligence by mine it is not.
Maybe you should take a leaf out of your own book and conduct yourself in a manner more agreeable with the word ‘correct’ before making this demand of others…but I am sure this paragraph is going to fly right over your head.
Only an idle, simple mind engages in mockery or enjoys it. I think devoting an entire website to such purpose as mockery speaks volumes for what feminism is about.
Right. No one intelligent has ever made fun of ridiculous premises before. Mark Twain, Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde… all idiots. All ideas are equally worthy and in order to prove you are intelligent you need to waste your time nodding seriously at any inane drivel that drifts your way.
Also, just a heads up from a literate person, the acronym for We Hunted The Mammoth is “WHTM”. And it is a blog, not a person. It took me about 3 seconds to comprehend the context cues clearly refer to a person whose name comes to the acronym “WWTH,” and another 10 to read back to see the name “WeirwoodTreeHugger”.
But, you know, thanks for showing us all how literate you are.
I see! so nodding seriously at any inane drivel that drifts your way is a stupid waste of time! Something you should avoid doing!! Then, you must loath this website, everyone on it (including yourself) and the person who wrote this article and the small army of feminists who have commented on it, entertaining the ‘drivel’ that is my comment on prostitution and my comments since yesterday…
God almighty, your very reply contradicts your argument. This website is devoted to mocking what you define as drivel, do you not see the contradiction in your comment??? how much thought did you put into it before you wrote it? God, give me strength…It is a site devoted to mockery, is that a constructive use of your time?
I cannot believe I am entertaining this rubbish excuse for a counterargument.
@THEMISHMISHEH If you already know it’s a rubbish excuse, why are you entertaining it?
@Mishmisheh, sweetie…
Ktoryx was using sarcasm. The argument was *supposed* to be ridiculous, because Ktoryx is sarcastically summarizing your argument.
EJ was focusing on the little details of your mistakes in order to demonstrate that he thinks your arguments are so worthless as to not bear a reply.
I addressed your comments directly back on the last page, if you want to talk about you (snrk) ideas, why don’t you reply to that? Or to WWTH? Which stands for weirwoodtreehugger, who is by far the best of us.
I have spotted a Pedantic Huffpuffery that has wandered out of its natural habitat!! Please, no sudden movements, folks. If he gets startled, he may get even more pompous.
Oh my sweet pickles, it is funny when they think they’re making sense.
This is his solution not mine…you might want to give this a little more thought. Take your time. You’ll get it, eventually, I’m sure.
@THEMISHMISHEH
Your Dunning-Kruger is showing
Why yes. I am all the commenters on this site and David too. Also Katie and every cat in the world.
Does that mean we can’t hug you?
http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/f1quirnnY8Y/hqdefault.jpg
I remember this one… it was how I first realized that I was a bit touchy on this subject. (Former sex worker here, if anyone needed reminding.)
Anyway, I find the premise of the original article to be frankly ludicrous. Even if we accepted the classification sex as an absolute “need”, then… it’s exploitative to provide it to those who are in need of it? Like how grocery stores exploit hungry people? Okay then. And if it’s not a need, well, the clients sought me out. I didn’t attempt to seduce or coerce them. I discussed what they wanted and were into. If they somehow didn’t understand the social/moral/legal/health issues with what they were getting into, that wasn’t my responsibility, any more than it’s a shopkeeper’s responsibility if someone buys a microwave from them and uses it to dry off their cat. Not seeing any exploitation there.
I don’t remember any incidents of johns being forced at gunpoint to pay for sex.
Actually, buddy, if you bothered to read the thread you just joined, you would see 5 pages of thoughtful debate on the ethics and politics of prostitution. You were the one who came in here a year later spouting banalities and claiming they were brilliant. And we were rightfully calling you out on your drivel. That’s what was happening. Would you like any more help with your reading there, sport?
@Snowberry
what article? you mean my comment on prostitution? or the article on which I left that comment? or the bit written on my comment by the author of this thread? No, I am just being facetious. You probably meant my comment…
Speaking of comments, I like yours. It is perhaps the only one thus far (well, since yesterday) that has actually addressed the issue in question. Is prostitution sexual exploitation of men?
To address this part of your comment I am going to start off by defining the word ‘need’. The Oxford Dictionary defines this word as a requirement that is essential (emphasis on the word essential). The dictionary goes on to explain that a ‘need’ is something that is NOT just desirable. Sex does not qualify as a ‘need’. It is something that is desirable but not essential. As a human being I can live without sex but I cannot live without food. Hence why, food is a need whilst sex is not.
As a prostitue, you are ( and I am using a second-person narrative here so I am not referring to you in person), exploiting the innate sexual desires of men for financial gain. This is, in its essence and by its very definition sexual exploitation.
By this reasoning, we should not hold drug dealers to account for selling drugs because, well, their clients sought them out. I hope you see the flaw in your logic. Please, don’t reply telling me not to compare drug dealers to prostitutes because I am not. I am just saying that the act of being sought out for a particular ‘service’ does not absolve you of the responsibility for providing it.
@THEMISHMISHEH
In your world, do women not have sexual desire? And if sex is merely a desire and not a need, what’s wrong with providing for it? Is it wrong for my cable provider to exploit my desire for high-speed Internet access?