NOTE: This page is in desperate need of revision and expansion. In the meantime, I suggest you use Rationalwiki’s Manosphere Glossary.
For newcomers to this blog, here’s a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you’ll encounter here and in the “manosphere” in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.
First, the acronyms you’ll see most often here:
MRA: Men’s Rights Activist
MRM: Men’s Rights Movement
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way.
Ok, so what do those terms mean?
MRM: The Men’s Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as “men’s rights.” Unlike the original Men’s Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men’s Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men’s Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men’s rights per se; they are opposed to those who’ve turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking “independence” from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date “western women” and some try to avoid women altogether. I think the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.
Some other terms and acronyms you’ll run across here:
Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).
Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. A term, and identity, adopted by some dateless guys (as well as some women, but it’s the men we’ll focus on here). While there is nothing shameful about being dateless, or a virgin, or having a really long dry spell sexually — most of us have been there at some point — the term “involuntarily celibate” seems to suggest that the world owes incels sex, and that women who turn down incel men for dates or sex are somehow oppressing them. For those (male, straight) incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. And often does.
Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them — e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.
The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.
NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they’ve come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: “not all women are like that.” Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.
PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA (insofar as it is not complete bullshit) is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old ploy of “playing hard to get.”
Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with “foreign women,” a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of “Ameriskanks” and other WW.
Argenti:
“You can’t even get your theory on the Empress straight — did she not know she was attacked, or did adrenalin conceal the pain?”
Did she know she was attacked? She most likely did not, had she known the ship was hardly the place to go for medical assistance. She was an old thin woman who got knocked down by physical force and needed help to walk after this. They didn t know she was stabbed.¨
“After Lucheni had run off, Elisabeth was asked if she was injured, she said she had not. “It is nothing.” Not realizing the severity of her injury, she boarded the ship. Her corset had contained the bleeding until was removed. She was brought back to her hotel but she had died on the stretcher.” (http://scandalouswoman.blogspot.se/2009/12/lonely-empress-life-of-elisabeth-of.html)
Sisi fell to the ground, but was helped up by the Countess. “It was nothing”, she said to calm the lady down, and they went on board. Shortly after that she fainted. “It is nothing but the fright”, she insisted. But once they were sailing the Leman waters she felt a Sharp pain in her chest. (http://wanderingplaces.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/eliabeth-of-bavaria-empress-sisi/)
“Having a man stumble into you isn’t usually nearly enough to cause pain concealing adrenalin. (um, duh?)”
No thats true, the point being she did not know adrenalin concealed the pain from a stabbing cause she was unaware of being stabbed at all (due to adrenaline also the wound being done with sharp very thin object blood not showingm it doesnt hurt, its not visible)
“Considering she was only able to board the boat by walking with support, going to guess she knew she was attacked, just didn’t realize how severe her wound was.”
She did not know she had a wound, neither did her company thats supposed to have been discovered first at the boat. She was a 60 year old thin woman who got knocked down and got help up.
“And even tight lacing corsets don’t restrict blood flow FFS.”
So you say, you dont really offer links/sources do you?
“And just for extra lulz, she’s reported to have stopped tight lacging before 1862 (2+ decades before her death) — “Although on her return to Vienna in August 1862, a lady-in-waiting reported that “she eats properly, sleeps well, and does not tight-lace anymore””
Yes in 1862, 2+ decades before her death (see how this can mean two different things?). I cant for my life realise how you would believe this proves her not again having tight lacings. But for lulz as you say how about seeing what sources say happen next 20 years.
“Other costumes exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art had external measures of 18 1/2 (bridal evening dress, 1854) and 19 1/2 (two, including the bodice through which the Empress was stabbed to death, repr. Joseph Wechsbert). In 1882, she is described by the Prince of Hesse as ”almost inhumanly slender.” In 1887 she was ”scarcely human in (her) fantastic attributes of hair and line” (Haslip, pp. 334 and 373). In 1890, she is still ”graceful, but almost too slender” and ”excessively slender, but still in terror of growing stout” (De Burgh, p.58; Corti, p.425).” (http://www.corsets.de/The_Empress_Elizabeth_of_Austria.php)
According to this her bodice was merely 1,5 inches less slender at death than she was during her marriage.
All links go to the comment, not the link itself.
Re: Simon Fraser University Men’s Center — Your link — Pecunium’s
Two re: Triver’s from Pecunium.
My link to the Cosmo we were discussing.
BS link from you, claiming to be peer reviewed when actually pulled from your ass.
Your link re: 1700s Russian “metrosexuals”.
Two studies from you — neither saying what you claim (see my comments on that).
Ev-psych related quotes from Nancy, and an op-ed link.
Couple irrelevant links from you. If those prove anything they prove why we still need feminism (but when I said that the last time you made some BS claim about giving you my view, like I wasn’t). And an ev-psych quote from you again, not proving wtf you said it did.
Ev-psych counter from Howard. (Which you flatly refused to consider btw)
Round 1 of Spot That Fallacy!! with link to wiki explaining your fallacies. (That was the 12th, a week ago, if anyone is curious)
A link from Pecunium re: the Catholic hierarchy.
Two from ithiliana re: cover models and photoshop.
Jessay re: Bush being a guy you could drink with.
Three links to books and one to a NYT piece that again, doesn’t really say what you claim (one college remains not generalizable to the nation at large). Same NYT link, again, and an “intent is magic” claim.
My first legal citation.
Complete gibberish from you re: Kate Winslet, and the first page of a JSTOR article, which might’ve been interesting if only we could actually read it.
My second attempt with that legal citation.
Two news articles from you re: false rape accusations.
Pecunium’s ad homenim in the wild.
Another book from you.
That same NYT article, again.
80s film from Pecunium, proving the PUA idea isn’t new. (Note that unlike your books, you don’t need to buy the film to see it was made in 1980)
Same NYT article, yet again. Also, a Swedish page that seems to be an op-ed saying feminists are the ones who want women to change (ie support the patriarchy less, from what I can gather from the translation). And a third link saying um…the opposite of what you claim.
Not a citation, but Spot That Fallacy!! is more fun than this list.
A link from you on PUA — opinion, but does at least sort of say what you claim.
Pecunium citing his search results — that basically counts as original research in context.
My citation on how old birth control is (hint, the answer is nearly 4,000 years old). And one re: the etymology of the word “hater” (hint, it’s 14th century). Two re: the definition of rape and another explaining how assuming Pecunium and I are the same person was an association fallacy.
One from you re: the legalese of behind “consent” in Sweden (does seem to say what you claim)
Three news reports from me, re: Assange.
One from you re: Assange.
Two studies from me on reproductive coercion.
100 pages from you re: Assange.
Two wikis from me, re: stress responses. And sources for the tetris study I referenced.
I seem to have caught up with the current comments, so that adds to…
From you — News articles: 8; Books: 4; Studies: 2 (one completely doesn’t say wtf you claim, the other mostly doesn’t); Op-eds: 2 & 1 useless JSTOR article (first page only? useless)
From Pecunium — 1 news article, 2 studies, one movie, and maybe one piece of original research; from Howard: 1 page with studies; from Jessay: proof it wasn’t an anecdote; from Nancy: 2 op-eds re: ev-psych; from ithiliana: 2 op-ed and an example re: photoshop.
From me: Legal citations: 2; General citations: 5; New articles: 3; Studies: 3
In other words — “You must be kidding. I am the only person in the room who have even linked to a study here. Most people here do nothing but criticism and hide their own ideas.” — complete and utter bullshit.
I have a link in mod catagoling all relevant citations in the last 6 pages of comments, as it’s mostly quotes, to mod it went! Give me a min to read the latest attempt at peddling fish.
“Did she know she was attacked? She most likely did not, had she known the ship was hardly the place to go for medical assistance. She was an old thin woman who got knocked down by physical force and needed help to walk after this.”
…how do you define attacked? Hit with enough force to be unable to walk unassisted = attacked to most people (I mean, everyone basically).
And this? ““It is nothing but the fright”, she insisted.” Disproves your theory that it couldn’t have been an acute stress reaction (it would appear the Empress’s stress reaction was a combination of fear [“a fright”] and shock)
“No thats true, the point being she did not know adrenalin concealed the pain from a stabbing cause she was unaware of being stabbed at all”
Yet she was quite aware she’d been attacked, which is the fucking point.
“So you say, you dont really offer links/sources do you?”
Considering this is now a tangent on a tangent on a tangent, no, I didn’t, give me a moment and I’ll dredge some up (you’ll have to read Victorian English again though).
“I cant for my life realise how you would believe this proves her not again having tight lacings. But for lulz as you say how about seeing what sources say happen next 20 years.”
There are no other references to her tight lacing that I found, none after the 1860s (there are a couple before that, but that’s irrelevant).
18.5 + 1.5 = 20″ // 51 cm; 19.5 + 1.5 = 21″ // 53 cm; I can’t seem to find average waist sizes in 1890, but first thing’s first, to size a corset you take your natural waist and subtract at least 2″, and up to 6″ — meaning a 20″ corset would fit a 22″ waist (56 cm), or up to a 26″ waist (66 cm). Adding that other 1″ gets us 23″-27″ (58.5-68.5 cm). Modern corset sizing info from Corset Connections.
As to average waists, I am finding absolute nothing from the 1980s, but — “Today’s waists…
…are on average 28″ to 34″. A reasonable expectation is 24″-28″ with moderate corseting and 20″-24″ with figure training. ” (here and matches the CDC data)
Now, as to the dangers of tight lacing — it received a lot of medical criticism as a “needless thing women do” basically, with about a half dozen doctors coming up with results like these — which would mean it might raise blood pressure, but sure doesn’t lower it. And corsets had been around for centuries before then, with no controversy — a non-tight laced corset is perfectly safe (well, assuming that level of dressed isn’t a heat stroke risk).
Any other corset related things you’d like cited? (For lulz, I wear a ~20″ corset too btw, it’s really not that tiny if you’re small to begin with)
Note also that 20-21″ was well within the average for corsets in that period — “Towards the end of the 19th century, waist dimensions had become very small, with 16″ to 20″ being the goal for young fashionable women and 21″ to 26″ for the more mature.” From here and note the bit about playing sports while tight laced.
And medical corsets still exist btw (for men too even!)
I’m kind of like that, too. Just one hour after surviving an F5 last year, I was cracking jokes and making decisions about what to do. That doesn’t mean I wasn’t traumatized. It’s just that morbid humor was my coping mechanism. While I appeared calm on the outside both during and after the tornado, I was very shook up on the inside. I was in shock at that time, and that the shock made it possible for me to do what I had to do to keep me and my kids safe.
If rape survivors’ shock is anything like that, it’s makes perfectly good sense that they could go to a party or laugh right after their trauma. It doesn’t mean they weren’t traumatized; it just means their minds may not be processing everything yet.
That’s amazing. It wasn’t possible for me. Then again, like ithiliana said, not everyone responds the same way to a traumatic event.
I get the impression that where most people have a brain, you have a little goldfish going around in circles, forgetting its own argument over and over.
(Because you apparently need everything spelled out really, really explicitly: you correctly figured out that when someone else disputes your lived experience by saying, “no, if that had really happened you would have acted differently,” that is a dumb argument! Good job! So when YOU dispute someone else’s lived experience by saying, “no, if that had really happened you would have acted differently,” can you tell me what that is?)
Just so we’re caught up on that. (that includes the citation below)
Oh and btw? It sounds a lot like the Empress may’ve been anorexic and maybe her waist size and how much corseting was a factor aren’t quite so correlated — most people who don’t have eating disorders are not ”excessively slender, but still in terror of growing stout” — that last bit is part of the diagnostic criteria for anorexia, “intense fear of gaining weight” (citation)
bionic mommy — that’s more common in natural disasters, not some magic trauma proof bubble (don’t we all wish). Iirc it’s that human caused disasters come with an extra layer of suddenly having to face how evil humanity can be, while natural disasters are (generally) unavoidable. It’s the betrayal part basically.
Shit, I can’t find the source of that theory now, but here are the rates that cause the o.O? response from psych researchers.
“Research suggests that interpersonal traumas such as rape and assault are more likely to result in PTSD than other types of traumas.” Source, could someone cite that shit, please?
Ah! An overview with full text PDFs.
…I have no idea how I broke the html like that…it seems both links do work though o.O?
That makes sense. Your PDF link was very informative, especially the chart showing the intersection between which traumas are terror inducing, which ones are betrayal, and which are both.
bionic mommy — just glad what I meant is clear now, as I certainly wasn’t trying to say that natural disasters cannot produce PTSD, just that it isn’t as common (I mean 49% of rape survivors?! Holy shit)
Argenti Aertheri, no worries. I understood what you meant all along. I was trying to say how amazed I was that other people can experience natural disasters without feeling traumatized.
Argenti: We’re into formal logic now, and you are badly out logic-ed.
It’s not even that he’s out of his league (which he is), it’s that his logical engine is running on empty. That or he bought a Perpetual Logic Machine from Acme Patented Perpetual Motion Division.
re trauma: I broke my ankle in a motorcycle wreck. I got back on the bike, and didn’t actually go to the hospital until more than 24 hours later.
A friend of mine was shot. He didn’t realise it until his boss pointed out the blood, on both sides of his shirt.
It’s not the corsets, it’s the shock.
Ronald Reagan didn’t think he was shot. It wasn’t until he got to the hospital (taken as a matter of course whenever someone shoots at the president), that he found out… had he not gone to the hospital, he would have died.
Aktivarum: Thats called “innocent until proven guilty” thus… yes we do assume people to likely be innocent unless proven otherwise. There are specific political reasons for this having to do with convicting the innocent being way worse than guilty people not being punished.
No, it’s not. Innocent until proven guilty is a precept of law, relating to the legal status of the accused. It doesn’t mean we think everything the accused says is true until they are convicted. It also doesn’t mean that people can’t read the accounts of the events and come to personal opinions. I, for example, am firmly convinced that the cops who beat Rodney King are guilty of assault under color of authority, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to maim.
I think O.J. Simpson isn’t guilty of the charges which were made against him (that is I think the prosecutions theory of the case is impossible, the evidence presented untenable. If he was involved he did not act alone).
Lots of people disagree with my conclusions on both cases. None of which has anything to do with wheter or not those people were telling the truth when they were making statements to the police.
You must be kidding. I am the only person in the room who have even linked to a study here. Most people here do nothing but criticism and hide their own ideas.
I am not kidding in the least. You are making the affirmative claims. The person making such a claim has the burden of proof (just like the prosecution does against Assange… innocent until proven guilty. Go ahead, prove your case).
Also you are lying when you say no one else has linked to a study, because I did, (three, studies IIRC, and google comparisons to debunk your claims on “Master PUA status, as well as various other links to outside sources) you ignored it. So go ahead, check my presented evidence.
Check Howard Bannisters. Check Argentis.
Or don’t. But Stop Lying
Check your own presented evidence. You ask other people for studies while presenting links to none. Start producing own view instead of basing your status at attacking others.
What? If I’m not presenting anything but my own view (instead of studies) why are you asking for more of my own view? Once again you can’t keep your story straight from one sentence to the next.
“That or he bought a Perpetual Logic Machine from Acme Patented Perpetual Motion Division.”
Lol, that’s gotta be it, he’s been at this since the 6th — two weeks ago tomorrow.
“It’s not the corsets, it’s the shock.”
His claim was, I think, that she bled slower than normal because of tight lacing, when:
1) There’s no evidence she was tight lacing, and there is evidence she’d stopped tight lacing years before.
2) Tight lacing may raise blood pressure, but certainly doesn’t lower it, meaning she’d have bled faster.
Either that or his claim is she didn’t know she’d been attacked, just thought she was hit in the chest (and that’s not an attack).
(Btw, I agree on the Rodney King class, and kind of disagree on OJ, but that’s more based on things like “If I Did It”)
I also disagree on OJ. I think he did it, based on the history of how he abused Nicole. She had left him, and that’s the time he would be most likely to kill her. I also think the LAPD framed him, even though he was already guilty. Those are just my opinions, though, and since I wasn’t on the jury it really doesn’t matter what I think.
See that, Aktivarum? The jury acquitted him, and I still think he’s guilty. I have the right to believe whatever I want about whatever case is in the news. The idea of innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be the rule in the criminal justice system, but private citizens can think whatever they want.
I read the coroner’s reports. I saw footage of his lack of agility from a few year’s before (at a birthday party where a nine-year old jumping into his arms almost caused him to collapse because he’s got impact related arthritis of the knees. I read accounts, from other witnesses of his interactions with Nicole. Recall that she’d left him something like two years before.
The evidence the LAPD provided (specifically the blood evidence) was bullshit. There was some framing going on.
I also know there were two similar murders in the same area which the LAPD said and still says; they being unsolved, were gang related.
Which is why I have my opinions.
Oh, BTW, Aktivarum, notice that we (feminists) are having a difference of opinion about crimes a man may have committed against women.
And no one is saying that I am an evil person, revoking my feminist card or that I will never be get laid in this town again (well, the odds of my being in Guelph anytime in the immediate future are slim, so tonight may be my last chance for quite some time. I shall try not to be too disconsolate about it).
Aktivarum — Since you seem to get your views on rape from bad TV, go through a few pages of Project Unbreakable for what rape really looks like.
Trigger warning on that — “This photography project was created in October of 2011 by Grace Brown. Grace works with survivors of sexual assault, photographing them holding a poster with a quote from their attacker.”
Do attention to ones such as this one and this one. And especially ones like this one and this one.
Don’t miss the stories either. And do note the things police and DAs say.
You homework, in the course called “how to be a decent human being” is to click each of those links, and then review everything you’ve said so far in this thread. Particularly this line — “I have never said Assange was a great guy doing nothing wrong. The case is about defining rape in ways that can be proven. Which actually helps real rape victims cause police do not have infinite resources and most cases doesnt even reach the courts.”
You are not helping. And if you managed to get through all of those still thinking you know all about how rape victims react? You fail “being a decent human being” and neither I, nor anyone else, can help you.
thebionicmommy:
“See that, Aktivarum? The jury acquitted him, and I still think he’s guilty. I have the right to believe whatever I want about whatever case is in the news.”
You probably did not read what I was writing. The point was you must start with the assumption of innocence. Guilt must be based on evidence – innocence doesnt! Thus what I said had nothing about you having to agree with the court decisions. I said if you cant prove crime you cant claim crime.
“The idea of innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be the rule in the criminal justice system, but private citizens can think whatever they want.”
Any person can think what they want. Thought-crime is a ridiculous idea. However the point when talking about a crime is people cant be treated as guilty when not found guilty. They cant be assumed guilty based on lack of evidence showing them innocent. Also just the stories from one of the sides prove nothing.
Pecunium:
“It also doesn’t mean that people can’t read the accounts of the events and come to personal opinions. I, for example, am firmly convinced that the cops who beat Rodney King are guilty of assault under color of authority, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to maim.”
You can think whatever you want, and say whatever you want, thats the upside of living under the system of “liberal democracy” instead of dictatorship. The downside is other people can do the same thing. However you can not TREAT persons not found guilty as if they were guilty. There is the action – there is the crime – innocent means no crime. Your own opinion on crime simply doesnt matter. Nothing is a crime cause you say it is! Crime itself is decided by the authority handling such matters.
“I think O.J. Simpson isn’t guilty of the charges which were made against him (that is I think the prosecutions theory of the case is impossible, the evidence presented untenable. If he was involved he did not act alone).”
It doesnt matter! I you have a problem with the verdict you are to criticize the people deciding it. OJ is not one of them.
“Lots of people disagree with my conclusions on both cases. None of which has anything to do with wheter or not those people were telling the truth when they were making statements to the police.”
Again, it doesnt matter.
“I am not kidding in the least. You are making the affirmative claims.”
Everyone is implicitly or explicitly making affirmative claims! Science is not about absolute truth! Science is about comparisons finding which explanations (of the ALTERNATIVES) is more likely. Since most people here are to chicken to even dare tell people what is their claim the only thing happening is me telling a claim and others attacking that claim. Very simple! Same as when evolutionary theory makes a claim and Intelligent design attacks it for not being perfect. The ID people don t wanna talk about their own views and neither do people here. In fact most links offered are not a view at all – but people telling what is wrong with other views. The message being not knowledge – but what people dont know.
“The person making such a claim has the burden of proof (just like the prosecution does against Assange… innocent until proven guilty. Go ahead, prove your case).”
Thats where you are wrong. While in The assange case its the matter of guilty or not. In science and politics its the matter about COMPARING which one of two flawed theories works best. Thats the purpose of science, to be actually used! If people build cars by telliing what is wrong with other cars you would not even be able to drive a car today cause people would never build them – they would just sabotage competiton.
Pecunium — “Treat it as an account in dispute. I am sure you take the denials of everyone accused of a crime as the more likely version to be true.”
Aktivarum — “Thats called “innocent until proven guilty” thus… yes we do assume people to likely be innocent unless proven otherwise. There are specific political reasons for this having to do with convicting the innocent being way worse than guilty people not being punished.”
Pecunium — “No, it’s not. Innocent until proven guilty is a precept of law, relating to the legal status of the accused. It doesn’t mean we think everything the accused says is true until they are convicted. It also doesn’t mean that people can’t read the accounts of the events and come to personal opinions. I, for example, am firmly convinced that the cops who beat Rodney King are guilty of assault under color of authority, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to maim.”
First, +1 point in the Spot That Fallacy category of cherry-picking. Second, he mocked your insistence we have to treat Assange as innocent, you replied with the legalese of “innocent until proven guilt”, to which he replied that “innocent until proven guilty is a precept of law” — meaning everyone not in the courtroom can have any opinion they like, he then gave examples.
At which point pulled your least logical “argument” yet (and damned does that take skill) — I can’t even parse together a potential view point from this mess, and I’ve had competent arguments with 9 year olds. Let’s attempt to pick out anything that might make coherent sense when all your sentences actually go together?
“The point was you must start with the assumption of innocence. Guilt must be based on evidence – innocence doesnt!”
This is true in the case of court decisions, not in the case of public opinion, and since, as I repeat, none of us is going to be on the Assange case, the legallese is utterly irrelevant to our opinions on his case, or him in general.
“Thus what I said had nothing about you having to agree with the court decisions.”
No, it didn’t, despite the fact we were not discussing court decisions but public opinion. Which is what Pecunium was trying to note with the above (I think, but his arguments are much easier to parse, being coherent and all).
“I said if you cant prove crime you cant claim crime.”
None of us are making legal claims. How much clearer could that be? Any opinion expressed in this thread is not the opinion of anyone legally involved in the Assange case (now might be a good time to fess up to a conflict of interest if that’s not true, but considering no one but you reads Swedish, I doubt anyone here is involved).
“Any person can think what they want.”
*slow clap* Yes, that’s what Pecunium was saying.
“However the point when talking about a crime is people cant be treated as guilty when not found guilty. They cant be assumed guilty based on lack of evidence showing them innocent.”
Legally, yep, but we weren’t making legally binding opinions.
“Also just the stories from one of the sides prove nothing.”
In court that’s about half true, in public opinion? *dies laughing* You ever read a court case before? I’m guessing not, or you’d realize just how foolish some defendants are, Manson’s leap over the table doesn’t really require much other info to go “probably not safe to have him in court”.
“However you can not TREAT persons not found guilty as if they were guilty if you have legal bearing on the case.”
Fixed that, and since none of us do this remains utterly irrelevant to how we view Assange and his accusers.
“There is the action – there is the crime – innocent means no crime. Your own opinion on crime simply doesnt matter.”
Now you’re getting it! Since we aren’t legally involved, we can hold whatever opinion we like.
“It doesnt matter! I you have a problem with the verdict you are to criticize the people deciding it. OJ is not one of them.”
Note the avoidance of the Rodney King case, might that be because thinking the defendants are guilty and hating them for that just makes too much sense to ignore? Then again, it’s beginning to feel like you have some sort of anti-logic shield. So let me say it again — since we aren’t legally involved, we can have whatever opinion we like — that includes who to blame, and for what.
“Again, it doesnt matter. ”
Um…since none of us are legally involved opinion was the entire point of this bit of your derailing the glossary. What is this randomness about science? That will require its own comment.
“Everyone is implicitly or explicitly making affirmative claims!”
Then what was this shit:
“There are at least two flawed assumptions in this statement. First feminists (like all political groups) are defined not what they say but what they DO. Second feminists are not defined what they are against, they are defined by what they promote. *** Thus in what way do you mean the society feminists wanna build would prevent girls from doing the slutty thing?”
“Science is not about absolute truth! Science is about comparisons finding which explanations (of the ALTERNATIVES) is more likely.”
So are the laws of thermodynamics no longer laws? Some of it is absolute truth, some of it is straight up math that’s either true, or false, no comparisons. In any case, law is not science, t othe point my lawyer student best friend regularly laments this.
“Since most people here are to chicken to even dare tell people what is their claim the only thing happening is me telling a claim and others attacking that claim. Very simple!”
Please reread the last 6 pages of comments — we’ve been making plenty of claims, both opinion claims, and science claims. You ignore the latter and demand evidence of the former. Also, pot? Meet kettle! (That’d be internet shorthand for “well it that ain’t the pot calling the kettle black…”)
“Same as when evolutionary theory makes a claim and Intelligent design attacks it for not being perfect. The ID people don t wanna talk about their own views and neither do people here.”
Yeah, see above, we have been giving our views, repeatedly, with citations. You either ignore them, or should maybe see a neurologist about that memory issue you’re having.
“In fact most links offered are not a view at all – but people telling what is wrong with other views.”
First it’s “Everyone is implicitly or explicitly making affirmative claims!” but now it’s “people telling what is wrong with other views.” Pick a view and stick with it. You can’t even keep your own view straight for an entire comment and you’re claiming we’re not offering views? When we offer opinion you demand citations, when we find examples of other people sharing those views, you’ve consistently either called them anecdotes, or simply ignored them. (You do remember we can scroll up right? You might be advised to try likewise if it is some sort of memory issue and not intentionally ignoring things)
“The message being not knowledge – but what people dont know.”
What you don’t know can be knowledge. You’re officially the scariest type of person of all — the kind who thinks he doesn’t need to be told things he doesn’t know. Considering what he went on to do with his one intelligent statement, it pains me to quote Rumsfeld, but nonetheless —
“[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don’t know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know, we don’t know.”
You are, apparently, of the believe that having something go from an “unknown unknown” to a “known unknown” is a bad thing. And that is simply scary.
“Thats where you are wrong. While in The assange case its the matter of guilty or not. In science and politics its the matter about COMPARING which one of two flawed theories works best. Thats the purpose of science, to be actually used!”
See above, law is not science, etc.
“If people build cars by telliing what is wrong with other cars you would not even be able to drive a car today cause people would never build them – they would just sabotage competiton.”
And there’s the inevitable red herring! Could you try to go one comment without peddling fish? Oh and btw? Engineering a good percentage not making the same mistakes the other guy did. Hell, art is mostly not making the same mistakes you previously did. Again, your views a scary, do you really consider learning from your mistakes so dangerous as to “sabotage competition”?