Perhaps a political/social issues subform is needed for all these debates?

[zlemflolia]

At least this thread is a confusing as it needs to be. Talking about confusion, why were the "I AM MAD" thread and the "Feminism" thread closed? Those didn't fit the regular propaganda requirements?

My thread was not propaganda

[DerWaschbar]

At least this thread is a confusing as it needs to be. Talking about confusion, why were the "I AM MAD" thread and the "Feminism" thread closed? Those didn't fit the regular propaganda requirements?

For the record 'I'M MAD!' was closed because I was consumed by shame.

[goDel]

 

At least this thread is a confusing as it needs to be. Talking about confusion, why were the "I AM MAD" thread and the "Feminism" thread closed? Those didn't fit the regular propaganda requirements?

For the record 'I'M MAD!' was closed because I was consumed by shame.

 

 

Hey man, there is no "I" in "Team". We had fun at your expense...and now we don't. That can't be good! :(

[chenGOD]

Nobody would discuss anyway, they would just get closed for no reason, and the quasi intellectual white knight faggots would sit around in the mud twiddling their dicks

 

poor white man being oppressed.

[rixxx]

 

 

At least this thread is a confusing as it needs to be. Talking about confusion, why were the "I AM MAD" thread and the "Feminism" thread closed? Those didn't fit the regular propaganda requirements?

For the record 'I'M MAD!' was closed because I was consumed by shame.

 

 

Hey man, there is no "I" in "Team". We had fun at your expense...and now we don't. That can't be good! :(

 

 

 

doh!

[DerWaschbar]

 

 

At least this thread is a confusing as it needs to be. Talking about confusion, why were the "I AM MAD" thread and the "Feminism" thread closed? Those didn't fit the regular propaganda requirements?

For the record 'I'M MAD!' was closed because I was consumed by shame.

 

 

Hey man, there is no "I" in "Team". We had fun at your expense...and now we don't. That can't be good! :(

 

:( Anytime! :)

 

 

 

At least this thread is a confusing as it needs to be. Talking about confusion, why were the "I AM MAD" thread and the "Feminism" thread closed? Those didn't fit the regular propaganda requirements?

For the record 'I'M MAD!' was closed because I was consumed by shame.

 

 

Hey man, there is no "I" in "Team". We had fun at your expense...and now we don't. That can't be good! :(

 

 

 

doh!

 

Well there you go.

[rixxx]

lol, this was on my facebook earlier which has truly lodged in my mind (glad I could use it, could use again A++++)

[DerWaschbar]

*high 5

[Guest Rambo]

Unless you're on a forum that is unbelievably busy it serves no purpose other than to fulfill a fetish for categorizing things.

Rule of thumb: dont make a subforum if it can be avoided.

[Hoodie]

 

Nobody would discuss anyway, they would just get closed for no reason, and the quasi intellectual white knight faggots would sit around in the mud twiddling their dicks

 

poor white man being oppressed.

 

 

i don't get why the mods closed that thread. zeffolia was being civil. godel and rixxx were the ones derailing with shit about chair dildos. i disagree with most of zeffolia's arguments but i understand where he's coming from (to young, american upper middle class white males, i'm sure that feminism does seem unnecessary because they are surrounded by independent successful women). i think there was a discussion to be had, especially because a lot of people these days *do* misinterpret feminism's goals. it was a chance for education and debate and it turned into immature shitflinging. really disappointing, especially from feminists that think it's a better idea to demean ideological opponents rather than persuading them otherwise. i think that's bad form for any discussion, but it's especially dangerous when you claim to be apart of such a global movement as feminism.

[zlemflolia]

 

 

Nobody would discuss anyway, they would just get closed for no reason, and the quasi intellectual white knight faggots would sit around in the mud twiddling their dicks

 

poor white man being oppressed.

 

 

i don't get why the mods closed that thread. zeffolia was being civil. godel and rixxx were the ones derailing with shit about chair dildos. i disagree with most of zeffolia's arguments but i understand where he's coming from (to young, american upper middle class white males, i'm sure that feminism does seem unnecessary because they are surrounded by independent successful women). i think there was a discussion to be had, especially because a lot of people these days *do* misinterpret feminism's goals. it was a chance for education and debate and it turned into immature shitflinging. really disappointing, especially from feminists that think it's a better idea to demean ideological opponents rather than persuading them otherwise. i think that's bad form for any discussion, but it's especially dangerous when you claim to be apart of such a global movement as feminism.

 

Thank you very much

 

You have restored my faith in WATMM

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

Nobody would discuss anyway, they would just get closed for no reason, and the quasi intellectual white knight faggots would sit around in the mud twiddling their dicks

 

poor white man being oppressed.

 

 

i don't get why the mods closed that thread. zeffolia was being civil. godel and rixxx were the ones derailing with shit about chair dildos. i disagree with most of zeffolia's arguments but i understand where he's coming from (to young, american upper middle class white males, i'm sure that feminism does seem unnecessary because they are surrounded by independent successful women). i think there was a discussion to be had, especially because a lot of people these days *do* misinterpret feminism's goals. it was a chance for education and debate and it turned into immature shitflinging. really disappointing, especially from feminists that think it's a better idea to demean ideological opponents rather than persuading them otherwise. i think that's bad form for any discussion, but it's especially dangerous when you claim to be apart of such a global movement as feminism.

 

 

What I witnessed was an ideological opponent who was beyond persuasion. I understand that in going into debates everyone has been exposed to different information but some people are immune to persuasion and information that contradicts their position is deflected and ignored.

 

After a certain point it feels like posting actual information is exactly as useful as posting reaction gifs.

[Hoodie]

how did you come to that conclusion? it seemed to me that everyone immediately started with personal insults and whatnot. that sort of thing only polarizes people even further. you don't want that. no one is "immune" to persuasion. just planting the seed of doubt is enough to make a change.

 

and, even if zeffolia wasn't persuaded, don't you think it's still useful to engage in debate for the sake of other people who don't know much about the topic and could fall into either group depending on the information given to them? if i came into that thread with no opinion on feminism, i would be leaving it with a very negative one.

[awepittance]

I don't mind a discussion happening here about feminism, but i think Zeffolia set up the thread for failure by calling it 'feminism is nonsense'. If it was worded slightly differently with perhaps a diatribe or personal reason why he thought that besides 2 Urls maybe it would have been taken more seriously.

[Hoodie]

that is a really good point. he was being inflammatory. i still don't think the reactions were warranted though (i'm a firm believer in "being the bigger person" so to speak).

 

perhaps if a thread was created with a more neutral title and a couple of discussion points instead of just links, all parties would be satisfied.

[LimpyLoo]

how did you come to that conclusion? it seemed to me that everyone immediately started with personal insults and whatnot. that sort of thing only polarizes people even further. you don't want that. no one is "immune" to persuasion. just planting the seed of doubt is enough to make a change.

 

and, even if zeffolia wasn't persuaded, don't you think it's still useful to engage in debate for the sake of other people who don't know much about the topic and could fall into either group depending on the information given to them? if i came into that thread with no opinion on feminism, i would be leaving it with a very negative one.

 

 

Sadly, I think if someone starts off having a position that has come about through selection bias then there is simply no hope for them integrating new information that contradicts their position.

 

Sometimes in WATMM and life people are just not open to being convinced otherwise. My mother, for instance, believes that she can communicate with dead people and heal people's physical ailments over the phone. I have politely tried to present her with my side of things but it was very very obvious that she was not open to contrary information.

[zlemflolia]

 

how did you come to that conclusion? it seemed to me that everyone immediately started with personal insults and whatnot. that sort of thing only polarizes people even further. you don't want that. no one is "immune" to persuasion. just planting the seed of doubt is enough to make a change.

 

and, even if zeffolia wasn't persuaded, don't you think it's still useful to engage in debate for the sake of other people who don't know much about the topic and could fall into either group depending on the information given to them? if i came into that thread with no opinion on feminism, i would be leaving it with a very negative one.

 

 

Sadly, I think if someone starts off having a position that has come about through selection bias then there is simply no hope for them integrating new information that contradicts their position.

 

Sometimes in WATMM and life people are just not open to being convinced otherwise. My mother, for instance, believes that she can communicate with dead people and heal people's physical ailments over the phone. I have politely tried to present her with my side of things but it was very very obvious that she was not open to contrary information.

 

Nobody provided any evidence to the contrary of what I started in my OP and posts

 

The entire thread started off with spam and flame replies, and ended with them

 

You have no reason to believe my opinion could not be swayed and you made no attempt to do so, nor did anyone else, except with insults and sarcasm.

 

It is you people who hurt your own feminist nonsense cause the most.

 

And comparing belief in supernatural phenomena is not the same as comparing statistical data, one side of which has been proven time and time again to be biased and out of date.

 

Domestic violence exhibits gender symmetry, period. So does unsolicited sexual aggression. And so do wages for equal jobs, equal hours, and equal ambitions within people. This is what the modern research tells us yet it's hidden out of view and never acknowledged by feminists.

 

Some day you people will take the red pill.

[DerWaschbar]

lol

[zlemflolia]

Thesis: Rates of Domestic Violence are approximately equal between men and women, and studies showing this are suppressed for political reasons. While female victims may suffer more physical harm, female aggressors are less likely to be convicted.

Rates approximately equal:

ABSTRACT A review is made of female intimate abuse. It is concluded that females are as abusive as males in intimate relationships according to survey and epidemiological studies. This is especially so for younger “cohort” community samples followed longitudinally. Predictors of intimate violence with women appear to be similar to those of men; including antisocial criminal records, alcohol abuse, and personality disorders.

http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DUTTON-NICHOLLS-AND-SPIDEL-2005-FEMALE-PERPETRATORS-OF-INTIMATE-VIOLENCE.pdf[1]

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

Supression:

Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence:

Graham-Kevan's paper raises the question of how an explanatory theory and treatment modality could have persisted for 30 years and still persists, despite hundreds of studies which provide evidence that PV has many causes, not just male-dominance. The answer is that it emerged from a convergence of a number of different historical and social factors. One of these is that gender symmetry in perpetration of partner violence is inconsistent with male predominance in almost all other crimes, especially violent crimes. Another is the greater injury rate suffered by female victims of PV brings female victimization to public attention much more often. Although there are many causes of the persistence of the patriarchal dominance focus, I believe that the predominant cause has been the efforts of feminists to conceal, deny, and distort the evidence.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

Male DV aggressors more likely to kill their partners, but female aggressors less likely to be convicted:

"Wife defendants less likely to be convicted Wife defendants had a lower conviction rate than husband defendants-- Of the 222 wife defendants, 70% were convicted of killing their mate. By contrast, of the 318 husband defendants, 87% were convicted of spouse murder. Of the 100 wife defendants tried by either a judge or jury, 31% were acquitted. But of the 138 husband defendants tried, 6% were acquitted. Of the 59 wife defendants tried by a jury, 27% were acquitted. But of the estimated 91 husband defendants tried by a jury, none was acquitted.

http://feck-blog.blogspot.ie/2009/09/judical-bias-better-be-woman.html

[DerWaschbar]

flol

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

how did you come to that conclusion? it seemed to me that everyone immediately started with personal insults and whatnot. that sort of thing only polarizes people even further. you don't want that. no one is "immune" to persuasion. just planting the seed of doubt is enough to make a change.

 

and, even if zeffolia wasn't persuaded, don't you think it's still useful to engage in debate for the sake of other people who don't know much about the topic and could fall into either group depending on the information given to them? if i came into that thread with no opinion on feminism, i would be leaving it with a very negative one.

 

 

Sadly, I think if someone starts off having a position that has come about through selection bias then there is simply no hope for them integrating new information that contradicts their position.

 

Sometimes in WATMM and life people are just not open to being convinced otherwise. My mother, for instance, believes that she can communicate with dead people and heal people's physical ailments over the phone. I have politely tried to present her with my side of things but it was very very obvious that she was not open to contrary information.

 

Nobody provided any evidence to the contrary of what I started in my OP and posts

 

The entire thread started off with spam and flame replies, and ended with them

 

You have no reason to believe my opinion could not be swayed and you made no attempt to do so, nor did anyone else, except with insults and sarcasm.

 

It is you people who hurt your own feminist nonsense cause the most.

 

 

When you said that the only reason reason the domestic abuse stats were lopsided was men were under-reporting getting attacked. So I told you to look at the domestic homicide rate (a figure that would take the variable of 'reporting' out of the equation) and tell me what you thought of that.

 

I didn't hear back from you.

[zlemflolia]

 

 

 

how did you come to that conclusion? it seemed to me that everyone immediately started with personal insults and whatnot. that sort of thing only polarizes people even further. you don't want that. no one is "immune" to persuasion. just planting the seed of doubt is enough to make a change.

 

and, even if zeffolia wasn't persuaded, don't you think it's still useful to engage in debate for the sake of other people who don't know much about the topic and could fall into either group depending on the information given to them? if i came into that thread with no opinion on feminism, i would be leaving it with a very negative one.

 

 

Sadly, I think if someone starts off having a position that has come about through selection bias then there is simply no hope for them integrating new information that contradicts their position.

 

Sometimes in WATMM and life people are just not open to being convinced otherwise. My mother, for instance, believes that she can communicate with dead people and heal people's physical ailments over the phone. I have politely tried to present her with my side of things but it was very very obvious that she was not open to contrary information.

 

Nobody provided any evidence to the contrary of what I started in my OP and posts

 

The entire thread started off with spam and flame replies, and ended with them

 

You have no reason to believe my opinion could not be swayed and you made no attempt to do so, nor did anyone else, except with insults and sarcasm.

 

It is you people who hurt your own feminist nonsense cause the most.

 

 

When you said that the only reason reason the domestic abuse stats were lopsided was men were under-reporting getting attacked. So I told you to look at the domestic homicide rate (a figure that would take the variable of 'reporting' out of the equation) and tell me what you thought of that.

 

I didn't hear back from you.

 

 

The domestic homicide rate being higher for male aggressors doesn't contradict anything I've said.

 

Males are more likely to physically harm a woman in a domestic violence confrontation, but males and females are both equally likely to initiate it. Males are stronger than females in general.

[zlemflolia]

flol

How constructive

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

 

 

how did you come to that conclusion? it seemed to me that everyone immediately started with personal insults and whatnot. that sort of thing only polarizes people even further. you don't want that. no one is "immune" to persuasion. just planting the seed of doubt is enough to make a change.

 

and, even if zeffolia wasn't persuaded, don't you think it's still useful to engage in debate for the sake of other people who don't know much about the topic and could fall into either group depending on the information given to them? if i came into that thread with no opinion on feminism, i would be leaving it with a very negative one.

 

 

Sadly, I think if someone starts off having a position that has come about through selection bias then there is simply no hope for them integrating new information that contradicts their position.

 

Sometimes in WATMM and life people are just not open to being convinced otherwise. My mother, for instance, believes that she can communicate with dead people and heal people's physical ailments over the phone. I have politely tried to present her with my side of things but it was very very obvious that she was not open to contrary information.

 

Nobody provided any evidence to the contrary of what I started in my OP and posts

 

The entire thread started off with spam and flame replies, and ended with them

 

You have no reason to believe my opinion could not be swayed and you made no attempt to do so, nor did anyone else, except with insults and sarcasm.

 

It is you people who hurt your own feminist nonsense cause the most.

 

 

When you said that the only reason reason the domestic abuse stats were lopsided was men were under-reporting getting attacked. So I told you to look at the domestic homicide rate (a figure that would take the variable of 'reporting' out of the equation) and tell me what you thought of that.

 

I didn't hear back from you.

 

 

The domestic homicide rate being higher for male aggressors doesn't contradict anything I've said.

 

Males are more likely to physically harm a woman in a domestic violence confrontation, but males and females are both equally likely to initiate it. Males are stronger than females in general.

 

 

Would one person having a gun negate the strength inbalance?

[zlemflolia]

 

 

 

 

 

how did you come to that conclusion? it seemed to me that everyone immediately started with personal insults and whatnot. that sort of thing only polarizes people even further. you don't want that. no one is "immune" to persuasion. just planting the seed of doubt is enough to make a change.

 

and, even if zeffolia wasn't persuaded, don't you think it's still useful to engage in debate for the sake of other people who don't know much about the topic and could fall into either group depending on the information given to them? if i came into that thread with no opinion on feminism, i would be leaving it with a very negative one.

 

 

Sadly, I think if someone starts off having a position that has come about through selection bias then there is simply no hope for them integrating new information that contradicts their position.

 

Sometimes in WATMM and life people are just not open to being convinced otherwise. My mother, for instance, believes that she can communicate with dead people and heal people's physical ailments over the phone. I have politely tried to present her with my side of things but it was very very obvious that she was not open to contrary information.

 

Nobody provided any evidence to the contrary of what I started in my OP and posts

 

The entire thread started off with spam and flame replies, and ended with them

 

You have no reason to believe my opinion could not be swayed and you made no attempt to do so, nor did anyone else, except with insults and sarcasm.

 

It is you people who hurt your own feminist nonsense cause the most.

 

 

When you said that the only reason reason the domestic abuse stats were lopsided was men were under-reporting getting attacked. So I told you to look at the domestic homicide rate (a figure that would take the variable of 'reporting' out of the equation) and tell me what you thought of that.

 

I didn't hear back from you.

 

 

The domestic homicide rate being higher for male aggressors doesn't contradict anything I've said.

 

Males are more likely to physically harm a woman in a domestic violence confrontation, but males and females are both equally likely to initiate it. Males are stronger than females in general.

 

 

Would one person having a gun negate the strength inbalance?

 

Yes but the majority of domestic violence doesn't involve guns. Just like the majority of violence in general.