if you could, i'd appreciate if you'd elaborate on the above bolded sentence so that we can have a conversation about it. thank you. :) Yes, I too would like to know just where are you getting your information. Sorry for the late reply, I kinda went inactive there for a long time and I know it's 2 years later, but better late than never: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/15gnyz/7_tactics_used_by_academic_feminists_to_suppress/Edit: the above link just lists ways in which feminists manipulate data. Here's an actual example of them doing so: http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/cdc-being-made-to-penetrate-isnt-rape/
may i point out that, while she may have stolen his money, at no time did she threaten his safety or his life. that's important, here - his life was never in danger. Yes, his actions were extreme. I am merely pointing out the fact that the title is misleading in an attempt to portray the verdict as misogynistic (i.e. it was only that way because the victim was a woman). I don't like emotional arguing. Especially when it gets in the way of facts. Especially when it goes against the facts. The facts actually say that women are treated extremely leniently when it comes to law enforcement (the gap between the treatment, in the courts, of men and women is bigger than that between blacks and whites; I say this as a black man) and that when the victim of a crime is a woman, the punishment is usually more severe.I especially hate when idiots cry "misogyny" at any opportunity they can.
This proves a point to me. No matter how vile and disgusting someone's actions are when it comes to women, there is always somebody that will try to justify those actions. There is no excuse for his shooting a woman in cold blood over anything, sex or money. The shooting was unjustified. Saying that she was "asking for it," is one of those things misogynists say about women who are raped. No woman asks to be raped or murdered. Killing her wasn't "a little trigger happy," it was an act of murder. This proves a point to me. No matter how stupid a woman's actions are, there will always be someone ready to defend it by calling anyone who disagrees with it a misogynist. "She was asking for it" is not used exclusively by misogynists or about women. It's used when someone invites trouble on themselves. You're implying my reaction would be different if the victim were a man. I'm not here to argue on whether the man was in the right or not (I disagree that he was right to do so, but that's not my argument). I'm here to point out that, as soon as a woman faces the consequences of her actions, we are quick to imply that it was only because she was a woman.The title is misleading. I'm not here to argue one way or another, who was in the right or not. I'm only here to state facts. Facts that make it obvious how stupid some people are. Or how much of a delusion of persecution they have. Newsflash: she stole his money, he didn't shoot her for sex, he shot her for money. Nice try on the emotional manipulation, though.
First of all, I'd just like to say that the title is false and extremely misleading, intended (presumably) only to anger people and make Texas out to be a misogynist state (whether it is or not isn't the point). Shame on you, keoloke.The escort used sex as the service, but it could have been anything. She could have offered him a car and then backed out and refused to give his money back. The article specifically mentions that she refused to give the money back, so I'm assuming he asked for it back once he realised he wasn't getting laid.This is about the money, not the sex. He shot her for stealing his money, not for refusing him sex, just because he demanded it. Huge difference. One makes you a rapist, the other makes you a little trigger-happy or a damn good defender of your property, depending on your point of view. The statistics simply don't back that claim. Take out the deaths due to guns and the US per captia murder rate is the same as that of France, the UK and Germany. The gun deaths in the UK are practically zero because guns are banned completely. I'm not an expert on gun laws and gun cultures around the world, but I heard Switzerland is doing alright. To me, it seems like guns aren't the problem, it's the culture. The Swiss have a very different culture on gun ownership. Apparently, it's not so focused on self-defence (and beyond, which America is, to be honest), but rather national defence. Also, the pro-gun organisation proTell apparently is more lenient on government regulations when they're argued for.Not to mention that, the premise is usually that more deaths due to guns is bad. I don't think everyone would agree with that. I think any sane person would agree that more school shootings are bad, but they're not all school shootings. Some might say that a lot of those who died got what they deserved. I don't know if I would agree with that, but you'd have to convince those that do think that way that more shootings are bad (just playing devil's advocate). I believe this is what's known here in the Texas legislature as the "Bitch Had it Comin'" Law. Yep! She tried to steal his money by manipulating him using the most fundamental of human needs, then tried to run. I don't necessarily agree with what he did (I'd have to know the full details of this case), but from what I know so far, it seems clear that she was asking for trouble, whether it was morally okay for him to shoot her or not.
Cons of being a guy Feminism, society turned against men by feminists, attacks against masculinity by feminists, legal and social persecution and oppression by feminists.supposedly we have slightly less contrastive vision than girls, it seems we have to do everything that a girl doesn't want to do b/c they'll whine about getting their shirts dirty or their nail polish from chipping imo, no offense. most importantly if you get kicked in the groin, it hurts A LOT.-Even when abdominal fat is more active and can be gone sooner, it is risky for the cardiovascular system.-For most men: having a high sex drive.-Misandry is accepted and encouraged in today's society.-On average; more body hair-Higher risk of suffering genetic allopecia.-There's no benefit in marriage for men at allThere are pratically no pros to being a man. If you are a man then you get to be unemployed at twice the rate as women, you get to make 15% of domestic spending decisions, you can lose your kids and go to jail if you can't pay your exhorbitant child support judgment, you can be accused of rape at the drop of a hat (and your false accuser never, ever goes to jail for the lie), and you get to be a part of a culture that generally treats men as moronic clowns. And you are far less likely to earn a college degree than a woman.So for men, the advantage is physical strength. Women get all of the other advantages.+And men don't get periods, sure. But we live shorter lives (and yet get less health research funding) and thus collect fewer retirement benefits, even though we pay the same taxes. - being seen as disposable & expendable in society, your feelings & emotions do not matter. Pros of being a girl Low libido and zero interest in the opposite sexcan wear whatever they wantcan cry without being called namesNo accountability, everything is the man's faultMore funding for women's health then menLabel ''The Fairer Sex''Less Body haircan get away with almost anything, including homicide, Statutory rape ,child molestation,abuse,false rape accusations,domestic violences ( no not saying any of it is a good thing,just that when men do they should be punish to the full extent of the law, so should women)If arrested get a lighter jail/prison sentences then a man wouldboth sexes generally tend to treat women in a more positive wayLive longer, don't have to do as much physical labor, have lots of options, automatically have the upper hand in divorce and custody cases (not saying that's a good thing, but it's the truth). Was going to attack feminist groups, after I saw Bunny12's response of us ruling the world. Men certainly do not rule world. They do not get higher pay for the same work. If you look at unbiased studies and actually analyse the results instead of taking them at face value, it shows that women actually choose lower paying jobs because they are less willing to work in dangerous jobs, isolated/uncomfortable locations, longer hours, unorthodox times, they prefer family time, etc. Also, men are 95% of workplace deaths, but with all the factors accounted for in jobs (i.e. hours worked, same job, same education level, etc.), they only earn 4-6¢ more than the women every dollar. Not the 77 to a dollar that a lot of groups would have you believe. That difference could probably be explained away by men's better bargaining skills, in general, men may be better at convincing their opponent for a better deal for themselves. Unmarried women without children actually earn more than unmarried men without children. Yeah! Female-owned businesses (I think in the USA) get money simply for being female, all other factors accounted for, but still, female CEOs earn half as much as male CEOs. Take that to mean what you want, that women are fairer to their employees, or their customers, or that men are simply better at running a business.Second thing is, domestic violence has actually been proven to be about 50/50 between the sexes. Feminist groups (not your average innocent feminist that just wants equality, but mainstream feminist groups) twist figures of domestic violence, rape, etc., by changing definitions. They love to redefine things to make men seem like we're all out to get women.As women, you were forced to listen to your husband, look after your children and household and were not accountable for any of your actions by the law. As a man, you were expected to hold your wife accountable (since they couldn't be held by law, that was the actual rules), if you couldn't you were ridiculed, shamed, your wife was free to run about doing a lot of… things and the law couldn't stop her. However, even then, wife beaters were looked at with disgust, I don't know why people automatically assume that since we're so 'liberal' and 'progressive' that people were tyrants back in the day, that most ordinary people just trying to get on with life were tyrants.So, anyway, women not held accountable by law, submissive to husband (just like the husband is submissive to the law and wasn't allowed to beat her, but minor physical punishment was allowed as a last resort, since the husband is legally accountable for his wife's activity), constrained to the household. Now, the man, he was constrained to his work and it was his duty to bring home money, he would be looked at with disdain if he couldn't bring in money for his family because he was being a stay-at-home dad, just like women would be looked at with disdain if they couldn't look after their kids, in favour of working outside the home, but feminists wanted to assume that there was something better outside the household (hint, there wasn't, everyone has their own problems, women may have been constrained, but so were men, just in a different place). Men could be drafted to war at any time, but women couldn't, not because of sexism towards women, but because society valued women too much, think about it, they are more inherently more valuable to the species - a man could have many kids by many women, but a woman could only have one mans' kid(s) at a time, twins or more if the human race is *lucky* - so anyway, men served to protect the women and children, that's where the rule, "women and children first" comes from. Women may have been objectified as sex objects, but men were disposable killing machines. All for the protection of women and children. If there's a fire, women and children expected to come out first. Men pay the bills.Men do NOT rule the world. We already had the rawer end of the deal before feminism arrived, but after feminism morphed to have some sort of persecution complex of women, it has been popular for women to hate men in this society. Men and women have a bigger gap now to overcome than ever before. Feminism has destroyed men's rights. Being a man today is arguably better than being a man in days past, but so's being a woman, and feminism has really made that gap between men and women even bigger, despite that women had the better deal in the first place. Men are taught today that there's something wrong about masculinity, especially with all the female role models early in children's lives (teachers, single mothers (since custody battles are always geared towards women and the legal incentives to marry AND divorce for women, but none for either for men), etc.).
The blame lies with the DJ's for making the stupid prank call and also the Royal Security. Are you serious? If you're talking about the blame for the death of the nurse, then how on good Earth can that be the fault of the Royal Security? They didn't even press charges or say anything about the nurse's supposed mistake. I mean, I can understand blaming the DJ, I just put that down to emotion clouding judgment, but the Royals? I actively dislike the Royals and I commend them on their response to the honest-to-goodness mistake that any human could have made; literally nothing. They didn't ostracise her, they didn't forgive her nationally, making her feel embarrassed, guilty and indebted for her mistake, they didn't try to make it seem like a big deal in any way.
it occurs to me that these DJ's could've done a very simple thing, and while nobody knows if deaths would've been prevented by doing so, it certainly wouldn't have hurt: reveal their prank at the end of the phone call, before they hang up . That would have been so much more kind-spirited than what happened, which as far as I can tell, was basically a public victory lap for getting their call through. Very much agreed on this point. I do recall that they were shocked to have gotten through, but I don't think that excuse is good enough in this case. At the end of the call, just reveal the prank. Even better, just don't do it, not because some woman might have killed herself over something she had a tiny part in, but because it's a disgusting breach of a sick, pregnant woman's privacy.
Either you have not read opposing views carefully or did not comprehend them. No one has said that this woman was deliberately targeted. The point was to make whoever answered the phone look foolish and see if they could get away with it. The prank was random in choice of victim - whoever spoke to them. So no one thinks they chose this particular nurse, but they do accuse the djs of thoughtlessness carrying this out. Period. Of course they could not predict that it would go this far, as you have argued, but that is precisely the point - that they were willfully blind in carrying out their sophomoric fun. I comprehended them perfectly well, I believe. I think it is you who is not comprehending my previous post. It seems to me that you are saying that the DJs sought out to humiliate someone, random or not. It was their intent to humiliate, harass, intimidate and bully someone. Like WMM said, humiliating her was exactly what they were gunning for. Her and the entire hospital. They hoped they would get a juicy result like this and that's exactly what they got. Very little goes better on air than when you humiliate someone. they wanted to humiliate, embarass, and ridicule, showing whoever answered their call to be a gullible fool. Is it really humor to humiliate someone in public? I'm saying that you guys are making assumptions on what the DJs' intentions are, without knowing a thing about them. You've already made up your mind that these people wanted to humiliate someone. There are other ways in which humour can be derived from the call (however much it breached Kate's privacy, which is the real thing they did wrong).When I said that you're certain they were trying to humiliate the woman, I meant humiliating whoever picked up. From what I see, you are all assuming that their target was the person who picked up, to embarrass them for poor job performance. What I am saying is that you have already demonised the pair, and I'm pretty sure most, if not all of you didn't listen to the show before. You have already made up your mind that their goal was to humiliate SOMEONE.Oh, and if you're curious about why I broke my rule, it's because I honestly do not have anything better to do at this moment.
You've been all over the fucking map with your comments. I've made multiple comments regarding the issue. If ANY of them you believe to be incorrect or misinformed, all you have to do is point them out and explain why you think so. Instead, you just decided that calling me oblivious would help me see my supposed oblivion. You decided that calling me thoughtless would help me see my supposed thoughtlessness. You claim that you "know … story." You've decided to ignore my arguments that I walk the reader through, rather than correct me on where you see the issue. All I ask is that you go through my arguments and actually point out the logical flaws you see. You make zero sense to me and to a great many others here. I could say the same of you. I won't speak for others, but I can tell you the feeling's mutual. Your quote of the word "SUMMARY", replying to that with "don't quit your day job"? Yeah, that's what doesn't make sense. And I actually get the feeling that chefkathleen, Mazza and a few others agree with at least some of my sentiments, like the fact that the DJs are absolutely NOT at fault for her death (though I believe they are at fault for breaching Kate's privacy). Your profile says everything we need to know about you. There you go again! What is on my profile, where is it, what conclusions do you derive from what is on there and why do you arrive at those conclusions? I have empathy towards anyone who considers that to be their last best option. I can't claim to empathise with her, but I DO sympathise with her. Just because I believe it's her own fault for killing herself, doesn't mean I don't sympathise. A kid who sneaks out to a party late at night is at fault for their grounding, but I can still sympathise. Someone being at fault for something DOESN'T mean they deserve it. You vtcmr - you're not even in it from what I can tell, hence... oblivion. Most of the people here are not likely to have been suicidal, or depressed, yet you decide to single me out.As for the rest of you, I'm not going to bother anymore. It's clear that many of you have already made up your minds about what the DJ's intentions were, because you know that they were trying to humiliate this poor woman. You know for certain that she was supposed to be the target of this prank from the very beginning. I'd ask for a poll to see who actually listened to the damn thing, but at this point, it's too late and besides, I'm done here!You ask where our compassion is gone, but you hypocritically have no compassion for the mistake that these DJs made. You've decided in your mind that you know their full intentions and you've already decided to demonise them. Arguing against people like that is pointless, so I'm going to leave this discussion. WMM, if you want to respond to my tangential discussion about your dislike of me, just drop me a PM and maybe I'll respond.
This thread has gotten too long, and there's a lot of statements which have been made that I strongly disagree with and will take me a long time to go through and dismantle each one of, so I'm done here.Before I leave though, I will say that pretty much everyone has been civilised (if a little judgemental of the people who think she took the easy way out, was selfish, defend the pranksters, etc. from the side that has no compassion for the DJs), though I strongly disagree with some opinions. Pretty much everyone… WellMadeMale has singled me out on, I think, three occasions. You don't get it, I get that much. And after glancing at your Lush profile, I now know the rest of your story.Oblivion - you wear it well. Don't quit your day job. A psychologist/analyst/thoughtful person -- you are not. I've yet to call you any names. Yet.You've done a pretty good job of painting yourself into a corner which you cannot dodge out of, you don't require assistance from anyone else.Please, continue... Stop trying to play semantics, you know very well what I mean. You're just making posts calling me oblivious, thoughtless, claiming to know me from a look at my very incomplete, anonymous profile, etc.Like I said, dismantle my arguments, or shut the fuck up. You're not contributing anything to the thread. Everyone else can have a discussion, but not you.Interestingly, you've made a bunch of other posts that pertain to the discussion, but you seem to have a problem with me. Care to explain what your problem with me is? What have I done to earn your… derision and "intimidation"/"harassment", since what you're doing is much closer to illustrate the meaning of those words than what the DJs did.I am genuinely curious. I mean, I can even understand the judgement from some of the others who disagree with me as callous or lacking empathy, but you… I really do not understand why you dislike me so much.
Emily was jolted awake by the sound of her alarm clock ringing. It was 7:48 - almost time for school. She tried to fall asleep again, desperate to go back to her dream. It was the same dream she'd been having every day for three weeks now. It involved her having hot, passionate sex with her English teacher, Mr Collins, whom she had been infatuated with since she met him about half a year ago...
Added 20 Aug 2012 | Category Straight Sex
| Votes 17 | Avg Score 4.47
| Views 50,215
| 3 Comments
Attach a note to this member, which only you can see.
Please tell us why you think this profile page is inappropriate.
What would you like to do?