If THESE people are saying 2+2=4 and we are not, then it is us that have the problem not them. Yes I pointed out trump voter, (devon tracey was a hillary voter mind you), you can ad homium them all you want about all the other opinions they have, it does not change the fact they are winning on this specific issue. As for rationalwiki, no, not since elevatorgate would I ever touch of a link of theirs.
Who says she's not stupid and crazy both? You? - please. From the guy who links wingnut videos routinely as argument. No. Transcript or forget it. These videos are spam.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click for Japanese-Spanish translation. Yet you can never tell anyone what's wrong; nobody knows how to address your needs if you won't tell them. Your interpretation completely insupportable for being a baseless invention: "Here my theory, because people like you demand a single line for which the most oppressed people get first serve for crying about (and doing nothing of actual use) has cost us votes in almost every demographic." (#77↑) If you could explain how it works, you would have: • "because people like you demand a single line for which the most oppressed people get first serve for crying about (and doing nothing of actual use)" When your only course is to make stuff up, lazy, blubbering, uneducated straw men remind the fundamental illegitimacy of your complaint for existing only in your make-believe. You and your straw men. Are you ever honest? So, you don't even know what you're arguing? I had begun to suspect as much: Women are a majority of the population, and you erased them for the sake of your make-believe complaint. See, that's the thing: You're afraid to address the issues head on because you're not capable of overcoming the basic difference even you are capable of recognizing between right and wrong. Look, dude, we've seen it before; it's why the proud bigot is such fascinating witness—two-bit pretenses trying to pretend some manner of justice and equality in supremacism aren't even worth two bits, anymore, nor even the proverbial mere dime a dozen. When all you've got to offer is a waste of exhaust, nobody is surprised when you flail around like a disorder. But no, nobody is really surprised when your response to the criticism of excluding women—or anyone else, for that matter—is to ask if those people would want the things you aim to exclude them from, e.g., "So women don't need healthcare, education, infrastructure, increase wages?" Because you'll even erase them in order to carry out your publicly declared vendetta. If nobody is asking why you started this thread, it's because you've answered the question so clearly by the priorities of your expression.
Hitler also said smoking is bad... Trump by the way also says smoking is bad. This is fundamental to understanding how we got where we are now: if our opponents start saying 2+2=4 we should NOT turn around and say 2+2=5, it costs us votes! ALL cases of rape should be tried by a court of law, not a college tribunal, do you disagree or agree? why or why not? Explain in short concise whole sentences as if you were taking the GRE again, don't give me blog quality rants. Ok lets back up here, you said "get in line" right, that there are all these other issues (involving people higher in the progressive stack), what are you implying? yes I am, what is wrong with those issues, why should be be defending the misuse of title IX, it does not garner much votes, it cost us more votes? Is it worth it, is is the moral things to do, to demand college tribunals prosecute rape cases and punish rapist with expulsion from college, that somehow protects women? Give me your argument precisely so that I can't strawman it! Young college going women are not ALL women! Expelling rapist from college protects NO ONE, what about the poorer young women not in college, why are you erasing them? What about men, why erase them, clearly if we lose their vote we get a pig boar as president! You know a majority of women do want? Free college, free healthcare, higher wages, parental leave, tax the rich to provide this. Heck a majority of men want that too! So you are saying I want to exclude women from those things? How? That I did not want a pig boar as president, and that people like you made that happen, yes I have a vendetta about that. I think "people" have been asking, bet let me make it clear again and again: I believe that accusation of rape, ALL accusations of rape, should he handled by the police, and only the police, for the justice system is fairest system we have for this kind of serious crime and is also the only system we have that can provide proper punishment and best means of protection of society. Yes the justice system is imperfect, has serious problems, we should fix those problems, but we should not create an alternate system of justice ad hoc! This should not be a liberal verse conservative issue, and certainly we should not be choosing the morally deprive position of demanding alternative justice. Well she certainly does not sound stupid nor crazy, yes she has ideologically beliefs I disagree with, but she certainly is not beyond reason. When reasonable people go "maybe I should vote for trump" then it is us that are fucking up. I survey the salt of the earth, if you did you might understand how trump got elected and how the republicans have evolved to the monstrosity they are now. Yes that is right, nixon was sane compared to what we presently have, even "let the fags die by aids" Reagan was sensible to what we presently have. Then don't watch, she is basically saying what I have been saying already: have justice department deal with ALL accusation of rape (or any other CRIME for that matter) not the education department, simple as 2+2=4.[/QUOTE]
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click to blow out loud. I'm tempted to suggest you're simply overlooking what you already know about reliability. To the one, sure, maybe it looks like he agrees with DeVos, but, to the other— —we already know his word isn't reliable, and this latest invention he simply isn't capable of explaining is just another reminder. Heads or tails? Do we really want to know what his two plus two actually is, or does his arithmetic failure represent one or another of those spectacular, uneducated, temperamental lashes that we probably shouldn't laugh at for ethical reasons because you and I both know there are real issues not on that table that we should probably account for. It's really easy to presume people are lying for some cheap thrill, but when I come to phrases like, determined unreliability, the question of why someone would put any significant degree of effort into such self-denigration—that is, why is one so determined to be unreliable—seems important. Like the part where he yells, in boldface, "Young college going women are not ALL women!" Okay, great, but here's the thing: If I ask him what his straw man is supposed to mean, to what degree should I expect any useful, honest response? Which, in its own, draws us back toward the ethical consideration: What if the reason he appears unable to follow the discussion from thread to thread and even post to post is that he actually can't follow himself from post to post? To wit: We might suggest, in colloquy and disgust, that our neighbor isn't even trying, but that doesn't seem true. That is to say, he does seem to be trying, but nobody knows what he's trying to do. One appearance is that he is following through on his attempt to make people who support equality under law miserable. The problem with any of that, though, is that he seems to putting a tremendous effort into dishonesty and hatred, which in turn is by no measure healthy behavior. But the thought of such seething, focused calculation intending to deliberately miss so many points seems an extraordinarily extraordinary proposition; to the other, I do wonder what long-term survey retrospection will tell us about this period in terms of understanding the rising wave of increased psychiatric necessity possibly defining the next chapter of American healing: No, no, we can't work on healing the rifts between people, because we need to spend the next twenty years helping supremacist malice rehabilitate its humanity, because, you know, before everyone can have justice for all, society needs to cure the psychiatric distress of the privileged who are disgusted and terrified by the prospect. No, really, remember that bit in school, how when you finally reached the top grade on campus they instituted new rules against hazing and bullying, and everyone thought it was so unfair because we had endured it like we were supposed to and despite hearing the classes ahead of us make the same complaint we come to believe that we're the first who isn't supposed to behave like everyone else, and it feels so goddamn unfair. Seriously, it was hard to not laugh when my daughter laid that one on us, and I'm one who knows how important it is to start dealing with that one seriously. Because that's what's coming. Before women, for instance, or people of color, can have justice, we need to devote our efforts to assuaging the lamentations and making reparations for taking this away from people because they're not kids in schools, anymore, and we can't bully them this way. Yeah, poor them: Rape is bad, m'kay? And poor effing them: Lynching is a crime, m'kay? And the modern juxtaposition to that latter is the law and order excuse in a society where the two plus two equals a functionally effective assertion that an unarmed black man with his back to you as he walks away is a greater threat to life and limb than a white guy with a gun threatening to kill you. There are a lot of problems in our society, and as the arc of history is expected to bend toward justice, that means there will always be someone disappointed that their scheming for ill gets tossed to the rubbish tip of once upon a time. We really do come back to delaying and denying justice for the comfort of the unjust. Meanwhile, what is anyone supposed to tell him— —if he can't be bothered to address what is already on the record? Do we point back to discussion of why Title IX and Department of Education that he skipped over the first time around? Or perhaps, what is the framework for investing the enforcement duties of the Department of Education in the Department of Justice? Should all executive-branch departments? As his general complaint does not seem to wish to attend the functional realities presented, pretty much any response people offer can be dismissed as irrelevant to whatever point we are to believe he thinks he's making. What we have to deal with is an incoherent, patchwork complaint showing no real civic comprehension, and possibly demonstrating a real lack thereof. You know, there is a joke—with myriad variations—about young people looking at a book and not being able to figure out what to do with it because they can't find the power control. He claims to be a university educator, so I do wonder if it would be possible to get a degree in which every paper I write simply consists of a screengrab or hyperlink: Watch this other person's video; that's my paper. And the reason it seems important is that he doesn't seem to know how to write. Follow the discussion with Iceaura↑ ("No. Transcript or forget it. These videos are spam."); EF's response ("Then don't watch, she is basically saying what I have been saying already: have justice department deal with ALL accusation of rape (or any other CRIME for that matter) not the education department, simple as 2+2=4.") functionally equals the assertion that at some point in that video that other person will say something that he summarizes thus. What I find striking is the aversion to presenting data. Is it sloth, then, or something one puts effort into? I start to wonder, attending your earlier note↑ about the dead link, if our neighbor even knows what's in the video, or if he is just cribbing someone else's summary. And at some point, it might occur to you or me or anyone else to wonder, in turn, just how much effort we should put into figuring the answer, and therein lies part of the point. He's like everyone else in the world; he wants to feel special and empowered. There is a contemporary theme in anime about social media and the credulity of participants; the chatline in Durarara!! is shot through with it. Actually, there are a couple, but the one we're concerned with has to do with online credulity. (The other is immersion, and both themes keep coming up, and apparently for particular reasons.) One of the results is that a traditionally racist phrase like "Chinese fire drill" can now be replaced with a new racist analogue, the "Japanese chatline". In any case, what it describes is incredibly credulous people running around atwitter because they aren't taking time to think things through. As a general human statement, it is an emergent variation on the traditional thesis asserting that people are stupid. Naturally, it occurs to wonder just how much effort we should put into analyzing what is, in reality, just cheap begging for attention. How seriously should we be taking what our neighbor won't? Just how much should anyone run around like a cheap punch line about naïveté and credulity for the benefit of someone who can't be bothered to put in any genuine effort? To a certain degree it is too much to ask that he make sense.
How can you complain of stawmaen when you generate skrees like this? Who is president right now? Who controls the goverment right now, no history can bend in ways we don't want, like it is now. We are at this very time delaying and denying justice and giving comfort to the unjust, and will continue to do so as long as conservatives control the goverment, and here is the point once again: your tactics have got us here, your tactics handed them power, handed power to a pig boar! Please by all means tell me why the department education must prosecute rape accusations for? You mean like the links I present back there? excluding the videos mind you. I came up with it first, then heard her say it. So projection then? Look if I want to feel special then don't reply to me, and certainly don't speak of me in the third person while quoting me and slandering me. If you think I'm a troll then why give me attention? an extremely long winded why of saying "people are apes". Well then stop replying to me. ALL cases of rape should be tried by a court of law, not a college tribunal, do you disagree or agree? why or why not? You said "get in line" right? That there are all these other issues (involving people higher in the progressive stack), what are you implying? Does demanding college tribunals prosecute rape cases and punish rapist with expulsion from college, that somehow protects women? These are the questions you refuse to answer and instead only slander me.
#sloth | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click for #WhatTheyVotedFor. It should not be too much to ask that you make sense from sentence to sentence. Please, by all means, tell us what the fuck you're on about. No, really, I don't think you're capable. I don't think you're able to explain what the hell you mean when you say, "tell me why the department education must prosecute rape accusations". I think you're just making shit up as you go and have precisely no clue under the sun what you're babbling about. And the easiest way to prove me wrong is to tell us, please, by all means, what the fuck you're on about. I think your dualism, your one-not-the-other, is a straw man. It's bogus. You made that up. It's make-believe. You can't explain to us what you're talking about. I dare you to make sense. Go on, I double dare you. Show us we're not all wasting time on your hate fantasy. No, seriously, say, "I came up with it first, then heard her say it", all you want, and it doesn't change your aversion to presenting the actual data instead of telling people to go get it from someone else. You put more effort into sloth than it would take to actually have a point and purpose.
[QUOTE="Tiassa, post: 3467956, member: 1031" And the easiest way to prove me wrong is to tell us, please, by all means, what the fuck you're on about.[/QUOTE] Ok once again: ALL cases of rape should be tried by a court of law, not a college tribunal, do you disagree or agree? why or why not? You said "get in line" right? That there are all these other issues (involving people higher in the progressive stack), what are you implying? Does demanding college tribunals prosecute rape cases and punish rapist with expulsion from college, that somehow protects women? Those questions, those are what I'm on about, here and now on this thread, overall on this sub-forum I'm "on about" getting the democrats to win back the goverment, and implement policies that will greatly improve the lives of EVERYONE (with exception of the rich). So you want there to be college tribunals and then rape trials? Why? What hate fantasy? What data do you want me to present? "Since 2011, more than 150 lawsuits have been filed against colleges and universities involving claims of due-process violations during the course of Title IX investigations and proceedings related to sex-assault allegations, according to a database kept by a group called Title IX For All. In the two decades before that year, the group found, only 15 such lawsuits were filed against universities." --- https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...27c98455440_story.html?utm_term=.0ed0f981b96e
#scarecrows | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click if you're not any fun. Thank you for proving the point: I reject your straw man; it is not a valid proposition. #StartMakingSense.
You said: "I think your dualism, your one-not-the-other, is a straw man." I interpreted that as meaning you want both college tribunals and judicial prosecution of rape, am I incorrect in that interpretation? If so please explain what you mean.
#cluelessnonsense | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click because it makes more sense this way. Yeah— • No, really, I don't think you're capable. I don't think you're able to explain what the hell you mean when you say, "tell me why the department education must prosecute rape accusations". I think you're just making shit up as you go and have precisely no clue under the sun what you're babbling about. • I think your dualism, your one-not-the-other, is a straw man. It's bogus. You made that up. It's make-believe. You can't explain to us what you're talking about. I dare you to make sense. Go on, I double dare you. Show us we're not all wasting time on your hate fantasy. —that's what I thought↑.
You didn't know? The most reputable, sane and intelligent social scientists these days adopt pseudonyms like HardBastard and publish exclusively on YouTube.
Apparently, almost all institutions and business places have rules which they enforce (within the confines of State and Federal Law)--who knew?
OK, I've recovered from the "phlbttduh, phlbbtduh" reaction to EF's latest assertion... Dude, two for two of your references make their appearance on that RationalWiki list. So you want to take the high road on sources? Seriously? Doesn't your 2+2=4 garbage work both ways? WTF is wrong with you? Can you not state your thesis and then support it in some rational, self-consistent way? Or do you just do a stream of consciousness thing á laTrump?
Sure violations of their policy, like say putting up inappropriate posters, but when someone violates a law, that person is a criminal and should be handed to our judicial system. Again imagine someone committed murder at a business, and the company's response is to try him at the company's court and fire him, the murderer is still free and in the public, just unemployed. Likewise an expelled rapist is still free and in the public. The second problem is that accusation of rape is serious and not to be judged ad hoc, prosecuting someone of rape without due process is equivalent to slander, hence all the lawsuits by men of Title IX violation of their rights. ALL cases of rape should be tried by a court of law, not a college tribunal. Colleges lack the means to properly punish a rapist or determine guilt for such a serious crime. So your strategy is not to answer my questions, but claim I'm an idiot and then link to a previous post rather then explain yourself. See I ask how is it a dualism, you refuse to explain and only slander me instead. I have presented links to news articles of what I'm talking about, I have presented people talking about it for hours, and yet somehow you can't comprehend what I'm talking about! Go back to page one and listen to the American Prospect and The Economic Policy Institute Panel consisting of judges and university administrators, all women, all self proclaimed liberal feminist, that goes over all the details of what I'm talking about. Anything further that you say here I will now ignore unless it pertains to actually arguments about this threads topic.
That's quite an effort to avoid explaining your fake dualism. Which, in turn—yeah, that's what I thought↑. I have challenged the bases of two of your statements; you have refused to answer,now, for multiple posts. And, you know, it's kind of obvious to everyone watching why you're afraid to answer. So throw your irrelevant temper tantrum, ElectricFetus; just keep proving to people how lazy you are, and how untrustworthy. Ordinarily I would suggest you spare everyone, including yourself, but you know, I want your cowardice front and center: • "Please by all means tell me why the department education must prosecute rape accusations for?" Please, by all means, show us that the Department of Education prosecutes rape accusations. • "ALL cases of rape should be tried by a court of law, not a college tribunal, do you disagree or agree?" False dichotomy, a fallacious invention that you have shown yourself utterly incapable of supporting. Really, dude, it would have been easier to just answer the issue at some point instead of running around like a screeching diva in a panic in order to simply reiterate your fallacy: Okay: Does demanding [make-believe] and [safety/justice], that somehow protects women? The make-believe is the most apparent problem. Your formulation attends punishing rapists with expulsion; if a student commits a rape on campus or in functional relationship to the school, and is found guilty in a court of law, or admits to the behavior and pleads down, then please explain to us why the university should not expel the rapist? Which, in turn, raises the more important problem, that you're going about this in such a simplistic, insensate manner that such questions should even be on the table. Stop with the make-believe, and #StartMakingSense.
I was gonna let this one slide, but... The incident I described a few pages back was actually the second police beating I've received. The first came about because I made the mistake of having a seizure in the vicinity of a cop. I came to with my hands cuffed behind my back and blood all over me. All the other witnesses seemed to recognize that I was having a seizure, the cop? Who the fuck knows what he was thinking. Strangely, cops beating up epileptics is a surprisingly common occurrence. Anyways, nevermind that. There's this: Why on earth would someone call the cops for someone having a seizure? What the fuck are they gonna do--other than possibly beat him/her up? And this guy claims to be an educator of some sort--is anyone buying that? Typically educators are educated in the proper protocol for such eventualities. Honestly, I'm starting to think that absolutely everything he posts is pure fabricated bullshit, except for perhaps the part about masturbating to cartoon ponies.
Well I called 911, they sent a cop who was trained in how to prepared someone that suffered a seizure, had a gerny and had my friend ready before the paramedic got here. Please do tell me what the proper protocol is? not call 911? and instead call a specific department of a local hospital? Please educate me, me a chemical engineer who is suppose to somehow know something other then calling 911 when a friend has a seizure on my private property. No that part is true to. Anyways I noticed all this is just a distraction, all of you just want to ad hominium me instead of argue the issue. Do any of you disagree with my argument specifically? Again my argument is that ALL accusations of rape should be handled by the justice department, not a college administration. If you disagree please explain in what way and why.
