Power, Purity, Meekness and God. The Ugly Reality of Rape Culture.

You are the one who led the derailment of this thread, tali89. If anyone is to blame here, it is you because you have dragged your issues into this thread while refusing to discuss said issues in the thread where it belongs.

 

tali89:

Oh, moderate fun. Something to pass the time at the end of a fairly relaxed Saturday. And you?

Yes, I thought as much. You have no integrity. You tell transparent lies. When called out, you have nothing.

What I actually wrote was "You reveal that you have a narrow, uneducated and stereotyped view of 'liberals'." That was not a comment on your education in total - just an assessment of what your previous posts have revealed. Moreover, you asked me to give my opinion on that. Remember?

I don't think that I have ever referred to you as an "uneducated hick". And I don't think that I've tried to assess your overall level of education anywhere. Please correct me if I'm wrong - with a proper link this time, if you please.

Of course, I don't know anything about your education. I can only form an opinion of you based on what you post here. In that regard, I stick by my earlier assessment of your lack of education concerning liberalism.

You mean a fraction of my nonsense, don't you? Seeing as we're correcting each other's typos and English expression now and all. Do you want to keep doing that, or would you like to accept that each of us will make the occasional typo in our posts? Please let me know. We can go head-to-head on English expression if that is your wish. Of course, some might consider that "elitist", and I'm confident you wouldn't want them to think that of you.

I don't recall ever stating my formal qualifications anywhere on this forum. Your claim that I am regularly flaunting them is therefore puzzling. Perhaps you're just assuming that I am very well qualified, perhaps as a result of my erudite posting style?

Is this a follow-on from your question about pieces of paper?

Let's say I am a minister of religion - say Eastern Orthodox Christianity, for example. Do you feel that having that career would grant me more credibility that individuals not having that same occupation? Would it grant me more credibility in matters of science, for example? What about in matters of music appreciation? What about in matters of - oh, I don't know - Eastern Orthodox Christian religion? Have a think about this.

What does "more enlightened" mean to you? Is that a synonym for "more educated in that particular field"? In that case, yes, I do consider myself more enlightened. Or maybe "more enlightened" means "wiser in general" or something like that. In that case, no, I don't think that having a particular profession necessarily makes a person wiser than others in general terms.

Please let me know if you require a more detailed answer. You'll need to explain what you're trying to get at, exactly.

The gist I'm getting from you is that you feel jealous of people who have certain qualifications that you do not have. Is that correct?

And yet here you are. Not discussing any particular topic, admittedly - least of all the thread topic. We're just working through some of your personal issues now.

Inviting and urging people to read this thread, if they want to see tali89's hypocrisy in full flight:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sexual-harassment.152471/

Indeed.

Debate? What debate?

You started a thread (linked above) in which you said you wanted to discuss the reasons why (some) women harass (some) men, and yet you never managed to suggest even a single possible reason yourself.

To have a debate, you need to start with a point of view and then argue it, tali89. You started with a loaded question full of incorrect assumptions, failed to effectively argue for any point of view at all, then eventually slunk away once you had been exposed as a hypocrite.

Yes. Well done for picking up my vowel transposition typo there. As I say, just let me know whether you really want to continue with this pedantry. If you're in, I'm in. We'll see how that goes, eh?

I wonder what I do all day, in between making my 5 posts. I guess I just sit glued to the screen, reading other posts. Or something.

Oooh! Hasty hasty! Have you read them all? There are some real gems there, I assure you. And if you haven't read them all, you'll admit that you're in no position to make such a general pronouncement, won't you? An apology would be nice, too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Once again, the record is there for anybody who wishes to check your claim for accuracy, tali89.

You're a hypocrite, and increasingly, it appears, a liar too. I will shine a light on that whenever I feel the urge to do so. Most likely, this will be triggered by some new lie or hypocrisy from you.

Well, let's see. You're male. Am I fascinated by maleness? Let me think. Nah, don't think so. Not any more so than femaleness, at any rate.
Am I fascinated that you, tali89, are male? Let me think. Nah, don't think so. You had to be either male or female. It happens that you're male. Not that interesting, really.

What is moderately fascinating to me that you can't give a straight answer to my simple question: are you ashamed of your gender?

In comparison, I had no trouble at all answering that same question, which you put to me first. Did you perhaps ask it of me because it's such an important issue for you?

You need to consider carefully whether you are displaying yet another double-standard or hypocrisy on this forum.

The thing is, see, that just a post or two above this, you felt that it was entirely appropriate to inquire about my childhood, my experiences with bullies, my sporting prowess, my attractiveness to women etc.

Strange, is it not, that you consider that these matters have "bearing on what is being discussed on this forum". And yet, when you are asked about your personal life or opinions, suddenly they have no bearing on anything being discussed on this forum.

Lacking any personal integrity as you do, it doesn't surprise me that you think that holding this double-standard is fine: one standard for tali89 and another standard entirely when it comes to everybody else on the forum. I merely point out the fact of it.

Maybe you will mature and learn what integrity is one day. When you do, you may choose to adopt consistent standards of behaviour and decide that rules that you make should be good not just for tali89, but also for others. (Research the "categorical imperative" for more information.)

 

(continued...)

You have made a libelous claim on a public forum. Specifically, you have alleged that I have a "propensity to make rubbish up". That has the potential, in theory, to damage my reputation to a certain extent. In actuality, since it's you libeling me, it is unlikely that any actual damage will eventuate, but you never know.

You are correct that I have no respect for your opinion. I do, however, care what is written about me on public fora.

I note that you have refused to either apologise and retract your libel, or to provide any evidence to support its truth (which is non-existent, as you are well aware). You should therefore be censured for your unacceptable behaviour.

The response you gave to my reasonable request that you apologise or provide evidence is exactly what I anticipated. Once again, I note that you have no integrity.

I note that you choose to compound your libel with personal insults.

I was referring to this thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sexual-harassment.152471/

I'm don't want to tell a lie. My honest impression is that you think that sexual harassment of men by women is regular/commonplace. Is that a fair assessment of your view, or not?

I already conceded that you probably have not directly used the term "men's rights" in your posts. I can't be sure, because I haven't read all your posts. That doesn't change the fact that you are a supporter of so-called "men's rights". If I'm wrong about that, tell me.

Hehe. Nice try, tali89.

Recall that you promised you would ignore me. I made no such promise to you. And yet, here you are, still failing utterly to do what you said you would do.

Would you agree that you lack self-control?

Yes, I thought as much. You have no integrity. You tell transparent lies. When called out, you have nothing. Again.

The predicted response. And transparently unconvincing, because:

You used the wrong word again.

You'd have done better to look them up in a dictionary and get yourself clear on the meanings before trying that lie on about knowing the difference all along. Fact is, you're still a bit foggy on the whole thing, aren't you?

This is an admission from you, is it?

No, of course that's not it, silly. If you were the only person to use a proxy here that would make things easier, but you're not.

I walked you through the meaning of "chip on your shoulder" in my last post. Obviously you didn't take in the explanation. I suggest you try again.

In my previous post I wrote: "The most revealing point is that you apparently believe that being an alpha male equates to being a bully, being good at team sports and being a misogynist. It explains a lot about the way you act here."

That was one of the things you chose to ignore, and as we both know from your past behaviour, what you ignore is usually much more telling that what you respond to.

Here, you seem to confirm what I wrote, even while trying to avoid addressing it directly (having no integrity and all). That is, you think that to be "traditionally masculine", one must be a bully, good at team sports and a misogynist. Is that your view?

Would you regard yourself as a traditional male, tali89?

I expect you will avoid these questions, too.

By your own standard, I am justified in ignoring these speculations of yours because, to quote you: "I avoid answering questions about my personal life because they have no bearing on what is being discussed on this forum."

Correct?

Or are you going to apply your double-standard of one rule for tali89 and one for everybody else?

I trust you will never again ask me about my personal life or "speculate" about it. If you should do so, it will be, again, because you have no integrity. Do you agree?

I'm not sure what that means. Does it mean it's time for you to run away from this discussion, too?

I have asked you some important questions and raised some important matters regarding your personal standards of behaviour in this post. A person of integrity would respond honestly and openly to those questions and points raised. I suspect that you will not, having no integrity and all, but we'll see.

 

It suddenly occurred to me that this forum has a search function. So, I plugged in "men's rights" and "tali89" and look what came up:

Link:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/do-women-have-too-much-power-now.145553/page-2#post-3289440

So, it looks like tali89 has talked explicitly about "men's rights" on this forum after all.

The quoted post was from back in April this year. Either tali89 was still pretending to be a woman back then, or maybe he decided to come out about his homosexuality in this post.

Notice that tali89 is expressing his concern here that "Nobody really takes mens' well-being seriously". He also expresses his concerns about men being shot to pieces in war, raped in prison and being the predominant victim of violent assaults - all activities which, as it happens, are carried out predominantly by other men.

tali89 advocates that women do not become "the dominant sex". He assumes that there should be a dominant sex, and it should be men.

He also complains that women "cry victim" and thereby get "free stuff" and a free pass for their "failings". He expresses the view that woman couldn't handle being responsible for their own well-being and shortcomings.

Just another insight into what makes tali89 tick.

 

tali89:

Yes. It seems quite likely to me that somebody who is educated has at some time in your life (recently enough) rejected you in some way. Perhaps it was a job application. Perhaps it was that you failed at university. Something like that. You clearly have a large chip on your shoulder regarding educated "elites". Why is that?

I refer to myself as being educated (if it becomes relevant) because I am. I don't think I have ever accused somebody of being uneducated before they have demonstrated their lack of education in some way. I'd ask you to provide any evidence you have to the contrary, but we both know what a waste of time that would be, don't we? For a start, there isn't any, and secondly you have no integrity.

Should we add an appallingly bad memory to your many other personal failings? Scroll up the thread a bit and read what I wrote earlier in response to this exact question.

The record is there for anybody who cares to check this latest lie of yours for themselves.

What makes you think that an education is not relevant outside a career? What a strange view to have.

You have no idea what my "scope of practice" is. In fact, I'm not sure what a "scope of practice" is. What are you talking about?

Demonstrate where I have done that, if you can.

Having no integrity, as you do, you will inevitably fail yet again.

No. In the very post you are replying to, for example, I stated that I am moderately fascinated as to why you can't answer a simple question I asked: are you ashamed of your gender?

Should we put this down to a poor memory again?

You ignored the part of the conversation where I walked you through this matter. Probably my detailed and patient explanation went over your head. I must say, I'm beginning to doubt your ability to grasp issues that are multifaceted. As soon as any nuance comes in, you're suddenly all at sea. This is consistent with your black-and-white political biases and other character flaws.

No. That's not what a debate is. Go do some research.

This one?

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sexual-harassment.152471/

Look, rather than continuing to try to rewrite that history, you ought to either grow some integrity and post in that thread, or grow some integrity and leave it alone as you promised you would. Unfortunately, both options require you to work out what integrity is, and I know that won't happen in hurry.

Ok, we can play it your way if you like. I'll correct your English errors and you can correct mine. Deal. Better run all your posts through your spelling and grammar checker from now on or risk getting caught out looking like a prat. Of course, nit-picking my typos will probably make you look like a prat anyway. Still, your choice.

If you want to call this pratishness of yours off at any point, let me know.

There's that word "recommence" again. You still haven't worked out what it means, have you?

There's that violent imagery and puglism thing from you again. Also, you seem quite obsessed with the baby metaphor, what with your diapers and your spanking and the like. Or is the spanking more of a sexual thing for you? Once again, I recommend you consult a professional about anger management. You obviously have a few things to sort through.

And there you are, sitting there replying to me. How's your own sad life going, tali89? Or are you multi-tasking? Are you actually out at a local nightclub, simultaneously typing away furiously at your phone on sciforums whilst you shake your booty on the dance floor?

I'm interested to find out whether you are ashamed of your gender. Are you?

I must say: my interest in your gender issues is certainly increasing over the course of this thread. You try to keep the focus on those issues in every post. Come on. Be brave. Get it off your chest. What's your problem? You can tell your readers.

What happened to "I avoid answering questions about my personal life because they have no bearing on what is being discussed on this forum"?

Is this a standard that only applies to you, or does it apply to other people (such as me) too?

You see that this is a double standard you have, do you not? Or do you not understand what a double-standard is or why it might be a bad thing to have?

Woah! Back up the bus.

What specifically are you talking about when you refer to my prejudice against men?
Where is this prejudice evident? Can you provide any links or examples?

Once you manage to establish that I have a prejudice against men, then you might be in a position to try to determine why I have such a prejudice. Not by asking personal questions, of course, because that would be a breach of your own avowed standard of discourse on this forum: that personal lives have no bearing on what is being discussed on this forum.

 

(continued...)

A defence of truth to libel requires that you provide evidence of that truth. Previously, I asked you to provide any such evidence that you have. You had nothing. Remember?

You really need to get out in the real world more.

It looks like you missed my follow-up post.

Moreover, I have invited you to correct me on a number of occasions, should it possibly be the case that I am mistaken about any of the views I have attributed to you on the matter of "men's rights". No corrections or clarifications have been forthcoming from you. I take it, therefore, that you agree that I have fairly summarised your views on that topic in my posts.

Again, I invite you to make a personal statement here to clarify anything I have got wrong about your position in respect of "men's rights".

And then you popped up in this thread, explicitly referring to that discussion and attempting to continue it.

Oh, and "within" is one word, not two. Shall we start counting your English errors now? One.

This is a persistent lie of yours.

As I clearly established in another thread, I have not pursued you to other threads. In fact, the reality is that you have pursued me, as the record shows.

This lie is what confirmed your complete lack of integrity beyond doubt. It is not at all surprising that you persist in it.

I should add, preemptively, that your attempt to resume the "Sexual harassment" thread conversation in this thread dragged me into this thread; that was not a pursuit. You brought the topic up again in a new thread (this one), while pretending you'd quit the discussion.

Yes you did. See earlier in this post for another instance of you getting this wrong.

Let's adopt one of your standards again: "I'm a big believer in providing constructive feedback in order to improve performance. Let's hope my pointing out your numerous logical contradictions and episodes of intellectual dishonesty improve your character."

I should say: I don't hold out any real hope that your character will improve, but one never knows.

This is a retraction from you, is it?

Given your lack of knowledge of the definitions of certain English words, I don't think you're qualified to judge my qualifications to walk you through definitions of English words.

For example, you're wrong about the inferiority thing with the chip on the shoulder. Go do some research.

Yeah, if you ever manage to show that I have a chip. (See above.)

You have no integrity.

 

Two!

(Thanks, Randwolf.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

... or maybe three or four, if we count the misuses of "recommence" and "chip on the shoulder". Let's call it Three to be fair.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

tali89:

That all depends on whether my profession is priest or something like that, I guess. Didn't I explain this carefully to you earlier?

Also, did you know that it is possible to be very knowledgable about a subject or field of study without that subject having anything to do with one's paid employment? Yes, strange but true.

Why do you feel the need to incessantly repeat yourself? I answered this question several posts ago. Have you run out of ideas?

Why do you feel the need to incessantly repeat yourself? I answered this question several posts ago. Have you run out of ideas?

Like I pointed out in my last post, I walked you through the meaning of the word "urge" earlier. I can't make you understand things. That requires effort from you.

Go do some research.

I was waiting for you to suggest even one possible cause of sexual harassment perpetrated by women. You couldn't think of any.

You're still making the same mistake with "recommence". Four!

Good.

Five!

Please seek professional help. It's not normal to have violent imagery automatically pop into your mind whenever you are in a tight spot on an internet forum.

It might be part of your violent tendencies, for all I know. Maybe the thought of violence sexually excites you.

You have a double standard when it comes to personal information on a public forum. No surprise there. You have no integrity.

Nope. Go do some research.

 

Time to wind up my little discussion here with tali89. What have we learned?

1. tali89 is boring and repetitive.
Posts speak for themselves.

2. tali89 has no personal integrity.
tali89 thinks it is fine to make libellous claims against other posters. Whenever he is pressed, he has nothing to support such claims.
tali89 never apologises for his errors of fact, for his many lies, or for his false accusations, even when these are clearly exposed for all to see and when the record is clear.
tali89 avoids answering direct questions put to him, including the simplest ones, like "Please tell us your position on topic of discussion X."
tali89 hides behind a proxy in order to troll other posters. He has no intention of participating honestly or openly in any discussion.

3. Every deduction that I have made about tali89's views on "men's rights" is correct.
How do we know this? Because I have invited him (explicitly and repeatedly) to correct any possible errors regarding my assessment of his views, and he has not thought any corrections to be necessary. Whenever I have asked him whether my assessment of his opinions is accurate, tumbleweeds blow past and tali89 is nowhere to be seen. Therefore, we conclude that I made no errors, and my assessment is accurate.

4. tali89 is egotistical and self-important.
tali89 believes he is a magnet for attention on sciforums, to the extent that people follow him from thread to thread, hang on his every word, wait in breathless anticipation for his next post etc.

5. tali89 has nothing useful to contribute on the topics of sexual harassment, "rape culture", or men's rights - and this in spite of being a proponent of men's rights.

6. tali89 has possible anger management issues.

7. tali89 has some issue or other regarding his gender.
tali89 appears to be ashamed of his gender. The reason is unclear.

8. tali89 is a prattish pedant.
Witness his nit-picking of typographical errors.

9. tali89 likes to whine and whine and whine.

10. tali89 is a liar with no integrity.