Power, Purity, Meekness and God. The Ugly Reality of Rape Culture.
- Thread starter Bells
- Start date
tali89:
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.
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.
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?
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sexual-harassment.152471/
Indeed.
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.
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?
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.)
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.tali89 said:
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.
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 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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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 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.
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.tali89 said:
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:tali89 said:
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.tali89 said:
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?Well done! You get a gold star.
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:
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.
Link:tali89 said:
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.
I can tell, what with you running to your moderator chums to sulk. Then again, perhaps you like getting verbally spanked on your Saturdays? Some people do have a masochistic streak, I guess.
And yet you speculated I may have failed at university in another discussion we recently had. You dig yourself a bigger hole with every post you make.
Yet you do tend to refer to yourself as being educated, while being quick to accuse others of being uneducated. Why is that? Do you feel having that piece of paper makes you intellectually and morally superior to others?
Oh, quite the contrary. I assume that you have a formal education based on you repeatedly claiming you have one, although admittedly I'm being a little naive in taking your claim at face value. If anything, my assumption is made in spite of your posting style, which is typically laden with grammatical and spelling errors.
It's nice to see that after going around in circles, you're finally in agreement with me. Perhaps there is hope for you yet. Now that you've acknowledged that your education isn't relevant outside of your career, why do you mention it in discussions not related to your scope of practice? More importantly, why are you so quick to denounce the education of others?
But you have repeatedly claimed that I am 'not worth wasting time on', and that you have no fascination with me. So why this sudden interest in my personal issues? Don't you think your vendetta with me has gone far enough?
Wait, did you end up deciding if urging someone to do something is tantamount to coercing them? The last time I checked, you were having a convoluted discussion with yourself about this, and I'm not sure if that was ever resolved.
My apologies, you may be partially correct when objecting to me describing that discussion as a 'debate'. Usually a debate involves both parties asking and answering questions. In the 'Sexual Harassment' thread, you hid from any questions that risked revealing the double standards you held regarding sexual harassment. When I realized you were imploding from your internal contradictions, I terminated the discussion, because I saw no further value in having an adult discussion with a grown child. In a desperate attempt to salvage your ego, you attempted to goad me into recommencing the discussion, which is exactly what one would expect from someone of your maturity level.
No problem. 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 suspect the 'Or something' is checking whether I have made an appearance in your little fiefdom.
Of course you will! After all, I'm 'not worth wasting your time on', right? And you don't hang on my every word, and dissect each sentence of my post? And you don't want to recommence our past discussions, either?
It's clear you are gunning for me. I've verbally spanked you so bad, on so many occasions, and your ego is stinging as a result. This wouldn't bother me so much if you weren't so dishonest about it, but you have quite the nerve to claim I'm 'not worth your time', when you are wasting your Saturday evening on me. It's rather sad that you have so little going on in your real life, that you have to devote your Saturday evenings to 'not worth your time' individuals like me.
Well, you are definitely fascinated by my gender (whatever you believe it to be), since you keep badgering me about it. If you weren't, you wouldn't keep bringing it up. So again, why do you keep asking me about my gender?
Because it has relevance to what we are discussing. I'm trying to determine where your prejudice against men springs from, and for that I need some personal input from you. If you don't feel comfortable providing such details, that's fine. You appear to feel alienated from other men, and that's all I really need to know.
Truth is a defense against a charge of libel.
Oh, you don't need me to do that. Your own conduct on this forum does no favors for your 'reputation'.
I'm sure one of the sycophantic lords in your fiefdom will be along soon to carry out your wishes. However, anyone in the real world would laugh in your face if you tried to have me 'censured', and I suspect that's why you behave like such a prat on an online forum.
So I trust you will be retracting your claim that I am a 'men's rights' advocate, given how you frown on libel? Or is this yet another double standard of yours?
I stated I was ending a discussion with in the Sexual Harassment thread, and I followed through on that threat, in spite of your transparent attempts to try and reignite the argument. You've chosen to pursue me to other threads with ostensibly unrelated gripes (although we both know it's really about the grudge you bear against me), and I've been patient enough to converse with you until you proceed to tank each and every discussion. It is worth noting, though, that you have deemed me 'not worth your time', yet continue to nip at my heels like a little yappy dog. Again, why do you devote so much of your time to someone who you have deemed 'not worth your time'? Are you that lacking in intellectual honesty and self-discipline?
No, I didn't. I suggest you put your education to good use, and crack open a dictionary.
James R: Well done! You get a gold star.
tali89: This is an admission from you, is it?
No, that's not an admission, it's sarcasm. Because, you know, it's such a shocking revelation that I am *gasp* a male (or am I?). Why is this a big deal, again?
Given your poor usage of the English language, I don't think you're qualified to walk me through anything in regards to the definition of English words. I would like to point out, however, that having a 'chip on your shoulder' does not necessarily having anything to do with a feeling of inferiority. So now that I've explained this, can you answer why you have a chip on your shoulder in regards to men?
i've never seen anyone more committed to making them selves look like an egotistical asshole. and i follow trump.
tali89:
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?
Having no integrity, as you do, you will inevitably fail yet again.
Should we put this down to a poor memory again?
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.
If you want to call this pratishness of yours off at any point, let me know.
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.
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?
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.
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...)
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".
Oh, and "within" is one word, not two. Shall we start counting your English errors now? One.
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.
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.
For example, you're wrong about the inferiority thing with the chip on the shoulder. Go do some research.
You have no integrity.
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?tali89 said:
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.
Last edited:
Something about glass houses goes here...
Oh my, that was quite a quick response, James. I hope you didn't work too late into the night attempting to dissect my post, as you need all the attention you can muster.
Haha, we have all experienced rejection at some point in our lives, although I'm fortunate enough not to have been rejected in the field of academics. More importantly, I don't take my rejections personally. You might want to take a page out of my book, and get over your loss from the 'Sexual Harassment' thread. Move on, son, it's not healthy to nurse grudges so long beyond their expiry date.
Also, I'll have the audience note that you have admitted to attempting to (indirectly) ridicule my supposed lack of education.
You have previously referred to yourself being educated on a thread regarding religion. Do you feel being qualified to practice the profession you do makes you an authority on religion? And again, do you feel having that piece of paper makes you intellectually and morally superior to others? This is a simple 'Yes' or 'No' question, so there is no need to evade my questions, as you have a tendency of doing.
Google it. If you do so, it will only take you 2 seconds to find an answer. You've devoted so much time combing through my posts, I'm sure that 2 seconds on Google isn't a great ask.
Why are you fascinated with my gender? You keep making reference to it in almost every thread we have had a discussion.
You had ample opportunity to demonstrate how urging is equivalent to coercion, and you failed to do so, instead making the issue all about me and your personal vendetta. As I mentioned earlier, real-life isn't a video game, where you can save and reload after a poor performance. I'm not longer interested in what you have to say on the matter. You don't have a right to my eternal and enduring attention and patience.
So you actually believe that debates don't involve each party answering questions? I guess that explains your evasive behavior in the 'Sexual Harassment' thread. I used to think you were being intentionally dishonest, but perhaps you really don't know how to conduct yourself in an intellectual debate. My apologies for assuming intellectual dishonesty on your behalf, when it was really just ignorance. Might I suggest you read up on what is involved in a debate, so that the next time you try to hound me down, we can actually have a productive discussion?
Are you denying that you failed to elaborate on the 'complex' causes of sexual harassment perpetrated by women (ie. the topic of the thread) when asked? Is this a lie you are telling me, or yourself? And no, I don't want to recommence our discussion on that thread, so don't bother asking.
I would have preferred you 'play it my way' by actually addressing the issue relevant to the topic at hand, but I have no problem with you identifying legitimate, systemic errors in my posts. Indeed, I'd be flattered that you would put such effort into helping me improve, given that you've claimed that I'm 'not worth wasting time on'.
Again, you might want to spend 2 seconds on Google to brush up on your knowledge. "Recommence" is indeed the appropriate term to describe your belated attempts to restart a discussion that is long gone. Stick a fork in it, son, it's done.
It's hard not to make reference to such imagery when you behave so aggressively when exposed in an internal contradiction. I would actually enjoy having a good faith discussion with you for once, but that requires both parties to be intellectually honest.
I use the baby metaphor because it is the most appropriate in describing your behavior. It's not a perfect metaphor, admittedly, since we expect babies to cry in order to receive soothing and validation. A grown man, on the other hand...
It's interesting that you would even consider a sexual element in regards to spanking. But no, I don't get sexually aroused when I expose you as a charlatan in our discussion. Do you enjoy getting dominated (non-sexually, of course) in our debates? Is that why you continue to seek me out? Are you hooked on having an intellectual superior challenge you, and then show you up? I'm not even going into the complexes that could be involved here, because I already have a day job.
It takes me about 15 minutes to flick off a response to you, after carving away your empty rhetoric and posturing, of course. Also, unlike you, I've never claimed that you 'aren't worth wasting my time on'. I don't mind sparing the occasional 15 minutes in a belated attempt to improve your character. As for you mentioning my booty, um... OK?
I make a personal decision not to reveal private details about myself on a public forum, and am quite happy for everyone else to decide how much they choose to divulge in their discussions with me. If you aren't comfortable with discussing the experiences that led you to developing your prejudice against men, I'm happy to let it rest.
No, it's me expressing bemusement that you are so proud of supposedly knowing my gender, as if you caught me in a 'Gotcha!' moment. Is that what passes for an accomplishment for you? How sad.
Nope. Again, 2 seconds, Google.
By the way, I noticed you didn't have any glaring spelling or grammatical errors in your most recent post. Well done! Apparently our discussions are benefiting you somewhat.
Haha, we have all experienced rejection at some point in our lives, although I'm fortunate enough not to have been rejected in the field of academics. More importantly, I don't take my rejections personally. You might want to take a page out of my book, and get over your loss from the 'Sexual Harassment' thread. Move on, son, it's not healthy to nurse grudges so long beyond their expiry date.
Also, I'll have the audience note that you have admitted to attempting to (indirectly) ridicule my supposed lack of education.
You have previously referred to yourself being educated on a thread regarding religion. Do you feel being qualified to practice the profession you do makes you an authority on religion? And again, do you feel having that piece of paper makes you intellectually and morally superior to others? This is a simple 'Yes' or 'No' question, so there is no need to evade my questions, as you have a tendency of doing.
Google it. If you do so, it will only take you 2 seconds to find an answer. You've devoted so much time combing through my posts, I'm sure that 2 seconds on Google isn't a great ask.
Why are you fascinated with my gender? You keep making reference to it in almost every thread we have had a discussion.
You had ample opportunity to demonstrate how urging is equivalent to coercion, and you failed to do so, instead making the issue all about me and your personal vendetta. As I mentioned earlier, real-life isn't a video game, where you can save and reload after a poor performance. I'm not longer interested in what you have to say on the matter. You don't have a right to my eternal and enduring attention and patience.
So you actually believe that debates don't involve each party answering questions? I guess that explains your evasive behavior in the 'Sexual Harassment' thread. I used to think you were being intentionally dishonest, but perhaps you really don't know how to conduct yourself in an intellectual debate. My apologies for assuming intellectual dishonesty on your behalf, when it was really just ignorance. Might I suggest you read up on what is involved in a debate, so that the next time you try to hound me down, we can actually have a productive discussion?
Are you denying that you failed to elaborate on the 'complex' causes of sexual harassment perpetrated by women (ie. the topic of the thread) when asked? Is this a lie you are telling me, or yourself? And no, I don't want to recommence our discussion on that thread, so don't bother asking.
I would have preferred you 'play it my way' by actually addressing the issue relevant to the topic at hand, but I have no problem with you identifying legitimate, systemic errors in my posts. Indeed, I'd be flattered that you would put such effort into helping me improve, given that you've claimed that I'm 'not worth wasting time on'.
Again, you might want to spend 2 seconds on Google to brush up on your knowledge. "Recommence" is indeed the appropriate term to describe your belated attempts to restart a discussion that is long gone. Stick a fork in it, son, it's done.
It's hard not to make reference to such imagery when you behave so aggressively when exposed in an internal contradiction. I would actually enjoy having a good faith discussion with you for once, but that requires both parties to be intellectually honest.
I use the baby metaphor because it is the most appropriate in describing your behavior. It's not a perfect metaphor, admittedly, since we expect babies to cry in order to receive soothing and validation. A grown man, on the other hand...
It's interesting that you would even consider a sexual element in regards to spanking. But no, I don't get sexually aroused when I expose you as a charlatan in our discussion. Do you enjoy getting dominated (non-sexually, of course) in our debates? Is that why you continue to seek me out? Are you hooked on having an intellectual superior challenge you, and then show you up? I'm not even going into the complexes that could be involved here, because I already have a day job.
It takes me about 15 minutes to flick off a response to you, after carving away your empty rhetoric and posturing, of course. Also, unlike you, I've never claimed that you 'aren't worth wasting my time on'. I don't mind sparing the occasional 15 minutes in a belated attempt to improve your character. As for you mentioning my booty, um... OK?
I make a personal decision not to reveal private details about myself on a public forum, and am quite happy for everyone else to decide how much they choose to divulge in their discussions with me. If you aren't comfortable with discussing the experiences that led you to developing your prejudice against men, I'm happy to let it rest.
No, it's me expressing bemusement that you are so proud of supposedly knowing my gender, as if you caught me in a 'Gotcha!' moment. Is that what passes for an accomplishment for you? How sad.
Nope. Again, 2 seconds, Google.
By the way, I noticed you didn't have any glaring spelling or grammatical errors in your most recent post. Well done! Apparently our discussions are benefiting you somewhat.
Oh sorry, I missed this gem.
You've made 20,000+ posts here, and have combed through my post history in the past, and only now you remember the forum has a search function? What a coincidence! It's a shame you couldn't have used it earlier to read up on my views before callously misrepresenting them.
Oh, look at you go! Our interactions have been helping.
As I made clear at the start of my post, I was relaying the opinions of my ex-boyfriend when I had raised the issue of 'men's rights' with him in one of our previous discussions. Just because he happened to be my ex doesn't mean his views are reflective of my own. But thank you for attempting to misrepresent his views as mine, it merely digs that hole of yours even deeper.
I'm still waiting for an example of where I have been an advocate of 'men's rights', by the way.
You've made 20,000+ posts here, and have combed through my post history in the past, and only now you remember the forum has a search function? What a coincidence! It's a shame you couldn't have used it earlier to read up on my views before callously misrepresenting them.
Oh, look at you go! Our interactions have been helping.
As I made clear at the start of my post, I was relaying the opinions of my ex-boyfriend when I had raised the issue of 'men's rights' with him in one of our previous discussions. Just because he happened to be my ex doesn't mean his views are reflective of my own. But thank you for attempting to misrepresent his views as mine, it merely digs that hole of yours even deeper.
I'm still waiting for an example of where I have been an advocate of 'men's rights', by the way.
Bells
Staff member
tali89:
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
So you are tapping out already? But you haven't even begun to address the meat of the issue, in particular the numerous internal contradictions in your ideology. Ahh well, I'll chalk this up as another victory on my behalf, but I'm a little disappointed in your lack of stamina. Off you go, then. Run to your left-wing comrades so that they can kiss your boo-boos and shower you with validation.
god you truly are delusional. james is not continuing because you refuse to address the contradicitions in what you said. hios works. he is tired of you refusing to answer even simple questions. you really should seek out help for your delusional personality
Fashioning the Future for the Nineteenth Century in the Twenty-First
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY12)↱ recounts a bit of history:
Welcome to the future.
Maybe.
Anyone remember Mitt Romney's gaffe on Blunt-Rubio? How about Hobby Lobby?
Oh, hey, in the middle of these cases about gay and women's human rights, you might have heard lawyers judges uttering the word, "Griswold":
Sound familiar yet?
Sometimes we whose sympathies fall left of center remind that it is the twenty-first century and we are revisiting birth control, that social conservatives would like to take a mulligan on the last half-century of women's human rights progress. In truth, they are actually aiming for something more akin to the nineteenth century, when the proposition that women could refuse to conceive, or take measures to prevent pregnancy defied prevailing assertions of the natural order.
In a time when birth control is being subsumed under a deliberate sleight of the anti-abortion movement, such that there is a measurable danger of oral, intrauterine, and emergency contraception falling at least temporarily into the realm of the illegal, and even Carly Fiorina feels compelled to make up stories↱ about Planned Parenthood in order to compete for votes, perhaps it really is worth looking back to the nineteenth century for a glimmer of insight:
And, yes, Mr. Barnum was a Republican. And an abolitionist. And a producer of blackface minstrel shows. Strangely, on that juxtaposition, he seems more societally evolved than today's Republican Party, but whether we might apply that point in any direct fashion to his anti-contraception law is another question.
The thought that today's social conservative movement might be even more conservative than P. T. Barnum in 1879 is, you know, something of a chilling prospect.
And, you know, it's not like purity cult hasn't been campaigning against sex education my whole life. The old, sick joke about wanting to get them pregnant and keep them pregnant because that's a woman's place is as foetid as always, but seems less and less a joke with each new, desperate assertion from purity cult.
Looking back at where we've been, this is one of those situations in which the question of where we're going should not lead toward such strikingly familiar territory.
____________________
Notes:
Kliff, Sarah. "Carly Fiorina is wrong about the Planned Parenthood tapes. I know because I watched them." Vox. 17 September 2015. Vox.com. 21 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1KGOaDj
Maloney, Carolyn. "Planned Parenthood, The Pill, and P. T. Barnum". The Huffington Post. 18 September 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 21 September 2015. http://huff.to/1KX5XrT
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY12)↱ recounts a bit of history:
Back in 1960, 30 states had laws in place that prohibited advertisements regarding birth control and 22 states had some general prohibition on the sale of contraceptives. But Connecticut's law was the strictest. There, it was against the law for women - married or unmarried - to go into a pharmacy and purchase any form of birth control, or even ask the pharmacist how to avoid an unplanned pregnancy.
Welcome to the future.
Maybe.
Anyone remember Mitt Romney's gaffe on Blunt-Rubio? How about Hobby Lobby?
Oh, hey, in the middle of these cases about gay and women's human rights, you might have heard lawyers judges uttering the word, "Griswold":
So, in 1961, the executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, Estelle Griswold, began a legal battle to overturn the state's anti-birth control statute. Her efforts led to the famous Supreme Court case of Griswold vs. Connecticut that struck down the Connecticut law and established for the first time a right of marital privacy. This far-reaching expansion of personal liberty continues to reverberate to this day and is regarded as one of the most important and far-reaching revolutions in constitutional history.
Sound familiar yet?
Sometimes we whose sympathies fall left of center remind that it is the twenty-first century and we are revisiting birth control, that social conservatives would like to take a mulligan on the last half-century of women's human rights progress. In truth, they are actually aiming for something more akin to the nineteenth century, when the proposition that women could refuse to conceive, or take measures to prevent pregnancy defied prevailing assertions of the natural order.
In a time when birth control is being subsumed under a deliberate sleight of the anti-abortion movement, such that there is a measurable danger of oral, intrauterine, and emergency contraception falling at least temporarily into the realm of the illegal, and even Carly Fiorina feels compelled to make up stories↱ about Planned Parenthood in order to compete for votes, perhaps it really is worth looking back to the nineteenth century for a glimmer of insight:
It seems worth noting then, that the anti-birth control law at the center of the Griswold case, was enacted back in 1879 under the sponsorship of Connecticut state legislator P.T. Barnum. Yes, that P.T. Barnum - who went on to greater fame, running "P. T. Barnum's Grand Traveling Museum, Menagerie, Caravan & Hippodrome." So welcome to Republican Politics - the 2016 edition. It's the greatest show on Earth!
And, yes, Mr. Barnum was a Republican. And an abolitionist. And a producer of blackface minstrel shows. Strangely, on that juxtaposition, he seems more societally evolved than today's Republican Party, but whether we might apply that point in any direct fashion to his anti-contraception law is another question.
The thought that today's social conservative movement might be even more conservative than P. T. Barnum in 1879 is, you know, something of a chilling prospect.
And, you know, it's not like purity cult hasn't been campaigning against sex education my whole life. The old, sick joke about wanting to get them pregnant and keep them pregnant because that's a woman's place is as foetid as always, but seems less and less a joke with each new, desperate assertion from purity cult.
Looking back at where we've been, this is one of those situations in which the question of where we're going should not lead toward such strikingly familiar territory.
____________________
Notes:
Kliff, Sarah. "Carly Fiorina is wrong about the Planned Parenthood tapes. I know because I watched them." Vox. 17 September 2015. Vox.com. 21 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1KGOaDj
Maloney, Carolyn. "Planned Parenthood, The Pill, and P. T. Barnum". The Huffington Post. 18 September 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 21 September 2015. http://huff.to/1KX5XrT
Now that James R has rage-quit and scuttled off with his tail between his legs, I can dedicate more time to sincere posters.
Edit: I also think it's worth pointing out that James hasn't just ran away, he's also behaving like a sore loser who can't fight his own battles. I have just received a personalized warning from his comrade Bells for making 'offensive accusations'. She has no problem with James R's summary of all my supposed flaws posted here though. Liberal hypocrisy at its finest. If they can't browbeat you with personal attacks and misrepresentations, then they start flaunting their authority.
As I explained before being derailed by certain childish individuals, I don't think the incident is necessarily demonstrative of male privilege. It it were, we would have an epidemic of men shooting at women when their sexual advances were turned down. As I also observed, it's not unheard of for a woman to seek to harm a man who has spurned her.
There has been a lot of speculation on this thread about what occurred during the altercation involving the officer. How long did it go on for? Was there enough time to intervene? Did anyone attempt to summon management or security? If nobody intervened, was it because of male privilege, or because they didn't want to make an ugly situation worse? Were they scared of challenging a police officer? Did they think the barmaid had the situation under control? There are so many questions, assumptions, and alternative explanations, yet certain posters immediately conclude that 'male privilege' was the inciting factor, which merely highlights their own prejudices.
Edit: I also think it's worth pointing out that James hasn't just ran away, he's also behaving like a sore loser who can't fight his own battles. I have just received a personalized warning from his comrade Bells for making 'offensive accusations'. She has no problem with James R's summary of all my supposed flaws posted here though. Liberal hypocrisy at its finest. If they can't browbeat you with personal attacks and misrepresentations, then they start flaunting their authority.
Beer with Straw said:
As I explained before being derailed by certain childish individuals, I don't think the incident is necessarily demonstrative of male privilege. It it were, we would have an epidemic of men shooting at women when their sexual advances were turned down. As I also observed, it's not unheard of for a woman to seek to harm a man who has spurned her.
There has been a lot of speculation on this thread about what occurred during the altercation involving the officer. How long did it go on for? Was there enough time to intervene? Did anyone attempt to summon management or security? If nobody intervened, was it because of male privilege, or because they didn't want to make an ugly situation worse? Were they scared of challenging a police officer? Did they think the barmaid had the situation under control? There are so many questions, assumptions, and alternative explanations, yet certain posters immediately conclude that 'male privilege' was the inciting factor, which merely highlights their own prejudices.
Last edited:
