This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Cindy
Pages: 1 ... 678 910 ... 60
211
« on: April 23, 2016, 03:36:28 AM »
Regulations dictate against the stalls going from floor to ceiling in case a building needs to be cleared, so that's not an option.
Nevertheless, it doesn't matter. The bill is bigoted shit and the anti-LGBT notions were likely only included to pass the other items on the bill in the hopes of slipping them by only for the transphobic laws to be removed later.
Nevertheless, on people who support it (and note that I don't know if anyone here does, since I didn't read through the thread) - you have no reason to be behind it other than "ew, trans people are icky!"
-If a man would be willing to disguise himself as a woman to enter a bathroom and rape someone, he'd be willing to do so with or without trans-inclusive bills.
-Should there be separate rooms for homosexual people, as well? If men are going to dress as women to enter changing rooms and spy on them, aren't gay women just given free passes to do exactly that day-in, day-out?
-What stops these terrifying pedophile creeps from simply raping or spying on little boys? According to the biggest proprietors of these bills, then strange men will be showering with your poor little daughters, but they're already showering with your poor little sons.
-Trans individuals have abhorrently, disproportionately higher chances of abuse, both physical and sexual. Forcing a trans woman into the male bathroom will only heighten this chance, and will make everyone eons more uncomfortable than if she had simply been allowed to use the bathroom where she belongs.
-Do people really get raped every day where there exist unisex bathrooms?
-People seem so worried about "strange men" in the female bathroom, ignoring the fact that, with the transphobic bathroom laws, trans men would be forced to use female bathrooms and, considering the body-changing effects of testosterone, are often many times more masculine than many natural-born men.
-There are almost - possibly even none at all, as I only say the 'almost' to avoid a 'gotcha' type situation - zero cases of trans individuals raping, abusing, assaulting, or spying on members of their own gender when using washrooms.
212
« on: April 23, 2016, 03:28:04 AM »
With consent, yes
Sterilization - even if reversible - without consent is pretty atrocious
213
« on: April 23, 2016, 03:20:59 AM »
Well that's a really fuckin' stupid theory you've got yourself
Anyways, JFK and MLK were definitely assassinated by the CIA or similar government-run institutions.
It's not that hard to believe either, especially after government-sponsored programs such as MKUltra or the multiple coups performed in south america and the middle east - one man, I believe, was found dead after falling from a window with two shots to the back of his head. His death was ruled as a "suicide".
Anyways, most of the aspects of the JFK conspiracy theory are pretty well known but are subject to a fair amount of doubt, but considering the "suspect was shot before he could be questioned" part, and the fact that JFK campaigned against acts sponsored by the CIA such as Operation Northwoods (a false-flag operation in which the US government would commit domestic terrorism to encourage a war and subsequent invasion against Cuba) and pulled extra men from the Bay of Pigs invasion, I think there's a reasonable enough doubt to assume that he was killed off by governmental agencies.
But nobody ever talks about MLK's death, which is strange, since the evidence is much more damning that he was, in fact, killed off by the CIA. JFK's assassination plot takes a lot more assumptions and leaps in logic to come to the conclusion that he was killed off by the CIA, but MLK almost certainly was.
The man who supposedly shot Martin Luther King Jr. was a man named James Earl Ray. James had worked as a soldier in WWII, but only rarely saw combat and only served for a short number of years, as he joined on the German front when the war was drawing to a close. He was never a remarkable shot, but somehow he managed to hit King with a long shot through multiple obstacles with extreme precision with a rather average rifle.
He then left, fleeing the room that he had been renting for months - where no trace of his fingerprint evidence was found - and left a bag with his binoculars and rifle covered in prints just outside.
After he'd been arrested, he pleaded guilty to avoid being sentenced to death under a guilty charge by the jury. Later in his life, he attempted to go back on his initial statement by saying that he was forced into a confession, but, later that same year and before he was able to give any testimony, he died of Hepatitus C.
On top of all of this, the FBI had already been very outwardly invested in stopping MLK or attempting to have him offed, as they threatened him with exposure of his affairs on more than one occasion.
214
« on: April 14, 2016, 10:11:44 AM »
Demisexuality is an incredibly stupid concept that people use to fit in with the "different" crowd as though their preferences in dating constituted a sexuality
Pansexuality has merit but the divide between bisexual/pansexual is more of a flaw in how society tends to view sexuality as a black/white entity rather than a spectrum.
215
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:24:36 PM »
Cool
216
« on: April 01, 2016, 09:20:10 PM »
Why is my post being DUMB >:<
217
« on: April 01, 2016, 09:07:31 PM »
#Invalid YouTube Link#
218
« on: April 01, 2016, 09:05:17 PM »
I'd argue men can be just as fan servicy as females can, though obviously not as frequent. I'd also like to add to what she says here. And as mentioned above, it is an attractive feature in men. A fit man with muscles is seen as the "best thing" in our culture as women in a bikini who are as skinny as a twig. Both are unrealistic and not the most common thing among men.
One reinforces preexisting oppressive ideas about women that are real and damaging to women in their everyday lives, the other does not reinforce anything. Now this is one thing I really just outright disagreed with rather than just nitpicked at. I feel as though this is an open and shut case in her regard and I entirely oppose this. I hate to bring it up again, but Emma Watson said at her UN speech (or wherever she was), that both sexes, male and female, are horribly oppressed by such stereotypes.
Women for what was covered in this review, but males as well for almost the same examples she brought up, but failed to talk about. Males are supposed to be strong! Tough! Do everything and take care of the woman, don't show emotions, don't cry! It's because of those pictures she showed of buff men who are shirtless, that I felt she missed that point entirely.
Men do suffer from stereotypes just as much as women do. Though it may not be sexualized per say, it still is put to the forefront when I saw these pictures. I can only think of a few action games where the male character isn't some muscle head or someone lithe but super ripped. The normal guy is nothing like these characters, and is just as exaggerated as the female in their own regard.
Men don't HAVE to be muscle heads, emotionally distant, always cool with the ladies. Men CAN cry, they can be emotional, they can be physically weak. I'd argue a lot of pressure is on men in our society just as much as a woman, though of course in different ways as I explained. That's not to discount what the women in video games, or in general go through, but to ignore one side, to me, is just very silly and an injustice.
I agreed with most of your post, but I would counter with the classic, "women are sexualized, men are idealized" argument that typically comes up during these debates. Not that such stereotypes aren't also harmful to men in their own way, but it's slightly different. The men are typically stereotyped to appeal to male ideals such as strength, toughness of will, and so on where as females are also stereotyped to appeal to male ideas - specifically the male gaze which the video touches on.
219
« on: April 01, 2016, 08:27:28 PM »
>Regressive left
-chuckle.gif-
220
« on: April 01, 2016, 08:23:24 PM »
ITT: Saying that I can't freely hate people is bigoted. You're the REAL bigots! Freeze Peach!!!!
221
« on: March 30, 2016, 08:57:08 PM »
222
« on: March 24, 2016, 09:12:52 AM »
The fuck does this have to do with anything
>White dude rapes a girl
"Jeez, that guy is a horrible piece of shit"
>Refugee rapes a girl
"Jeez, refugees are horrible pieces of shit"
Remind me again of the systemic problem of white men raping women in the multitudes my dude.
Well white people only made up ~66% of all reported rapes in 2013
And is this fixed in proportion to population size? White people make up the majority of people in the US, so it's reasonable to assume that they would commit the more crimes in relation to their demographical numbers.
See, this is the same sort of arguments that white supremacists make. "Hurr durr, white people get shot by the cops more". Eh no, that just means there's just more white people in the country.
Assuming that "Asian" refers to middle eastern in both groups (as they wouldn't be African American or Pacific Islanders), they make up roughly 5% of the population while accounting for 1.3% of all reported rape.Unfortunately I can't give extremely accurate feedback because there is no category in either for middle easterners
223
« on: March 24, 2016, 09:01:24 AM »
12 hours, what the fuck?
Shit would get sore
224
« on: March 24, 2016, 08:56:30 AM »
The fuck does this have to do with anything
>White dude rapes a girl
"Jeez, that guy is a horrible piece of shit"
>Refugee rapes a girl
"Jeez, refugees are horrible pieces of shit"
Remind me again of the systemic problem of white men raping women in the multitudes my dude.
Well white people only made up ~66% of all reported rapes in 2013
225
« on: March 24, 2016, 08:47:06 AM »
The fuck does this have to do with anything
>White dude rapes a girl "Jeez, that guy is a horrible piece of shit" >Refugee rapes a girl "Jeez, refugees are horrible pieces of shit"
226
« on: March 24, 2016, 08:46:18 AM »
Send me a PM tomorrow reminding me to respond to this if I don't get around to it. I didn't sleep last night so I really can't be arsed to trawl through a word document full of sources/respond in full to you.
I will say, however:
No offence, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of causation/correlation confusion. No, it isn't. I didn't even begin to imply any kind of causal factor here. I actually don't even know what you think I think the causal factor is here, or how it relates to stereotypes. Are you implying that I think high crime rates among blacks are the result of criminals simply being black? Because I don't. Literally all I'm pointing out is that stereotypes are pretty accurate perceptions of correlations. At no point did I even slightly suggest that X group commits Y act because they are X group.
Fair and fair
227
« on: March 24, 2016, 08:45:46 AM »
"oMg WHY IS A PERSON LIKE TRUMP WHO DOESN'T TAKE SHIT FROM ANYONE STRIKING A cHORD WITH SO MANY pEoPLE?1?!?!?!
lmao trump is just such a alpha bro i don't get why all those fucking beta cucks don't want him tbh
228
« on: March 24, 2016, 08:33:06 AM »
Old English is definitely a weird one
Middle Chinese sounds more pleasing than modern
Middle Japanese sounds like the Devil had an offspring
Latin sounds lovely
My mother can recite the opening verses of Beowulf in old english Shit's weird sounding
229
« on: March 24, 2016, 08:31:09 AM »
No, but why are you limiting the problem solely to violent fundamentalism? We already know a worrying number of Muslims, even in the West, hold views about gays or women or even democracy which simply aren't compatible with our liberal society. Is the Middle East, as a region, uniquely suited to producing insurgencies and militant groups? Yeah, I wouldn't dispute that. But it doesn't follow that there are no other problems with a large section of the global Muslim community. And there are plenty of Christians which believe that gays are of the devil and transgender people are straying from god's light - trust me, I live in Houston, Texas, I'm familiar with that. But, of course, no one protests against Christianity because of these things. Naturally, they shouldn't. They protest against the groups spreading these hateful messages such as the Westboro Baptist Church, to name the most notable one. My point isn't that Islam is flawless or that it doesn't, at times, teach bad messages. As I said in my initial post, I would say that Islam is certainly the most problematic of all modern day "big" religions because of certain lessons it teaches. I'm simply saying that demonizing all practitioners of Islam is bad. The literature really doesn't support this theory of blowback. Does foreign policy contribute to terrorism in the sense it adds to terrorists' grievances? Yeah, it gives them a narrative to work with. But by and large that narrative is only really effective within the already-existing radicalised community. Drone strikes--even failed ones--demonstrably lead to a reduction in the lethality of terrorist attacks, Palestinian support for attacks on Israel has been falling, even through Operation Cast Lead, all of the 7/7 bombers were radicalised before the invasion of Iraq, the direction of causality strongly runs from Israeli casualties leading to Palestinian casualties and not vice versa. Do you have a source for this? I'm not doubting it's credibility, I'm just curious and I'd like to see the numbers. If foreign policy is the cause of terrorism, how come most Muslims do not like bin Laden or al-Qaeda? It's fairly clear our foreign policy doesn't necessarily entail the creation of significant grievances among Muslim communities, so we have to question why some of them respond the way that they do. Obviously, we're dealing with a highly irrational and fanatical side of the Muslim population. I wouldn't say that it is, more often that not, the direct cause - I'd simply say that it's either an indirect cause or a contributing factor. I also definitely wouldn't say that Islam is a non-factor in terrorism - if that's the message that I seem to have been sending, then I apologize. I do believe that the more warlike foundations of the religion and the culture that it has existed in lend itself more to a violent outlook. And let's be honest, these are exactly the people who are going to be trying to establish caliphates and Talibanised regimes across the Middle East whether or not we get involved. It's certainly a lot easier for them if we don't, and it makes the lives of those under them a hell of a lot worse. At some point, our foreign policy must be motivated by our values--which cannot be compromised. If our values entail stopping the establishment and spread of insurgencies seeking to overthrow their government--particularly democratic ones--then so be it. I don't disagree with this at all. The core of my argument is essentially that a vast amount of people fall to scare tactics and demonize all muslims See, it's comments like this that show you don't know what the evidence says. The relationship between education and terrorism is not very tight at all, and if anything runs in the direction opposite to what you suggest. Radicals tend to come from more affluent backgrounds than the working classes of their society. And, of course, we should expect this. While it's not unlikely that working-class people bombarded with propaganda could become radicalised, it's a hell of a lot more likely that they're just like working-class people anywhere else, and just want to get the fuck on with their lives with some degree of security. Hmm, once again, I have to ask if you have any sources for this. Again, I don't mean to sound like a prick going "YOU MUST BE WRONG BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T CITE IT LIKE A COLLEGE ESSAY" but I'm just curious if knowing if that is true. If it is, then I suppose I'll have to say I was wrong on this respect, but the twisting of the lower class does still come into effect. As I mentioned in the initial post, the poor in those countries are fairly easily manipulated by force or coercion from groups such as the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. And, as I said, right now the scale of Christian fundamentalism and its associated effects isn't quite on the same level as Islamic fundamentalism. This is a very fair point, but Christianity is also much more prevalent among first world countries. Again, I'm not trying to say that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, only that terrorists are motivated by much more than Islam and that the religion is not the root problem of these, nor should everyone practicing the faith be held accountable. Two points: nobody except those on the far-right are arguing for the demonisation or expulsion of immigrants.
Except literally nobody here has ever made the argument that all Muslims are horrible people and deserve to be demonised. It's a fairly largely-held belief on this board that immigrants are ruining Europe. I'm not going to be pointing fingers, but you only need to look at some of the posts on the Serious board. Immigrants are pretty heavily demonized on this board. Some have out-right said "they're ruining europe" and others just post memes where it's fairly obvious what they're implying. It's a shame stereotypes tend to be mad accurate then. No offence, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of causation/correlation confusion. Some stereotypes may prove to be accurate simply because of a correlation between the two, but that does not mean that one causes the other. I literally haven't seen a single person here support that, and would expect only the 'usual suspects' like Midget, Cadenza and PSU to support that. They certainly don't represent conservative opinion on this board, and it's definitely not what I, Mordo, Turkey etc. believe. In all fairness, I'm not entirely sure what the attitude towards Trump on this board is and I will admit that it's a bit of a leap for me to say that I've seen it supported multiple times. I apologize for that, as it was a bit of a tangent that wasn't so much related to my main point.
230
« on: March 24, 2016, 08:25:15 AM »
unlike the strawman image that Mordo had posted in the other thread which, in case anyone was wonder, was why I refused to continue the debate in that thread. I'm not going to argue with a person who declares what he thinks my viewpoint is in a hilariously dumb strawman post and then debates with that instead of me. Honestly, the progressive victim/aggressor mentality never ceases to amaze me.
My dude, you busted into MY thread labelling me and anyone that agreed with me a backwards racist /pol/ browser first. But this is the beauty of cognitive dissonance on the left isn't it? Going out of your way to be professional provocateurs then playing the victim card as soon as you get a taste of your own medicine in response. It's a great tactic for anyone that's a retard, but unfortunately for you, we can all see through the bullshit.
Funny, since I didn't ever lift a finger against the "Go Back To Tumblr" image - which is a carbon copy of the one I posted there. Thought it was funny retaliation, actually. But, y'know, just keep yelling at me, fam. I'll keep calling you a bigot and the cycle should work out pretty well.
231
« on: March 24, 2016, 08:11:00 AM »
232
« on: March 24, 2016, 03:38:33 AM »
"the culture of the area is a large reason for these actions
Nobody disagrees with this. We're disagreeing with your implication that it's the culture as opposed to the religion which is at play; as if you can separate those two things so cleanly. Religion is culture.
It's much like the rectangle/square argument, though I definitely won't argue that the Quran and Islam in general is much more open to violent interpretation than other religions such as Christianity or Judaism, and I also won't argue that Islam has a multitude of problematic aspects to the daily practice of the religion especially in its treatment of women - unlike the strawman image that Mordo had posted in the other thread which, in case anyone was wonder, was why I refused to continue the debate in that thread. I'm not going to argue with a person who declares what he thinks my viewpoint is in a hilariously dumb strawman post and then debates with that instead of me. Anyways, I digress. As I said, it's a lot more to do with the rectange/square argument - ever notice how, while the vast majority of these violent perpetrators come from the Middle East, there are vastly large sums of Muslims elsewhere in the world? Less than 40% of the world's Muslim population lives in the Middle East, with incredibly large pockets living in India and Indonesia, but you don't nearly as often hear about radicalization of the religious sectors in those countries bombing churches or executing women. Now, as I'd said earlier, India certainly has its own problem with their treatment of women, but that's a different subject entirely and I won't really touch on it here. The Middle East has had many problems in the past with in-fighting and especially recent problems with invasions by western powers, alongside a history of an especially violent Bedouin judicial code. It makes it especially easy for anti-western propaganda to be spread throughout the region against people who have seen their home countries torn apart and may not fully understand why. Much like many Christians may falsely interpret a realistic, religious view of hell to look like the picture painted by Dante's Inferno despite the fact that the Bible only makes slight references to the smell of sulfur and incredible heat, or say that Lucifer and Satan are the same entity despite actually being two different beings - Muslims, especially those uneducated in their religion and in their daily lives in general, are much easier to twist to the whim of groups like ISIS and their more violent interpretation of the Quaran. And in case anyone is to come out and say, "well, the quaran just encourages violence at its core," then a reminder to you that Jihad simply means "struggle in the ways of Allah." The Bible has just as many violent, classist, and sexist messages as the Quaran does, but it is, obviously, less often interpreted in those ways. Jihad of the Sword is not the only interpretation that the Quaran offers and, at its heart, it is no different than the Christian message; everyone in the world should be converted it Islam in order to be saved by God. Am I saying that Islam is a perfect religion and there is nothing wrong with it? Of course not, but I'd say the same of most religions that exist today. Am I saying that there should be no checks on immigrants or attempts to assimilate them? No, of course not. Germany has faced a similar debate with Turkish immigrants for years before the "immigration" crisis and I grew up with a similar argument being faced in my day to day life - not to mention the arguments since then with Hispanic immigration into America. I simply say that attempts to demonize or force out all immigration simply aid to the message and goal of groups like ISIS at its core. ISIS wants to play off of the fear of middle eastern culture and of Islam in order to say, "look, they're the bad guys. They're the evil ones. We need to get revenge on them for what they're done." Leaving immigrants to fend for themselves against an upcoming regime and/or refusing them only assists in this message. Similar things happened in the past with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. You would have citizens joining their ranks because they'd been led to believe that the west was truly evil and had come to kill them, or farmers gunning down soldiers because they'd been approached and told, "you'll do this or we'll kill your family" and they'd had nowhere to escape to. The majority of my argument, at its core, is that the demonization of all muslims for the act of the radical few is as ridiculous as pointing at a snowflake and saying "look, climate change can't be real" or pointing at a rapist and saying "look, all men are terrible." No one said that Christianity was terrible at its core back when the KKK and white supremacists were lynching people left and right - because it's much easier to try and apply this sort of logic to a foreign or minority group. It's the same train of logic that spurns the "women/asians are terrible drivers" stereotypes because, when a man is a terrible driver, most people simply assume "that man sucks at driving." When a women or asian is a terrible driver, however, people use it to support the stereotype and apply blanket statements across the entire groups. Furthermore, a majority of this board seems to support Trump's temporary Muslim ban, and that is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen in my life, so allow me to address that for a moment. First of all, how does it even accomplish that goal? How do you ban a religion, exactly? Unlike Judaism, it's not an ethnic religion, so there is no way to properly enforce it unless the true goal is "ban brown-skinned people". Mohammad, an ISIS agent, could easily simply say that he's converted to Christianity while Hassan, a young refugee looking for asylum who simply doesn't want to give up his upbringing and culture, would be turned away for being one of those evil muslims. There's simply no way to enforce the rule at its base. But let's humor the idea for a moment. Let's say that there is an actual way to trace who is a Muslim and effectively ban them from the United States and/or Europe. Does that apply to white muslims already living in those countries, with lineage tracing back generations? Does that apply to muslims who already lived in the country who were visiting foreign states when the ban was in place - such as my friend Ata, who returns to Turkey each summer to visit his aunt and uncle? Does that apply to foreign delegates or political figures who happen to be muslim and would visit the country? How long is 'temporary'? It's a ridiculous rule with no more substance to it than any more of Trump's largest campaigning policies. But the Muslim ban, the wall, and the attempts to ban refugees entirely from Europe are all nothing more than fear mongering at their core, anyways. And yes, meme all you like, but it is bigoted to judge a vast majority of peoples because they happen to contain an excessively violent group within. I've stressed this multiple times throughout this argument and given multiple examples, but a felt the need to punctuate it one final time. The strawman that "lmao u dum libbies think there's nothing wrong with islam!" is absurd - obviously there are things wrong with it. The treatment of women and the ease with which it is twisted towards violence are, of course, terrible things, but the problem lies in summarizing all Muslims as wife beating, western hating, terrorists who want nothing more than to rape the women and burn the churches. As I've said, it's as ridiculous as saying that all men are dangerous criminals and should be avoided because a small minority of them commit rape more than other groups of people do. There is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing Islam nor is there anything wrong with demonizing those who would use its message to spread terror. The issues arise when that 'criticism' is used for fear mongering to demonize everyone of a particular religious, cultural, or ethnic background.
233
« on: March 23, 2016, 01:17:50 PM »
You really think I try to be taken seriously on this site, breh?
234
« on: March 23, 2016, 01:10:16 PM »
See what I mean?
>posts memes mocking us
>we post memes mocking you after refusing to engage in a civilized debate
"C WOT I MEAN!!!1one /pol/acks just can't argue properly smh"
235
« on: March 23, 2016, 01:09:45 PM »
I don't care if English is your second o third language, don't a condescending little bitch
236
« on: March 23, 2016, 12:59:25 PM »
See what I mean?
237
« on: March 23, 2016, 12:58:10 PM »
Fine - an allusion, a comparison, call it what you want. I'm simply pointing out that going, "the culture of the area is a large reason for these actions, similar to this other area with a heavily religious population" isn't "changing the subject" or trying to distract from anything.
But then again, I'm just a filthy libtard SJW cuck, so what do I know, ye?
238
« on: March 23, 2016, 12:48:15 PM »
>"hurr durr you disagree with how immigration is handled"
>"I'll just call you a far right /pol/ack and call it a day"
wew
>using "cuck" non-ironically
Sounds like a /pol/ack to me, fam
Ace lad
Got any real arguments now that you've gotten the racist card out of your system?
Arguing with /pol/acks is an effort in futility
239
« on: March 23, 2016, 12:43:27 PM »
Also - neo-liberal?
A quick google search tells me that a "neo-liberal" is a term used to describe liberals who are in favor of libertarian-like deregulations on government spending, and is associated often with political figures like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
At least look up the terms you try to insult me with.
240
« on: March 23, 2016, 12:41:17 PM »
>"hurr durr you disagree with how immigration is handled"
>"I'll just call you a far right /pol/ack and call it a day"
wew
>using "cuck" non-ironically Sounds like a /pol/ack to me, fam
Pages: 1 ... 678 910 ... 60
|
Show Posts