Current Events

TOPICS:

8/19/09

The Prince of Darkness heads home [2]

8/18/09

Let's Blow Off The Public Option And Open Up Medicare

8/18/09

Tesla turns profit in July for the first time! [6]

8/18/09

I think I'd rather see the "Santorum Shuffle"

8/16/09

Calling all fake liberals ... [2]

8/16/09

Whole Foods CEO Goes All Galt About Health Care Reform

8/16/09

"The Family:" The real "vast right wing conspiracy"?

8/14/09

what good is Friday....

8/14/09

What the fuck, America? [5]

8/13/09

Healthcare reform e-mails from the White House

8/13/09

NEWS: Richard Farrell: The Two Hour Orgasm [4]

8/13/09

St. Petersburg Times goes after Scientology

8/13/09

Sanford: the gift that keeps on giving [2]

8/13/09

RIP Eunice Kennedy Shriver (1921-2009)

8/12/09

War Declared on Scientology [9]

8/11/09

8/10/09

NEWS: Final Fantasy XIII: New images and information revealed.

8/10/09

Mark Sanford - The Thrifty Governor

8/10/09

DDoS Attacks on Twitter, Google Blogger, Facebook target Georgian Blogger

8/9/09

"The President Is A Loon" Would Have Been Subtler [2]

8/9/09

Billy Mays' career goes *Kaboom* [2]

8/9/09

Climate change seen as threat to national security

8/8/09

John Hughes R.I.P.

redclayrambler6

8/7/09

Another GOP 1st termer quits

8/6/09

Guess what? [2]

8/5/09

Women in the Congo

8/4/09

I think the "Beer Summit" should be abbreviated to the "B.S." [5]

8/4/09

Moron Labe - The Idiots Are Coming to Get Us

8/3/09

Don't Ask, Don't Heil [8]

8/2/09

NEWS: Asshole Fuckface Roundup #107 [6]

8/2/09

Organic Food Lovers to Eat Genetically-Modified, Corporate-Farmed Crow [3]

8/2/09

Operation Khanjar begins in Afghanistan

7/30/09

NEWS: The Biggest Failure of All [3]

7/30/09

Quick what do Masturbation and the Iraq War have in Common?

7/30/09

Mayor of Hoboken Sets New Record [2]

7/29/09

Palin Quits Governorship [7]

7/28/09

AT&T blocks 4chan's /b/ [3]

7/28/09

When Bill O' met Triumph

7/28/09

Asshole Taliban Releases Propaganda Video of Captured U.S. Solider [4]

DeviantDissident

7/27/09

Palin target of new ethics probe

PAGE:

1 ...

34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38

... 487

retweet

NEWS: Asshole Fuckface Roundup #107

PAGE:

1 ...

4 | 5 | 6

Cairo

SUICIDEGIRL

Maryland, USA

JUL 27, 2009 08:33 PM

Morgan said:

malkav11 said:
Hey, any time you want to actually address me instead of the imaginary person you've built up in your head, feel free. In the meantime, I'm clearly not needed here.

He HAS been addressing every single thing you've said in this thread. If you choose to ignore his responses to your posts, that's your problem.

It's Subrosa, dude. He's not going to be lazy in his responses to you, and he's not going to invent an "imaginary person" when he responds to you. If you've been on CE long enough you know he actually considers what he's responding to.

+1

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

JUL 27, 2009 08:36 PM

Cairo said:

Morgan said:

malkav11 said:
Hey, any time you want to actually address me instead of the imaginary person you've built up in your head, feel free. In the meantime, I'm clearly not needed here.

He HAS been addressing every single thing you've said in this thread. If you choose to ignore his responses to your posts, that's your problem.

It's Subrosa, dude. He's not going to be lazy in his responses to you, and he's not going to invent an "imaginary person" when he responds to you. If you've been on CE long enough you know he actually considers what he's responding to.

+1

An aside: I miss you, lady.

Otoki

SUICIDEGIRL

Minnesota, USA

JUL 28, 2009 09:07 AM

Hey, I do believe in one of my post that I said father's should have more rights. I wasn't trying to make men the bad guy, just saying if a dude is going to deny a woman the right to an abortion, then he should have to raise it if she doesn't want it. I don't think all father's are scum, but some are. But courts are very sexist in custody battles.

Oh naw, I never had an issue with your idea - I think it would almost make the bill fair (obviously bridging the rest of the gap would be transferring the fetus to the dude). My problem was basically unrelated and was silly of me anyway.

Otoki said:
The quote was a popular bumper sticker. I should have been clear that it wasn't a hard, scientific source. I do remember reading that there were more pro-life men than women, but I'm going to do some searching to find it.

I'm sorry for saying "all" men. I was using hyperbole in what I thought was an obviously sarcastic post. I'll make my intentions clearer next time.

That's cool, I wish it were real - I have some friends who I think might be willing to reexamine their views with stats like that (male, pro-life, likely never to get pregnant Junior-style) As to the rest, I think I sat through too many women's studies classes feeling like I was the enemy, I can be oversensitive and definitely was in this case.

I wish you would have sat through my Feminist Thought and Theory class. My professor was awesome, and unlike the intro level WOST class I took, this class was all about questioning those attitudes (and, really, rendering them regressive and divisive). It was a really awesome third wave heavy class. Have faith, not all WOST students think men are the enemy. Just the ones who like oversimplification.

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN

July 2003

JUL 28, 2009 09:10 PM

Morgan said:

malkav11 said:
Hey, any time you want to actually address me instead of the imaginary person you've built up in your head, feel free. In the meantime, I'm clearly not needed here.

He HAS been addressing every single thing you've said in this thread. If you choose to ignore his responses to your posts, that's your problem.

It's Subrosa, dude. He's not going to be lazy in his responses to you, and he's not going to invent an "imaginary person" when he responds to you. If you've been on CE long enough you know he actually considers what he's responding to.

All I can say is, he's decided I'm coming from a position I'm not, with an agenda I don't have, and has either misconstrued or ignored most of what I've had to say. I tried to correct this impression, and he appears to have decided I was wrong (about what I myself believe) or lying or something. I don't know what else I'm supposed to conclude. And yes, it does seem rather out of character for him, as I generally find his posts both sensible and well-researched. Hell, if I were in fact the person he seems to believe me to be, his responses would probably be all sorts of awesome. But I'm just plain not.

khoos

HOPEFUL

Ottawa, ON

JUL 28, 2009 10:32 PM

Morgan said:

malkav11 said:
Hey, any time you want to actually address me instead of the imaginary person you've built up in your head, feel free. In the meantime, I'm clearly not needed here.

He HAS been addressing every single thing you've said in this thread. If you choose to ignore his responses to your posts, that's your problem.

It's Subrosa, dude. He's not going to be lazy in his responses to you, and he's not going to invent an "imaginary person" when he responds to you. If you've been on CE long enough you know he actually considers what he's responding to.

All I can say is, he's decided I'm coming from a position I'm not, with an agenda I don't have, and has either misconstrued or ignored most of what I've had to say. I tried to correct this impression, and he appears to have decided I was wrong (about what I myself believe) or lying or something. I don't know what else I'm supposed to conclude. And yes, it does seem rather out of character for him, as I generally find his posts both sensible and well-researched. Hell, if I were in fact the person he seems to believe me to be, his responses would probably be all sorts of awesome. But I'm just plain not.

But he's been quoting you and responding to your own words! How can you say he's misconstrued or ignored any of it? Please quote the bits you have posted that you would like responded to so I can see where you're "really" coming from then. Because if Subrosa is misinterpreting you then we all pretty much are.

RaphaelGeist

United Kingdom

July 2009

JUL 30, 2009 07:37 AM

Wow. Horrendous is all I can say, to all of this. The good will out though. Regarding Obama, I was always impressed by his unwillingnes to indulge in the petty griping - any decent politician is above stunts like that.

Loleetah

Brooklyn, NY

July 2009

JUL 30, 2009 08:10 AM

In regards to the abortion issue: I know that it is unfair if a woman becomes pregnant and the man wants to continue the pregnancy while she does not. It sucks for the guy but that is how it has to be.
A woman should not be forced to continue a pregnancy if she does not want to.
If she has no choice over her pregnancy you can bet she'll have no choice on whether or not she can place a child up for adoption, thus she will be stuck with a child she does not want.
If this bill is passed and goes into effect, the rate of child abuse and murder will go through the roof!

Marge

Davis, CA

July 2003

JUL 30, 2009 09:08 AM

Fucking politicians are so short-sighted; clearly the solution is to make the fetus provide written consent.

Coyotemike

USA

May 2006

JUL 30, 2009 09:11 AM

Marge said:
Fucking politicians are so short-sighted; clearly the solution is to make the fetus provide written consent.

In clinical trials, many women complained about lawyers shoving pens into their vaginas.

Otoki

SUICIDEGIRL

Minnesota, USA

JUL 30, 2009 09:27 AM

Loleetah said:
In regards to the abortion issue: I know that it is unfair if a woman becomes pregnant and the man wants to continue the pregnancy while she does not. It sucks for the guy but that is how it has to be.
A woman should not be forced to continue a pregnancy if she does not want to.
If she has no choice over her pregnancy you can bet she'll have no choice on whether or not she can place a child up for adoption, thus she will be stuck with a child she does not want.
If this bill is passed and goes into effect, the rate of child abuse and murder will go through the roof!

Why would the rates go up?

CassyLee

Capon Bridge, WV

August 2007

JUL 30, 2009 12:33 PM

Otoki said:

Loleetah said:
In regards to the abortion issue: I know that it is unfair if a woman becomes pregnant and the man wants to continue the pregnancy while she does not. It sucks for the guy but that is how it has to be.
A woman should not be forced to continue a pregnancy if she does not want to.
If she has no choice over her pregnancy you can bet she'll have no choice on whether or not she can place a child up for adoption, thus she will be stuck with a child she does not want.
If this bill is passed and goes into effect, the rate of child abuse and murder will go through the roof!

Why would the rates go up?

I think she's implying that if a woman is forced to have a child she doesn't want that the woman will abuse and/or kill it. What she's forgetting is that woman who want kids already do that. Not wanting a kid doesn't make you an abuser or a murderer.

Otoki

SUICIDEGIRL

Minnesota, USA

AUG 01, 2009 12:19 AM

Otoki said:

Loleetah said:
In regards to the abortion issue: I know that it is unfair if a woman becomes pregnant and the man wants to continue the pregnancy while she does not. It sucks for the guy but that is how it has to be.
A woman should not be forced to continue a pregnancy if she does not want to.
If she has no choice over her pregnancy you can bet she'll have no choice on whether or not she can place a child up for adoption, thus she will be stuck with a child she does not want.
If this bill is passed and goes into effect, the rate of child abuse and murder will go through the roof!

Why would the rates go up?

I think she's implying that if a woman is forced to have a child she doesn't want that the woman will abuse and/or kill it. What she's forgetting is that woman who want kids already do that. Not wanting a kid doesn't make you an abuser or a murderer.

That was my impression, too, but I wanted to make sure. It's a really weird assumption to make. I could see baby ABANDONMENT rates going up (dropping baby at firestation, police station, hospital, etc) but not abuse.

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

AUG 02, 2009 11:12 AM

malkav11 said:
All I can say is, he's decided I'm coming from a position I'm not, with an agenda I don't have, and has either misconstrued or ignored most of what I've had to say. I tried to correct this impression, and he appears to have decided I was wrong (about what I myself believe) or lying or something. I don't know what else I'm supposed to conclude. And yes, it does seem rather out of character for him, as I generally find his posts both sensible and well-researched. Hell, if I were in fact the person he seems to believe me to be, his responses would probably be all sorts of awesome. But I'm just plain not.

Oh what a load of whiny bullshit.

For you to complain about me ignoring what you've had to say is rich indeed. I'll spoiler the evidence, but you are so full of it when you say that I've ignored your points that it ceases to be amusing.

Here's what happened:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

You said that the system doesn't address kids with dead or indigent fathers (even though it does) and that

I sometimes get the feeling that the system is designed more to punish men for acting in ways many people find reprehensible than to best serve the child.

That whole post was a valiant effort to defend the rights of men, by the way.

Regardless, after disabusing you of both of those notions, I asked you if you would prefer a system where a non-custodial parent could walk away from their support obligations if they so chose.

You ignored that question.

Then you asserted that the needs of the child would best be provided for by a "reliable source." I responded that the system as is currently constructed DOES provide a reliable source of funds for children and repeated my question above about whether you would prefer a system where non custodial parents would be able to walk away if they so choose.

You answered yes. You said that your string attached would be "If they are also willing to walk away from all of their rights." I replied:

Your "not no strings attached" hypothetical is in reality no strings attached and you know it. A person who is not willing to take part in a child's life is only going to be happy to "walk away from their rights" in exchange. That's not a difficult choice.

I've subsequently re-iterated the above point a half-dozen times throughout the thread.

You've continued to ignore it every single time.

From there you shifted the goal posts to consider whether the current system is cost effective. Because after all, wouldn't it just be better to just give money directly to the children?

I responded by pointing out that your cost benefit analysis on a micro level may have extremely adverse consequences on a macro level. I've asked you to address that point twice subsequently.

You've ignored that, too.

At this point, you just decided to throw up your hands and pretend that somehow you're being misconstrued. Whether it's because you're truly butthurt or you've realized that you have backed yourself into a rhetorical corner that you cannot defend or for some other reason entirely is not for me to say. All I can say about that is that you seem to be particularly annoyed that I am not going to let you forget that you think that children's needs are best served by allowing non-custodial parents to walk away if they so choose. I'm sorry, but you made that argument and I'm not going to let you skate away from it. If that annoys you, tough.

As anyone reading the thread can see, I've responded to your posts throughout in a point-by-point fashion, quoting your language and rebutting it directly. You've tended to respond by posting a new point anew without addressing directly anything I've said, or at least not addressing my rebuttals of your argument. I mean, the above is only a summary. I've probably made another dozen different other points that you've ignored as well. I understand that during the back and forth of an argument, certain minor points can get lost, but you've ignored both the minor and the major with equal facility.

If you want to defend your position, defend it. If you don't, don't. But don't try to play the victim when your arguments have been taken apart.

PAGE:

1 ...

4 | 5 | 6