Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/30/14 12:41 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 8/30/14 12:20 AM, Light wrote:

"Yes" specifically may be unnecessary, but clear and informed consent must still be obtained for sex to be morally permissible. This is what this is all about, more or less.

And you need a law specifically stating this when the law on rape already covers it... why?

Admittedly, on this particular topic, I'm not too knowledgeable(This is why I pointed to Warforger's post instead of making a more substantive post of my own). I will say that government should make public and private universities more accountable for failing to deal with the problem of sexual assault. Some good first steps were taken with the Clery Act which was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, but that's not enough.

Still, my main concern is the prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses. I'm more comfortably knowledgeable on that subject.

Well, obviously you can't legislate rape away. You can't legislate human behavior, you can only supply a punishment for breaking the law.

While you can't mitigate sexual assault on a large scale, parents can help protect their own children by teaching their sons better morals than to put his willie in a woman he doesn't know,

But not teaching them that rape is immoral or that having sex with a drunken woman while one is sober technically constitutes rape? Really?

and they can (and should) put their daughters through martial arts from a young age so they can defend themselves in the case a man tries to pin them down. They can also teach their daughters about situational awareness.

I don't oppose this, but shouldn't the emphasis be on teaching young men that one can't obtain clear and informed consent from a woman(or another man, for that matter) if they're in an altered state of mind, as is the case when drinking excessively? Most sexual assaults happen when one of the parties is drunk, you know.

BTW, I think we all already know that I am NOT politically correct. Don't expect me to fall into the politically correct bullshit that all too many subscribe to. Your allegations of "blaming the victim" will fall on deaf ears because your platitudes are not only overused, but flat out wrong. I don't blame the victim. I merely point out that people should take the initiative to protect themselves and not knowingly put themselves in situations where they can be harmed.

As long as you admit that someone is never at fault for being raped(No matter what the circumstances are), that's fine by me.

Situational Awareness examples

Example 1. You're a female in a miniskirt in a frat house. A man offers you a drink. Do you take it?

No. Getting drunk in a frat house is a recipe for disaster. too many horny men and no one to protect you when you're inebriated. Also, sex is probably exactly why you got invited to the frat house in the first place. You should not even be inside of the frat house.

Again, men should be taught that sexually exploiting an intoxicated person is rape. Sadly, far too many are not taught this by their parents or other authority figures.

Example 2. You're walking alone at night and some guy seems to be following you. what do you do?

First of all, why the hell are you by yourself, outside, at night? Bad idea.

I understand that certain areas can be dangerous, but by charging the possible victim with their own safety, you're not really getting to the root of the problem. Prevention by teaching men to respect the rights of others and fostering an environment where they learn to do that is obviously better than teaching people that they should just try to defend themselves or be with other people at night.

The worst part about all of this is men are not nearly as likely to be told to be with someone else for protection, and frankly, that's because they don't have to worry about being raped as much.

If you absolutely MUST be outside by yourself at night in a place where you can be attacked, be prepared to defend yourself. If a man approaches you step away from him. Cross the road. If he follows, hose his ass down with some pepper spray, if nothing else. Familiarize yourself with the spray and even practice using it from time to time to make sure when the time comes you know how.

Again, I'd never say that people shouldn't learn how to defend themselves, but all things considered, it'd be a better idea to teach them this and instruct men that rape is never OK.

Of course, in this scenario, the kind of man you're describing is a rapist who's not afraid to use force to get what he wants. Most sexual assaults on college campuses don't occur like this, so I think this scenario is irrelevant and we should instead focus on the kind of rape that occurs that isn't typically accompanied by violence. Most rapes on college campuses fit this description.

Again, the problem is that many male college students think it's not rape to have sex with a heavily intoxicated woman because they're not using violent force and they associate rape with that. In their minds, sex isn't rape if no violent coercion is involved, ignoring the fact that rape doesn't have to involve the threat of being murdered or physically assaulted. Simply trying to alter someone's judgment for the purpose of having sex with them is attempted rape, plain and simple.

And of course, ALWAYS use good judgment. If things seem dicey, leave, quickly.

If you're already intoxicated, this isn't really an option. That's why you have to get to the root of the problem with sexual assaults at frat parties and such.

If one law against rape doesn't stop rape, neither will 2, or 3, or 1,000. Government can stop rape about as well as they stop murder and heroin. They can't.

I don't know about that. Colleges, as Warforger pointed out, often do a crappy job of investigating rape allegations. That needs to change and the only way to bring about change with respect to that is through government action. Here's a copy-pasted description of the Clery Act from Wikipedia:

The Clery Act requires all colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs to keep and disclose information about crime on and near their respective campuses. Compliance is monitored by the United States Department of Education, which can impose civil penalties, up to $35,000 per violation, against institutions for each infraction and can suspend institutions from participating in federal student financial aid programs.

I'd say that this has already made college campuses at least somewhat safer, but I don't think that's enough.

In fact, this law was passed because a college freshman was raped and murdered in her dorm in 1986 at Lehigh University. For this school, the tragedy of her death encouraged them to improve campus security measures tremendously. It's one of the safest in the country now.

The only thing that can really be done is teach your sons better (and hope they listen) and teach your daughters to protect themselves and teach both good judgment.

At the very least, I suppose.

At 8/30/14 12:14 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 8/29/14 11:35 PM, Light wrote:

If you disagree, what alternative do you wish to propose?

Don't need an alternative. saying you need a "yes" for sex or else it's rape is like telling a guy who has a plastic bag over his mouth and nose that he's suffocating.

"Yes" specifically may be unnecessary, but clear and informed consent must still be obtained for sex to be morally permissible. This is what this is all about, more or less.

The law changes little if anything. Unless the man has a recording of the woman consenting to sex, she can scream rape either way and if his DNA is in her, he's pretty much screwed in the worst possible way if he or his lawyer can't figure out a way to disprove the charge.

I'm going to ask you again: given that sexual assault is a major problem on college campuses today, how would you go about mitigating or at least addressing this issue?

At 8/29/14 10:10 PM, Korriken wrote: Typical feel good legislation that means little. The low IQ crowd cheers for it, the politicians come out and screams, "I did this! vote for me!" and those who have the power of analysis say, "What exactly did you do?"

I would take a look at at Warforger's response in this thread to see why this legislation is important. Sexual assault, whether you care to admit or not, is a very serious problem on college campuses all over the country, and frankly, colleges have shown us that they can't be trusted to deal with these problems on their own(By and large, anyway. I'm sure there are some exceptions). This is an area that government is best suited to deal with as this is an issue of law and order.

If you disagree, what alternative do you wish to propose?

At 8/28/14 02:13 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

At 8/14/14 12:19 AM, Light wrote: If you can't realize that stereotyping groups of people has never been and never will be a good idea, you might not be very intelligent.

Well, as soon as you've grouped people, you're ALREADY begun stereotyping.

wut

Grouping people isn't stereotyping, technically. Saying, for example, that a certain group of people don't believe in deities isn't stereotyping no matter how you slice it.

If you cannot understand the obvious utility of stereotypes and why they're so prevalent (or, why human beings are not the only creatures to "stereotype"), then you might not be very intelligent.

I know why people stereotype, but it isn't very effective or justified when trying to judge whole groups of people.

This is kind of what I've been saying all along, but whatever.

At 8/14/14 04:20 PM, Light wrote: How exactly do you justify stereotyping?

This is how:

ster·e·o·type (str--tp, stîr-)
n.
1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image

Conventions and formulas, along with personal conceptions and images are used to classify/categorize/demarcate "group X" from "group Y" or maintain some semblance of consistency when dividing things into various groups and sub-groups. Our sensory organs are bombarded with massive amounts of data every millisecond, and it is only by grouping phenomena and objects together through generalizations and inferences based on past information, that we are able to make internal sense of an external world without becoming completely paralyzed by all the possible information that there is to process and sort-through. Furthermore, organization by groups and the hierarchical division of social frameworks occur throughout the natural world and are not limited to mere human thought and opinion.

I'm aware of that.

But are you aware that the definition that you just quoted had the word "oversimplified" in it?

Here's the definition of that:

1. to simplify to the point of error, distortion, or misrepresentation.

Stereotyping involves oversimplification, so to try and make truth claims by oversimplifying is illogical. What is so hard to understand about that?

The opposite to what you call the "mentally lazy approach" is to treat any and every past interaction you've had with any person, object, phenomena, etc. as an outlier that would not be representative of any other persons/objects/phenomena of the same apparent type in present or future experiences. This approach is impractical, and clearly stupid.

Seems like you're advocating stereotyping here.

And you say the other approach is stupid. OK then.

What you call stereotyping is also called "pattern recognition" or "learning by example". If people, let alone any other creature with awareness of its environment, did not exercise SOME level of prejudice in their day-to-day activities and interactions with other creatures, then they would not be long for this world. Prejudice and the act of stereotyping is an adaptive response and likewise an evolutionarily beneficial trait.

Yeah, I took psych 101 in college too. Pattern recognition does have evolutionary benefits in many circumstances, but taken to when trying to apply pattern recognition to groups of people, it leads to bad results pretty fucking often. I know it's tempting, psychologically, to stereotype people; I'm still human. But, doing so isn't very prudent. Stereotyping atheists, or races, or any other kind of group leads to illogical conclusions and encourages prejudice.

If you dispute that, then I can only say that I feel very sorry for you.

... ... ...

Now, if you want to argue that intentionally insulting/demeaning stereotypes that are caricatures of people or behaviors that don't actually apply to individuals within the group... if you want to argue that those things are mean and bad and people shouldn't use them, especially in a malicious attempt to assault another person's or group's emotions or feelings of self-worth... then I'm right there with you.

I've been doing that all along.

That a stereotype does not and can not represent an individual person to a perfectly accurate degree is overwhelmingly obvious. Enjoining people to exercise more conscientiousness and understanding and to not be so judgmental of others is a good thing -- keep at it.

I've been doing that all along.

However, suggesting that stereotypes or prejudgements are universally bad without exception, or that they exist for no reason at all (or at most, for entirely-spurious reasons), is plain stupid.

Well, I already stated that I know that stereotyping has an evolutionary origin, so yeah.

But stereotyping is universally bad, without exception. Is there one example where it's a good idea to stereotype others? I realize that stereotypes exist because some members of the stereotyped group fit the description, but not most. When is it ever a good idea for someone to cling to stereotypes? Hmm?

Everyone knows that not ALL atheists are obnoxious condescending nihilistic jerky-jerks...

Obviously not. That's the problem I have with people who believe that stereotypes are true. I wouldn't even be posting in this thread if one of the idiot posters here didn't implicitly claim that all atheists are condescending jackasses.

but a whole bunch of them ARE, and they're loud-enough and visible-enough to give scores of other people the lasting impression that that's what their ilk is representative of. This shit is not rocket science.

You know what else isn't rocket science? The idea that a lot of atheists don't fit this description you've laid out here. And that stereotyping makes no sense, logically speaking. And that's what I've been saying. The Whole. Fucking. Time.

It has more to do with the fact that America has the highest poverty rate in the developed world. Poverty has been proven to have detrimental effects on IQ.

Believe it or not, America's performance on various metrics of education, such as reading, math, and science tests, is actually pretty damn good if you exclude those test-takers who come from impoverished backgrounds. It goes to show just how important it is to keep poverty and income inequality under control. Improving the education system has far more limited effects.

At 8/25/14 08:14 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 8/25/14 08:07 PM, Light wrote: "I like being white because I actually look good unlike some other people that were unfortunate and not god's chosen people that were born with ugly looks because of shitty genetics."—TheKlown

This pretty much confirms that Klown is a racist scumbag, or just a troll.

Wow, I feel really bad I missed that one....

To be fair, that post was made in the general forum, and I've noticed that you don't generally seem to lurk there. Correct me if I'm wrong.

"I like being white because I actually look good unlike some other people that were unfortunate and not god's chosen people that were born with ugly looks because of shitty genetics."—TheKlown

This pretty much confirms that Klown is a racist scumbag, or just a troll.

At 8/25/14 06:51 AM, ChloeFlora wrote:

Texas is one of the most advanced states. Of course they don't have enough military power to stand against the whole country. But this country is so deep in debts and credits, I'm not sure it has possibility to defend its interests!

Yeah, debt isn't as big of a problem as you'd think.

I should also add that President Johnson would probably be considered one of the best presidents in U.S. history if it weren't for that quagmire that was the Vietnam War. His ability to get his preferred legislation through Congress was unreal and contrary to popular belief on the right, he did a great deal to mitigate poverty in the U.S. as well as advancing the civil rights cause even though he knew it would fracture the Democratic Party.

As Warforger and you have mentioned, Ronald Reagan is an extremely overrated president and Warforger did a great job explaining why that is.

I'd say that one president who is even more overrated than Ronald Reagan(And that's saying something) is John F. Kennedy. In fact, I'd say he's the most overrated president in U.S. history. He may have been the country's youngest elected president at age 43 and was very handsome, but was a very, very mediocre politician. I could understand why he's perceived to have been something of a visionary—he expressed great hope in the idea that we could substantially improve education in the U.S., improving overall living standards, and put a man on the moon and return him safely—and he deserves to be commended for that. However, he didn't have the willpower or the skills necessary to deal with Congress or the Soviet Union effectively. His accomplishments in domestic policy are actually pretty thin. If you don't believe me, just try and name 4 or 5 achievements in economic or social policy on his part—most admirers of JFK will have trouble doing that. He wasn't exactly adept at making wise foreign policy choices either. President Kennedy approved the Bay of Pigs invasion which ended in the worst way possible, with every CIA-trained anti-Castro Cuban exile being killed or captured by Cuban forces. He withheld air support to conceal American involvement, but that all blew up in his face when that resulted in their abject defeat and the world found out that the U.S. was behind the invasion anyway.

A lot of people think JFK made up for this with his adroit handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is widely considered to be the tensest moment in the Cold War. Former Soviet Union military officers confirmed that they would've launched nuclear missiles on American troops if they invaded Cuba. In that regard, President Kennedy made the right choice in refusing to have the island invaded in spite of the recommendations made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff(They were said to hate his guts). Still, a student of history should wonder if the Cuban Missile Crisis wouldn't have happened had JFK decided not to approve the Bay of Pigs invasion a year and a half earlier. If I were Fidel Castro, I also would've tried to get nuclear weapons from Russia since there's a clearly hostile superpower that wants me dead(JFK was really big on trying to get Castro killed, lol) and the Cuban government overthrown. Really, JFK was just cleaning up the mess that was the Cuban Missile Crisis. At least he did a good job there.

Some people think JFK wouldn't have invaded Vietnam, as his successor did. Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know, but I can say with reasonable certainty that there's not much evidence that the wouldn't have invaded. He was pretty hawkish, which was par for the course for U.S. presidents during the height of the Cold War. He did express reservations about escalating American involvement in the Vietnam War, but he never outright said that he wouldn't invade or anything. He really did leave his options open, and there's no reason to believe that he wouldn't have made the same mistake as his successor did in invading Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Some people think JFK was some kind of civil rights hero. He really wasn't, lol. He was no racist and did support civil rights for African-Americans, but the Democratic Party still had a racist and conservative southern wing that vigorously opposed civil rights legislation. He only came to advocate the passage of civil rights legislation in June of 1963 after a series of civil rights protests were met with violent police responses and nationally televised. Naturally, for a country that proclaimed itself the leader of the free world and boasted of its superior values and tolerance, this looked pretty fucking bad. JFK realized the political nightmare that it would be for the U.S. if he did nothing but stand idly by, so in a televised address to the nation, he advocated the passage of what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He never lived to see that bill become law. Then again, with his inability to implement his legislative agenda, it's doubtful that it would've become law as long as he was president. His successor, however, was a political master and legislative genius who could get shit done, and get shit done he did. Lyndon Johnson used JFK's death to get that bill passed. In fact, President Johnson, his successor, is the one who did the legislative heavy lifting and signed into legislation all or most the ideas that were first proposed by President Kennedy.

In spite of all that I've said, I still think JFK was an OK president. I'd certainly have voted for him over Nixon or Goldwater even if I knew all of this about him. But like Obama, it would be because I'm voting for the lesser of two evils. I think it's obvious that the only reason people idolize JFK is that he was handsome, young, projected an air of optimism, and most importantly, died in a horrific manner at a time when the country was most vulnerable. I know that one shouldn't engage in "what if" thinking when it comes to history, but if he were never assassinated and had been reelected(Barry Goldwater ran as the Republican nominee in 1964 and was batshit crazy. He lost in a landslide to President Johnson and I think it's reasonable to say that he wouldn't have fared much better against JFK), he would've not been anywhere near as memorable beloved by the American public.

If you think about it, you can actually draw a lot of parallels between John F. Kennedy and President Obama. Both were charismatic and youthful politicians who symbolized and promised change and knew that America desperately wanted it. Both made history in that one was the first Catholic to be elected president and the other was the first African-American to be elected president. Both were accompanied by enormously popular first ladies(Michelle Obama's favorability rankings are actually very high) and adorable young children. Both made egregious mistakes in foreign policy and both were incompetent in implementing their legislative agendas on the domestic front. Both were very personally popular, even if the policies they supported were not. Both were moderate Democrats.

The only major difference that I can think of between the two is that one was assassinated and the other, thankfully, was not. However, if Obama were killed at around the time that JFK was in his first term(JFK died 2 years and 10 months into his first term. For Obama, that would've been November of 2011), the public would've mourned his death just as much as they have JFK's, and millions of books would be written on his life and politicians everywhere would be trying to compare themselves to Obama in the decades to come. Obama, along with JFK, would become one of the patron saints of the Democratic Party, someone to be worshiped by Democrats and even many Republicans(You'd be surprised at how many Republicans express admiration for JFK. Even President Reagan did so at the opening of the JFK presidential library sometime in the 1980s). Like JFK, Obama would be that Democratic president that couldn't be criticized by members of either party(Seriously, when was the last time that any Republican say in public that JFK was overrated or "too liberal"?).

Sorry for the long-winded response, but yeah, JFK is very overrated. If any of you decide to check out presidential rankings by historians and political scientists, you'll find that there's a discrepancy between the American public's view of the man and the views of historians. They mostly consider him an OK or decent president, and definitely not great.

Captain Kathryn Janeway from Star Trek: Voyager.

She sounds like an old lady with a very slight British accent, but the actress who played her was only in her early 40s at the beginning of the show. Her voice was so irritating that it was unreal.

At 8/24/14 07:22 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: simple strike anything thats looks like its a military target or used by ISIS, then roll in and sweep and secure. it was a fuck up to leave in the first place

It was a fuck up to start the war in the first place.

I don't want to be that guy who blames all of life's problems on President George W. Bush, but ISIS wouldn't exist if we didn't start the clusterfuck that was the Iraq War.

At 8/22/14 09:30 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

Texas in MUCH better fiscal standing than the federal government, so even if there were substantial economic harm to begin with it would be worth it in the long-run.

Why would it be a good idea to secede? They get federal tax revenues and the other benefits of being part of the U.S. Secession puts an end to all of that.

There's a reason Texas hasn't seriously considered seceding since the Civil War, and it's not just because the U.S. military would obliterate them if they tried to leave.

I don't know if there should be, but the closest thing to a global currency right now is the U.S. Dollar. It's used more frequently in business interactions than any other currency that exists today.

I've been donating blood for about 4 years now. I've donated 11 times, the most recent of which was last week as a matter of fact.

My blood type is A+. Nothing special, but all blood types are urgently needed by the Red Cross, so I do what I can to help others in need. I encourage all of you to do the same.

At 8/20/14 01:30 PM, Feoric wrote: The only Texan hated more than Perry is Ted Cruz.

It was my understanding that although Cruz is hated by Republicans in Congress and in many other places, he's pretty popular among Republicans in Texas, loved even.

Is there a sizable number of Republicans in Texas who hate his guts, too?

Offer him a BJ. He might politely decline, but will be overwhelmed with gratitude at this offer and his feelings of hostility towards you should go away.

At 8/17/14 10:31 AM, Korriken wrote: If convicted and impeached, he'll be the 4th Republican governor forcefully removed from office and the 9th one total.

In case anyone was wondering, 5 Democrat governors have been removed from office. Of course, 2 of those republicans were before the civil rights movement when parties basically swapped names, as people love to mention when it's politically convenient.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/tp/governors_impeached.htm

Aaaaaaaand 3 of those Democratic governors were from Southern states before the 1960s, which means that they'd probably be considered conservative Republicans today, lol

Either way, a criminal is a criminal. It doesn't matter which letter is by their name.

Agreed.

On the other hand, Perry could have found a better way to handle the situation.

When it comes to controversial decisions like this, it really is best to consult a lawyer before proceeding and I get the feeling that he didn't do that.

Then again, Perry never really struck me(Or perhaps anyone else, for that matter) as an intelligent politician, so I shouldn't be surprised. It's also not surprising that Chris Christie got embroiled in the bridgegate scandal since his alleged involvement is very consistent with his character, which is to be a vindictive bully towards those who he perceives has crossed him.

To be honest, and I think most will agree here, the character of the politician has more predictive power than their party affiliation in regards to whether or not they'll create or engage in a scandal.

At 8/16/14 04:36 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote:

At 8/16/14 11:00 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 8/16/14 09:13 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: This is exactly why third party competition will be a good thing.

Actually no, there was another election where a 3rd Party candidate got pretty far but ended up siphoning votes to let a bad Texas governor get elected, that man was known as Ralph Nader and he got Bush elected.

Ross Perot also got Clinton elected. Don't count out 3rd party candidates if they get really popular. If Rand Paul decides to run and goes 3rd party, this could spell disaster for the major parties.

In the unlikely event that Rand Paul decides to run as a 3rd party candidate, it will most likely be harmful to the Republican Party's chances of winning the presidency only. I don't think there are many democrats who'd choose Paul over their party's nominee, but there are definitely quite a few Republicans who'd vote for Paul over their party's nominee.

At 8/16/14 03:22 AM, Xenomit wrote:

At 8/16/14 03:12 AM, Light wrote: Well, considering that Feoric clearly refuted just about every one of your ridiculous claims

Not really, actually. Almost everything I've said so far has been subjective, you can't really refute that, and he certainly didn't prove me wrong about not talking about what's going on right now, I've been exclusively talking hypotheticals and referencing the LA riots this entire time.

This is kind of dishonest since the proof is in this thread, available for everyone to see, but whatever.

I mean, seriously, he fucking dug up quotes from your post history that refuted your assertion that you weren't overreacting by comparing the Ferguson riots to the 1992 LA riots, as well as refuting your claims that you didn't want to go on a murderous rampage if a riot happened near you.

I never said I wouldn't go on a murderous rampage if a riot happened near me, I don't have a ton of guns so I can look at them all day, I have a ton of guns to allow me to keep myself safe in times of severe disruption, and if a major riot where people were getting beaten happened near me I wouldn't haste taking up arms and doing my hardest to make sure innocent people are safe from belligerent baboons. I know I've been saying belligerent a lot, but it's a perfect word for the situation.

I don't want to come off as obstinate, but the quotes from your post history that were pulled up by Feoric make it impossible for me to believe that this is what you genuinely meant and not that this is an attempt to backtrack what you said.

No, I have a tendency to state an opinion regardless of what people might think about it, then defend it when people argue against me. I never, ever start arguments.

I don't know if you remember the days when I went by the name of "Jedi-Master" on this forum, but when I did, I also expressed my opinions explicitly so that they wouldn't be misunderstood or misinterpreted. But I tried to post with tact and reminded myself that other people have opinions that don't accord with mine. I treated them with respect, most of the time. I also didn't tell anyone that they are subhuman garbage, as you appear have said to another poster in this forum.

There's nothing wrong with expressing your opinion honestly and without reservation, but it makes it a lot more difficult to persuade people to sympathize with your point of view or to at least understand why you believe what you believe when you belittle them or dismiss their opinions for trivial reasons. A productive dialogue can't exist without respect between the two parties. I understand your urge to verbally retaliate against those who insult you, but it doesn't get you anywhere. Hell, even giving someone respect when they aren't reciprocating it can still make for a productive dialogue because your words will carry more influence with other posters reading what you say when your posts aren't accompanied by petty insults. If you reciprocate the disrespect that others express towards you, you aren't really contributing to the productivity and the general usefulness of the dialogue in which you're engaged, and if you aren't doing that, what the hell is the point of debating?

Take it from someone who (almost) never insulted others who insulted him in numerous debates on the general forum a couple of years ago. There's a reason that I won the most underrated award in the BBS awards two times in a row.

At 8/16/14 02:20 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 8/16/14 02:11 AM, Light wrote: Yeah, but it's always nice to see Republican slimeballs get what they deserve when they fuck up—And Perry has obviously fucked up. Badly.

Agreed, Perry is pretty scummy.

He's off to Travis County Jail for booking, mugshots and fingerprints. I can't wait to see what the attack ads featuring him in handcuffs and his migshots are going to look like.

Um, wow. Didn't know that he'll have his mugshot taken and everything.

Those attack ads will be brutal. Then again, the mere accusation of attempting to conceal corruption is usually enough to destroy a politician's chances of winning his party's nomination, let alone the presidency.

At 8/16/14 03:03 AM, Xenomit wrote: itt:

People can't accept that I happen to be extreme when it comes to obtaining order

Your positions aren't really well thought-out since you obviously haven't taken into consideration the consequences of law enforcement agencies adopting them.

And please don't tell me you have, because there's really no evidence of that.

At 8/16/14 02:46 AM, Xenomit wrote:

At 8/16/14 02:17 AM, Light wrote: I love your brutal takedowns, @Feoric.

You've got pretty low standards if you consider that a brutal takedown.

Well, considering that Feoric clearly refuted just about every one of your ridiculous claims, I'd say my standards are alright. I mean, seriously, he fucking dug up quotes from your post history that refuted your assertion that you weren't overreacting by comparing the Ferguson riots to the 1992 LA riots, as well as refuting your claims that you didn't want to go on a murderous rampage if a riot happened near you.

I don't post very much on this forum anymore, but I still lurk here somewhat, and something I've noticed about you is that you have a proclivity for predictably talking out of your ass whenever you participate in discussions about controversial subjects and generally being insufferable. There's a reason that there are quite a few posters on this forum who don't care much for you. You probably won't care about what I've just said or reflect on why people react to you the way they do, but that's fine, really. You'll probably just try to respond with what you think is a witty rejoinder, tell me to fuck off, or try to intimidate me by saying something along the lines of "You think you're so big, saying all that shit behind a keyboard and monitor," as you did with Feoric earlier.

I love your brutal takedowns, @Feoric.

At 8/15/14 08:24 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 8/15/14 07:26 PM, TNT wrote: There goes his chance to run for President in 2016.

Well, let's be honest, he was never going to win anyway.

Yeah, but it's always nice to see Republican slimeballs get what they deserve when they fuck up—And Perry has obviously fucked up. Badly.

Ferguson Police Department has fucked up so much that Capt. Ron Johnson, a police officer with the Missouri State Highway Patrol, marched with protesters in uniform. A video of the march is in the link.

At 8/14/14 11:43 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

At 8/14/14 12:19 AM, Light wrote: These atheists aren't representative of atheists everywhere.

You mean, you don't WANT them to be the first thing people imagine, besides the cretin in the above picture I posted, or the fabled fedora.

Don't tell me what I mean. What I'm asserting is that atheists can't be broadly classified as smug opponents of religion with neckbeards and a weight problem.

But the fact remains they have enough name recognition and media attention in order to be the front runners of your agenda. It's not a democracy who gets to represent who in the arena of pop culture.

This is irrelevant and I suspect that you know it.

I'm trying to discourage the stereotyping of a group of people. How exactly do you justify stereotyping? If it's not a stereotype

If you can't realize that stereotyping groups of people has never been and never will be a good idea, you might not be very intelligent.

It's very much fair, which is why everybody should be on their best behavior at all times. YOU represent your group in whatever you do, whenever you do it.

No, that is incorrect.

ster·e·o·type (str--tp, stîr-)
n.
1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image

The definition of stereotype, here for you to read. Tell me what is fair about believing or perpetuating stereotypes about groups of people. Surely, you're educated and intelligent enough to understand why it might be a bad idea to stereotype others. Don't prove me wrong now with some inane rejoinder about how atheists are the exception to the rule or something.

By this logic of yours, I can:

1. Call black people "ghetto ass watermelon eating basketball playing drug users," simply because some poor black people fit that stereotype or parts of it. It's OK because some black people aren't on their best behavior, so the whole group should be condemned.

2. Call Christians, such as yourself, backward, sexually repressed, and judgmental, simply because some Christians fit that stereotype. It's OK because some Christians aren't on their best behavior, so the whole group should be condemned.

3. I can stereotype any group of people I like and justify it because apparently some members of that group weren't on their best behavior.

Keep in mind that since stereotyping makes no sense whatsoever, no person acts as an ambassador or emissary of the group(s) to which they belong.

Frankly, stereotyping groups of people is the mentally lazy approach to interacting with other groups in society. It's a lot more convenient than actually keeping in mind that every person is an individual whose behavior, appearance, abilities, and interests are not necessarily dictated by the group(s) to which they belong. That isn't my opinion. It's fact.

Rejecting one theory is not akin to rejecting everything that has ever been postulated since modern science began 400 years ago.

What are you talking about?

At 8/13/14 10:15 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I want you to do a bit of research, homework if you will. The following books and their authors are often referred to as the "unholy trinity" of atheism: The God Delusion, The End of Faith, and god is not Great by Richard Dawkins, Samuel Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

These atheists aren't representative of atheists everywhere.

If you can't realize that stereotyping groups of people has never been and never will be a good idea, you might not be very intelligent.

As I've said before, this is no different than concluding that all Christians are ignorant enemies of science simply because some of them reject the theory of evolution. Both are instances of stereotyping.

Video from the riots caught one of the police officers describing protesters as "animals." It didn't help that the officer in question was white and the people he said it to were black or that he was brazen enough to say it within earshot of many protesters who are armed with smartphones that can surreptitiously record his misconduct.

This really puts LAPD to shame, though. Expect nationwide riots if the officer is never revealed, or he is revealed, charged, but acquitted.

At 8/9/14 08:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/9/14 06:46 PM, Light wrote: It's unjustified, really.

If you're going to use that logic, NO criticism of a group is EVER justified.

What? My problem is that some people are generalizing about atheists, coming to the mistaken conclusion that all or most atheists hate religion and religious believers because a few atheists mock them by pretending to be believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

In essence, I'm denouncing the stereotyping of atheists, and stereotyping in general. Come on, now.