Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66

Thread: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

  1. #21
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    /r/mensrights is leaking.

    (don't go there it's the third most hateful place on the internet)
    Was that hate?

    because for me, when I read the whining about how society has to make men feel safe to express themselves, the only thing I thought of was how pitiful it sounded
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  2. #22
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    as an aside.. I wonder if anyone here knows that Domestic violence incidents ( including domestic homicides) have been steadily declining.... since the early 70's.

    makes one wonder why Congresscritters feel they need to act like it's national emergency eh?

  3. #23
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I accept your surrender
    You would like that would you. Your argument was just not worth the finger pain of punching holes in it as easily as it would be to do. I was not surrendering, I was just concerned for the health of my fingers.



    Statistics?

    You've posted no statistics
    The statistics are widely available, you can look them up yourself. If there is one in particular that you want to confront, post your source here the proves it to be wrong.



    The misogyny of your argument has nothing to do with VAWA. It's obvious that your arguments have little to do with VAWA, and more with the fear that men will no longer be priviliged.
    The new definition of misogyny is apprently men asking for equal rights from women. Got it! privilege really. You think it is a privilege to be forced to go off and die in war? You think it is a privilege that men are expected to earn more money than a woman to be respected by her? And as a result, has to spend more time away from the family in order to earn that respect? You think its a privilege for men to not have the same options as women do in the workplace after kids are born? You think it is a privilege to be objectified by human doings and not as a human being? Your definition of privilege baffles me. I put forth the idea that neither sex has ever been privileged. Men, even less so, since they are still stuck in their traditional roles that imprisons their creative spirits and their path to fulfillment. Women are starting to get the gist of this as they move into the workplace and are starting to get a taste of what men have know for thousands of years. Working is not a privilege, it is a necessity. If work was a privilege, we would be paying companies for us to work for them.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  4. #24
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Was that hate?

    because for me, when I read the whining about how society has to make men feel safe to express themselves, the only thing I thought of was how pitiful it sounded

    What if we replace men, with women in the statement you just made. Say it to yourself and tell me you would not be offended by it.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  5. #25
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    You would like that would you. Your argument was just not worth the finger pain of punching holes in it as easily as it would be to do. I was not surrendering, I was just concerned for the health of my fingers.
    I mus have forgotten how every part of a Real Mans body is so very sensitive

    The statistics are widely available, you can look them up yourself. If there is one in particular that you want to confront, post your source here the proves it to be wrong.
    So widely available that you can't post one


    The new definition of misogyny is apprently men asking for equal rights from women. Got it! privilege really. You think it is a privilege to be forced to go off and die in war? You think it is a privilege that men are expected to earn more money than a woman to be respected by her? And as a result, has to spend more time away from the family in order to earn that respect? You think its a privilege for men to not have the same options as women do in the workplace after kids are born? You think it is a privilege to be objectified by human doings and not as a human being? Your definition of privilege baffles me. I put forth the idea that neither sex has ever been privileged. Men, even less so, since they are still stuck in their traditional roles that imprisons their creative spirits and their path to fulfillment. Women are starting to get the gist of this as they move into the workplace and are starting to get a taste of what men have know for thousands of years. Working is not a privilege, it is a necessity. If work was a privilege, we would be paying companies for us to work for them.
    The "poor pitiful men" shtick is pitifully hilarious and demonstrates that your agenda has little to do with anything that's actually in VAWA
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  6. #26
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I mus have forgotten how every part of a Real Mans body is so very sensitive



    So widely available that you can't post one




    The "poor pitiful men" shtick is pitifully hilarious and demonstrates that your agenda has little to do with anything that's actually in VAWA
    Argument done, really there is nothing else I have to debate with you about. You have already conceded loudly and openly that you are a misandrist. If I were to change "men" to "women" in the statements you made you would immediately and loudly be called out as a misogynist. And that would be the most polite thing said, followed by many other words as well.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    So what your saying is, that if a bill came out titled "Violence against Whites Act", you would have no problem with it if the content of the bill could be applied to everyone?
    I don't answer pointless questions designed to distract from the reality of the situation. The bill was good enough to actually get republican support despite being also supported by their evil nemisis Obama. So despite your attempts to make this about a name and to attempt to bring some nonexistent racism into this, I am not going to bite. White if obama made a kill a christian day? if you are going to make up what ifs and substitute them for a real argument then you have no argument. Fine you don't like the name and were ignorant of what else it said. That is nice and all, but that does not make an actual argument against the act. It also does not make the act actually prejudiced against men despite your clear attempts to make this about that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    Well, I think it is a bit disturbing that they choose to focus on a female that was molested. As we know, both males and females are molested at equal rates.
    first girls tend to get more sympathy, so yeah they would use a girl in regards to that. Due to the different ways people treat the genders naming it after a boy would actually harm the boy a second time. For whatever the psychological reasons people tend to regard molested boys a lot differently than girls. So yes i can see why they chose a female over a male to nam the bill after. In the end it does not matter who they named it after, what matters is the content. Again, all you have is some petty objection, and no real argument against anything. Even your ideas make little sense. think about an actual name like house bill 1124389. Actually that would be a lot closer to the actual legal titles of acts. Again, they use something catchy for the public as titles like that really bore the hell out of people and end up being overlooked. if the government does not do it the media most certainly will. if you don't like titles the Defense of marriage act actually weakened the strength of marriages across state lines by giving the states the ability to ignore other states marriages. but would people have accepted it if it were the weakening of the marriage contract act or Public Law 104-199 which is it's actual title? I don't think so. Don't worry, all of these things have a very benign and neutral designation, since it bothers you, and your argument over the name is completely unwarranted as they are not actually listed under the more memorable names. If it makes you feel any better the law's actual title is Pub.L. 103322 in congressional record (That is the violence against women act created in 1994). Not that it will actually sway you to know that a neutral numbered designation was actually used, but I like to be thorough in destroying a point. I could easily look up megan's law's actual numerical title if you want, but I am pretty sure whatever neutral numerical designation it has probably does not interest you at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    However, the law itself highlights child molestation which is all inclusive. When we talk about Megan, we know we are really talking about all children. But when we talk about Womens Violence, we know we are only talking about women because the title generalizes who the legislation is being targeted twords. But a law specifically targeted at all children named Megan, would be as rediculous as a law only targeted at women only.
    So if you recognize tht it is ridiculous to think that the easy to remember name they give a law for the sake of the public is just an easy to remember name, and that implying what the law is actually about based on those couple of words would cause you to make some really silly assumptions about the content, then your entire argument is based on the idea you jumped to some massive conclusions while remaining completely ignorant of the content of the law. this is not something that a neutral title like Pub.L. 103322 indication the 322 law of the 103rd congress would actually clarify for you. If you want to know the full content of the law you have to actually read the law. using the entire law's text as a title would be unruly and no one would actually do it. titles are short and do not embody the nuances and reality of the law itself. This is a limitation brought about by language and human psychology. A title for a law is simply not going to include the entire text of the law. So your argument has been trashed in every conceivable way at this point. it is just simply not possible to title things in a way that describes the entire effects of a bill. You are wanting them to do the impossible and making a ridiculous request and complaint when you ask for the title to include everything about the bill. So yes you will actually have to read the bill to make intelligent arguments against it. if you are only going to go by the title your arguments will suck because the title is not meant to be the actual law.

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    /r/mensrights is leaking.

    (don't go there it's the third most hateful place on the internet)
    So would /b/ or stormfront be the most?

  9. #29
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    I don't answer pointless questions designed to distract from the reality of the situation.
    How convinient for you, just dodge the question. In essence, you are picking and choosing debating points, but thats ok. I know the reasoning behind calling it the Violence Against Womans Act. And if you are not going to debate that point, I will just take the win on that.

    The bill was good enough to actually get republican support despite being also supported by their evil nemisis Obama.
    Yes, they got something done, they passed a completely useless law that does absolutely nothing but pander to the feminist agenda.

    So despite your attempts to make this about a name and to attempt to bring some nonexistent racism into this, I am not going to bite.
    You can continue to live in ignorance, or perhaps just ignore the obvious, both are the same in my book. The evidence and statistics are there. If any other group of people were headed in the direction of males, there would be protests. Dieing 7 years earlier, committing suicides at 7 times the rate of women, comprise of 90% of the workplace deaths, Falling behind in education, Make up the majority of the prison population, Are the vast majority of people who are victims of violent crime.. If lets say, women were in this boat, there would be millions marching on washington. But as I said, no one cares about men. And society is paying for it today. You can close your eyes to it if you wish, but it will be at your own plight and the plight of society.

    White if obama made a kill a christian day? if you are going to make up what ifs and substitute them for a real argument then you have no argument. Fine you don't like the name and were ignorant of what else it said. That is nice and all, but that does not make an actual argument against the act. It also does not make the act actually prejudiced against men despite your clear attempts to make this about that.
    Sure it does. If we were to start a program to help and fund grants for only white people who are impoverished, there would be flags burning in the streets. Even though whites are probably less effected by poverty than any other demographic. The same goes for violence against women. They are probably the least effected of any group when it comes to violence, yet we are putting money and media behind the cause of protecting women from violence.




    first girls tend to get more sympathy, so yeah they would use a girl in regards to that. Due to the different ways people treat the genders naming it after a boy would actually harm the boy a second time. For whatever the psychological reasons people tend to regard molested boys a lot differently than girls. So yes i can see why they chose a female over a male to nam the bill after.
    And that is what I have a problem with. BINGO!!! You are headed in the right direction with the above statement. Women speak of equality, and tell men that they need to change from the old traditional roles. Yet women have not made this transition. They want men to change from traditional to more accepting of the new roles women want to take on, but women are not changing their traditional thinking on what is expected of men. They still marry up, they still expect men to be traditional men when things start getting tough. They still expect men to supress their internal pain. At the slightest sign of weakness, women jump on them like cougars to disparage them and tell them to act like men. I hear things all the time when men try to express themselves in ways women may not like by being told they have small penises, or that they are not a man, or that maybe they are compensating, or they are weak..ect..ect... You would never hear this from a man when a woman is saying something he may not like about himself that may be true.

    In the end it does not matter who they named it after, what matters is the content. Again, all you have is some petty objection, and no real argument against anything. Even your ideas make little sense. think about an actual name like house bill 1124389. Actually that would be a lot closer to the actual legal titles of acts. Again, they use something catchy for the public as titles like that really bore the hell out of people and end up being overlooked. if the government does not do it the media most certainly will. if you don't like titles the Defense of marriage act actually weakened the strength of marriages across state lines by giving the states the ability to ignore other states marriages. but would people have accepted it if it were the weakening of the marriage contract act or Public Law 104-199 which is it's actual title? I don't think so. Don't worry, all of these things have a very benign and neutral designation, since it bothers you, and your argument over the name is completely unwarranted as they are not actually listed under the more memorable names. If it makes you feel any better the law's actual title is Pub.L. 103–322 in congressional record (That is the violence against women act created in 1994). Not that it will actually sway you to know that a neutral numbered designation was actually used, but I like to be thorough in destroying a point. I could easily look up megan's law's actual numerical title if you want, but I am pretty sure whatever neutral numerical designation it has probably does not interest you at all.
    Again, your missing the point completely. I would have no problem with the name of the bill if in fact there was a reason to have a Violence Against Women's act. But there is not, and there is no reason to name it that if it applies to all people. I was not born yesterday, and I am sure you understand this as well and are just being purposefully ignorant to the fact. Its all about politics and agenda's. There was a very specific reason this was named what it was named. It has nothing to do with it being catchy. If you want a catchy name there are thousands of options. It could have been called.. How many trees could a wood chuck chuck, if a wood chuck could chuck wood act. But they did not name it that, and there is a reason they named it what they did. Politicians are very purposeful when it comes to titling a bill and having their name appear on it. Don't be ignorant and tell me... oh well, they just needed a catchy name. That is complete BS!
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  10. #30
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    I am not at all surprised at how many words one can spew to oppose a law without saying anything at all about the actual law itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •