• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The butt whacker turns out to be a youth minister and scout leader

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Aww, so no bet? Sad.

Meanwhile, since you mentioned Incels, here’s more about these Beta Male losers: Incel, the ideology behind the Toronto attack, explained - Vox
Alek Minassian, the man who killed 10 people by driving a van down a busy street in Toronto on Monday, is a terrorist.

We know this because he told us so. On Tuesday afternoon, Facebook confirmed the authenticity of a post in his name, in which he pledged allegiance to something called the “Incel Rebellion.” This is not an organized militant group but rather an ideal developed by the so-called “incel” movement — an online community of men united by their inability to convince women to have sex with them. (“Incel” stands for “involuntarily celibate.”)

Some self-identified incels, as they call themselves, have developed an elaborate sociopolitical explanation for their sexual failures, one that centers on the idea that women are shallow, vicious, and only attracted to hyper-muscular men. They see this as a profound injustice against men like them, who suffer an inherent genetic disadvantage through no fault of their own. A small radical fringe believes that violence, especially against women, is an appropriate response — that an “Incel Rebellion” or “Beta [Male] Uprising” will eventually overturn the sexual status quo

Calling this guy with a wife and kids an 'incel' is really stupid. You people do realize that, don't you?
 
Why? He’s the kind of guy who would slap a woman he doesn’t know on live TV. Is that the kind of guy who deserves the benefit of the doubt?

That wasn't what the poster was talking about when he said 'benefit of the doubt'. I was deflecting a personal insult.
 
Aww, so no bet? Sad.

Meanwhile, since you mentioned Incels, here’s more about these Beta Male losers: Incel, the ideology behind the Toronto attack, explained - Vox
Alek Minassian, the man who killed 10 people by driving a van down a busy street in Toronto on Monday, is a terrorist.

We know this because he told us so. On Tuesday afternoon, Facebook confirmed the authenticity of a post in his name, in which he pledged allegiance to something called the “Incel Rebellion.” This is not an organized militant group but rather an ideal developed by the so-called “incel” movement — an online community of men united by their inability to convince women to have sex with them. (“Incel” stands for “involuntarily celibate.”)

Some self-identified incels, as they call themselves, have developed an elaborate sociopolitical explanation for their sexual failures, one that centers on the idea that women are shallow, vicious, and only attracted to hyper-muscular men. They see this as a profound injustice against men like them, who suffer an inherent genetic disadvantage through no fault of their own. A small radical fringe believes that violence, especially against women, is an appropriate response — that an “Incel Rebellion” or “Beta [Male] Uprising” will eventually overturn the sexual status quo

I try to ignore personal insults like you're referring to. Why are you keeping it going?
 
Would you give a stranger the benefit of doubt if he smacks your wife or daughter's butt?

I wouldn’t have....and I doubt he’d have finished the run had I been there with my wife. OTOH, sexual predators like him rarely pull that crap is a man is next to the woman. They like to attack women they see as defenseless.
 
I try to ignore personal insults like you're referring to. Why are you keeping it going?

What insults? I’ve insulted no one. I’ve informed. You mentioned Incels and I followed up on it. What’s the problem?
 
Would you give a stranger the benefit of doubt if he smacks your wife or daughter's butt?

That was referring to someone else.

Anyhow, my wife weighed in on this. She's a conservative, but not as activist as I am. I asked her what she thought of the whole situation, and she agrees with me nearly 100%. she said the guy clearly got caught up in the excitement, that there was no sexual intent, and no intent to harm. She said he made a bad spur-of-the-moment decision, and that an apology was enough. On that last count, I disagree with my wife. The man should never have apologized for his actions. He could have said "I'm sorry, she took it that way". Something like that. I wouldn't have given one inch to the Marxists pushing this issue. But that's kind of how I am.
 
That was referring to someone else.

Anyhow, my wife weighed in on this. She's a conservative, but not as activist as I am. I asked her what she thought of the whole situation, and she agrees with me 100%. she said the guy clearly got caught up in the excitement, that there was no sexual intent, and no intent to harm. She said he made a bad spur-of-the-moment decision, and that an apology was enough. On that last count, I disagree with my wife. The man should never have apologized for his actions. He could have said "I'm sorry, she took it that way". Something like that. I wouldn't have given one inch to the Marxists pushing this issue.

Apologizing is the Marxist's way? :lamo You are getting funnier and funnier.
 
No...bigotry is the correct term for you and it’s evidenced by your desperate need to try to shoehorn your hatred into this incident.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe the correct response is SNOWFLAKE! LOL! Take your bigotry comment and shove it.
 
No. Read it again.

I did.

"The man should never have apologized for his actions. He could have said "I'm sorry, she took it that way". Something like that. I wouldn't have given one inch to the Marxists pushing this issue."
 
I believe the correct response is SNOWFLAKE! LOL! Take your bigotry comment and shove it.

This thread is getting a little out of control, but no worries on it getting shut down.

I figured out a way to keep my great posts upstairs. Just post on a leftwinger's thread.
 
Apologizing is the Marxist's way? :lamo You are getting funnier and funnier.

No, the Marxist way is expecting women to be secure in their own bodies and for men to not touch them without their consent.

Under Mashmont’s Christian Capitalism, women are property who can be touched by men any time a man chooses.
 
Mashmont, Christians like you and this stranger-ass-slapping youth pastor are exactly why I will never be one. Congratulations on turning souls away from Christ.
 
This thread is getting a little out of control, but no worries on it getting shut down.

I figured out a way to keep my great posts upstairs. Just post on a leftwinger's thread.

That's nice. Isles are on in a bit. Have a wonderful evening.
 
No, the Marxist way is expecting women to be secure in their own bodies and for men to not touch them without their consent.

Under Mashmont’s Christian Capitalism, women are property who can be touched by men any time a man chooses.

Actually, Marxists don't care about women at all. To them, women are just tools useful in driving a wedge to divide the sexes and weaken the family and society.
 
No, the Marxist way is expecting women to be secure in their own bodies and for men to not touch them without their consent.

Under Mashmont’s Christian Capitalism, women are property who can be touched by men any time a man chooses.



... and men having the right to hit random women strengthens families
 
Actually, Marxists don't care about women at all. To them, women are just tools useful in driving a wedge to divide the sexes and weaken the family and society.

How does not touching someone unless they consent to it “divide the sexes” or “weaken family and society”?

Are you saying we can’t have a strong family or society unless men are allowed to touch women without their consent?
 
How does not touching someone unless they consent to it “divide the sexes” or “weaken family and society”?

Are you saying we can’t have a strong family or society unless men are allowed to touch women without their consent?

It's by blowing up of a trivial act through its media that the Marxists enrage women to divide the sexes.
 
How does not touching someone unless they consent to it “divide the sexes” or “weaken family and society”?

Are you saying we can’t have a strong family or society unless men are allowed to touch women without their consent?



It's odd ... sometimes this poster lectures on how women shouldn't devalue themselves ... and then in the next breath he's suggesting that if they claim their value and don't agree to let men knock them around that's a threat to family and society.


A man can hit women and still be "good" -- still be an appropriate role model to guide impressionable youth. However, the women are bad and a threat to society if they seek legal recourse to protect themselves and other women in the future.
 
It's by blowing up of a trivial act through its media that the Marxists enrage women to divide the sexes.

The violation of a person’s body against their consent is not a trivial act. In fact, someone has already demonstrated that under Georgian law (you know Georgia, that hyperblue super Progressive Marxist state, right?) it constitutes sexual battery.

There’d be no reason for women to be enraged IF MEN WOULD ****ING STOP TOUCHING THEM WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

For that matter, there’s no reason such anger should divide the sexes, both women and non-garbage men should be standing side by side against the ****ty men who do touch women without their consent.
 
It's odd ... sometimes this poster lectures on how women shouldn't devalue themselves ... and then in the next breath he's suggesting that if they claim their value and don't agree to let men knock them around that's a threat to family and society.


A man can hit women and still be "good" -- still be an appropriate role model to guide impressionable youth. However, the women are bad and a threat to society if they seek legal recourse to protect themselves and other women in the future.

Nobody knocked anybody around. Nobody hit anybody with malice. I keep having to get this actual event back on track and debunk the intentionally divisive hyperbole.
 
He was clearly caught up in the moment. Did you think it was premeditated?

Why was no one else slapping her as if that’s what the “the moment” called for?
 
Back
Top Bottom