• 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!

Men are not monsters.

The young man's walking out despite the pressure to say the oath is

  • An act of great courage

    Votes: 4 16.7%

  • An act of courage

    Votes: 20 83.3%

  • Unethical act

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    24
WOAH WOAH WOAH! Is this something we all happen to agree on? WTF is going on in here?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No, where/when did I ever say that?
Click to expand...

Alright, I'll bite. Would you agree with the following?

Phys251 said:
The flaws with the oath were that: (trigger warning--discussions of gender and sexual orientation to follow)

(1) The oath was gendered. Men tend to be the bigger domestic violence offenders in multiple senses of the word "big," but there are definitely woman offenders to. And what about violence between gay partners? The oath completely leaves them out.

(2) There are two instances where striking another human being is justified: Legitimate self-defense, and informed consent. If I decide to get into a literal sparring match with another adult and talk about the parameters beforehand, unless they are already commonly understood by all parties involved, then yeah, it's perfectly fine if we hit each other. But there would have to be a way to tap out in case things got to be too much. That's where intimate partner violence goes wrong: It isn't consensual, it isn't agreed to in a noncoercive manner ahead of time, and there's no safeword. Thus, it's abuse.
Click to expand...
 
Tanngrisnir said:
I agree that it's utterly irrelevant to what I posted.

What are you going on about?
Click to expand...

You are not answering my question, and I'm not sure why. Maybe my trigger warning was needed after all?

Let's try it again: Yes or no, would you agree with the following analysis? Yes or no, simple question.

Phys251 said:
The flaws with the oath were that: (trigger warning--discussions of gender and sexual orientation to follow)

(1) The oath was gendered. Men tend to be the bigger domestic violence offenders in multiple senses of the word "big," but there are definitely woman offenders to. And what about violence between gay partners? The oath completely leaves them out.

(2) There are two instances where striking another human being is justified: Legitimate self-defense, and informed consent. If I decide to get into a literal sparring match with another adult and talk about the parameters beforehand, unless they are already commonly understood by all parties involved, then yeah, it's perfectly fine if we hit each other. But there would have to be a way to tap out in case things got to be too much. That's where intimate partner violence goes wrong: It isn't consensual, it isn't agreed to in a noncoercive manner ahead of time, and there's no safeword. Thus, it's abuse.
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
I would have wanted to understand my son's reluctance to make that pledge. I also would have been in the principal's office knowing why girls were not included in pledging.
Click to expand...

Egg-actly. Even though I find this pledge stupid on it's face (because a stupid school pledge isn't going to do anything to prevent violence from occuring), the fact that only boys had to take it is just dumb, because I've seen plenty of girls molly-whop the mess out of each other at school.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
You are not answering my question, and I'm not sure why. Maybe my trigger warning was needed after all?

Let's try it again: Yes or no, would you agree with the following analysis? Yes or no, simple question.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the triggering here appears to be with you and your desperation to distract from the irrelevancy that you originally posted.

There's nothing to try here. Sorry, I don't play the cutsie-poo word games that seem to fascinate you.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
I'm sorry, but the triggering here appears to be with you and your desperation to distract from the irrelevancy that you originally posted.

There's nothing to try here. Sorry, I don't play the cutsie-poo word games that seem to fascinate you.
Click to expand...

I'm honestly fascinated by your willful refusal to engage my points and why you are doing such a thing.

I don't even know if you disagree with them, though your actions imply that, more likely than not, you do.
 
SCitizen said:
Excellent article by Jennifer L.W. Fink.
Click to expand...
When you're citing opinion articles from Fox News and calling them "excellent" you're already looking very bad.



SCitizen said:
According to recent surveys by the National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control, some 40 percent of those reporting intimate partner violence in the last year are men.
Click to expand...
A woman slapping her husband is not equal to a husband punching his wife.

SCitizen said:
Nearly 30 percent of intimate homicide victims are men.
Click to expand...

Men killing other men. A problem that only men in prison really have to worry about.
 
MrWonka said:
When you're citing opinion articles from Fox News and calling them "excellent" you're already looking very bad.
Click to expand...

Had Liberals been liberal they would be the first to fight against the unconstitutional practice of forcing students to take pledges. Especially discriminatory pledges.

MrWonka said:
Men killing other men. A problem that only men in prison really have to worry about.
Click to expand...

According to the latest FBI homicide data, 992 wives/girlfriends and 245 husbands/boyfriends were murdered by intimate partners.

Very few of these were killed by same sex partners.
 
Last edited:
SCitizen said:
Had Liberals been liberal they would be the first to fight against the unconstitutional practice of forcing students to take pledges. Especially discriminatory pledges.
Click to expand...
If they were being forced then the guy obviously wouldn't be able to walk out. There's really nothing unconstitutional about saying pledges. They may be kind of silly, but there's nothing banning them particularly when you're pledging not to do something that is already illegal.

SCitizen said:
According to the latest FBI homicide data, 992 wives/girlfriends and 245 husbands/boyfriends were murdered by intimate partners.

Very few of these were killed by same sex partners.
Click to expand...

The topic we were discussing here was the inordinately high number of men who are killed in prison. The statistics you're citing here have no relevance to that.



Please try and follow along so you understand the discussion before you make random comments about it.
 
MrWonka said:
If they were being forced then the guy obviously wouldn't be able to walk out. There's really nothing unconstitutional about saying pledges.
Click to expand...

Sadly there may be high schools in USA where boys only are required to take the White Ribbon Oath. That is unconstitutional -- even requiring students to say Pledge of Allegiance has been unconstitutional since West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943.

In Australia boys only are forced to take the pledge.
 
While I've never had to act out this maxim, mine has always been -- You act like a man, you get treated like a man.
 
MaggieD said:
I would have wanted to understand my son's reluctance to make that pledge. I also would have been in the principal's office knowing why girls were not included in pledging.

I was manhandled in high school. Kept me with the same jerk for four years. Fact is, boys need to learn that real men don't use their physical superiority on women. And WOMEN should NEVER lay a hand on a guy in anger.

The lesson goes both ways.
Click to expand...

I consider myself a moderate liberal, but the overall problem I see is not teaching people to respect others. Yes, we have abusive men, but we've also got women who don't take no for an answer and will almost certainly skate on a rape charge.

So yeah. Use enough force to end a conflict, and no more. That's not abuse IMHO.
 
SCitizen said:
View attachment 67210915

Excellent article by Jennifer L.W. Fink.


Notice: he did not give in to coercion.






Most comments were supportive, but some were not
Click to expand...
I speculate that you're on of those "MGTOW" reprobates, am I right? You posts seem rather suspicious.

I will agree that the "oath" is complete rubbish and shouldn't be in schools though, but your posts (such as begging for prostitution for men who 'can't get a date') do more to depreciate the male sex than anything any "woman" could ever do.
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
To put out a blanket statement like that is denying how the real world functions, and is COMPLELEY coercive.

They have no idea when a woman/girl/ or children CAN and WILL KILL YOU.
There are children & women soldiers in all parts of the world.
There are women murder's in all parts of the world.

This is complete lunacy.

A woman will slide that blade into your ribs just as easily as a man.

A bullet fired from a child or female soldier can and will kill you just as dead if a man fire that shot.

These people have their heads in the clouds.
Click to expand...

Keep wearing the stab vest. Nobody will notice you cowering in the corner anyway.
 
SCitizen said:
View attachment 67210915
t
Click to expand...

It’s true males commit more violent acts than females: think school shootings, homicides and terrorist acts. But focusing on male violence against women ignores much of what is known about violence in general—while unfairly stigmatizing half of the population and poisoning the relationship between the sexes.

According to recent surveys by the National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control, some 40 percent of those reporting intimate partner violence in the last year are men. Nearly 30 percent of intimate homicide victims are men.
Click to expand...
I would like to see a link to this comment.

I suspect that we will find that much of the homicides were inflicted by women who were in a violent relationship with a man. Focusing on male violence does not ignore much of what we know of violence nor does it stigmatise either genders.

Or that the survey is skewered towards violence.

The oath however is nothing more than pure misogynistic nonsense. It assumes that women are incapable of taking care of themselves. It assumes all men must have certain characteristics in order to be men. The oath does nothing more than continue a myth of a superior man.
 
Only men like SCitizen are monsters, hence their rather Freudian attempts to debunk a notion which no one ever accosted him of to begin with.
 
Every time I read about something like this, it reminds me of just how dumb some of the collectivist lumps who dominate public school districts throughout this country are. Compelling students to say things like that is a flagrant violation of their freedom of speech, as said third-rate lumps could easily have found out if they had bothered to try. There is a line of Supreme Court decisions on government-compelled speech which makes that clear, beginning, as someone noted, with Barnette.
 
Manc Skipper said:
That message came from inside your head, not from my comment.
Click to expand...

Well all I can see was a passive aggressive comment. So I'm wondering what the underlying meaning behind it was. If you aren't willing to clarify, then I'm forced to guess. It sounds like you feel these are just "men being snowflakes." Or maybe that you just feel that men aren't abused by women as well? I have a relative who has limited vision in one of his eyes because he was hit with a hairbrush. So i am wondering if he is a snowflake in your eyes? Or if you think this thing is all a sham?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
matchlight said:
Compelling students to say things like that is a flagrant violation of their Freedom of Speech, as said third-rate lumps could easily have found out if they had bothered to try. There is a line of Supreme Court decisions on government-compelled speech which makes that clear, beginning, as someone noted, with Barnette.
Click to expand...

The men who fought in Revolutionary War were snowflakes -- any SJW knows that First Amendment should be repealed.

In any case students must be aware of their Constitutional Rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom