Why is it okay to respond to a girls argument by calling her a cunt and telling her to put dick in her mouth? I'm equal-opportunity for calling out dumb people, but no one is asking you to be nicer to dumb ladies than gents; it's the whole TOGTFO mentality that I was referring to.
I never advocated censorship. I advocate civility- the idea that on a supposedly intellectual site, one wouldn't resort to implying that half of the world's population exists to serve merely as a vehicle of sexual pleasure for the other half, that one would refrain from using blatantly offensive terms, and the idea that one might, just maybe, present ideas in the same way that one might in person. Do you tell your mother or your sister that her mouth is only to shove dicks into? I don't think so. I think that respect is important, and can be achieved WITHOUT censorship. I suggest that people be respectful of others- what a terrible, fascist idea! those Nazis were ALL about respect for others.
You might also keep in mind that sexism hurts guys, too. Studies have shown that if a woman is harassed, she AND the other women around her react negatively not ONLY to the harasser, but men in general; every time a sexist comment is directed at a woman, all men suffer. Every time you call a woman a slut or loose, you and EVERY OTHER GUY OUT THERE is less likely to have sex. I could go on, but I don't think you'll answer seriously- I guess you your mom and I need to go find a more productive use for our bodies, hmm?
madame cherry summed up my feelings very well; I think that people should be able to say whatever they want. It's unfortunate, though, that people want to say these things- especially because most of the people demanding that women return to the kitchen don't believe it, wouldn't say it in real life, or don't have romantic relationships with ladies. the internet allows for anonymity; this lets people be the biggest jackasses they can be. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to say stupid things, just that they should refrain from doing so- just as they might in polite (or even impolite) real-life company.
Controlled? Pussy? I swear to god, all of the guys in this debate must be campaigning for the longest dry spell ever. Ladies distribute themselves where they damn well see fit. We aren't property or tradeable or exchangeable- this is like me demanding your testosterone, it's stupid.
Allow me to rebut. I am a liberal lady, and my lady-parts aren't property- they're a part of my person, which isn't property either. Treating ladies like cargo isn't going to get anyone laid- not that YOU would know ANYTHING about not getting laid.
Yes- he immigrated from Africa. My babysitter when I was younger was French-American, and preferred to be referred to as such, though racially (social construct, I know) she was black. one should be classified by most recent descent IF that's what they prefer. it would be easier to not have to fight over race, though, and make more meaningful distinctions- perhaps ethnically? I suppose then you would have lots of small ethnic groups in areas with indigenous population in a relatively intact state; Western Europe an America would probably bleed together into a sort of Euro-merican ethnicity, with sub-groups within,
Hey. Whoa. Resentment!
What's more, liberals are pretty much always (as a group) way younger than conservatives- which makes us way more attractive.
ALSO, what is this "their" women bullshit? "Oh, yeah, I took Jane-the-Sweater from Bob the other day. Man, he was pissed, but what a perfect fit!"
Ladies aren't a resource, and we can sleep with whomsoever we feel- whatever political party they are affiliated with.
NEWSFLASH: Ladies have other aspirations than making babies.
Isn't enough to go for guys that respect us (as equals and not baby-makers, mind), without plans for children, marriage, or even long-term relationships? Some girls do go for asshole, just like some guys go for unavailable/manipulative/whatever girls- but it's a minority. Most people like nice people.
Hey, whoa, hang on a moment.
Adolescents- let's just define this as "teens"- are legal in all states.Sixteen year olds are legal in many states. It's okay to have sex, but not show your body? Overly sexual clothing isn't the problem, it's a symptom of a problem. "Not allowing" teenagers to do things doesn't work; I'm a highly intelligent, generally responsible teen, and while I generally agree with what my parents/authority figures say (many of the things they say make sense!), some don't.
For instance, why should I sacrifice wearing a tank top in the summer for comfort just because my mother's sensibilities are offended? "Not Allowing" it doesn't work, and I (like most teens), can judge the outcomes of my actions. Yes, occasionally I am hit on or judged or looked at in ways that make me uncomfortable, but I can handle it- I'm a big girl.
How do children become adults if they aren't allowed to make their own decisions? Are bans really the most effective way to go about doing things?
I'm a lady, but thank you for the defense! You summarized it perfectly; When we decided upon the word "blue", we didn't cause the sky to become a color, we merely described it; science is how we describe our world, not the nature or the cause of it. We created science; we did not create the world.
I believe we are in agreement!
We both are glad that we can possess weapons, if we wish, but that there are limits in place so that people can't go out and buy ridiculous weaponry. I think that, while the Second Amendment originally meant that you could have whatever you like, the limits placed upon these "rights" are still within the spirit of the Second Amendment- weapons to defend oneself, not destroy tanks (not that they could have planned for tanks, you see.)
Ron Paul is an ass-hat, love.
He's all for legalizing drugs (I agree!) and guns for all (not as much) and freedom from in every way except for OH WAIT ladies.
Ladies don't get the freedom to determine their futures. Cocaine? Why not! Morning after pill? A TERRIBLE VIOLATION OF HUMANITY.
Fuck. That. Shit. You don't get to go halvsies on freedom and call yourself a libertarian. That ain't how that shit works.
I hate that phrase! See, most deaths in smokers that could be at all related to smoking- heart, lung, whatever- are attributed to smoking.
Now, alcohol is cultural. Ask an adult if they drink, and the answer is almost always "yes". Everyone drinks! It's just how we roll. Unlike smoking, which is a binary, alcohol comes on a much wider scale.
I love analogies. Stick with me here, please. If someone dies at sixty-five of a heart attack, and is thirty pounds overweight, we say he dies of a heart attack. Now, if someone weighs four hundred pounds, has type Two diabetes and dies of the same heart attack at thirty-five, we say they die as a complication of obesity.
Alcohol leads to all sorts of chronic problems- not just cirrhosis. Malnutrition from bad nutrient absorption, certain types of cancer, lowered immune response, increased weight- these are all problems that can be caused by alcohol consumption, INCLUDING moderate consumption. With the exception of cirrhosis and death from alcohol poisoning or alcohol related incidents, deaths from these problems wouldn't be attributed to alcohol.
Also, your numbers are wrong. "From 2001–2005, there were approximately 79,000 deaths annually attributable to excessive alcohol use. In fact, excessive alcohol use is the 3rd leading lifestyle-related cause of death for people in the United States each year."
Please note the "excessive"- that means those that die exclusively, conclusively, undeniably from EXCESSIVE alcohol abuse. If you refit your numbers to include only two-or-more pack-a-day smokers, will they look the same? I think not.
Because I believe that statutory rape is possible. All of the examples here are between teens and very young adults; no one talks about a student and a teacher, a prison guard and a prisoner, a sixteen year old and a sixty year old, or even a thirteen year old and a twenty year old. All of the examples y'all are using are specific to a very narrow age range; yes, within those limits, statutory rape is much less likely. Still, repealing all laws would remove quite a bit of needed protection.
Also: you can't charge without proof. So, unless someone in the relationship is stupid, or they are caught in the throws of passion, there really isn't anything that can be done.
