The time now is Sat May 18, 2013 1:17 pm
All times are Pacific Time (UTC - 8) |
|
|
Vitamin D
OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!!!
Smooth Operator
Joined: 04 Jul 2007
Posts: 11220
Warnings: 1
Location: Phoenix, AZ
MGO Name: SilverMantis
Gender: Male
Age: 30
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:09 pm Post subject:
|
|
Another way to describe a female masturbating (or "Jilling Off") is also being a DJ. Similar to a manner of a DJ scratching a record.
_________________
PSN: The Vitamin D
Xbox Live: The Vitamin D
Wii: 3815 2993 5568 0289
NNID: VitaminD82
Twitter: twitter.com/vitamind82
I've been called:
The Philosopher of Humor, An Internet Warrior, Sincere, GENIUS!, love muffin!, An Evil Pumpkin, SMOOTH!, a sweety, all heart, their hero, the coolest guy on The Soup
2009 Winner:
Best Male Poster
Poster Ravi Would Most Likely Fuck
| Marvalo wrote: | | i am not sure what this thread is about, but vitamin d wins |
| Douchey wrote: | | Fuck you all, I'm excited for FFXIV. |
| Julia wrote: | | Vit D..you are the Pimp Daddy of the Soup! |
| Alex =) wrote: | | Who doesn't touch themselves while talking to Vitamin D? |
| Ravi Singh wrote: | | You're so fucking dumb I'm going to ban you. |
| Julia wrote: | | I love my Vitamin D! |
| GjpD88 wrote: | | What a fucking great read! |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
|
|
jdnation
Zanzibar Land Poisonous Hamster
Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Posts: 2275
Warnings: 2
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:17 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Singh
Retired
is not anything
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 24777
Warnings: 2147483647
Location: Los Angeles, CA
MGO Name: Ravi Singh
Gender: Male
Age: 25
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:16 pm Post subject:
|
|
| Son of Liberty wrote: | | My god. The sexism in this thread is unbearable. The only women here, Julia, isn't even taken aback. A sad world indeed. |
Most of them are joking. | Son of Liberty wrote: | | In this country, we are supposed to strive for human rights and equal protection under the law. Being a sexist is no better than being a racist or homophobe. A women is equal to a man. Plain and simple. |
We strive, but we fail. The government promotes racism and sexism, often times ironically citing the prevention of the two. No surprise as it's an entity that prefers to look at us in groups as opposed to individual citizens. | Son of Liberty wrote: | | Btw, Pox actually mentioned in his post that it is obvious why women would be unhappy--because they are free. |
That doesn't necessarily mean that he believes women are exclusively unhappy because they're free. | Son of Liberty wrote: | | He's just another white supremacist bigot who has a small penis and wants to take all power away from minorities. And he thinks he understands Christianity. Ha. |
What.
_________________
try to pretend its true
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Wolfe
Hand Gesturer
Who do you think I am?
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 1729
Warnings: 2
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:21 am Post subject:
|
|
| Son of Liberty wrote: | | My god. The sexism in this thread is unbearable. The only women here, Julia, isn't even taken aback. A sad world indeed. |
Yes, what a sad world when a thread on the internet that questions feminism isn't instantly bombarded with righteous indignation from every available female! Sad, sad world...
| Quote: | | We all know Wolfpox is essentially a joke of a human being, so his posts are irrelevant. In this country, we are supposed to strive for human rights and equal protection under the law. |
Well at least you had the decency to call me a human being... But wait, doesn't that mean I should have the right to free speech? Uh oh, you're a Nazi and you didn't even know it!
But more importantly, who was talking about the law or human rights, dipshit? This thread is about a heavily biased report on a survey regarding social norms, it has nothing to do with rights or the law.
| Quote: | | Being a sexist is no better than being a racist or homophobe. A women is equal to a man. Plain and simple. |
Plain and simple? Men and women are not equal any way you look at it: legally, socially, economically, or genetically, they are different. You are so hypersensitive to sexism that you can't even see the obvious double-standards that easily happen in both directions -- and must happen, in many cases, since men and women aren't equal! I don't give a shit about the words "superior" or "inferior"; I think they are as "equal" as a peach and a carrot.
Also, guess what? I don't think homosexuals should be considered a minority or a group deserving of rights, because I think their whole movement is loaded with lies, bullshit and propaganda from the start. I'm way past tiptoeing around politically correct nonsense like that.
| Quote: | | Btw, Pox actually mentioned in his post that it is obvious why women would be unhappy--because they are free. . |
Read it again genius, the ARTICLE ITSELF said it, I didn't have to!
| Quote: | | Among the most confounding changes of all is the evidence, tracked by numerous surveys, that as women have gained more freedom, more education and more economic power, they have become less happy. No tidy theory explains the trend |
What I laugh at is them claiming that "no tidy theory explains the trend", trying to make it sound like a big difficult mystery, because they are so desperate to ignore the obvious: what they call "freedom, education and economic power" ends up being obligation, mind-numbing nonsense and stress. Applications, loans, classes, assignments, debt, job searching, followed by the work and toil of a career... all at the expense of their youth, vitality and money. They end up neglecting serious relationships, getting into a series of dysfunctional flings, until they either swear off men altogether or drop out of the race and settle down with somebody... at which point they will secretly resent their partner and family for ruining their ambitions. The survey doesn't tell you those things, but there are enough testimonials out there to tell me that it's the main reason behind the finding.
Women have always been more gullible and materialistic than men, which is why companies starting shifting their marketing towards them instead of men in the early 1900s, even back when men had all the spending power: women want shit, men want women, and so the men bought it to keep their women happy. Contemporary feminism is little more than a ploy to get women to finally have the buying power themselves, so that they can spend it all away on frivilous shit trying so they can keep up with the Jones'.
| Quote: | | He's just another white supremacist bigot who has a small penis and wants to take all power away from minorities. And he thinks he understands Christianity. Ha |
I don't believe it... How did you so quickly deduce that my entire belief system stems from overcompensating for my impotent, molecule-sized ramrod? Is it that obvious??
If you had read the damn report, by the way, you would see that women aren't minorities. The majority of people (both men and women) agree on feminist ideals and have become accustomed to their new power. There's a word for what you're doing too, but it's not sexism, it's victimization. Get with the times, numbnuts.
edit: Also, how does Christianity fit into this picture? Do you realize that Christ condemned homosexuality? And do you realize that men and women are given extremely different treatment in Christ's teaching and the Biblical churches? Where did you think you were going by bringing that up? |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Son of Liberty
Soup Sucker
PUOS FO NOITPURROL A
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 98
Warnings: 1
Location: Chicago, IL
Age: 22
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:27 pm Post subject:
|
|
I’ve read a lot of his posts, and I felt it was appropriate. That’s all.
| Pox wrote: | | But wait, doesn't that mean I should have the right to free speech? Uh oh, you're a Nazi and you didn't even know it! |
Talk about everything and anything you want. That doesn't mean I can't criticize your beliefs which I feel tend to be irrational. Sometimes I do feel you try to be above a "human being," however. You know what I mean.
| Quote: | | Plain and simple? Men and women are not equal any way you look at it: legally, socially, economically, or genetically, they are different. You are so hypersensitive to sexism that you can't even see the obvious double-standards that easily happen in both directions -- and must happen, in many cases, since men and women aren't equal! I don't give a shit about the words "superior" or "inferior"; I think they are as "equal" as a peach and a carrot. |
Ok...I get what you're saying. But I wrote this before reading your post so...
Here is the fault in your reasoning about equality: you’re assuming there is a desirable state of existence (for instance [I’m not saying you said this], being white, male, healthy, and heterosexual) as opposed to an unequal state (for instance, being black, female, disabled and gay). However, this is purely an evaluative stance. I’m saying we’re all equal because, in essence, we’re all ignorant. None of us have an answer to the universe—all our reasoning occurs within society, which is governed by laws, standards, and traditions (including religion). Women are equal to men in an existential manner. Yes, physically we’re different and the roles we’ve taken on certainly haven’t been equal, but there is no evidence for inequality on an existential plane. I know you may be tempted to cite the Bible (the story that God created Eve from Adam’s rib) as evidence for an innate inequality, but that won’t work in this conversation. Unless you can give me God’s number or his Facebook account, I won’t be convinced.
| Quote: | | Also, guess what? I don't think homosexuals should be considered a minority or a group deserving of rights, because I think their whole movement is loaded with lies, bullshit and propaganda from the start. I'm way past tiptoeing around politically correct nonsense like that. |
My guess and this is only a guess as to why you feel homosexuality is bogus is that it presents a blatant "flaw" in God's system. If gays exist and are natural in their orientation, it implies God created a world where bonds between the same sex could occur. in addition, transgendered people's existence implies God accidently "mixes" gender when some babies are born. That's why so many devout followers deny the existence of homosexuality: they know it contradicts their teaching. Luckily, many churches accept the LGBT community openly.
Back to the point...you say in your post that you "think" this movement is bogus. If, for one moment, you could put yourself into the shoes of another person, then assume you're gay. Just pretend you could only be attracted to men and women proved undesirable. Seeing an attractive man would incite the same hormonal reaction as seeing an attractive woman. And you had no control over this feeling. How would those around you see you? How would you see yourself?
| Quote: | | Applications, loans, classes, assignments, debt, job searching, followed by the work and toil of a career... all at the expense of their youth, vitality and money. |
And how does this not apply to men? Your testimonials are a joke. I know people in such positions as well...who are happy, but I don't make some grand generalization based on them. Some are happy, some are not (both men and women). It's almost impossible to measure how many are happy or sad of either gender, but it doesn't matter. Even if 80% of women were unhappy in the workplace, that still leaves 20% who are happy. Do they no longer count? Perhaps, this statistic will change with time.
| Quote: | | Contemporary feminism is little more than a ploy to get women to finally have the buying power themselves, so that they can spend it all away on frivilous shit trying so they can keep up with the Jones'. |
Cool story, bro.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Singh
Retired
is not anything
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 24777
Warnings: 2147483647
Location: Los Angeles, CA
MGO Name: Ravi Singh
Gender: Male
Age: 25
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:50 pm Post subject:
|
|
| Wolfpox wrote: | | What I laugh at is them claiming that "no tidy theory explains the trend", trying to make it sound like a big difficult mystery, because they are so desperate to ignore the obvious: what they call "freedom, education and economic power" ends up being obligation, mind-numbing nonsense and stress. Applications, loans, classes, assignments, debt, job searching, followed by the work and toil of a career... all at the expense of their youth, vitality and money. They end up neglecting serious relationships, getting into a series of dysfunctional flings, until they either swear off men altogether or drop out of the race and settle down with somebody... at which point they will secretly resent their partner and family for ruining their ambitions. The survey doesn't tell you those things, but there are enough testimonials out there to tell me that it's the main reason behind the finding. |
While the article is a statistics joke to begin with, they actually are right to not make such a conclusion. The "evidence" they provide only suggests an association between women being unhappy and women getting more freedoms. There could be many invisible factors, one of which being the recent economic downturn which is making everyone unhappy anyways.
Otherwise one could argue that ice cream leads to crime. You see, when ice cream sales increase, crime increases. So do drowning incidents! But wait, isn't it possible that maybe there's another factor? Like how hot it is outside?
Anyways, I asked something in this thread that you haven't answered. Do you believe that women should still have a choice to embrace modernism or traditionalist ideals? | Son of Liberty wrote: | | I’ve read a lot of his posts, and I felt it was appropriate. That’s all. |
It's a bit ridiculous though. It's like calling Obama (or Bush) Hitler. A bit of a stretch. A traditionalist? Maybe paeloconservative? Okay. White supremacist who hates minorities? C'mooooooon.
_________________
try to pretend its true
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Wolfe
Hand Gesturer
Who do you think I am?
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 1729
Warnings: 2
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:24 am Post subject:
|
|
| Ravi Singh wrote: | | While the article is a statistics joke to begin with, they actually are right to not make such a conclusion. The "evidence" they provide only suggests an association between women being unhappy and women getting more freedoms. There could be many invisible factors, one of which being the recent economic downturn which is making everyone unhappy anyways. |
Yes, but my point is, if they're not going to draw conclusions, they also shouldn't take the liberty to say that it's one of "the most confounding changes". By adding a shitload of preamble and spin before and after revealing these statistical findings, they ensure that ignorant readers will "feel" a specific way about the statistics, instead of letting the reader decide.
| Quote: | | Otherwise one could argue that ice cream leads to crime. You see, when ice cream sales increase, crime increases. So do drowning incidents! But wait, isn't it possible that maybe there's another factor? Like how hot it is outside? |
Thank you, I get that. I don't suggest they make any conclusions -- in fact I wish they had simply shown the raw data -- but if they're going to claim that there's "no tidy theory", why only give one side of speculation? It's biased, and there is certainly enough evidence to support the view that modern feminism is misguided.
| Quote: | | Anyways, I asked something in this thread that you haven't answered. Do you believe that women should still have a choice to embrace modernism or traditionalist ideals? |
If the quote I'm reading is correct, you simply stated that women should have a choice, you didn't ask. The reason I didn't answer this originally is because it's outside the scope of my interest, but I suppose my answer would be "yes"? People can embrace whatever ideologies and values they wish; I have no desire to enforce morality, religion, tradition or any beliefs whatsoever. Doing so would be counter-productive and disingenuous, and breed even more resentment than naturally exists. Religion especially should be the product of a free will, or else it will be destructive and hypocritical, but the same is true of any code of standards or ideology. I am a philosopher, not a legalist.
Go to the most strict, traditional, dogmatic sect of the most fundamentalist religion, and you will see variance and disagreement between "traditional" and "modern" -- even if only in the narrow confines of their own system. It may be forbidden, it may be secret, and it may be punished, but it still exists. It's impossible to extinguish the choice of what ideals to embrace, for the simple reason that it's internal.
No, my interest is in the assumptions and misconceptions that underpin this kind of reporting, and the myths that they perpetuate. Everybody can give you a list of false assumptions when it comes to religion or traditional values (those have been 'exposed' and demonstrated often enough in media and the news) but meanwhile they are completely blind to the fallacies of modern liberal values, or the dysfunction they can produce.
------------
| Quote: | | I’m saying we’re all equal because, in essence, we’re all ignorant. None of us have an answer to the universe—all our reasoning occurs within society, which is governed by laws, standards, and traditions (including religion). Women are equal to men in an existential manner. Yes, physically we’re different and the roles we’ve taken on certainly haven’t been equal, but there is no evidence for inequality on an existential plane. |
Firstly, you're assuming that nobody has "an answer to the universe", but you don't know for a fact. How would we know if somebody did? It's impossible. But that doesn't mean nobody is correct.
Secondly, if you're going to get existential, what evidence do you have for anything? Do you have "existential evidence" that the physical universe even exists as we perceive it? Is there such a thing as "male" and "female", existentially speaking? Is any set of values any "better" or "worse" than any other, existentially? Don't these all become subjective personal perceptions? In the end, the ability to argue anything depends on sharing an agreed upon "reality", which, like you said, is influenced by laws, standards, and traditions. You can easily argue that women are equal to men in any number of ways by looking at actual reality, but once you want to become existential you are instantly thrust into the realm of philosophy, theory, and personal perception, and lose whatever footing you had. Where do you even begin to debate the value of human life in existential terms? Especially once you exclude religion?
Or is that what you wanted to say in the first place: that you would rather set aside reality and argue in terms of pure theory? You seem to agree that men and women aren't equal in reality, but I hope you realize that unless you have some evidence suggesting that they are equal existentially (such as a religious text? Your own opinion doesn't count) we are forced to deal with reality.
| Quote: | | My guess and this is only a guess as to why you feel homosexuality is bogus is that it presents a blatant "flaw" in God's system. |
I don't "feel" that homosexuality is "bogus", whatever that means. I fully realize that gay people exist, and have existed throughout history. In fact, the Bible mentions them a number of times, calling it an abomination. However, I see that you're in the habit of ascribing motivations to beliefs... Mind if I do the same for you? My guess (and this is only a guess) is that you "feel" that the Biblical account of creation and history is bogus because you are afraid of of some day being judged by a righteous God. ...Do you like it when somebody does it to you?
| Quote: | | If gays exist and are natural in their orientation, it implies God created a world where bonds between the same sex could occur. |
You're touching on the question of why anything "bad" exists in the world if God designed it. The short answer is that the disobedience of Eve and Adam in the Garden of Eden (ie. eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil) introduced sin and abomination into the world, compelling God to eventually send a Redeemer (ie. Jesus Christ) who would be able to forgive those sins and save mankind from the corrupt earth, being brought up to God forever, following the time of final judgment.
The long answer is that God created evil in order to use it for his own ends; to contrast goodness and obedience, to shape history and society, and to give meaning to our free will. Those who are evil are doing the will of God without knowing it. Evil is necessary to fulfill prophecy, test the righteous, and cause us to desire a better life hereafter.
There is no "flaw" in God's system, even though he simultaneously allows for homosexuality to exist (naturally or learned) while condemning it. Do you think that's a paradox? The Bible itself says that all things work together to fulfill the holy, sovereign will of God. Do you think it's unfair? Then you must not believe that God grants forgiveness, mercy, salvation and the holy spirit to those who believe in the name of Jesus Christ and obey his instruction. EVERY person, living or dead, straight or gay, black or white, young or old, must believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved -- that's fairness to me. And before you ask about those who die ignorant of the Gospel, you should know that the Gospel will be preached unto the dead as well as the living before the Day of Judgment, so that no man can be held innocent.
| Quote: | | in addition, transgendered people's existence implies God accidently "mixes" gender when some babies are born. |
"Accidentally"? Freaks of nature are as much a part of God's plan as sickness, death, famine, disasters, and corruption. Who ever taught you that bad things are not supposed to exist in this life? Transgender people will be judged by their actions and their faith, just like everyone else.
| Quote: | | That's why so many devout followers deny the existence of homosexuality: they know it contradicts their teaching. Luckily, many churches accept the LGBT community openly. |
You are in no position to dictate who is "devout" or not, considering how utterly ignorant you are. I don't know what makes you so happy about churches "openly accepting" the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community... If these are real churches they will be preached to, in order to convert them and lead them to obedience in the Word of God, forsaking their old ways just the same as the fornicator and the drunkard.
| Quote: | | Back to the point...you say in your post that you "think" this movement is bogus. If, for one moment, you could put yourself into the shoes of another person, then assume you're gay. Just pretend you could only be attracted to men and women proved undesirable. Seeing an attractive man would incite the same hormonal reaction as seeing an attractive woman. And you had no control over this feeling. How would those around you see you? How would you see yourself? |
Nice try there, but as I said, I realize that homosexuality is real. Their MOVEMENT, however, is filled with bullshit from the beginning. Even putting aside my religious beliefs on the matter, gay people never wanted marriage until they realized that saying so helped them gain a convienient political platform and sympathy. The homosexual community (before it was transformed into its current farce by propagandists like Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen) mocked marriage as being an outdated manmade establishment, and flaunted their freedom to have endless casual sex with strangers, orgies, and no commitment whatsoever. They hated marriage, scoffed at fidelity, and even acknowledged that gay sex spread AIDS. It was only through a massive, carefully planned campaign of lies, rhetoric and social conditioning that their language and goals became as acceptable as it did in the '90s.
| Quote: | | And how does this not apply to men? Your testimonials are a joke. |
They're not "my" testimonials. They're just testimonials from women who ended up feeling decieved by the highminded promises they were given throughout school and in the media about what life would be like when they became a career-minded feminist. And yes, I am careful to distinguish between a "career-minded feminist" and simply a working woman. There's a world of difference between the two. There are many good, satisfied women who have jobs, but don't make the mistake of placing it ahead of relationships and family, or believe it will be some liberating, empowering lifestyle like they see in commercials. The survey itself confirms what I'm saying (despite trying to avoid it), although I certainly wouldn't need a survey to tell you that women are becoming massively disillusioned by following the feminist crusade.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Contemporary feminism is little more than a ploy to get women to finally have the buying power themselves, so that they can spend it all away on frivilous shit trying to keep up with the Jones'. |
Cool story, bro. |
What, do you have existential evidence to contradict what I'm saying? |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Old Gross
You're.... a man?!
Eight-Year 'Soup Vet
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 3727
Warnings: 0
Location: L'étoile du Nord, USA
MGO Name: Gross, S_K_Y
Gender: Male
Age: 28
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:19 pm Post subject:
|
|
| Ravi Singh wrote: | | They should still continue to have a choice between traditional and modern. |
Ugh; that reminds me of these one-or-the-other things that have been bothering me lately (like something regarding the choice of either unity or diversity). So, for this, which choice would be best? First we have to define them, and then make our choice, but you can only have one, and there can be no inbetween. Once you choose one, you have to live up to it or else you're lying to yourself (or something).
_________________
 
"The only prayer I will say for you is this : Whatever hell awaits you, it won't be long before you see it."
COD:BO Official Website (with Community forums)
  
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Singh
Retired
is not anything
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 24777
Warnings: 2147483647
Location: Los Angeles, CA
MGO Name: Ravi Singh
Gender: Male
Age: 25
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:24 pm Post subject:
|
|
| Old Gross wrote: | | So, for this, which choice would be best? |
Isn't that up to the individual? I prefer freedom. I can assure you that a lot of people prefer to give some of their freedom away for "security" and "free" shit.
_________________
try to pretend its true
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
7224
The 'Soup's Amélie
I will always love you and I tried to be a good girl for you, always.
Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 26567
Warnings: 0
Gender: Female
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:30 am Post subject:
|
|
I dont think God sees transgenders as 'freaks of nature' Mr. Wolfe.
=/
_________________
I have my own life...and I am stronger
Than you know ~ Leather and Lace
| Mr. Wolfe wrote: |
There aren't any interesting people on this forum anymore |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
0nfio
Zanzibar Land Poisonous Hamster
(Can be lured with cheese.)
Joined: 09 Nov 2006
Posts: 2268
Warnings: 1
Location: Zanzibar Land
Gender: Female
Age: 23
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:32 am Post subject:
|
|
| Julia wrote: | I dont think God sees transgenders as 'freaks of nature' Mr. Wolfe.
=/ |
Wolf is correct in a way, but if he is saying "freaks of nature" as an insult, he is putting his own malice into it. My God would not like that. But whose God are we talking about here? |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Log in
Register
© 2002, 2003 - 2011 The Snake Soup.
THE 'SOUP |
THE GAMES |
THE BRIEFING |
THE FEATURES |
THE JUNK |
THE SITE |
THE LINKED
Calendar
