Feminism Thread

[JigglyJam]

What?

I think I've read those past three posts at least three times.

[Plow]

sigh I made an idiot proof version but forum maintenance ate it ><

in short:

1. can't argue the concept of the patriarchy is bullshit while also arguing that it's something men got because they deserved it

2. lol? she's trying to make men look awesome by saying a woman doing X is nothing compared to what men do... and her evidence is how hard it was for her grandpa to do almost identical work to what said woman was doing

3. the lack of some absurd conspiracy theory version of the patriarchy does not mean it doesn't exist, and especially doesn't prove that it's good for women

[Clash Perez]

Today's SMBC is timely.

Spoiler: show

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20130407.gif

[Kuya]

And that is how strawmen are born.

[Plow]

Pretty much, that largely sums up why I find that lady so ridiculous. She's literally taken her strawmanning to the extent of ridiculous insulting voice impressions.

It astounds me that people find some random crazy lady arguing (terribly) entirely against strawmen to seem interesting and/or informative.

[hey]

sigh I made an idiot proof version but forum maintenance ate it ><

Here you go.

[Ashmada]

This thread demonstrates one thing perfectly:



How accurate Nirokun & Plow's titles are.

Also, Plow: methinks Kuya was refering to your strawmen, not that chick's.
Then again, I didn't bother watching the vid, so yeah.

[Kohan]

It astounds me that people find some random crazy lady arguing (terribly) entirely against strawmen to seem interesting and/or informative.

You can't take back the time you wasted on the video, but you can recover whatever time you would lose bothering to critique fundamentally flawed garbage. Arguing on the Internet about something that our increasingly liberal society is remedying on its own is a waste of your time.

[Churchill]

your ally is plow

rethink your position on...everything.

[Kohan]

your ally is plow

rethink your position on...everything.

I do agree that Plow takes everything to an extreme, and that he argues semantics. A good and recent example of that was a marijuana discussion here on BG. As anyone who follows my posting would know, I'm a staunch advocate for its legalization, and always supply credible sources for any statements I make. He chose to argue with me nonetheless about the statistically insignificant chances of marijuana (when delivered via smoking or vaporization) causing harm, even though I was not doing so for negative reasons. I cited articles noting that an absolutely ridiculous amount was required to cause toxic consequences in animals, and did so to admit that it can cause harm, though the chance is too microscopic to be worth considering—and he chose to argue against this honesty, as if it to imply that it should not be acknowledged, despite agreeing that it should be legalized. I found it to be very disingenuous and, to be honest, befuddling.

It was, by all means, not something that contributed to the discussion, nor admiration of his stance. It did not make me reconsider my position in the least, however, and that's related to a statement I've made within this discussion, not to mention plenty of times elsewhere: every group, of every variety, has individuals in its midst who take things to an unnecessarily extremist degree. They may damage whatever it is that they stand for in the eyes of the average person, and complicate matters for everyone else who stands for whatever it was that they were over-enthusiastically trying to defend. Nonetheless, if the core of the cause is worthwhile, their overzealous actions will ultimately not matter, and things will be accomplished accordingly.

This conveniently ties into my remark about our increasingly liberal society, and my general statements about inevitable progress. He doesn't need to be so excessive, and harms both himself and whatever it is that he wants to defend by behaving in such a manner. If he would take a step back, relax, research, and observe that the points of view he's most openly frustrated with are not in fact considered normal, nor related to what our currently progressive track has in store, he'd realize that he wouldn't have to try to hammer people into the ground—and that improvements would come about nonetheless.

[Plow]

This is everything I said in the "argument" he's talking about:

nah, until anyone can prove otherwise, it's impossible to OD on pot, no matter how much or how you ingest it

you'd prob die of carbon monoxide poisoning before anything else

I've always read that tests have been inconclusive, i.e. nothing died.

I can't find any actual conclusive tests, either. I'm finding pretty consistent claims that it's a 40k/1 tox/intox ratio, though. So I guess there's something out there.

yeah, 40,000 times as much to kill you as to get you a pretty good high

alcohol is apparently 4-10/1

but, that 40k/1 ratio is in rats and mice and shit

the first line you quoted, "An LD50 was not attainable in monkeys and dogs by the oral route. Enormous dose levels (over 3000 mg/kg of Delta 9 THC) were administered without lethality to most animals." states that they went more than 3x higher than that with larger animals, and one closer to humans, without being able to kill enough to establish a baseline for where it should start to happen

well I mean sure if you inject yourself with so much thc it just clogs up all your veins you're going to die, the point is whether or not there's effects unique to the substance that are potentially fatal

and, for pot, that possibility is far less likely than such terrible threats to humanity as, say, sugar, or water

There's me being super unreasonable and argumentative over something meaningless like whether or not pot can kill you.




You guys realize "plow plowing" etc. is just what people say when they realize they have no legit argument against what I'm saying, right?

[Charismatic]

Plow, just read up... even people who agree with you don't "realize" that.

[Qalbert]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8105/8...9fd54f70_z.jpg

[Tarage]

Spoiler: show

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8105/8...9fd54f70_z.jpg

I wouldn't take a picture of you even if I did have consent. In fact, you don't have consent for my eyeballs or brain. Please go be an ugly pony elsewhere.

Also dammit Qalbert, spoil that shit.

[Aristio]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8105/8...9fd54f70_z.jpg

[Ksandra]

Omg it's Pat as a kid.

[Cadsuane]

Man I was wondering, no big shit shows in poopdeck or GD or fuckin anywhere lately, but apparently everyone's schedule filled up with this thread which I mistakenly thought would never amount to anything. What's been happening for 60 pages?

[Churchill]

lol

[Kohan]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8105/8...9fd54f70_z.jpg

My first thought was, "That isn't cosplay," unless there is an overweight pink cat-eared chick in an anime somewhere. (While trying to think of like pink-haired chicks, I did think of Aun's sister in "Photon: The Idiot Menace," and if she had dressed like that, I would have actually been impressed. http://cat.rubberslug.com/gallery/in...p?ItemID=38871)

My second thought was to wonder what this "16bitsirens" thing was about, so I naturally turned to Google.

http://www.16bitsirens.com/consent/

I wouldn't say it's obnoxious effort at heart, as it's reasonable to expect people (male or female) not to cop a feel on someone they don't know, but anime conventions tend to be festering cesspools of immaturity.

[Charismatic]