Fuzzwood Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Time to place a finger on a sore spot. Have you ever gone out with a girl?
Green Xenon Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Time to place a finger on a sore spot. Have you ever gone out with a girl? No, I've gone out with *women*, not girls. I've discussed my opposition to "pro-girl sexism" in chat rooms. Many of the guys call me "gay", because I'm against the societal pro-girl bias. Let me just say something... If a grown man calls me "gay" because he believes I don't like girls, I'll mirror his insult right back at him and call him a pedophile. Here's is why. Grown men are NOT supposed to like girls. Girls are children, just like boys. So if adult man calls me 'gay' for not liking girls, I can safely assume he DOES like girls. If he likes girls, then he likes children -- and any grown man who likes children is a pedophile. Hence I make the connection that if any adult man calls me 'gay' due to my hatred of 'pro-girl sexism', he must be a pedo with a thing for girl-children. BTW, I *am* solely attracted to females but *only* the ones who are fully-developed -- physically, psychologically, biologically and chronologically. Since 'extended adolescence' can last up to 30 years of age, I prefer women who are 30+ years of age. I like women, not girls. Any man who likes girls is mentally-ill and needs to be kept away from children. Boy = male under 18 years of age = child Girl = female under 18 years of age = child Woman = female who is 18 years of age or older = adult Man = male who is 18 years of age or older = adult
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 So you believe you should make the bias worse -- by harming society's women, forcing the men to care for them and coddle them even more, and making the survivors seem valuabl -- as punishment, rather than taking action to correct the bias? You also take strange pride in pedantry. Has the alleged pro-girl bias had a direct negative impact on you?
Appolinaria Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 You say you are a feminist- yet want adult women to be treated better than adult males. You say you hate little girls- yet shun pedophiles who like little girls. What exactly do you want achieved? I do not understand you whatsoever. Honestly, just sounds to me like you have deep issues with little girls from childhood or something. You're very angry. Seriously- what happened?
Green Xenon Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 So you believe you should make the bias worse -- by harming society's women, forcing the men to care for them and coddle them even more, and making the survivors seem valuabl -- as punishment, rather than taking action to correct the bias? I don't believe in harming women, I respect women. It's girls who I hate. As for the evil macho men who protect girls, these men need to be controlled by my AFFRGD [Angelic Force of Fairness and Reverse Gender Discrimination]. AFFRGD is a hypothetical science-fiction entity that enters the brains of all humans. It specifically affects the parts of these brains involved in voluntary-vocalization and voluntary-movement. AFFRGD does not involve any mind-control. Rather it regulates how volition is physiologically-expressed without changing how the human thinks. All opinions, thoughts, emotions, and other psychological entities are not directly affected by AFFRGD. AFFRGD is a miracle that makes the men of society incapable of perpetrating the "pro-girl sexism" I've previously-discussed. AFFRGD lives within the brains of humans and forces individuals humans -- who make up the evil entity I call the "society of humans" -- to go against the unfair rules of this cold-hearted society. In particular, AFFRGD makes men unable to provide minor-girls [female humans below 18 years of age] with any "friendly-treatment" and forces these men to involuntarily provide such girls with "unfriendly-treatment". "Friendly-treatment" = the following: 1. Compassion 2. Sympathy 3. Respect 4. Gentleness 5. Easiness 6. Empathy 7. Cleanliness 8. Protection 9. Luxury 10. Personal space 11. Privacy 12. Security 13. Freedom 14. Modesty 15. Decency 16. Leniency 17. Lack of discipline 18. Lack of strictness 19. Lack of physical contact 20. Politeness 21. Courtesy 22. Lack of expectations "Unfriendly-treatment" = pretty much the opposite of friendly-treatment As an added bonus, this AFFRGD makes men unable to perform what are considered by society to be "manly" activities including but not limited to: 1. Weightlifting 2. Sports 3. Attempting to speak in an unusually low-pitched voice 4. Visiting clubs, lounges, bars and other "masculine" locations 5. Fighting 6. Displaying -- or attempting to display -- "masculine" mannerisms 7. Wearing "manly" wardrobes As I said before, there is absolutely no brainwashing of any human in the process. These evil macho male bullies will continue to think the way they do, however, they will be unable to voluntarily act upon their evil thoughts. This will bring an end to the deplorable "pro-girl sexism" that I often speak out against. As a result, AFFRGD causes the world's men to be what society traditionally considered "unmanly" or "effeminate". AFFRGD causes the macho men of evil society to be extremely frustrated as these men are forced to publicly-mistreat minor-girls in the most heinous manners possible. To further punish the evil society, these macho men now involuntarily dress in unmanly and womanly manners. This leads to the death of machismo. AFFRGD causes men to become pre-op transgender women with female identities while continuing to possess male organs in their groins. AFFRGD forces the otherwise-macho men to enforce some new rules against their own volitions such that: 1. It is now common for a boy to fight with a girl and win "either way". If the girl wins the fight, the boys will beat her to death for "hitting a boy". If she loses, the boys will tease her and beat her to death for being weak-enough to "lose to a boy". In either case the boys who observe the altercation will attempt to rescue the boy whose is fighting the girl and check if he is okay. This is in retaliation for current and historic codes of the society-of-humans, where if a girl attacks a boy and he fights back, the other boys will pick on him for beating up a girl. If she attacks him and he loses the fight, they'll pick on him for being weak enough to lose a fight against a girl. In either case, if a boy fights with a girl, the other boys will come to her aid and try to rescue her from the fight and check if she is ok. 2. Boys are allowed to be what society historically-considers effeminate. However, if a girl is tomboyish, then the boys will severely-mistreat her and cause her fatal and humiliating physical injuries. This is in retaliation for current and historic codes of the society-of-humans, where girls can wear boy clothes, but boys get severely picked on if they wear girl clothes. 3. Boys are allowed to cry -- or otherwise express -- emotion. However, girls who express distress are publicly-tortured to death by men and older boys. While this painful execution takes place, such a girl is used as an example to other girls who plan to cry, whine, whimper or otherwise express displeasure. As a result, macho men feel terrified, humiliated and outraged to the core. Terrified because they no longer have control over their own bodily-movements [including speech]. Humiliated because they involuntarily mistreat minor-girls in socially-unacceptable manners in public. Outraged because they are no longer able to rescue such girls from such mistreatment. Sadly, AFFRGD is an entity that is way too good to ever be true. I simply daydream about it as an escape-mechanism. This discussion of AFFRGD is my way of talking about a hypothetical make believe drug/pathogen/something.... that would reverse the gender discrimination I perceive minor-boys to suffer, and then describing what a reversal would look like. You also take strange pride in pedantry. Meaning? Has the alleged pro-girl bias had a direct negative impact on you? Yes. As an individual who radically-respects right from wrong, I support the victims-of-society who retaliate against the societal codes that cause these individuals to be victimized. What exactly do you want achieved? I want the men-of-the-society-of-humans to stop publicly-treating a younger-minor-girl better than a younger-minor-boy, if/when such treatment is provided solely on the basis of the children's genders. Such pro-girl sexism is unfair and is equivalent to treating a child of one ethnicity better/worse than another child of a different ethnicity and providing this treatment based solely on the children's ethnicities.
mooeypoo Posted April 1, 2012 Author Posted April 1, 2012 The irony here is that in the midst of a really radical not-quite-rational jump to the extreme statements of "hating" little girls, you actually might have a point. And yet all this radical 'hating on girls' thing makes people totally miss the actual point that might be of interest here. All people should be treated equally regardless of race, gender, sexual preferences, skin color and any other such difference. Women, men, elderly and children, are all included. We are mishmashing points, though; women in general are not treated better than men. There are quite a number of long long statistical points in this huge thread that show it well. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that there are not cases where males are treated less than women. Of course there are, and this is a good point to discuss. For instance, men (children and adults alike) who were raped, are treated much worse by society than women who were raped. That is a sad fact that should be addressed and changed. That doesn't mean we should "hate girls", since it's not the girls' fault. That also doesn't mean that men in general (or boys in general) are treated less favorably in general. It just means they might be treated less favorably in this particular case. You also need to take into account that, perhaps, what YOU experience(d) is not necessarily what everyone else experience(d). Perhaps, Green Xenon, you should take a step back, examine what you're trying to point out, and make your points without devolving into the extreme, so that we can actually debate on the issues at hand and not disagree with you outright just because your extreme points are making whatever valid points you may have sound utterly ridiculous. Try to stay focused on the point you're making, you might get some success in explaining yourself and in having people debate (and shocker, agree!) with some of what you're trying to say. ~mooey Yes. As an individual who radically-respects right from wrong, I support the victims-of-society who retaliate against the societal codes that cause these individuals to be victimized. Let me get this straight; you accuse adults of treating girls favorably, and you want to punish the girls? How's that "right" exactly? Is the girl responsible for the "crime" of the adult? You aren't making much sense here, and you're being awfully inconsistent. 2
swansont Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 That doesn't mean we should "hate girls", since it's not the girls' fault. An excellent point. I'm not sure why, but beyond the non-establishment of the premise I couldn't identify what was bugging me so much about this line of discussion until now: blaming the girls rather than the system.
Green Xenon Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) All people should be treated equally regardless of race, gender, sexual preferences, skin color and any other such difference. Women, men, elderly and children, are all included. Yes. I totally agree. That also doesn't mean that men in general (or boys in general) are treated less favorably in general. It just means they might be treated less favorably in this particular case. For instance, men (children and adults alike) who were raped, are treated much worse by society than women who were raped. That is a sad fact that should be addressed and changed. 1. I'm not so concerned the sexism against men [as adults]. However, when boy-children face mistreatment via this gender-bias [perpetrated by men and older boys], then I lose my sanity and want to lash out at the perpetrators. 2. Boys who face any form of child abuse [by men and older boys] are treated far worse by society than girls who are abused [by men and older boys]. This is despite the fact that boys are more likely to face any/all forms of childhood abuse -- sexual and/or otherwise -- than girls, if the caretakers are men or older boys. That doesn't mean we should "hate girls", since it's not the girls' fault. Let me get this straight; you accuse adults of treating girls favorably, and you want to punish the girls? How's that "right" exactly? Is the girl responsible for the "crime" of the adult? This anti-boy sexism may not be the fault of any girl. However, it clearly *is* the fault of the men-of-the-society-of-humans who knowingly/willingly treat her better than a boy and provide this prejudice treatment solely on a gender-differential basis. The only way to punish these aforementioned evil men is to regulate what they do and what they say via my too-good-to-be-true AFFRGD. Perhaps it would more more ethical to use a "passive" form of AFFRGD as opposed to an "active" version of it. Passive AFFGRD makes men unable to provide girls with any "friendly-treatment" but does not force these men to provide girls with "unfriendly-treatment". Active AFFGRD, on the other hand, forces men to involuntarily provide girls with "unfriendly-treatment". In either case, the motor functions of the men-of-the-society-of-humans would need to be under direct neurological control of AFFGRD. I'm not sure why, but beyond the non-establishment of the premise I couldn't identify what was bugging me so much about this line of discussion until now: blaming the girls rather than the system. The best way to punish the "system" is with passive-AFFGRD. Sadly, as said before, AFFGRD [of both kinds] is way too-good-to-ever-be-true. Edited April 2, 2012 by Green Xenon
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 Why do you want to punish the system, instead of fixing it? Black civil rights leaders did not advocate forcibly infecting whites with a disease causing racial colorblindness, or with a disease causing them to treat whites as poorly as they treated blacks; they sought to build a society that accepted all races as equals. You could build a society where an Equality Officer stands behind everyone with a gun and forces them to treat girls and boys equally, but it wouldn't be a happy society. You want to manipulate society until it's happy to be egalitarian.
Green Xenon Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 (edited) Why do you want to punish the system, instead of fixing it? Black civil rights leaders did not advocate forcibly infecting whites with a disease causing racial colorblindness, or with a disease causing them to treat whites as poorly as they treated blacks; they sought to build a society that accepted all races as equals. You could build a society where an Equality Officer stands behind everyone with a gun and forces them to treat girls and boys equally, but it wouldn't be a happy society. You want to manipulate society until it's happy to be egalitarian. I could care less what the evil men-of-the-society-of-humans think. It's the physiological expressions of their psychological states, that matter. For example, if you want to kill someone, that's okay -- as long as you don't ACT on that want of yours. The moment an evil mindset expresses itself physically, safety issues arise and can cause a serious emergency. On the other hand, if the evil mind does not convert it's mental energy to physical energy, then all is well. BTW, your "equality officer" would be totally helpless regardless of whether he has a gun. There is power in numbers and if society wants to continue to perpetrate pro-girl sexism, they can simply lynch and kill the "officer" and continue with their evil ways. Edited April 3, 2012 by Green Xenon
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 BTW, your "equality officer" would be totally helpless regardless of whether he has a gun. There is power in numbers and if society wants to continue to perpetrate pro-girl sexism, they can simply lynch and kill the "officer" and continue with their evil ways. But you think that they will not put up a fight when robbed of their free will? If you want to build a happily egalitarian society, you have to build a society which wants to be egalitarian, not one which is forced to be despite its strongest wishes. But you don't want to build an egalitarian society, I see. You want your AFFRGD to prevent compassion towards girls. Let's fix inequality with new inequality!
Green Xenon Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 But you think that they will not put up a fight when robbed of their free will? 1. AFFRGD does not affect free will. It affects the ability to physiologically-express volition. In other words, the man's body betrays his mind. 2. Because of #1, these evil men will be completely unable to put up such a 'fight'. Within their psyches, emotionally-charged intentions of retaliating against AFFRGD will rage incessantly. Fortunately, these evil sadists will not be able to act on such intentions. Try as they might, there will be a sufficient amount of mind-body dissociation to prevent them from perpetrating pro-girl sexism. If you want to build a happily egalitarian society, you have to build a society which wants to be egalitarian, not one which is forced to be despite its strongest wishes. I don't care what society wants. I only care what it expresses. You want your AFFRGD to prevent compassion towards girls. Wrong. I want to psychologically-torment the evil men-of-the-society-of-humans by making them unable to treat girl-children better than boy-children. This means that the only way these men can show compassion for a minor-girl is if they show an equal amount of compassion for a minor-boy.
mooeypoo Posted April 3, 2012 Author Posted April 3, 2012 1. I'm not so concerned the sexism against men [as adults]. However, when boy-children face mistreatment via this gender-bias [perpetrated by men and older boys], then I lose my sanity and want to lash out at the perpetrators. 2. Boys who face any form of child abuse [by men and older boys] are treated far worse by society than girls who are abused [by men and older boys]. This is despite the fact that boys are more likely to face any/all forms of childhood abuse -- sexual and/or otherwise -- than girls, if the caretakers are men or older boys. How is this any different than wht the system you're so adamantly fighting against does? What you seem to be saying, really, is that you understand the "perpetrators" so much, that you're willing to do exactly what they're doing, while punishing an innocent party. This anti-boy sexism may not be the fault of any girl. However, it clearly *is* the fault of the men-of-the-society-of-humans who knowingly/willingly treat her better than a boy and provide this prejudice treatment solely on a gender-differential basis. The only way to punish these aforementioned evil men is to regulate what they do and what they say via my too-good-to-be-true AFFRGD. Perhaps it would more more ethical to use a "passive" form of AFFRGD as opposed to an "active" version of it. Passive AFFGRD makes men unable to provide girls with any "friendly-treatment" but does not force these men to provide girls with "unfriendly-treatment". Active AFFGRD, on the other hand, forces men to involuntarily provide girls with "unfriendly-treatment". In either case, the motor functions of the men-of-the-society-of-humans would need to be under direct neurological control of AFFGRD. You say it's not the boy's fault, but people mistreat boys. Then you say that you want to mistreat girls to teach the system a lesson, even though it's not the girls' fault. You became what you fight against. And if you're no better than those you claim are so heartless, than what does that make you? The best way to punish the "system" is with passive-AFFGRD. Sadly, as said before, AFFGRD [of both kinds] is way too-good-to-ever-be-true. I'm sorry but we're a science forum, and your attempt to make this "AFFGRD" a "system" when all you did was provide crappy reference for crappy self-appointed-subjective-interpretation of psychology for things that clearly stand *against* psychological data is so ridiculously unscientific, I would kindly ask you just stop pretending it is. Let's stop beating around the bush here. You want to f** up little girls because you're angry that society treats them favorably. You have not provided much evidence for this so-called "favorable" treatment and for the "fact" that it comes at the expense of little boys, but we will ignore that for the moment. So let me repeat this point, because it's so utterly ridiculous, that it stands in direct violation to your entire point, and yet here you are once again, missing it: You want to f** up little girls because you're angry that society treats them favorably. You want to punish an innocent party, just like your version of society punishes the victim. You are no different. Stop beating around the bush, please. You advocate for the mistreatment of girls while admitting they are not at fault. That's just as much 'evil' as the mistreatment of boys when they're not at fault. Either accept the fact you're doing the same thing you fight against, or start rethinking your strategy here. Congratulations. You completely eliminated any and all potential difference between you and whoever it is you're fighting against. Kudos. ~mooey
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 2. Because of #1, these evil men will be completely unable to put up such a 'fight'. Within their psyches, emotionally-charged intentions of retaliating against AFFRGD will rage incessantly. Fortunately, these evil sadists will not be able to act on such intentions. Try as they might, there will be a sufficient amount of mind-body dissociation to prevent them from perpetrating pro-girl sexism. I'd rather fix the underlying "evil sadism" rather than causing incessant rage. Wrong. I want to psychologically-torment the evil men-of-the-society-of-humans by making them unable to treat girl-children better than boy-children. This means that the only way these men can show compassion for a minor-girl is if they show an equal amount of compassion for a minor-boy. I'm sure this method will lead to healthy child-rearing behavior. Why do you insist on causing psychological torment? Normally we resolve civil rights issues by convincing people to change their behavior.
swansont Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 For example, if you want to kill someone, that's okay -- as long as you don't ACT on that want of yours. I don't agree that it's OK to want to kill someone. That's a problem. It's a much worse problem if you act on it, but I think the norm is that you don't have the desire to kill people.
StringJunky Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Wrong. I want to psychologically-torment the evil men-of-the-society-of-humans by making them unable to treat girl-children better than boy-children. Evil breeds evil.
Green Xenon Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 I don't agree that it's OK to want to kill someone. That's a problem. It's a much worse problem if you act on it, but I think the norm is that you don't have the desire to kill people. Wanting -- without physically-acting on it -- is wrong only if death threats are made. Threatening to kill [even if you don't go through with the threat] equates to "acting on it". Evil breeds evil. That's why I'm extremely anti-evil.
mooeypoo Posted April 3, 2012 Author Posted April 3, 2012 Wanting -- without physically-acting on it -- is wrong only if death threats are made. There's a difference between angrily saying "doh! I wanna kill this guy!" and not meaning it, and really wanting to kill someone (even if not acting on it). Wanting to kill someone is a problem. I think you need to find help, Green Xenon. Threatening to kill [even if you don't go through with the threat] equates to "acting on it". Acting on the desire to kill transforms the problem from "needing help" to "needing to be locked up". That's why I'm extremely anti-evil. No, you're not, you're advocating for being evil to girls. Don't ignore my post, Green Xenon. You are advocating for actions against innocent little girls -- that's evil. You might think you are "against the other evil" but you're no better than the ones you fight against if you are as evil as them. ~mooey
Green Xenon Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 I'd rather fix the underlying "evil sadism" rather than causing incessant rage. I prefer not to change the way evil humans think. I want them to the suffer the inability to act on their evil intentions. This the best punishment for the bad-guys. To change the thoughts of these villains, will decrease their suffering, because they would start to agree with my views and wouldn't desire to retaliate against me. I want them to desire revenge against AFFRGD but be unable to physiologically-express such desire. I'm sure this method will lead to healthy child-rearing behavior. Absolutely, because children will not suffer the horrors of pro-girl sexism. Why do you insist on causing psychological torment? Normally we resolve civil rights issues by convincing people to change their behavior. As said above, convincing humans to change their behavior takes away the "punishing" affect of otherwise-criminal person being unable to commit crimes even though he wants to and tries desperately to.
swansont Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Wanting -- without physically-acting on it -- is wrong only if death threats are made. Threatening to kill [even if you don't go through with the threat] equates to "acting on it". I strongly disagree. IMO, if you are actively suppressing an urge to kill someone, you have a serious problem that needs to be addressed. I prefer not to change the way evil humans think. I want them to the suffer the inability to act on their evil intentions. Have you considered that the attitude of wanting people to suffer is itself evil?
Green Xenon Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Wanting to kill someone is a problem. Only if the "wanter" threatens to kill and/or actually kills. No, you're not, you're advocating for being evil to girls. Don't ignore my post, Green Xenon. You are advocating for actions against innocent little girls -- that's evil. You might think you are "against the other evil" but you're no better than the ones you fight against if you are as evil as them. Read about the passive version of my AFFGRD. I specifically said: I want to psychologically-torment the evil men-of-the-society-of-humans by making them unable to treat girl-children better than boy-children. This means that the only way these men can show compassion for a minor-girl is if they show an equal amount of compassion for a minor-boy. Passive-AFFGRD does not cause men to to abuse girls. It simply causes these men NOT to treat girls above boys. Feel better now? Have you considered that the attitude of wanting people to suffer is itself evil? Those who do wrong deserve punishment. Punishment involves some amount of suffering. -1
mooeypoo Posted April 3, 2012 Author Posted April 3, 2012 Only if the "wanter" threatens to kill and/or actually kills. Not according to psychologists and society. Threats and actions are a bigger problem; that doesn't make the "want" not a problem. Anyways, that's besides the point right now. Read about the passive version of my AFFGRD. I specifically said: Yes, which is why I said you're being inconsistent. On one hand you say 'passive' and on the other you want to punish little girls to fix the problem. Passive-AFFGRD does not cause men to to abuse girls. It simply causes these men NOT to treat girls above boys. Feel better now? I feel just fine, I'm not the one advocating for a non-supported psychological approach that goes against actual psychological methodology. We're not a mumbojumbo forum, we're a science forum. Maybe it's time you start supporting your lovely system with actual evidence rather than personal opinion and lack of clarity. Those who do wrong deserve punishment. Punishment involves some amount of suffering. What if those who do wrong don't realize it? Do they not deserve some benefit of the doubt, and an attempt to first correct their wrong? You're fixing a wrong by making another wrong. That just makes you wrong too. This is actually cynically amusing; see, women-rights movements actually consider these "better treatments" of not pushing girls into science and math as *NON PREFERENTIAL* treatment. It's part of the claimed reason of why girls don't go to science and math, and it is something women's rights try to change. Women seem to be told they should be delicate and leave sports and science alone -- that's actually *against* girls, not for them. The world has shades of grey in it, not just black-and-white, and believe it or not, not everyone went through what you specifically went through; did you ever consider how this "preferential" treatment feels like from the girls' perspective? You are making absolutely zero sense in things that wold take you just a very small amount of effort to really check the validity of. Do you not notice that by being so adamant in doing evil to the supposed evil-doers, you are making yourself one of those evildoers too? ~mooey
Green Xenon Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 What if those who do wrong don't realize it? What a lame excuse. What if a drunk pedophile molests your underage daughter and doesn't realize it due the alcohol in his system? Do they not deserve some benefit of the doubt, and an attempt to first correct their wrong? If a sex-offender victimizes your minor daughter, does he deserve *any* of what you're asking? This is actually cynically amusing; see, women-rights movements actually consider these "better treatments" of not pushing girls into science and math as *NON PREFERENTIAL* treatment. It's part of the claimed reason of why girls don't go to science and math, and it is something women's rights try to change. Women seem to be told they should be delicate and leave sports and science alone -- that's actually *against* girls, not for them. This is why I support the women's movements around the world. I am a extreme radical feminist who abhors traditional gender stereotypes. did you ever consider how this "preferential" treatment feels like from the girls' perspective? Absolutely. This preferential-treatment turns girls into boy-abusing sadists. A girl is spoiled-rotten by the men in her life. She realizes she can do whatever she wants to boys and a boy isn't allowed to defend himself against her. She is aware that she can degrade, humiliate, torture, and kill innocent boys -- with impunity. So that is exactly what she does and the evil men-of-the-society-of-humans support her against the helpless boy. That is what it is like to be a minor-girl. Come 18 years of age, the girl automatically-changes into a woman. Most adult women are compassionate, fair and equitable. Women tend to feel protective of children, regardless of the child's gender. -1
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 I prefer not to change the way evil humans think. I want them to the suffer the inability to act on their evil intentions. This the best punishment for the bad-guys. To change the thoughts of these villains, will decrease their suffering, because they would start to agree with my views and wouldn't desire to retaliate against me. I want them to desire revenge against AFFRGD but be unable to physiologically-express such desire. One punishes criminals as a means to prevent future crimes and deter other criminals. Put someone in prison for ten years and they should (although they often don't) learn not to commit a serious crime again, because of the unpleasant consequences. But you're not proposing punishment for any other purpose but punishment -- because AFFRGD will prevent any future crimes from being committed, punishment to prevent recidivism is unnecessary. So this is simply revenge. Absolutely, because children will not suffer the horrors of pro-girl sexism. I am not convinced that the word "horrors" applies here. Do you have evidence of direct harms caused by the alleged sexism? As said above, convincing humans to change their behavior takes away the "punishing" affect of otherwise-criminal person being unable to commit crimes even though he wants to and tries desperately to. Excellent. Society improves and everybody is happier. Apart from you, since you wanted to inflict suffering on some people. But everyone else is happy. 1
mooeypoo Posted April 3, 2012 Author Posted April 3, 2012 What a lame excuse. What if a drunk pedophile molests your underage daughter and doesn't realize it due the alcohol in his system? You lock him up. You don't advocate he be raped by another drunken man to "learn his lesson". Dear gods, I hope you don't. If a sex-offender victimizes your minor daughter, does he deserve *any* of what you're asking? Are you really equating the "mistreatment" of boys (which, as I said before, can actually be viewed as gross mistreatment of GIRLS) to sex offender victimizing girls? This is getting offensive, Green Xenon. Either you are being purposefully offensive, or you're not quite grasping reality. I think the best way to proceed, on everyone's part, is for you to bring actual evidence that this "gross mistreatment" of boys, the way you say it, is actually grossly harmful to the boys. C'mon now, we're a science forums. Look for scientific and psychological studies. Here's a good article about how what you claim is 'preferential treatment' to girls, is actually extremely detrimental to girls: http://academics.ham...equity/ge4.html Another study on how to improve girls' interest in physics due to society's favorable slant towards boys http://www.d.umn.edu/~bmunson/Courses/EdSe4255/GirlsInPhysics.pdf Girls don't go to sports and physics because society treats boys better in these fields. Do the study before you make radical claims about it, and then have the audacity to propose we blame and punish the girls. There are tons of other properly cited psychological overviews of this subject. YOUR OWN personal interpretation and life experience does not equal to what actually is the psychological situation here. This is why I support the women's movements around the world. I am a extreme radical feminist who abhors traditional gender stereotypes. You are probably the farthest thing possible from a women's rights activist if you support mistreating girls for the sake of punishing society. Do you even read your own claims? Absolutely. This preferential-treatment turns girls into boy-abusing sadists. A girl is spoiled-rotten by the men in her life. She realizes she can do whatever she wants to boys and a boy isn't allowed to defend himself against her. She is aware that she can degrade, humiliate, torture, and kill innocent boys -- with impunity. So that is exactly what she does and the evil men-of-the-society-of-humans support her against the helpless boy. That is what it is like to be a minor-girl. Come 18 years of age, the girl automatically-changes into a woman. Most adult women are compassionate, fair and equitable. Women tend to feel protective of children, regardless of the child's gender. So, now you're filling the thread with baseless accusations. Boy-abusing sadists? I grew up in the same society you have, am I a boy abusing sadist? You're not just being ridiculous, you're making remarkably unfounded claims, and those are not accepted in the forum, especially when they are so infuriating. You think you're right? Bring evidence. Stop talking emptiness. You're reducing women into low-level retarded idiots with a vengeance against men, and that, my friend, is about the farthest anyone can go from being "a feminist". Look. If you want to make psychological claims, you need to bring studies. Enough with this circular crazy talk. ~mooey NSF's Girls in Science and Engineering: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf0659/nsf0659.pdf NSF Research on girls/women in science: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf03207/start.htm Girls start on the same "footing" as boys, and yet dislike school a lot more when they're in highschool. Preferential treatment seems to be given to the boys. Statistics snippet: Figure A. Percentage of high school seniors' responses to the question, "How do you feel about school?," by sex: 1980 and 2001 http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_6/6_4/8_1.asp#1 Myths about girls and women in science: Myth 1: From the time they start school, most girls are less interested in science than boys are. [That's Incredible! 9 Brainy Baby Abilities] Reality: In elementary school about as many girls as boys have positive attitudes toward science. A recent study of fourth graders showed that 66 percent of girls and 68 percent of boys reported liking science. But something else starts happening in elementary school. By second grade, when students (both boys and girls) are asked to draw a scientist, most portray a white male in a lab coat. Any woman scientist they draw looks severe and not very happy. The persistence of the stereotypes start to turn girls off, and by eighth grade, boys are twice as interested in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) careers as girls are. The female attrition continues throughout high school, college and even the work force. Women with STEM higher education degrees are twice as likely to leave a scientific or engineering job as men with comparable STEM degrees. Myth 2: Classroom interventions that work to increase girls' interest in STEM run the risk of turning off the boys. Reality: Actually, educators have found that interventions that work to increase girls' interest in STEM also increase such interest among the boys in the classroom. When girls are shown images of women scientists and given a greater sense of possibility about the person they could become, the boys get the message too--"I can do this!" Source: http://www.livescience.com/7349-top-5-myths-girls-math-science.html Can we actually discuss reality in this thread rather than the twisted view you seem to insist on, Green Xenon, or is that too much to ask coming from a radical men-hating sadistic spoiled woman? ~mooey 1
Recommended Posts