Stupid World

[oldrider]

72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered “Potential Terrorists” In Official Government Documents:- :scratch: http://thetruthwins.com/archives/72-types-of-americans-that-are-considered-potential-terrorists-in-official-government-documents - :rolleyes:

:ride: KiwiBiker's are toast! :msn-wink:

[Viking01]

https://russia-insider.com/en/us-rolls-out-more-useable-low-yield-nuke-make-nuclear-war-less-likely-and-insult-your-intelligence

[mashman]

https://russia-insider.com/en/us-rolls-out-more-useable-low-yield-nuke-make-nuclear-war-less-likely-and-insult-your-intelligence

At least it'll help hide that Fukishima issue ;).

[Graystone]

Indeed it does, it ALSO includes putting up and defending other people's right to Free Speech.

That's the funny thing about Rights - they have this nasty habit of working both ways.

That's the part you're lacking - You're all about Free Speech when it's you (and only you) doing the Speaking. I'm all about Free Speech when it's people I can't stand doing the speaking.



Oh, but there is. It's one thing to disagree with an Ideal or Movement, it's entirely another to try and supplant an existing concept with your own twisted parody.



And hows that working out for them? Gillette have confirmed that their Ad campaign, despite going viral has generated no extra revenue.
GhostBusters and Oceans 8 were commercial Failures (I believe a combined loss of something like $500 Million).
Battlefield 5 was a commercial failure
Buzzfeed and Huffington post are laying off staff.

But all of this is Academic - you said that this was 'Popular' - By your own admission however, it's not popular, its just Major Companies doing it. And the Populace (related to the concept of 'popular' that you seem to be confused about) are voting with their wallets. As the saying goes:

Whence thou get Woke, thou shalt become Broke.

I know, it's almost like you can choose what to say, right! Like how I choose not to defend other people who say stupid, bigoted, garbage simply because of the self evident fact they are allowed to say it. That doesn't indicate an 'lack' on my part.

Try that again, this time without injecting your own bias all over the terms you use.

I said 'more and more popularity over your own'. To properly dispute that, you'd need to first quantify and own your own beliefs, but we both known there is fuck all chance of that happening so you once again, typey type away trying to pick holes in the points of others...

[TheDemonLord]

I know, it's almost like you can choose what to say, right! Like how I choose not to defend other people who say stupid, bigoted, garbage simply because of the self evident fact they are allowed to say it. That doesn't indicate an 'lack' on my part.

No one is asking you to defend them or what they say. I'm pointing out that you failed to defend their right to say it, which is ironic considering you are now seeking the protection of those very same rights.

I'm simply holding you to the standard you set for other people - and now you're getting all pissy about it. Most likely because you know I've repeatedly demonstrated an adherence to the principal of Free Speech - even for those I find most Detestable - because their Freedom of Speech is also YOUR Freedom of Speech which is also MY Freedom of Speech.


Try that again, this time without injecting your own bias all over the terms you use.

Okay - can you show me putting forward a caricature of 'Toxic Femininity' - We could have a lovely short film showing malicious gossip, paternity fraud, Gold digging behaviour. Maybe some false sexual assault/rape allegations etc. and then an ending saying "Women, is that the best you can be?"

You can't? Oh Dear, guess it's not me that needs to try it again...

I'll own the fact that I criticize the Cult of Social Justice - but what I don't do, is supplant my own ideologically driven idea of what Femininity is or what is should be and promote that on a Global scale.


I said 'more and more popularity over your own'. To properly dispute that, you'd need to first quantify and own your own beliefs, but we both known there is fuck all chance of that happening so you once again, typey type away trying to pick holes in the points of others...

No I don't. That's shifting the Burden of Proof. All I simply need to demonstrate is the unpopularity of those Ideals. Which I've done, in hard, indisputable Dollars and Sense. Which is why you don't seek to rebut what I've said, just shift the burden of Proof.

But seeing as you need it spelled out: There is your side and there is My side - My beliefs (whatever they may be) are such that I'm opposed to your side. If what you said was true, that these ideas were 'more and more popularity over your own' - then that would imply a greater number of people hold them, when compared to my Beliefs. If that was true, then spreading these ideas would be profitable. Seeing as it is demonstrably unprofitable - then that shows the Popularity lies with those that are against your beliefs.

[mashman]

Venezuela's Finance Minister Says He’s Fed Up With White House Actions (https://nz.news.yahoo.com/venezuela-apos-finance-minister-says-221316175.html)... economic terrorism by any other name............

[oldrider]

Venezuela's Finance Minister Says He’s Fed Up With White House Actions (https://nz.news.yahoo.com/venezuela-apos-finance-minister-says-221316175.html)... economic terrorism by any other name............

https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1090702723085934597?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Eprofile%3AHenryMakow% 7Ctwcon%5Etimelinechrome&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.henrymakow.com%2F - What else? - :laugh:

[Viking01]

https://southfront.org/u-s-senators-make-attempt-to-block-troops-withdrawal-from-syria/

https://southfront.org/iranian-media-us-helped-isis-commanders-to-escape-from-taliban-prison-in-afghanistan/

[Graystone]

No one is asking you to defend them or what they say. I'm pointing out that you failed to defend their right to say it, which is ironic considering you are now seeking the protection of those very same rights.

I'm simply holding you to the standard you set for other people - and now you're getting all pissy about it. Most likely because you know I've repeatedly demonstrated an adherence to the principal of Free Speech - even for those I find most Detestable - because their Freedom of Speech is also YOUR Freedom of Speech which is also MY Freedom of Speech.



Okay - can you show me putting forward a caricature of 'Toxic Femininity' - We could have a lovely short film showing malicious gossip, paternity fraud, Gold digging behaviour. Maybe some false sexual assault/rape allegations etc. and then an ending saying "Women, is that the best you can be?"

You can't? Oh Dear, guess it's not me that needs to try it again...

I'll own the fact that I criticize the Cult of Social Justice - but what I don't do, is supplant my own ideologically driven idea of what Femininity is or what is should be and promote that on a Global scale.



No I don't. That's shifting the Burden of Proof. All I simply need to demonstrate is the unpopularity of those Ideals. Which I've done, in hard, indisputable Dollars and Sense. Which is why you don't seek to rebut what I've said, just shift the burden of Proof.

But seeing as you need it spelled out: There is your side and there is My side - My beliefs (whatever they may be) are such that I'm opposed to your side. If what you said was true, that these ideas were 'more and more popularity over your own' - then that would imply a greater number of people hold them, when compared to my Beliefs. If that was true, then spreading these ideas would be profitable. Seeing as it is demonstrably unprofitable - then that shows the Popularity lies with those that are against your beliefs.

Dumb fucks will probably confuse the two. They're already saying the things so I see no reason to advocate for their ability to say them. What you see as my lack, and your virtue, in such an area is just some shit you wish to see.

There was no need to use the terms 'existing concept' and 'twisted parody', that you did, shows your bias; so I asked you to try it again.

Wrong, my claim was always a relative one, to dispute it you have to show the relative, not an absolute. Like showing how your beliefs are profitable in a similar scenario. Where are the profitable ads saying women should not be prime minister? for example...

[mashman]

https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1090702723085934597?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Eprofile%3AHenryMakow% 7Ctwcon%5Etimelinechrome&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.henrymakow.com%2F - What else? - :laugh:

Well they are the biggest importer of their oil. T'would be a pain if Russia or China or some other country decided that it wanted the oil instead.

[Viking01]

Well they are the biggest importer of their oil. T'would be a pain if Russia or China or some other country decided that it wanted the oil instead.

Morning.

The following online article will probably answer most of your question.

https://eurasiafuture.com/2019/01/26/why-would-the-us-want-venezuelas-oil-when-it-already-buys-41-of-its-total-exports/

Plus the fact that all Venezuelan oil production could, over time, then be
privatised and sold off (to US oil companies, say), and then they would
enjoy all the profit margin from wellhead through to petrol pump.



" T'would be a pain if Russia or China or some other country decided that it wanted the oil instead."

Why ?

[TheDemonLord]

Dumb fucks will probably confuse the two. They're already saying the things so I see no reason to advocate for their ability to say them. What you see as my lack, and your virtue, in such an area is just some shit you wish to see.

And what happens when someone/something else infringes on their ability to say things - that's the part you are conveniently leaving out. I'm just here pointing out the Hypocrisy - You cry 'Free Speech' when it's a message you agree with and then stand idly by with glee when the censor turns on a message you don't agree with.

You can't have it both ways. Either you support Free Speech and are therefore duty-bound to support even the most detestable people, or you don't.

Pick one.


There was no need to use the terms 'existing concept' and 'twisted parody', that you did, shows your bias; so I asked you to try it again.

Masculinity existed as a concept well before Feminism.
What Feminism is trying to portray as the ideal of Masculinity is a Twisted Parody.

This is not Bias, this is an objective fact.


Wrong, my claim was always a relative one, to dispute it you have to show the relative, not an absolute. Like showing how your beliefs are profitable in a similar scenario. Where are the profitable ads saying women should not be prime minister? for example...

And I did show the Relative - all of them lost money, all of them had pre-existing franchises that were profitable. The relativity is the value before and after Social Justice. And in all cases, it's clearly not as popular. Therefore your claim is objectively wrong.

But since you want me to show how my Beliefs are profitable in a similar scenario: What's the highest grossing film of 2018? That would be Avengers: Infinity War - which (among other things) features a number of characters who are all Archetypes of traditional Masculinity... so...

And nice Strawman - try again.

[mashman]

Morning.

The following online article will probably answer most of your question.

https://eurasiafuture.com/2019/01/26/why-would-the-us-want-venezuelas-oil-when-it-already-buys-41-of-its-total-exports/

Plus the fact that all Venezuelan oil production could, over time, then be
privatised and sold off (to US oil companies, say), and then they would
enjoy all the profit margin from wellhead through to petrol pump.



" T'would be a pain if Russia or China or some other country decided that it wanted the oil instead."

Why ?

Hola

That certainly adds a little extra flavour. Sanction and embargo are powerful tools when you wish to make "things" cheaper in a country for incoming US business to expand into. It's nothing that we haven't seen before though. Bummer that those who wish change to happen also happen to be the "responsible" for the "wealth" Venezuelan economy.

In regards to your Why. Nothing complicated... Venezuela need money no matter who is in charge, and Russia and China are probably the only 2 countries with strong enough economies to potentially soak up that oil.

[Katman]

You can't have it both ways. Either you support Free Speech and are therefore duty-bound to support even the most detestable people, or you don't.

That's an interesting choice of words from you.

Do you support the right of people to voice their concerns about vaccines?

[TheDemonLord]

That's an interesting choice of words from you.

Do you support the right of people to voice their concerns about vaccines?

Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?

I've compared the spreading of demonstrably false information by activists with no Medical training with Incitement to Violence - and on that specific scenario - I would consider the possibility of legal action being taken against them, in-line with my opinion that there is a clear equivalency: Both scenarios involve someone using words, to encourage a listener to do something that could result in harm to an innocent third party.

I've on multiple occassions agreed that on some points, proper research is warranted and should be conducted.

Does that answer your question?

[Katman]

Does that answer your question?

Well that depends.....

Is your answer "yes, I support the right of people to voice their concerns about vaccines"?

[Viking01]

Hola

That certainly adds a little extra flavour. Sanction and embargo are powerful tools when you wish to make "things" cheaper in a country for incoming US business to expand into. It's nothing that we haven't seen before though. Bummer that those who wish change to happen also happen to be the "responsible" for the "wealth" Venezuelan economy.

In regards to your Why. Nothing complicated... Venezuela need money no matter who is in charge, and Russia and China are probably the only 2 countries with strong enough economies to potentially soak up that oil.


Thanks for the reply. And you're correct about Venezuela badly needing oil income.

Background

It's always hard to find articles that simply deliver "facts on the ground" without
either a capitalist or a socialist spin. And the following article is no exception.

But the first part of the article is useful in that it does provide a short "canned"
history of some of the underlying politics of this nation the past 60 years, and so
provide some background:

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/08/the-venezuelan-economic-crisis-facts-vs-propaganda/

Note: In case anyone wants to get into a debate on the relative merits of socialist or
capitalist systems, save your breath. I'm not interested .... 8-)


Russian and Chinese "Meddling"
Russia

Venezuela's state-run oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), owns the U.S. company
and Houston-based Citgo. In December 2016, PDVSA put up a large stake (49.9 percent) in
Citgo as collateral in exchange for a loan from Rosneft.

As a result, Rosneft, Russia’s largest petroleum company, could theoretically seize Citgo
refineries and gas stations in the US that it holds as collateral in case Citgo defaults
on its loans.

China
Prior to 2016, China had extended loans to Venezuela.

In 2016, China extended a grace period to Venezuela for its own loans to the country but
it could demand, under the terms of the deal, that nearly a quarter of all Venezuelan oil
exports go to China.

In 2018, it chose to extend its level of investment:

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201807051066080118-china-us-venezuela/

CitGo

The economic sanction that prohibits Citgo from remitting profits to Venezuela means that
the Venezuelan government is losing access to approximately US$1 billion a year.

But in addition to that, the sanctions also stipulate that Venezuela practically cannot
refinance its foreign debt, which is something logical that any country facing a difficult
economic situation would probably do.

The US sanctions prohibit all US financial institutions from having any transaction, any
interaction with the Venezuelan government and PDVSA.

And when you read the following article, you can see the US action is essentially a "two
for one" (help bring about regime change whilst dealing to your two strongest economic
competitors in the region).

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/latin-america/article225240320.html

[mashman]

Thanks for the reply. And you're correct about Venezuela badly needing oil income.
...........................................

That Russia shareholding made me giggle a little. Tis amusing how a minority of nations can decide that the president of another country isn't actually the president and that somehow international law must just accept it. Ah the old games they play. Bye bye Petro.

[TheDemonLord]

Well that depends.....

Is your answer "yes, I support the right of people to voice their concerns about vaccines"?

What's it you say?

Ah yes...

"Fuck off and read post #10265"

[Graystone]

And what happens when someone/something else infringes on their ability to say things - that's the part you are conveniently leaving out. I'm just here pointing out the Hypocrisy - You cry 'Free Speech' when it's a message you agree with and then stand idly by with glee when the censor turns on a message you don't agree with.

You can't have it both ways. Either you support Free Speech and are therefore duty-bound to support even the most detestable people, or you don't.

Pick one.



Masculinity existed as a concept well before Feminism.
What Feminism is trying to portray as the ideal of Masculinity is a Twisted Parody.

This is not Bias, this is an objective fact.



And I did show the Relative - all of them lost money, all of them had pre-existing franchises that were profitable. The relativity is the value before and after Social Justice. And in all cases, it's clearly not as popular. Therefore your claim is objectively wrong.

But since you want me to show how my Beliefs are profitable in a similar scenario: What's the highest grossing film of 2018? That would be Avengers: Infinity War - which (among other things) features a number of characters who are all Archetypes of traditional Masculinity... so...

And nice Strawman - try again.

'Cry' free speech? You asked me what gave them the right to say it, and I informed you that it was free speech. Take this gish gallop you're trying to pull off and shove it up your arse mate. There is no hypocrisy or things I'm leaving out, just bluster and bullshit you are trying to add as usual.

What twisted parody? Different people simply have different views on what 'being the best a man can be' (attempt at bait an switch for the term 'masculinity' is noted). That is your view, do not try to put it forward as objective fact.

Relative to yours. Infinity war example is bullshit, plenty of strong female characters in that as well. Try again...

[Katman]

What's it you say?

Ah yes...

"Fuck off and read post #10265"

Post #10265 is simply you avoiding giving an answer that could be used against you.

So do you support the right of people to voice their concerns about vaccines or not?

[Graystone]

Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?

Have I done the same for the causes as above?

Like Katman says, pretty interesting choice of words from you considering you intolerance towards antivaccers... but I guess double standards have always been fine if it's you that holds them right...

[avgas]

Viva! Vaccinate Venezuela Voices!

It's funny because my wife works in banking stuff and PDVSA are always a hot ticket. I can't imagine a saction against an oil company is ever an intelligent move - But then again 'MERICA!
I had to explain to my dearest that sanctions are a silly thing the USA invented. We told the world to follow suit because otherwise they couldn't come to the UN pool party. Suckers.

[TheDemonLord]

'Cry' free speech? You asked me what gave them the right to say it, and I informed you that it was free speech. Take this gish gallop you're trying to pull off and shove it up your arse mate. There is no hypocrisy or things I'm leaving out, just bluster and bullshit you are trying to add as usual.

You're defence is to cite their right to say it.
A right that you curiously fail to defend when people say things you don't like.

You only support Free Speech when it's your side doing the Speaking.


What twisted parody? Different people simply have different views on what 'being the best a man can be' (attempt at bait an switch for the term 'masculinity' is noted). That is your view, do not try to put it forward as objective fact.

Yes: The Majority of Men have a clear understanding of what Masculinity is and as the majority, they get to decide on the definition.
a Small (15% of the female population, less than 10% of the male) have a different view of Masculinity (this would be the Twisted Parody).

This IS an objective fact. As evidenced by the utter rejection by the Majority everytime this is tried.


Relative to yours. Infinity war example is bullshit, plenty of strong female characters in that as well. Try again...

Who is the Main Character in Infinity Wars? It's not Black Widow, It's not Gamora, It's not the Children of Thanos. I'd put the Main Characters as Thanos, followed by Thor, Tony Stark and Steve Rogers.

Not to mention that those 'strong Female characters' are "all Archetypes of traditional Masculinity" - so, doesn't *really* count. The last Female action hero that was a Female Archetype was Ripley.

[TheDemonLord]

Post #10265 is simply you avoiding giving an answer that could be used against you.

So do you support the right of people to voice their concerns about vaccines or not?

No, it's outlining a series of principles. If you are too stupid to understand the answer and what it means, then that's not my issue. If you are intent on deliberately misinterpreting it in order to claim some faux-moral victory, then that's also not my issue.


Have I done the same for the causes as above?

Yes:


i.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/106898701/twitter-permanently-bans

The system works! :sunny:

and


The most 'detail' you provided in that was the banning of one muppet but not another...

The system works because Alex was banned for his drivelous and hate filling invective


Like Katman says, pretty interesting choice of words from you considering you intolerance towards antivaccers... but I guess double standards have always been fine if it's you that holds them right...

Where is the Double Standard? If you are trying to strawman me as a Free Speech Absolutist, then it would be - but I've maintained on multiple occassions that things such as incitement to violence are not covered under Free Speech. I've then outlined what the rationale behind our current incitement to... laws are and why I consider certain types of anti-vax activism to fall under that banner.

[Graystone]

You're defence is to cite their right to say it.
A right that you curiously fail to defend when people say things you don't like.

You only support Free Speech when it's your side doing the Speaking.



Yes: The Majority of Men have a clear understanding of what Masculinity is and as the majority, they get to decide on the definition.
a Small (15% of the female population, less than 10% of the male) have a different view of Masculinity (this would be the Twisted Parody).

This IS an objective fact. As evidenced by the utter rejection by the Majority everytime this is tried.



Who is the Main Character in Infinity Wars? It's not Black Widow, It's not Gamora, It's not the Children of Thanos. I'd put the Main Characters as Thanos, followed by Thor, Tony Stark and Steve Rogers.

Not to mention that those 'strong Female characters' are "all Archetypes of traditional Masculinity" - so, doesn't *really* count. The last Female action hero that was a Female Archetype was Ripley.

I don't ask what gives them the right to say it though (on account of me understanding and recognising free speech). So the comparison is not applicable, and the hypocrisy you accuse me of certainly isn't.

And you have proof for these figures? If so, the non-bias'd term would be 'minority view', not 'twisted parody'.
Have you figures to support your claim of "utter rejection by the Majority"? Cos it certainly sound like you are completely making shit up like the antivaccers you so despise.

Clutching at straws much? Or did I miss the bit where Thanos said women were not fit to be prime minister? It is clear you are trying to bolster your representation for the views you hold by creating tenuous links to things of success; try instead, to find things that represent your views, then gauge their success, removing bias is a wonderful thing, key to learning and the scientific method, perhaps you should learn about these things somewhere...

[Katman]

No, it's outlining a series of principles. If you are too stupid to understand the answer and what it means, then that's not my issue. If you are intent on deliberately misinterpreting it in order to claim some faux-moral victory, then that's also not my issue.

The problem with your 'series of principles' is that you don't get to decide what is a valid point of concern that any particular individual may raise.

It is entirely up to the individual to decide what it is that concerns them.

So do you support their right to voice those concerns?

[Graystone]

Yes:



and





Where is the Double Standard? If you are trying to strawman me as a Free Speech Absolutist, then it would be - but I've maintained on multiple occassions that things such as incitement to violence are not covered under Free Speech. I've then outlined what the rationale behind our current incitement to... laws are and why I consider certain types of anti-vax activism to fall under that banner.

No, nowhere in there did I call for his voice to be silenced/censored, or petition the mods to do so. The ability of forums to moderate their content does not violate free speech rules as people are still free to speak in other places.

[TheDemonLord]

The problem with your 'series of principles' is that you don't get to decide what is a valid point of concern that any particular individual may raise.

It is entirely up to the individual to decide what it is that concerns them.

So do you support their right to voice those concerns?

You're partly right - I don't get to decide.

Just like I don't get to decide on any other matter where encouraging people to undertake a series of actions that could result in Harm.

For example - the parents of a baby fed on a Vegan diet were prosecuted in Australia. Is THAT entirely up to the individual to decide what concerns them?

If so and you want to hold an absolutley individualist principal - then fair enough - I'll accept your argument when you eschew all the trappings of society, until then - your choosing to remain in society means that you concede there is limit to what an individual can and can't decide, that limit is almost always predicated on whether or not innocent 3rd parties come to harm as a result of it.

And as a result of that chain of logic, there is no hypocrisy.

[TheDemonLord]

I don't ask what gives them the right to say it though (on account of me understanding and recognising free speech). So the comparison is not applicable, and the hypocrisy you accuse me of certainly isn't.

It's funny how upset you get when I hold you to the same standard you hold for others...


And you have proof for these figures?

Yes, multiple polls, across countries - Female Feminist rates vary from between 15-20%, Male Feminist rates rarely go above 10%


If so, the non-bias'd term would be 'minority view', not 'twisted parody'.

a Minority view would presume that it's an innocent misunderstanding. Given the writings of the people that promote that view, I give them no such benefit of the doubt - it's a Twisted Parody.

Furthermore, the backlash against this is further testament to this - a 'Minority view' without all the trappings could be forgiven, but this is not that, hence the severe reaction to it.


Have you figures to support your claim of "utter rejection by the Majority"? Cos it certainly sound like you are completely making shit up like the antivaccers you so despise.

Did you miss the part where everytime this ideology was injected into previously successful IP, that this change alone turned it into a commercial failure? Or are you just denying reality in deference to your God of Social Justice?


Clutching at straws much? Or did I miss the bit where Thanos said women were not fit to be prime minister? It is clear you are trying to bolster your representation for the views you hold by creating tenuous links to things of success; try instead, to find things that represent your views, then gauge their success, removing bias is a wonderful thing, key to learning and the scientific method, perhaps you should learn about these things somewhere...

I've never said Women aren't fit to be PM... In fact, I'm quite fond of Margaret Thatcher as a PM... You still keeping with this Strawman.

Here's a thought - Thor's Character arc starts with someone with great power, a lust for battle, little regard for others and a great Ego. To the end of the Movies he has transformed into an Archetype of Masculinity, he's becoming the Wise King: One who is capable, willing and able to use Violence and Force but is cognizant of the terrible burden of responsibility. He is prepared to die for the sake of others and the principals of freedom. His Anger is no longer brash, being stirred by wounded pride, but righteous Fury directed against those who would harm the innocent.

It's this story Told and Retold (Luke Skywalker, The Lion King, Harry Potter etc.) that is the way of Society reminding ourselves on what the highest value of Masculinity is and what the path to achieving it is.

Funnily enough, those have all been incredibly popular - but continue on with your attempt at claiming a post-hoc fallacy.


No, nowhere in there did I call for his voice to be silenced/censored, or petition the mods to do so. The ability of forums to moderate their content does not violate free speech rules as people are still free to speak in other places.

Rejoicing in someone getting censored is surely a funny way of defending Free Speech.

Oh wait - I forgot that you live in Opposite Land, where Commercial Failures mean something is Popular and socialism works.

[Katman]

For example - the parents of a baby fed on a Vegan diet were prosecuted in Australia. Is THAT entirely up to the individual to decide what concerns them?

Of course it's their right to decide what concerns them.

That doesn't give them immunity from the law though.

And until it becomes unlawful to voice your concerns about vaccines then individuals should absolutely have that right too.

Do you agree?

[TheDemonLord]

Of course it's their right to decide what concerns them.

That doesn't give them immunity from the law though.

And until it becomes unlawful to voice your concerns about vaccines then individuals should absolutely have that right too.

Do you agree?

What are you asking? Are you asking whether I uphold the current law or are you asking what I think a change should be? Because that last question sounds an awful lot like you're trying to conflate the too disingenuously.

The key point is, as you've kindly made clear:


That doesn't give them immunity from the law though.

Is Incitement to Harm illegal in NZ? If the answer is yes (and I'm pretty sure it is), then the question is - how do you define Harm - this is where you and I differ.

[Katman]

Is Incitement to Harm illegal in NZ? If the answer is yes (and I'm pretty sure it is), then the question is - how do you define Harm - this is where you and I differ.

And if you actually believe there is legal precedent to force people to stop voicing their concerns about vaccines then you should test it out.

But we both know you can't - because there is no legal precedent making the voicing of those concerns illegal.

[Graystone]

It's funny how upset you get when I hold you to the same standard you hold for others...



Yes, multiple polls, across countries - Female Feminist rates vary from between 15-20%, Male Feminist rates rarely go above 10%



a Minority view would presume that it's an innocent misunderstanding. Given the writings of the people that promote that view, I give them no such benefit of the doubt - it's a Twisted Parody.

Furthermore, the backlash against this is further testament to this - a 'Minority view' without all the trappings could be forgiven, but this is not that, hence the severe reaction to it.



Did you miss the part where everytime this ideology was injected into previously successful IP, that this change alone turned it into a commercial failure? Or are you just denying reality in deference to your God of Social Justice?



I've never said Women aren't fit to be PM... In fact, I'm quite fond of Margaret Thatcher as a PM... You still keeping with this Strawman.

Here's a thought - Thor's Character arc starts with someone with great power, a lust for battle, little regard for others and a great Ego. To the end of the Movies he has transformed into an Archetype of Masculinity, he's becoming the Wise King: One who is capable, willing and able to use Violence and Force but is cognizant of the terrible burden of responsibility. He is prepared to die for the sake of others and the principals of freedom. His Anger is no longer brash, being stirred by wounded pride, but righteous Fury directed against those who would harm the innocent.

It's this story Told and Retold (Luke Skywalker, The Lion King, Harry Potter etc.) that is the way of Society reminding ourselves on what the highest value of Masculinity is and what the path to achieving it is.

Funnily enough, those have all been incredibly popular - but continue on with your attempt at claiming a post-hoc fallacy.



Rejoicing in someone getting censored is surely a funny way of defending Free Speech.

Oh wait - I forgot that you live in Opposite Land, where Commercial Failures mean something is Popular and socialism works.

Upset? You asked a question and I answered it, then flew off the handle with some free speech hypocrisy because you didn't like the answer. Sargons law...

Feminist rates? That a classic false equivalence.

It is a valid view, stop injecting your bias to portray it as anything else.

That does not constitute utter rejection by the majority. Again, please stop with these false equivalences.

Ah right, the backpedaling begins, what exactly did you say about Jacinda's fitness for PM (based on her gender) then?

Censoring private forums is does not violate the right to free speech, nor does my 'rejoicing' in that fulfill what you claimed I had done. So the hypocrisy here, remains solely your own.

[TheDemonLord]

And if you actually believe there is legal precedent to force people to stop voicing their concerns about vaccines then you should test it out.

But we both know you can't - because there is no legal precedent making the voicing of those concerns illegal.

It would be an interesting case, but premature.

First you'd need to set a series of legal precedents around not vaccinating and death/serious injury of a Minor. There is precedent in the US which could be relevant. You could also make reference to the Second hand smoking legislation.

But as I pointed out to FJR, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have a spare half a million lying around to fund such a case.

But it would be interesting.

[Katman]

But it would be interesting.

And until there is legal precedent, you'll just have to accept that it is absolutely the right of the individual to voice their concerns regarding vaccines.

So you should probably lay off the sensationalist rhetoric about 'incitement to harm' and 'Katman's responsible for the deaths of thousands of children'. It does nothing but make you look like an irrational fuckwit.

[TheDemonLord]

Upset? You asked a question and I answered it, then flew off the handle with some free speech hypocrisy because you didn't like the answer. Sargons law...

You answered it based on a principal that you only hold when it suits you. That's what I'm grilling you for. You want to use Free Speech, then I expect you to uphold it for even those you disagree with. If you want to retract your rejoicing at Censorship, I'll concede that point (then make reference to the Moral Authority to which I was originally referring)/


Feminist rates? That a classic false equivalence.

Are you high? Seriously? The rate of Feminism as in the number of people as a percentage of the population who self-declare as Feminist. There's no False Equivalence.


It is a valid view, stop injecting your bias to portray it as anything else.

The rejection suggests otherwise.


That does not constitute utter rejection by the majority. Again, please stop with these false equivalences.

On what planet does a previously successful, profitable IP that gets taken over by Social Justice ideology and becomes a massive financial loss not constitute an utter rejection by the Majority?

If it was accepted by the Majority, it would at worse break even. If in all the cases it was a small loss (for a Movie - that might be a few million), then I'd agree - not an utter rejection - but in the cases I cited - loosing nearly Half a Billion dollars - that's a complete and utter rejection.


Ah right, the backpedaling begins, what exactly did you say about Jacinda's fitness for PM (based on her gender) then?

I don't know, what did I say Graystone? You're the one telling this Story, wouldn't want reality get in the way of your narrative.


Censoring private forums is does not violate the right to free speech, nor does my 'rejoicing' in that fulfill what you claimed I had done. So the hypocrisy here, remains solely your own.

You were saying something about backpeddling? It's simple - by your own words, you were happy someone on a public forum (Twitter) got Censured. If you want to prove me a Hypocrite - it's simple:

Defend Alex Jone's right to free speech and critique Twitter for banning him.

But you won't. And that happens to be pertinent - I've called Alex Jones a loon and an Idiot on many MANY occasions (as Katman will attest if he remembers or is honest) - regardless of whether you think he's serious or a performance artist, I don't like him. You also don't like him.

The difference is that you rejoiced, I defended.

[TheDemonLord]

And until there is legal precedent, you'll just have to accept that it is absolutely the right of the individual to voice their concerns regarding vaccines.

So you should probably lay off the sensationalist rhetoric about 'incitement to harm' and 'Katman's responsible for the deaths of thousands of children'. It does nothing but make you look like an irrational fuckwit.

And the day I call the Police to censure someone voicing their concerns is the day you'll have a point.

And it's funny - you're happy to cry blood on my hands for merely agreeing with why a war was started, whereas you get defensive when I claim blood on your hands for actively promoting something.

Based on that - who's the irrational Fuckwit?

(Hint - it's the person who I'm quoting)

[Katman]

And it's funny - you're happy to cry blood on my hands for merely agreeing with why a war was started, whereas you get defensive when I claim blood on your hands for actively promoting something.

Because War is a man-made abomination.

Death from disease is Nature.

[TheDemonLord]

Because War is a man-made abomination.

Death from disease is Nature.

Death from preventable disease is a man-made abomination.

Also - Chimps go to war.

So you're wrong (as usual) on both counts.

[Katman]

Death from preventable disease is a man-made abomination.

So what would death from vaccination be?

[TheDemonLord]

So what would death from vaccination be?

The lesser of 2 evils.

[FJRider]

The key point is, as you've kindly made clear:



Is Incitement to Harm illegal in NZ? If the answer is yes (and I'm pretty sure it is), then the question is - how do you define Harm - this is where you and I differ.

In criminal law, incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. If NO crime or illegal activity is encouraged ... it can't be incitement.

On the actual INTENT to cause harm ... that would be a stretch to PROVE in a court of law.

Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement may be illegal. Where being known or has been proved as being illegal in a court of law, it is known as an inchoate offense, where harm is intended but may or may not have actually occurred. Proof of INTENT to cause harm is required to be found guilty.

[Graystone]

You answered it based on a principal that you only hold when it suits you. That's what I'm grilling you for. You want to use Free Speech, then I expect you to uphold it for even those you disagree with. If you want to retract your rejoicing at Censorship, I'll concede that point (then make reference to the Moral Authority to which I was originally referring)/



Are you high? Seriously? The rate of Feminism as in the number of people as a percentage of the population who self-declare as Feminist. There's no False Equivalence.



The rejection suggests otherwise.



On what planet does a previously successful, profitable IP that gets taken over by Social Justice ideology and becomes a massive financial loss not constitute an utter rejection by the Majority?

If it was accepted by the Majority, it would at worse break even. If in all the cases it was a small loss (for a Movie - that might be a few million), then I'd agree - not an utter rejection - but in the cases I cited - loosing nearly Half a Billion dollars - that's a complete and utter rejection.



I don't know, what did I say Graystone? You're the one telling this Story, wouldn't want reality get in the way of your narrative.



You were saying something about backpeddling? It's simple - by your own words, you were happy someone on a public forum (Twitter) got Censured. If you want to prove me a Hypocrite - it's simple:

Defend Alex Jone's right to free speech and critique Twitter for banning him.

But you won't. And that happens to be pertinent - I've called Alex Jones a loon and an Idiot on many MANY occasions (as Katman will attest if he remembers or is honest) - regardless of whether you think he's serious or a performance artist, I don't like him. You also don't like him.

The difference is that you rejoiced, I defended.

Which is all a gish gallop away from me explaining why Gillette had the right to make the advertisement, you questioned their rights and mandate to do so; thus it is you who needs to uphold the rights of free speech, not I.

The false equivalence is that you want to portray all feminists as agreeing with the Gillette add, and all people who are not feminists, disagreeing with it. Try to remember what we are talking about, rather than gish galloping everything down you to-do-list rabbit holes eh!

Don't be absurd, valid views can be rejected when the subject matter is clearly subjective.

Any planet. Many businesses run on a knife edge, losing 15% of a customer base is a rejection by a minority which could easily cause a business to become non-profitable.

Some bullshit you're always ready to find a way to cop out of. Just like the last time we debated, I pointed out a clear contradiction in statements you made, you denied it then fucked off. You've shown you're not worth my time trying to meander through your blatant lies about what you have or haven't said/meant, either offer some simple clarification, or don't and continue to be judged by your previous words and intent. Just like how you've said I have called for censuring, then cite my happiness that somebody was censured as evidence of that; stop being such a fucking moron, and stop changing what you say you meant based on how wrong you find yourself to be.

Twitter censorship does not violate free speech rights, it has terms and conditions which are signed upon joining. Alex Jones is free to speak somewhere else. You have a strange idea of what free speech is, I'm not a hypocrite because I disagree with that, the courts disagree with it too remember.

[Katman]

The lesser of 2 evils.

And whether you like it or not, a parent asking "but what if my child is one of the ones who dies or suffers a lifetime debilitating injury" is a perfectly valid concern - that if you were truly a supporter of free speech, you would readily admit.

[husaberg]

And whether you like it or not, a parent asking "but what if my child is one of the ones who dies or suffers a lifetime debilitating injury" is a perfectly valid concern - that if you were truly a supporter of free speech, you would readily admit.

Yet you do not have children, so its not a particularly valid concern of yours now is it.
Sounds more like you taking the opportunity to spread more conspiracy rubish. Unless of course you have suddenly learnt more than a doctor does about vaccine safety.
Theres nothing wrong with a parent asking about vaccine risks .
Its when dicks like you with no medical training or understanding spread false information about vaccine safety people take issue to it.

[Katman]

Yet you do not have children, so its not a particularly valid concern of yours now is it.

Yeah, you've busted me.

I'm only here to make you and TDL look like fucking morons.

[husaberg]

Yeah, you've busted me.

I'm only here to make you and TDL look like fucking morons.

You mean like when you never noticed that no sane person would ever suggest someone build a wall across a riverbed and then argued about it for about 12 hours yet still claim you are right.
Or the time you posted the free energy patent that allowed a car to run on coffee that you believed was real.
Everyone here knows your only here to verbalise your fantasies about Hitler to try and pick up dudes. So just how well is that working out for you.

[Katman]

Everyone here knows your only here to verbalise your fantasies about Hitler to try and pick up dudes. So just how well is that working out for you.

Considering your obvious fascination with me, I'd say it's working out just fine.

[FJRider]

You mean like when you never noticed that no sane person would ever suggest someone build a wall across a riverbed ...

They do on quite a regular basis ... They call it a DAM ... :devil2:

Quite a few argue against them ... and moan about electricity prices. Go figure ... :rolleyes:

[husaberg]

They do on quite a regular basis ... They call it a DAM ... :devil2:

Quite a few argue against them ... and moan about electricity prices. Go figure ... :rolleyes:

Dams are Dams not fences
Thats why they have different names if they were they same thing they wouldn't need different names.

[Katman]

Dams are Dams not fences

Hush now, you total utter moron.

Seriously, there are times when saying nothing is the better option.

[FJRider]

Dams are Dams not fences

They are a wall of concrete. And you specifically said wall ... not a fence Don't you read what you post ??). Tell that to "Donald" ... HE is trying to stop the flow ... He needs a dam not a fence OR a wall ...

[FJRider]

So what would death from vaccination be?

Vaccidental death ... ???? :whistle:

[husaberg]

They are a wall of concrete. And you specifically said wall ... not a fence Don't you read what you post ??). Tell that to "Donald" ... HE is trying to stop the flow ... He needs a dam not a fence OR a wall ...

Dams are dams ,walls are walls if you can't figure out the difference maybe you should consider how they are different and the design considerations required.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-once-said-theres-a-big-difference-between-wall-and-fence-now-its-all-the-same-thing/


Hush now, you total utter moron.

Seriously, there are times when saying nothing is the better option.
That one like the animal you use for gerbiling might end up biting you on the ass.

[oldrider]

Dams are dams walls are walls if you can't figure out the difference maybe you should consider how they are different and the design considerations required.

FFS - unreal. :rolleyes:

[TheDemonLord]

And whether you like it or not, a parent asking "but what if my child is one of the ones who dies or suffers a lifetime debilitating injury" is a perfectly valid concern - that if you were truly a supporter of free speech, you would readily admit.

It's almost like I've repeatedly addressed this...


some people will have adverse reactions - if you were serious about the Libertarian PoV, you'd argue as to how to mitigate the chance of an adverse reaction - I'd be more than happy to see a pre-vaccination check to see if there were any undiscovered auto-immune disorders or any unknown allergies.

And bonus point: When you become a Parent, then you can tell me what a Parent will think/Ask.

[FJRider]

Theres nothing wrong with a parent asking about vaccine risks .

True ... but if you can only quote the odd's of "Their" child being one of those that could be at risk ... I'm sure you quoting the odds would reassure them ... ;)

[TheDemonLord]

Which is all a gish gallop away from me explaining why Gillette had the right to make the advertisement, you questioned their rights and mandate to do so; thus it is you who needs to uphold the rights of free speech, not I.

Have I called for the Ad to be Censured? No? Try again. That's the difference. I'm simply stating - you want to use Free Speech as a Defence, then hold to the principles of Free Speech.


The false equivalence is that you want to portray all feminists as agreeing with the Gillette add, and all people who are not feminists, disagreeing with it. Try to remember what we are talking about, rather than gish galloping everything down you to-do-list rabbit holes eh!

Directed by a Feminist, presenting the Feminist view of Toxic Masculinity (which is a Feminist concept), Praised by Feminists, supported by Feminist websites and Media.

Any more reality you'd like to deny?


Don't be absurd, valid views can be rejected when the subject matter is clearly subjective.

Not when Validity is based upon group consensus.


Any planet. Many businesses run on a knife edge, losing 15% of a customer base is a rejection by a minority which could easily cause a business to become non-profitable.

Except it's not a 15% drop in Income is it? Hollywood indicates that to break even, most Movies need to make double their production budget (this covers the cost of Advertising etc.) - If any of the examples cited where a 15% drop, I might be a little less harsh, but considering in some cases they made less than 30-40% of what they expected to make - that's not a Minority, that's the Majority.


Some bullshit you're always ready to find a way to cop out of. Just like the last time we debated, I pointed out a clear contradiction in statements you made, you denied it then fucked off. You've shown you're not worth my time trying to meander through your blatant lies about what you have or haven't said/meant, either offer some simple clarification, or don't and continue to be judged by your previous words and intent. Just like how you've said I have called for censuring, then cite my happiness that somebody was censured as evidence of that; stop being such a fucking moron, and stop changing what you say you meant based on how wrong you find yourself to be.

You asked me for a direct Quotation, I provided 2.
I ask you for a direct Quotation and we get a whole load of Ad Hominem Waffle, without a single thing quoted from myself.

So you'll be retracting the innaccurate statements? Or will you simply keep lying through your teeth to avoid conceding the point?



I'm just kidding - we both know you'll keep lying.


Twitter censorship does not violate free speech rights, it has terms and conditions which are signed upon joining. Alex Jones is free to speak somewhere else. You have a strange idea of what free speech is, I'm not a hypocrite because I disagree with that, the courts disagree with it too remember.

Twitter is a public facing, and parts of Twitter were deemed to be a Public Space that needed 1st amendment protections.
Alex Jones went elsewhere, those alternative providers then had their Services terminated by their hosting and payment providers.

Again - You want to use Free Speech as an argument - I'm simply holding you to account: You can't claim free speech for something you agree with, then celebrate the censuring of someone you don't. That makes you a Hypocrite.

[FJRider]

Dams are dams walls are walls

Is English your second language ... ?? Some walls are even fences ... your point is .. ?? (punctuation marks help people understand what you post - sometimes)


if you can't figure out the difference maybe you should consider how they are different and the design considerations required.

I've built fences, walls, AND Dams. Some dams lower than some walls. Some dams even lower than some fences.

[eldog]

They are a wall of concrete. And you specifically said wall ... not a fence Don't you read what you post ??). Tell that to "Donald" ... HE is trying to stop the flow ... He needs a dam not a fence OR a wall ...
Beavers build dams, with wood
imagine what they could build if they used concrete.
come to think of it most fences are built with wood or concrete or a bit of both.

I have built retaining walls, which act like dams even though from one side it acted like a fence.

most fences around prisons look more like walls. Or do the walls look like fences.
let us know what you decide.

big D needs a diversion, it doesn’t matter if they build it.
its only the idea that’s important. The idea won votes.

time to fill up the bike ready for a ride.

[Graystone]

Have I called for the Ad to be Censured? No? Try again. That's the difference. I'm simply stating - you want to use Free Speech as a Defence, then hold to the principles of Free Speech.



Directed by a Feminist, presenting the Feminist view of Toxic Masculinity (which is a Feminist concept), Praised by Feminists, supported by Feminist websites and Media.

Any more reality you'd like to deny?



Not when Validity is based upon group consensus.



Except it's not a 15% drop in Income is it? Hollywood indicates that to break even, most Movies need to make double their production budget (this covers the cost of Advertising etc.) - If any of the examples cited where a 15% drop, I might be a little less harsh, but considering in some cases they made less than 30-40% of what they expected to make - that's not a Minority, that's the Majority.



You asked me for a direct Quotation, I provided 2.
I ask you for a direct Quotation and we get a whole load of Ad Hominem Waffle, without a single thing quoted from myself.

So you'll be retracting the innaccurate statements? Or will you simply keep lying through your teeth to avoid conceding the point?



I'm just kidding - we both know you'll keep lying.



Twitter is a public facing, and parts of Twitter were deemed to be a Public Space that needed 1st amendment protections.
Alex Jones went elsewhere, those alternative providers then had their Services terminated by their hosting and payment providers.

Again - You want to use Free Speech as an argument - I'm simply holding you to account: You can't claim free speech for something you agree with, then celebrate the censuring of someone you don't. That makes you a Hypocrite.

A defense for what? Have I called for shit to be censored either?

Which does not mean all feminists as agree with the Gillette add, and all people who are not feminists, disagree with it. That's the false equivalence I pulled you up on.

Validity is not based on group consensus for subjective matters.

Hollywood? Movies? How far are you gish galloping away from the Gillette ad now?

None of your quote supported what you said. You have proven you are not worth worth my time to find direct quotes as you simply lie about them anyway. Start with owning your contradictory claims about Twitter's CEO if you want to prove otherwise...

So Alex Jones went elsewhere to speak, thus maintaining his rights to free speech. Twitter did not violate his right to free speech. Well at least your changed you tune to 'celebrating the censuring' instead of claiming I was 'calling' for it. I guess you are capable of learning something at least, pity your ego gets in the way of you understanding your concept of free speech is the inaccurate and hypocritical one...

[TheDemonLord]

Which does not mean all feminists as agree with the Gillette add, and all people who are not feminists, disagree with it. That's the false equivalence I pulled you up on.

Sure, not all agree with it and not all disagree with it - but that doesn't invalidate the claim that there is a clear Majority along ideological lines. You're just trying to dissociate your ideology from it's demonstrable failings.


Validity is not based on group consensus for subjective matters.

In some settings that maybe true, in others Validity is absolute by way of a Majority consensus.

What the ideal of Masculinity is, is based on the consensus among Men.

Curiously enough - if you look at the Legends across Cultures, especially legends that pre-date contact with other parts of the world - you see the same themes repeated as to what it means to be a Man.


Hollywood? Movies? How far are you gish galloping away from the Gillette ad now?

I'm not - can you show where I've asked you to read a book or pointed you to a Youtube video and simply stated the proof is in there? I've not? More shit you are making up then.

You just don't like the fact it's easy to show the unpopularity of your quasi-marxist ideas.


None of your quote supported what you said. You have proven you are not worth worth my time to find direct quotes as you simply lie about them anyway.

Are you sure? Let's review what I said:


and then stand idly by with glee when the censor turns on a message you don't agree with.

Your two statements definitely show that you were happy about it, and Glee is a synonym for Happiness - so - who is the liar? The person who backs up what they say or the person who specifically refuses to back up what they've set when they've been caught out.


So Alex Jones went elsewhere to speak, thus maintaining his rights to free speech. Twitter did not violate his right to free speech.

You're ignoring the part where the 'elsewhere' was also shut down, ostensibly by the same cabal that censured him in the first place.


Well at least your changed you tune to 'celebrating the censuring' instead of claiming I was 'calling' for it. I guess you are capable of learning something at least, pity your ego gets in the way of you understanding your concept of free speech is the inaccurate and hypocritical one...

Clearly it's you who need to learn - see above as to what I actually said. I'll repeat again, seeing as you appear to be so confused:


and then stand idly by with glee when the censor turns on a message you don't agree with.

[husaberg]

True ... but if you can only quote the odd's of "Their" child being one of those that could be at risk ... I'm sure you quoting the odds would reassure them ... ;)

You ask if English is my second language, but like Katman, you clearly lack comprehension skills.
Doctors quote risk factors for medicals risks to inform parents or patients of risks, its called informed consent.
The risk of death from a Vaccination is 1 in 1 million. Conversely the risk of Death from not receiving a vaccination is 1 in 10000.
Or much far higher in the developing world, by your attitude you are expressing you either lack the deductive reasoning skills to make rational decisions or you suck you at math or have no children.

That aside, as someone who has watched their own child in agony and been told they have developed Stevens-Johnson which has a 1 in 10 chance of dying as a result of the complications of Chicken pox.
What actually makes it far worse, is the knowledge, that if my younger child who gave my older child the chickenpox (despite or best efforts to isolate them), was about to receive their 11 year old vaccination in a few weeks time.
The Vaccination which this time would have resulted in her receiving a Chickenpox vaccination as it was added to the schedule 2 years or so ago, Because my son is 14 he also missed the new schedule but only just.
But feel free to keep going on about vaccines vaccination along with katman, I, myself i will go with real experience and real medical opinions.

ps dont bother to reply, i am not interested.

[Katman]

And bonus point: When you become a Parent, then you can tell me what a Parent will think/Ask.


ps dont bother to reply, i am not interested.

Did you two both go to the same School for Petulant Children?

[husaberg]

The Taupo troll now has its own doll
340740340741
Anatomically correct even has gerbil bite makes on the ass, so i am told.

[Viking01]

Beavers build dams, with wood
imagine what they could build if they used concrete.
come to think of it most fences are built with wood or concrete or a bit of both.

I have built retaining walls, which act like dams even though from one side it acted like a fence.

most fences around prisons look more like walls. Or do the walls look like fences.
let us know what you decide.

big D needs a diversion, it doesn’t matter if they build it.
its only the idea that’s important. The idea won votes.

time to fill up the bike ready for a ride.


And now it seems you can have a "managed aquifer" as well .....

https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/109444209/could-turning-aquifers-into-managed-reservoirs-prevent-water-shortages-and-seawater-contamination

Trust that you enjoyed your ride.

[Graystone]

Sure, not all agree with it and not all disagree with it - but that doesn't invalidate the claim that there is a clear Majority along ideological lines. You're just trying to dissociate your ideology from it's demonstrable failings.



In some settings that maybe true, in others Validity is absolute by way of a Majority consensus.

What the ideal of Masculinity is, is based on the consensus among Men.

Curiously enough - if you look at the Legends across Cultures, especially legends that pre-date contact with other parts of the world - you see the same themes repeated as to what it means to be a Man.



I'm not - can you show where I've asked you to read a book or pointed you to a Youtube video and simply stated the proof is in there? I've not? More shit you are making up then.

You just don't like the fact it's easy to show the unpopularity of your quasi-marxist ideas.



Are you sure? Let's review what I said:



Your two statements definitely show that you were happy about it, and Glee is a synonym for Happiness - so - who is the liar? The person who backs up what they say or the person who specifically refuses to back up what they've set when they've been caught out.



You're ignoring the part where the 'elsewhere' was also shut down, ostensibly by the same cabal that censured him in the first place.



Clearly it's you who need to learn - see above as to what I actually said. I'll repeat again, seeing as you appear to be so confused:

Not everyone who isn't a feminist shares your idea of what 'the best a man can be' is. You seem to hold the absurd notion that those who do not disagree with you, must by default, agree with you, then claim majority support on that basis; it's utterly moronic.

Your attempt to bait and switch in 'masculinity' instead of 'the best a man can be' is noted once again, but even that remains subjective and not determined by consensus; there has always been different, valid, ideas of what this means.

Gillette Ad, you know, that thing we are talking about? Easy to show how much rejection and a financial disaster the ad was you say? Have you even tried googling it? Reality is a thing you should really try to take notice of! (http://fortune.com/2019/01/23/gillette-ad/)

You said I had called for censorship (in the context of free speech), you have not shown me doing so.

Nope, he still had other elsewheres to go.

You (actually) said I had called for censorship (in the context of free speech), you have not shown me doing so.

[TheDemonLord]

Not everyone who isn't a feminist shares your idea of what 'the best a man can be' is. You seem to hold the absurd notion that those who do not disagree with you, must by default, agree with you, then claim majority support on that basis; it's utterly moronic.

You're saying something about Bait and Switch? I've never claimed everyone who isn't a Feminist shares my ideas. I've simply pointed to a number of things that are hyper-successful that depict a variant of traditional Masculinity, from the overwhelming success of those things - it is a sound conclusion that the Majority supports that depiction. Contrast that with this Gillette ad, it's a sound conclusion that the Majority DOESN'T support it.

When we further take multiple different instances of once profitable IP/Companies swallowing the Kool-Aid, the outcome (which you are ignoring) is clear: Go Woke, Get Broke.


Your attempt to bait and switch in 'masculinity' instead of 'the best a man can be' is noted once again, but even that remains subjective and not determined by consensus; there has always been different, valid, ideas of what this means.

The ideal of Masculinity is the Best a Man can be. It's not a Bait and Switch. Try again.

Whilst there are cultural variations, there are also cultural universals - these ARE determined by Consensus.


Gillette Ad, you know, that thing we are talking about? Easy to show how much rejection and a financial disaster the ad was you say? Have you even tried googling it? Reality is a thing you should really try to take notice of! (http://fortune.com/2019/01/23/gillette-ad/)

Let's look at what I've actually said in relation to the Gillette ad shall we?



And hows that working out for them? Gillette have confirmed that their Ad campaign, despite going viral has generated no extra revenue.

So, you're telling me things I already stated as if it forms something like a 'Gotcha'...

The one interesting thing from the article is when they talk about the lead time between purchases (often several months to a year) - which, will probably result in a slow decline of sales from about the 3 month mark after the Ad was released.


You said I had called for censorship (in the context of free speech), you have not shown me doing so.

Do I need to quote what I actually said again to you? I thought 3 times would be enough for you to understand it, but clearly not. I said you have stood idly by and were happy with Censorship. Your happiness on a subject is the proof I used to show that you support it.


Nope, he still had other elsewheres to go.

Which were then shut down by the same forces that censured him previously - kinda of a relevant point you are omitting.


You (actually) said I had called for censorship (in the context of free speech), you have not shown me doing so.

Is this like your "Can't be a PM cause she's a Woman" Lie? Where you just make up what you want me to have said and ignore the direct quotation I provided?

Is that how much the Cult of Social Justice has warped your grasp on reality?

[TheDemonLord]

Did you two both go to the same School for Petulant Children?

Not at all, it's a simple statement of fact:

Becoming a Parent is such a dramatic, life-altering event that you cannot know how and what you will do without living it.

[carbonhed]

Have I called for the Ad to be Censured? No? Try again.

I read his post and thought that sounded like a blatant lie... and of course it was. You're arguing with someone who is not operating in good faith... it's a fools errand.

[husaberg]

Not at all, it's a simple statement of fact:

Becoming a Parent is such a dramatic, life-altering event that you cannot know how and what you will do without living it.

Too be fair TDL, i doubt with his extreme level of narcissism, he would be able to experience as someone without hisd personalty disorder would.
All that would change is he would be even more envious of yet another person getting attention.

[eldog]

missed the new schedule but only just.

Surely if it is so important SOMEONE in the DHB/ system or your doctor who SHOULD HAVE noticed the lack of overlap and contacted parents etc? At least you could have been given a choice.

I know there are people who are unable to have certain vaccinations due to a reactions.

[Graystone]

You're saying something about Bait and Switch? I've never claimed everyone who isn't a Feminist shares my ideas. I've simply pointed to a number of things that are hyper-successful that depict a variant of traditional Masculinity, from the overwhelming success of those things - it is a sound conclusion that the Majority supports that depiction. Contrast that with this Gillette ad, it's a sound conclusion that the Majority DOESN'T support it.

When we further take multiple different instances of once profitable IP/Companies swallowing the Kool-Aid, the outcome (which you are ignoring) is clear: Go Woke, Get Broke.



The ideal of Masculinity is the Best a Man can be. It's not a Bait and Switch. Try again.

Whilst there are cultural variations, there are also cultural universals - these ARE determined by Consensus.



Let's look at what I've actually said in relation to the Gillette ad shall we?



So, you're telling me things I already stated as if it forms something like a 'Gotcha'...

The one interesting thing from the article is when they talk about the lead time between purchases (often several months to a year) - which, will probably result in a slow decline of sales from about the 3 month mark after the Ad was released.



Do I need to quote what I actually said again to you? I thought 3 times would be enough for you to understand it, but clearly not. I said you have stood idly by and were happy with Censorship. Your happiness on a subject is the proof I used to show that you support it.



Which were then shut down by the same forces that censured him previously - kinda of a relevant point you are omitting.



Is this like your "Can't be a PM cause she's a Woman" Lie? Where you just make up what you want me to have said and ignore the direct quotation I provided?

Is that how much the Cult of Social Justice has warped your grasp on reality?

That is not a sound conclusion. Correlation does not imply causation.

They are not the same. The terms have clearly different definitions. Universals are not defined by consensus, the observed consensus is what makes them a universal. How do you fail so much in matters of basic logic?

You keep saying go woke, go broke etc, yet for the topic at hand, this has clearly not happened. There has clearly not been a major rejection by the majority. So now you're backpedaling as usual.

Which is different from when you said I had called for the censorship. It is also wrong, as we disagree on what free speech is, supporting a thing which does not violate free speech, does not mean I am hypocritical in my support of free speech.

And from there, were other elsewheres to go, other online forums, offline meetings, talking to strangers in the street, etc. His right to free speech was not curtailed.

No, you said it only a few pages ago, when I asked if you believed I had done those things (in reference to a list of things you mentioned). Post 10275 and a couple of preceeding ones. The bait and switch to a different quotation, after-backpedalling, is irrelevant.

[Graystone]

I read his post and thought that sounded like a blatant lie... and of course it was. You're arguing with someone who is not operating in good faith... it's a fools errand.

Pray tell, what was the blatant lie? :laugh:

[husaberg]

Surely if it is so important SOMEONE in the DHB/ system or your doctor who SHOULD HAVE noticed the lack of overlap and contacted parents etc? At least you could have been given a choice.

I know there are people who are unable to have certain vaccinations due to a reactions.

The NZ schedule changed it was the same for everyone else, the risk level for the children was no different than any other child born in NZ born about e 2004 for my son or 2003 for my daughter.
Its just bad luck unfortunately, the number were just not in his favour. But for anyone one especially those without kids to go on about how harmless diseases like chicken pox and Measles etc are maybe they should shut their gobs and leave it to medical experts to advise parents about vaccination. Rather than spread there ill formed third hand conspiracy crap.
The day after my daughter was noticed to have Chickenpox there was a story in the paper about a major outbreak in a town 40Km's away
We have followed the NZ vaccinatio schedules to the letter.
I never had chicken pox until i was 22 my partner 18. neither our or our daughters case was anything like my sons who was more chicken pox than child. He was given all the appropriate medical attention throughout.
Unfortunately due to the incubation period had likely caught the chickenpox even before our daughter showed any symptoms. So our isolated our daughter from him was not enough.
Hes likely going to be admitted again later today as he cant drink anything due to further mouth ulcers and lip legions, again becoming worse.
His legs are randomly going blue he is developing sudden red rashes on his legs that appear and disappear suddenly, Despite the local anesthetic his mouth is being treated with hes in pretty bad pain and cant eat.

[Katman]

But for anyone one especially those without kids to go on about how harmless diseases like chicken pox and Measles etc are maybe they should shut their gobs and leave it to medical experts to advise parents about vaccination. Rather than spread there ill formed third hand conspiracy crap.

Despite not having children I still have first hand experience with both measles and chickenpox.

[eldog]

That's a total bummer Husaberg.

I have been that person who gave someone else a disease which almost killed them. I was quite unaware of what I had done, as my symptoms were minimal.

You just never know.

[TheDemonLord]

That is not a sound conclusion. Correlation does not imply causation.

Then why does it happen with predictable regularity, enough that there is now a witty phrase for it?

One can make a theory based on a faulty premise, but if the theory makes accurate predictions, then clearly it has some validity.

However, Considering in all the cases, people have stated their reasons (that would be the Causation part) - then perhaps you should listen - but of course, you won't - you refuse to hear or read anything that is deemed Heretical by the Cult of Social Justice.


They are not the same. The terms have clearly different definitions. Universals are not defined by consensus, the observed consensus is what makes them a universal. How do you fail so much in matters of basic logic?

They are intrinsically Linked. A man cannot be the best he can be without being Masculine. Since I know you will refute this part, I'll put it simple like: Men won't follow them, Women won't fuck them.

What Masculinity is, has been defined and re-defined by Consensus - It's the traits that Women sexually select for and it's the traits that Men look for when electing a leader. Thus, in any definition, 'The best a Man can be' is not defined by oneself, but by ones peers. These traits are universal. You may argue about how much or how prominent certain traits should be to truly be considered 'the best' - but that's not what you are arguing, You're making some form of quasi Tabula Rasa argument, in order to justify the ideological usurping of what Masculinity actually is.


You keep saying go woke, go broke etc, yet for the topic at hand, this has clearly not happened. There has clearly not been a major rejection by the majority. So now you're backpedaling as usual.

How is this Backpedaling, since I stated it, clearly before you referenced it? Are you high?

The goal of an Advert is to sell/promote product/services. The Goal of an Advertising company is to have their Advert go Viral in order to maximize exposure and social impact and therefore maximize the the sales of the product, by reaching the largest possible Audience.

The advert certainly went Viral, yet has not generated any additional Sales. That's a failure of an Ad. The only new information in your article is the point about the lead time of Razor sales.


Which is different from when you said I had called for the censorship. It is also wrong, as we disagree on what free speech is, supporting a thing which does not violate free speech, does not mean I am hypocritical in my support of free speech.

I've posted up the Quotation from what I said, you're still trying to claim I said something different.

I'm getting tired of you blatantly lying, even when I've given you the exact, correct quotation. Post up, from this thread, what you accuse me of saying - or admit you're a lying Cunt.


And from there, were other elsewheres to go, other online forums, offline meetings, talking to strangers in the street, etc. His right to free speech was not curtailed.

Right, so if a large organizations censures you, it's not a restriction because you can go into hiding and furtively have clandestine meetings.

Hypocrite.


No, you said it only a few pages ago, when I asked if you believed I had done those things (in reference to a list of things you mentioned). Post 10275 and a couple of preceeding ones. The bait and switch to a different quotation, after-backpedalling, is irrelevant.


https://youtu.be/qlOTNtUvhe8?t=31

[husaberg]

That's a total bummer Husaberg.

I have been that person who gave someone else a disease which almost killed them. I was quite unaware of what I had done, as my symptoms were minimal.

You just never know.

Don't feel sorry for me, thats not why i shared this, if you should be sorry for anyone here is Katman he reads this and he continues on trolling just the same about vaccines, imagine just how pathetic his life must be.

[Graystone]

Then why does it happen with predictable regularity, enough that there is now a witty phrase for it?

One can make a theory based on a faulty premise, but if the theory makes accurate predictions, then clearly it has some validity.

However, Considering in all the cases, people have stated their reasons (that would be the Causation part) - then perhaps you should listen - but of course, you won't - you refuse to hear or read anything that is deemed Heretical by the Cult of Social Justice.



They are intrinsically Linked. A man cannot be the best he can be without being Masculine. Since I know you will refute this part, I'll put it simple like: Men won't follow them, Women won't fuck them.

What Masculinity is, has been defined and re-defined by Consensus - It's the traits that Women sexually select for and it's the traits that Men look for when electing a leader. Thus, in any definition, 'The best a Man can be' is not defined by oneself, but by ones peers. These traits are universal. You may argue about how much or how prominent certain traits should be to truly be considered 'the best' - but that's not what you are arguing, You're making some form of quasi Tabula Rasa argument, in order to justify the ideological usurping of what Masculinity actually is.



How is this Backpedaling, since I stated it, clearly before you referenced it? Are you high?

The goal of an Advert is to sell/promote product/services. The Goal of an Advertising company is to have their Advert go Viral in order to maximize exposure and social impact and therefore maximize the the sales of the product, by reaching the largest possible Audience.

The advert certainly went Viral, yet has not generated any additional Sales. That's a failure of an Ad. The only new information in your article is the point about the lead time of Razor sales.



I've posted up the Quotation from what I said, you're still trying to claim I said something different.

I'm getting tired of you blatantly lying, even when I've given you the exact, correct quotation. Post up, from this thread, what you accuse me of saying - or admit you're a lying Cunt.



Right, so if a large organizations censures you, it's not a restriction because you can go into hiding and furtively have clandestine meetings.

Hypocrite.




https://youtu.be/qlOTNtUvhe8?t=31

Correlation does not imply causation. How the fuck can you possibly think a witty catchphrase can change that? Some people stating some reasons, does not constitute causation for the whole.

Yeh, I will disagree with that. But it's a gish gallop there is no point traveling down. By equating the two, you seek to bypass a point that you know we disagree on, this is bait and switch. If it si the same, there is no reason for you not to use the term I would prefer; by trying to use a different term, you are implicitly confirming that there is a difference. Thanks for playing, better luck next time. :laugh:

So, they have gone woke right? but they have not gone broke? In your mind a failure, a mass rejection, has been downgraded to a situation in which there is no change? And that somehow isn't backpedaling... :facepalm:

I've given you the post, to refresh your memeory you said:
"Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?"
to which I replied
"Have I done the same for the causes as above?"
and you replied "yes", from post 10275 as I just mentioned

Precisely, freedom of speech means you can say what you like, it does not guarantee where you can say it. Why should I have to listen to other peoples hate filled invective? No hypocrisy, just and understanding of the concept; how did Alex Jones' lawsuits against those companies go anyway? Did the US judicial system agree with your interpretation of the concept? Do the majority agree with your interpretation of the concept? How can you hold that your interpretation is the correct one if you do not have majority support, by your logic about the term of masculinity, surely you have to give up on your interpretation or at least acknowledge it is a twisted parady if it does not have majority support.

See this is why you will always be outclassed by anyone of significant intellect, you simply don't understand the core concepts of how to be logical, you can parody them but your obvious bias shows them to be a very poor imitation indeed.

[eldog]

Katman

Please dont bring that member into this.

I just thought it should have been on someone's radar that there were cases that should be covered.

One of my customers regularly has oversight and we pay for it. I feel that in their case there are no excuses.
But they get away with it...... again and again and again.

[TheDemonLord]

Correlation does not imply causation. How the fuck can you possibly think a witty catchphrase can change that? Some people stating some reasons, does not constitute causation for the whole.

Right, so aaaaalll the people that say they aren't doing something for a specific reason are just outliers... And there's the great big mass of people that really REALLY Love Social Justice, but for some reason, they never seem to actually buy any of the products or use any of the services...

Your delusions have reached Fever Pitch.


there is no reason for you not to use the term I would prefer;

Because the post-modernists love to play word games. I refuse to use your Terms, I use, instead, the Terms that have the majority support.


by trying to use a different term, you are implicitly confirming that there is a difference. Thanks for playing, better luck next time. :laugh:

You know you can have 2 separate words, that share an intrinsic link? Well, I think you know it, but as above - you're playing word games to try and dig yourself out of the hole.


So, they have gone woke right? but they have not gone broke? In your mind a failure, a mass rejection, has been downgraded to a situation in which there is no change? And that somehow isn't backpedaling... :facepalm:

Did you read your article about Lead times? Is Gillette going to go completely broke, unlikely - are they going to suffer in the long run for pandering to the identity politics SJWs - Absolutely.


I've given you the post, to refresh your memeory you said:
"Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?"
to which I replied
"Have I done the same for the causes as above?"
and you replied "yes", from post 10275 as I just mentioned

Right, so you agree, it's not something I said, it's what you wanted me to say - my "yes" was in reference to what I actually said, Accused you of and have quoted.

Anything else is just your projection.


Precisely, freedom of speech means you can say what you like, it does not guarantee where you can say it. Why should I have to listen to other peoples hate filled invective? No hypocrisy, just and understanding of the concept;

Actually, it does guarantee where you can say it, Does the term "Public Space" mean anything to you?

If you don't want to listen, walk away. Suffice to say, in the above Statement is all the Hypocrisy I accused you of.


how did Alex Jones' lawsuits against those companies go anyway? Did the US judicial system agree with your interpretation of the concept? Do the majority agree with your interpretation of the concept?

To my knowledge, he's not started one. In this instance, parts of Twitter have been declared "Public Spaces" and thus coming under the protection of the 1st Amendment. Just let that sink in for a while.


How can you hold that your interpretation is the correct one if you do not have majority support, by your logic about the term of masculinity, surely you have to give up on your interpretation or at least acknowledge it is a twisted parady if it does not have majority support.

See above.


See this is why you will always be outclassed by anyone of significant intellect, you simply don't understand the core concepts of how to be logical, you can parody them but your obvious bias shows them to be a very poor imitation indeed.

If that's the case - why would you need to blatantly lie multiple times?

I've backed up what I've said, you've failed to do so.

[Graystone]

Right, so aaaaalll the people that say they aren't doing something for a specific reason are just outliers... And there's the great big mass of people that really REALLY Love Social Justice, but for some reason, they never seem to actually buy any of the products or use any of the services...

Your delusions have reached Fever Pitch.



Because the post-modernists love to play word games. I refuse to use your Terms, I use, instead, the Terms that have the majority support.



You know you can have 2 separate words, that share an intrinsic link? Well, I think you know it, but as above - you're playing word games to try and dig yourself out of the hole.



Did you read your article about Lead times? Is Gillette going to go completely broke, unlikely - are they going to suffer in the long run for pandering to the identity politics SJWs - Absolutely.



Right, so you agree, it's not something I said, it's what you wanted me to say - my "yes" was in reference to what I actually said, Accused you of and have quoted.

Anything else is just your projection.



Actually, it does guarantee where you can say it, Does the term "Public Space" mean anything to you?

If you don't want to listen, walk away. Suffice to say, in the above Statement is all the Hypocrisy I accused you of.



To my knowledge, he's not started one. In this instance, parts of Twitter have been declared "Public Spaces" and thus coming under the protection of the 1st Amendment. Just let that sink in for a while.



See above.



If that's the case - why would you need to blatantly lie multiple times?

I've backed up what I've said, you've failed to do so.

If you had decent stats to show the extent of those 'all' it'd be a different story, you conjecture isn't going to cut it though. Thinking in terms of causation shouldn't cause you to fly off the handle like this...

:laugh: yeh let us know when that actually happens and you might have a point. Until then, the situation which has not shown signs of change, can't be considered a failure or mass rejection.

There was three quotes with clear context and linkage to give that conversation; this backpedaling you are now attempting was as predictable as it is transparent. But I'll play along, what is the quote that 'yes' was referring to which you actually said, and what was the meaning of it?

To which definition do you refer? I was talking about the concept.

By that logic it's a slam dunk then, wonder why he hasn't fought for his rights, or that majority you keep talking of hasn't helped him fight for his rights. Possibly because you conclusion is completely in error :innocent:

What blatant lies?

[husaberg]

Please dont bring that member into this.

I just thought it should have been on someone's radar that there were cases that should be covered.

One of my customers regularly has oversight and we pay for it. I feel that in their case there are no excuses.
But they get away with it...... again and again and again.

Id hate anyone else to go through this let alone my son., but as i have said its i understand a pretty rare thing, just a bad series of co incidents.
I had read extesively about chickenpox and other potential deaths vaccination stops i had never even seen Stevens-Johnson.
Hopefully now chickenpox has been added to the national schedule is going to be rarer and rarer ever year.
unsubscribe

[TheDemonLord]

If you had decent stats to show the extent of those 'all' it'd be a different story, you conjecture isn't going to cut it though. Thinking in terms of causation shouldn't cause you to fly off the handle like this...

Battlefield 5 sold half the copies of Battlefield 1.
Ghostbusters and Oceans 8 lost over half a Billion dollars combined.

All of the above had the same complaint: The focus on Identity Politics and pushing of Progressive ideals made for an unenjoyable experience.

Is that decent enough for you?


:laugh: yeh let us know when that actually happens and you might have a point. Until then, the situation which has not shown signs of change, can't be considered a failure or mass rejection.

I see you are hell bent on ignoring the part where an Advert is meant to increase consumption of a Product or Service.

For reference:

Nike's "Just Do It" campaign more than doubled their sales over the course of a Decade.
the Got Milk? campaign resulted in a global 7% increase in Milk consumption.



There was three quotes with clear context and linkage to give that conversation; this backpedaling you are now attempting was as predictable as it is transparent. But I'll play along, what is the quote that 'yes' was referring to which you actually said, and what was the meaning of it?

There are 3 quotes with Clear Context:

There's what I said.
There's what you said.
and
There's what you want me to have said.

I made an accusation against you, it's clear in black and white, you asked me to back it up, I did so (hint - something you didn't do on the other accusations - funny that). The Quote, from you, backs up the accusation I made against you.

Everything else is in your warped mind.


To which definition do you refer? I was talking about the concept.

I see, More word games when you got owned is it?


By that logic it's a slam dunk then, wonder why he hasn't fought for his rights, or that majority you keep talking of hasn't helped him fight for his rights. Possibly because you conclusion is completely in error :innocent:

I don't know why, I repeatedly stated that I can't stand him. I'd hazard a guess that if you think the entire system is rigged against you, then the winning move is not to play. Maybe he wants to take a break from court cases (he gets sued a LOT, and wins a fair amount of them)

I'll simply repeat - Parts of Twitter were declared a Public Space - That has some very important connotations, which the law has yet to fully explore.


What blatant lies?

You've got the 'Can't be a PM cause Woman' lie (which you've declined to back up with any evidence)
You've got the 'I said you called for Censorship' lie (which you're still trying to defend despite me posting the exact quote of what I said and the exact quote of what you said that proves it)
You've got the 'Backpedaling' lie for something I pointed out at the beginning, that you tried to bring up as if I was ignorant of it, in some form of Gotcha.

[Graystone]

Battlefield 5 sold half the copies of Battlefield 1.
Ghostbusters and Oceans 8 lost over half a Billion dollars combined.

All of the above had the same complaint: The focus on Identity Politics and pushing of Progressive ideals made for an unenjoyable experience.

Is that decent enough for you?



I see you are hell bent on ignoring the part where an Advert is meant to increase consumption of a Product or Service.

For reference:

Nike's "Just Do It" campaign more than doubled their sales over the course of a Decade.
the Got Milk? campaign resulted in a global 7% increase in Milk consumption.




There are 3 quotes with Clear Context:

There's what I said.
There's what you said.
and
There's what you want me to have said.

I made an accusation against you, it's clear in black and white, you asked me to back it up, I did so (hint - something you didn't do on the other accusations - funny that). The Quote, from you, backs up the accusation I made against you.

Everything else is in your warped mind.



I see, More word games when you got owned is it?



I don't know why, I repeatedly stated that I can't stand him. I'd hazard a guess that if you think the entire system is rigged against you, then the winning move is not to play. Maybe he wants to take a break from court cases (he gets sued a LOT, and wins a fair amount of them)

I'll simply repeat - Parts of Twitter were declared a Public Space - That has some very important connotations, which the law has yet to fully explore.



You've got the 'Can't be a PM cause Woman' lie (which you've declined to back up with any evidence)
You've got the 'I said you called for Censorship' lie (which you're still trying to defend despite me posting the exact quote of what I said and the exact quote of what you said that proves it)
You've got the 'Backpedaling' lie for something I pointed out at the beginning, that you tried to bring up as if I was ignorant of it, in some form of Gotcha.

Those are anecdotes with conjecture instead of proven cause, of course it is not decent enough :facepalm:

Everyone else uses ads too, so their purpose is also to maintain market share against other companies advertising strategies. No loss of product sales is not a failure, nor a sign of majority rejection, ie, they've gone woke, but certainly not broke.

So what's that first one, the what you 'said'? As a refresher, here are the words "Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?" the context is clear in that you answered that I had done those things.

Nope, just curious which definition you are using which has the term public spaces in it. Is there even one? or are you making shit up again...

Occam's razor, 'no lawsuit has been won, because no lawsuit could be won' remains a valid interpretation.

Where did I say that?
As above, you did say that.
Backpedaling is clearly my interpretation of your actions, it's not a blatant lie even if you were not backpedaling.

[TheDemonLord]

Those are anecdotes with conjecture instead of proven cause, of course it is not decent enough :facepalm:

Right, so People not buying it and telling you en masse why they aren't buying it is just Conjecture that's not decent enough.

Whereas you wish to assert that there is this silent majority that really loves this, but never pays a cent for it.

Even if we were to accept that it's purely anecdotal, it's still got infinitely more solid evidence than the alternative you're trying to push.


Everyone else uses ads too, so their purpose is also to maintain market share against other companies advertising strategies. No loss of product sales is not a failure, nor a sign of majority rejection, ie, they've gone woke, but certainly not broke.

Firstly - Rubbish. Simply maintaining existing shares is never the purpose, the purpose is ALWAYS to grow. Given the Viral nature of the ad, the fact that it has not shifted additional sales IS a failure.

Again, read your article about the Lead time on Razor sales...


So what's that first one, the what you 'said'? As a refresher, here are the words "Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?" the context is clear in that you answered that I had done those things.

That wasn't said to you. You do know you aren't Katman right? You keep harping on about Bait and Switch and here you are taking a comment specifically addressed to someone else as proof of what I've said about you?

I've already quoted what I actually said 3 times now. It's quite simple - I provided the proof for the Statements I specifically made about you. Not the statements you've falsely continue to attribute to me.


Nope, just curious which definition you are using which has the term public spaces in it. Is there even one? or are you making shit up again...

Sorry - the US definition is Public Forum, I mean - I would have thought one clearly as smart as you would have figured that out, but seeing as you are struggling to differentiate between what I actually say and what you fantasize that I say...


Occam's razor, 'no lawsuit has been won, because no lawsuit could be won' remains a valid interpretation.

Circular Logic. You're presupposing an outcome, using that to infer motive for an action and using the Motive to justify your presupposition.


Where did I say that?
As above, you did say that.
Backpedaling is clearly my interpretation of your actions, it's not a blatant lie even if you were not backpedaling.

First lie: Twice - posts 10259 and 10276 - I specifically called you out on post 10280, to which you responded (perpetuating the lie) in post 10284, then for ultimate Lols - when I called you out on it - you posted this absolute Gem:



Some bullshit you're always ready to find a way to cop out of. Just like the last time we debated, I pointed out a clear contradiction in statements you made, you denied it then fucked off. You've shown you're not worth my time trying to meander through your blatant lies about what you have or haven't said/meant, either offer some simple clarification, or don't and continue to be judged by your previous words and intent. Just like how you've said I have called for censuring, then cite my happiness that somebody was censured as evidence of that; stop being such a fucking moron, and stop changing what you say you meant based on how wrong you find yourself to be.

Which is a whole load of Ad Hominem attacks and curiously is devoid of anything resembling a Quotation from me.

Second Lie: see Post 10313 where I show you exactly what I said, to you, about you. I backed up this accusation in post 10275 - and you are still trying to turn it into something it's not.

Third Lie: See post 10250 where I clearly point out the failure of the ad, referencing the non-impact on sales, then in post 10318 you post this up, as if it was new information - in an attempt to perform a 'Gotcha' - when I show I've already pointed this out, you continue to state I'm 'backpedling' - which, considering I was the first one to point it out, is a literal impossibilty.

As I said - Stop Lying. In some ways you are starting to be worse than Yokel or Katman - at least they argue their position from a point of Honest belief.

[Graystone]

Right, so People not buying it and telling you en masse why they aren't buying it is just Conjecture that's not decent enough.

Whereas you wish to assert that there is this silent majority that really loves this, but never pays a cent for it.

Even if we were to accept that it's purely anecdotal, it's still got infinitely more solid evidence than the alternative you're trying to push.



Firstly - Rubbish. Simply maintaining existing shares is never the purpose, the purpose is ALWAYS to grow. Given the Viral nature of the ad, the fact that it has not shifted additional sales IS a failure.

Again, read your article about the Lead time on Razor sales...



That wasn't said to you. You do know you aren't Katman right? You keep harping on about Bait and Switch and here you are taking a comment specifically addressed to someone else as proof of what I've said about you?

I've already quoted what I actually said 3 times now. It's quite simple - I provided the proof for the Statements I specifically made about you. Not the statements you've falsely continue to attribute to me.



Sorry - the US definition is Public Forum, I mean - I would have thought one clearly as smart as you would have figured that out, but seeing as you are struggling to differentiate between what I actually say and what you fantasize that I say...



Circular Logic. You're presupposing an outcome, using that to infer motive for an action and using the Motive to justify your presupposition.



First lie: Twice - posts 10259 and 10276 - I specifically called you out on post 10280, to which you responded (perpetuating the lie) in post 10284, then for ultimate Lols - when I called you out on it - you posted this absolute Gem:



Which is a whole load of Ad Hominem attacks and curiously is devoid of anything resembling a Quotation from me.

Second Lie: see Post 10313 where I show you exactly what I said, to you, about you. I backed up this accusation in post 10275 - and you are still trying to turn it into something it's not.

Third Lie: See post 10250 where I clearly point out the failure of the ad, referencing the non-impact on sales, then in post 10318 you post this up, as if it was new information - in an attempt to perform a 'Gotcha' - when I show I've already pointed this out, you continue to state I'm 'backpedling' - which, considering I was the first one to point it out, is a literal impossibilty.

As I said - Stop Lying. In some ways you are starting to be worse than Yokel or Katman - at least they argue their position from a point of Honest belief.

Numbers for this 'telling en masse'?

Gillette seem to think otherwise, which remains a valid interpretation. What it certainly isn't, is that it is evidence of majority rejection.

That is why I asked if it also applied to me, and you said yes. If you had not said that it did apply to me, there would be no issue; but you did, so I've called you out on it...

Which definition, the first amendment? It makes no mentioned of public spaces...

Nope, I'm proposing a valid theory, based on it being the simplest one which fits the situation.

In none of those posts do I claim you have said women cannot be prime minister. Who is really doing the lying here?
See above, it was not originally said to me, but you asserted it applied to me as well.
And the 'go woke, get broke' thing you brought up showed you pedaling forward again in between.

Again, lying about what? You seem so certain I am doing so, yet are certainly unable to substantiate any of it... See this is why you will always be outclassed by anyone of significant intellect, you simply don't understand the core concepts of how to be logical, you can parody them but your obvious bias shows them to be a very poor imitation indeed. Do you even remember what the original point you were trying to make was?

[Berries]

Get a room.

[Katman]

Get a room.

It's mental disorders at 20 paces.

[TheDemonLord]

Numbers for this 'telling en masse'?

About Half a Billion dollars worth of Numbers.


Gillette seem to think otherwise, which remains a valid interpretation. What it certainly isn't, is that it is evidence of majority rejection.

Perhaps they are trying to save face? Rather than admit they've pissed off their Core audience? And as for Majority rejection - did you miss the part where the like/dislike ratio was around 33% like, 66% dislike.

66% is a Majority when compared to 33%.


That is why I asked if it also applied to me, and you said yes. If you had not said that it did apply to me, there would be no issue; but you did, so I've called you out on it...

I backed up the quotes from you, for the claims I made about you. Anything else is your fantasy land.


Which definition, the first amendment? It makes no mentioned of public spaces...


A public forum, also called an open forum, is open to all expression that is protected under the First Amendment. Streets, parks, and sidewalks are considered open to public discourse by tradition and are designated as traditional public forums.

Anything else you'd like to be wrong about?


Nope, I'm proposing a valid theory, based on it being the simplest one which fits the situation.

No, you're trying to post hoc justify your theory based on a presumed outcome. That's circular logic.


In none of those posts do I claim you have said women cannot be prime minister. Who is really doing the lying here?


I've never said Women aren't fit to be PM.


Ah right, the backpedaling begins, what exactly did you say about Jacinda's fitness for PM (based on her gender) then?

And no - shorthanding the 'fit to be PM' to 'can't be PM' isn't what you are going to claim it is.

You twice made an argument that inferred that is what I claimed, so I called you explicitly on it - to which you then claimed I was backpedaling (which confirms you believe me to have said it) that's where I asked you to prove it, and that's where you spat the dummy, spouted a bunch of insults and posted up nothing.

Doubly hilarious considering how much you are quibbling over the evidence that I put forth, you fail miserably to back your shit up.


See above, it was not originally said to me, but you asserted it applied to me as well.

Only that which I directly accused you of, applies to you. It's really simple.


And the 'go woke, get broke' thing you brought up showed you pedaling forward again in between.

Pedalling forward, pedalling backwards - it seems you've got no clue as to what I'm actually doing and are just making shit up (AKA lying).


Again, lying about what? You seem so certain I am doing so, yet are certainly unable to substantiate any of it... See this is why you will always be outclassed by anyone of significant intellect, you simply don't understand the core concepts of how to be logical, you can parody them but your obvious bias shows them to be a very poor imitation indeed. Do you even remember what the original point you were trying to make was?

Yes - the Gillette ad is an example of Ideological, Man-hating trash, that's pissed a bunch of Men off. That it assumes a position of Moral superiority that it has neither earnt nor been elected to and that this behaviour is indicative of other attempts, within the same ideological framework that have destroyed previously successful products due to the rejection from the target audience/consumer of this particular message.

[TheDemonLord]

Get a room.

Why? You feeling left out?

[Graystone]

About Half a Billion dollars worth of Numbers.



Perhaps they are trying to save face? Rather than admit they've pissed off their Core audience? And as for Majority rejection - did you miss the part where the like/dislike ratio was around 33% like, 66% dislike.

66% is a Majority when compared to 33%.



I backed up the quotes from you, for the claims I made about you. Anything else is your fantasy land.





Anything else you'd like to be wrong about?



No, you're trying to post hoc justify your theory based on a presumed outcome. That's circular logic.







And no - shorthanding the 'fit to be PM' to 'can't be PM' isn't what you are going to claim it is.

You twice made an argument that inferred that is what I claimed, so I called you explicitly on it - to which you then claimed I was backpedaling (which confirms you believe me to have said it) that's where I asked you to prove it, and that's where you spat the dummy, spouted a bunch of insults and posted up nothing.

Doubly hilarious considering how much you are quibbling over the evidence that I put forth, you fail miserably to back your shit up.



Only that which I directly accused you of, applies to you. It's really simple.



Pedalling forward, pedalling backwards - it seems you've got no clue as to what I'm actually doing and are just making shit up (AKA lying).



Yes - the Gillette ad is an example of Ideological, Man-hating trash, that's pissed a bunch of Men off. That it assumes a position of Moral superiority that it has neither earnt nor been elected to and that this behaviour is indicative of other attempts, within the same ideological framework that have destroyed previously successful products due to the rejection from the target audience/consumer of this particular message.

So only false equivalency, got it.

Youtube views/reception is a different demographic (to their market) entirely, and hardly representative of the majority anyway.

That is not the first amendment. Please show your sources...

Is it not a valid theory?

But unfit to be PM, and can't be PM are two different things (seeing your error and trying to pre-empt me pointing it out does not make it less of an error). Inferring a thing is also not a blatant lie as you accused me of.
Except you confirmed what you accused others of, also applied to me. Why are you trying to ignore what you have clearly posted? Just as clear, is that it was not a blatant lie.
Yet, it is my honest interpretation of your posts, so it also, cannot be a blatant lie.
0 for 3, thanks for playing.

And how much of that point is in any way addressed by the stuff you are going on about now? ToDoLists indeed :laugh:

[Berries]

Why? You feeling left out?
No, I've got two kids who argue just for the sake of it.

[TheDemonLord]

So only false equivalency, got it.

Sure - if you insist in sticking your head in the Sand.

You're happy to assert a fictional Majority that agrees with you, based on zero evidence, yet you dismiss the solid financial evidence and explicit statements by the target audiences.


Youtube views/reception is a different demographic (to their market) entirely, and hardly representative of the majority anyway.

Youtube is mainly Men.
The Advert was targetted at Men.
The shaving Market is predominantly Men.

So, exactly how is it a different demographic to their Market


That is not the first amendment. Please show your sources...

I know it's not, but I also know that a Public Forum has a specific legal definition in the US as a place where the First Amendment applies. I also know that parts of Twitter have been declared a Public Forum and thus protected by the First Amendment.


Is it not a valid theory?

Circular reasoning is never a Valid theory.

A Valid theory would be simply stating he may not have lodged a lawsuit because he might loose. Using that as a justification for the a priori assumption is not valid, and never will be.


But unfit to be PM, and can't be PM are two different things (seeing your error and trying to pre-empt me pointing it out does not make it less of an error). Inferring a thing is also not a blatant lie as you accused me of.

Then post the Quotation.

You can't, because I've never said that. I've given you 2 opportunities to do so, yet you continue with this blatant lie.


Except you confirmed what you accused others of, also applied to me. Why are you trying to ignore what you have clearly posted? Just as clear, is that it was not a blatant lie.

Sure, if you wish to ignore all the other things I said specifically about you, ignore where I linked it back to you and link something out of context said to someone else to yourself, which brings me to the next point:


Yet, it is my honest interpretation of your posts, so it also, cannot be a blatant lie.
0 for 3, thanks for playing.

Then you are delusional. In the Clinical Sense.

You first accuse me of Backpedaling, then I point out I've already referenced that point, then you accuse me of Frontpedaling.

Either your honest interpretation is due to a massive inability to comprehend english or
You are so poisoned by your Ideology that "Arithmetic of an alternative plan: 2+2 plus the enthusiasm of the workers=5"


And how much of that point is in any way addressed by the stuff you are going on about now? ToDoLists indeed :laugh:

2/3rds of it.

[FJRider]

The shaving Market is predominantly Men.

So, exactly how is it a different demographic to their Market

Again I call BULLSHIT ... !!!

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/womens-razors-marketing

Women shave a larger surface area of their bodies than men do.

[Graystone]

Sure, if you wish to ignore all the other things I said specifically about you, ignore where I linked it back to you and link something out of context said to someone else to yourself, which brings me to the next point:

Starting to get bored of your stupidity, let's clean up the ToDoList and focus on an easy one...

Well it's a completely different point. For the one to which I refer, your meaning was clear, either admit error, or continue to show how illogical and egotistical you are. Like every other time I have you completely outclassed, it comes down to one simple, inescapable point you refuse to admit the truth of... The rest of your ToDoList may hold up better currently, but we both know that if were given similar attention it would fall apart just as easily. Stop letting your bias control your thoughts and 'logic', you would fare much better that way...

[Katman]

......or continue to show how illogical and egotistical you are. Like every other time I have you completely outclassed.....

Oh, the irony.

[eldog]

a lot of Women remove hair from a larger surface area of their bodies than men do.

Fixed it for ya.:sweatdrop

[TheDemonLord]

Again I call BULLSHIT ... !!!

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/womens-razors-marketing

Women shave a larger surface area of their bodies than men do.

Womens US Market ~ $1,000,000,000
Mens US Market ~ $6,100,000,000
6 to 1.

Further more the average woman spends 72 days of her life Shaving.
Average Man spends 120 days of his life Shaving.

You may call Bullshit, but facts are facts.

[TheDemonLord]

Starting to get bored of your stupidity, let's clean up the ToDoList and focus on an easy one...

Well it's a completely different point. For the one to which I refer, your meaning was clear, either admit error, or continue to show how illogical and egotistical you are. Like every other time I have you completely outclassed, it comes down to one simple, inescapable point you refuse to admit the truth of... The rest of your ToDoList may hold up better currently, but we both know that if were given similar attention it would fall apart just as easily. Stop letting your bias control your thoughts and 'logic', you would fare much better that way...

So, you're admitting defeat because you can't back any of your Bullshit up.

[Graystone]

So, you're admitting defeat because you can't back any of your Bullshit up.

Sargons Law.

I am asking you to back just one thing up, instead of creating all you ToDoLists to muddy the waters in a piss-poor attempt to hide you stupidity as is your normal practice.

[TheDemonLord]

Sargons Law.

I am asking you to back just one thing up, instead of creating all you ToDoLists to muddy the waters in a piss-poor attempt to hide you stupidity as is your normal practice.

Quite.....



I don't know, what did I say Graystone? You're the one telling this Story, wouldn't want reality get in the way of your narrative.



Some bullshit you're always ready to find a way to cop out of. Just like the last time we debated, I pointed out a clear contradiction in statements you made, you denied it then fucked off. You've shown you're not worth my time trying to meander through your blatant lies about what you have or haven't said/meant, either offer some simple clarification, or don't and continue to be judged by your previous words and intent. Just like how you've said I have called for censuring, then cite my happiness that somebody was censured as evidence of that; stop being such a fucking moron, and stop changing what you say you meant based on how wrong you find yourself to be.

[buggerit]

Greystone seems to be having difficulty ejecting EvilCorps dick from his throat at the moment but will no doubt be along shortly claiming that he enjoyed the experience, didn't value his gag reflex that highly and had re evaluated his experience of masculinity accordingly.

Demonising men seems to have reached hysterical proportions, feel sorry for young boys being fed this daily without the
maturity to sort the shit from the shovel.

[Graystone]

Quite.....

Prophetic almost, isn't it? "Just like the last time we debated, I pointed out a clear contradiction in statements you made" So just what did the "yes" mean in the following conversation?

"Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?"
"Have I done the same for the causes as above?"
"yes"

[TheDemonLord]

Prophetic almost, isn't it? "Just like the last time we debated, I pointed out a clear contradiction in statements you made" So just what did the "yes" mean in the following conversation?

"Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?"
"Have I done the same for the causes as above?"
"yes"

Sure, if you remove all context, ignore who it was said to and ignore the actual accusation that I made against you.

But as above - you've demonstrated your blatant dishonesty, inability to back anything up, readiness to hand-waive away anything that counters your ideological narrative and your love of ignoring previous posts and context that you don't like.

Then you have the gall to accuse others of that which you've been doing.

[TheDemonLord]

Demonising men seems to have reached hysterical proportions, feel sorry for young boys being fed this daily without the
maturity to sort the shit from the shovel.

The saddest part, is that Suicide is the biggest killer for Men under I think 25.

It's almost like theres a link between telling Men they are all tyrannical, Woman-Beating Rapists - and young men killing themselves.

[mashman]

Something for people who ignore the basics, and history, and skip straight to fairytopia (https://www.inc-cap.com/)

[husaberg]

The saddest part, is that Suicide is the biggest killer for Men under I think 25.

It's almost like theres a link between telling Men they are all tyrannical, Woman-Beating Rapists - and young men killing themselves.

Inversely there is a greater amount of woman beating rapists who beat and rape women.
Young people sadly kill themselves as they are to afraid of the stigma attached to asking for help. This has nothing due to feminism, quite the opposite.
I know there is some professions that have much higher rates, Vets was one. Dentists i think was another.

[nerrrd]

The saddest part, is that Suicide is the biggest killer for Men under I think 25.

It's almost like theres a link between telling Men they are all tyrannical, Woman-Beating Rapists - and young men killing themselves.

And yet, that’s apparently exactly the group who Gillette are trying to appeal to, successfully in the US anyway according to this (depending on how you define success etc etc).

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12200372

[Katman]

And yet, that’s apparently exactly the group who Gillette are trying to appeal to, successfully in the US anyway according to this (depending on how you define success etc etc).

It's like it's a conspiracy.

[TheDemonLord]

Inversely there is a greater amount of woman beating rapists who beat and rape women.
Young people sadly kill themselves as they are to afraid of the stigma attached to asking for help. This has nothing due to feminism, quite the opposite.
I know there is some professions that have much higher rates, Vets was one. Dentists i think was another.

Nothing due to Feminism? Are you sure? Or is that simply an assertion?

This is not to say that all suicides are a direct result, rather - there's a number of ideas and policies that are actively pushed by Feminism which are having a negative impact on young Mens mental health.

[TheDemonLord]

And yet, that’s apparently exactly the group who Gillette are trying to appeal to, successfully in the US anyway according to this (depending on how you define success etc etc).

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12200372

Okay - I'll say this - if you could prove that as a result of that advert, less young men committed suicide - I'd withdraw all my objections.

I'll agree it's pandering, I myself will be looking elsewhere for my shaving wares (breaking a 18 year relationship), the real proof will be (as per the article) in their April figures.

My prediction is we will see a 5-10% drop in revenue for the Shaving division of Gillette - probably over a 1 year period.

[husaberg]

Nothing due to Feminism? Are you sure? Or is that simply an assertion?

This is not to say that all suicides are a direct result, rather - there's a number of ideas and policies that are actively pushed by Feminism which are having a negative impact on young Mens mental health.

i am sory what i meant to convey was what you said was utter bollocks.
here is a clue, men beat women to death and beat women and have been rapping women since well before feminism was invented.
its nothing to do with feminism its the total opposite.
Conversely, No rational person thinks any rational feminist targets all men for the crimes of a few.
Nor does any rational teenager commit suicide.
While it may make you feel better to blame another sex the simple explanation is men dont talk about their problems.
Trying to blame others in the hope of regaining some outdated macho stereotype isn't going to help.
its actually making it worse.

[TheDemonLord]

i am sory what i meant to convey was what you said was utter bollocks.

Is it? You've asserted something, I've asserted something - yet I'm the one talking Bollocks?


here is a clue, men beat women to death and have been rapping women since well before feminism was invented.
its nothing to do with feminism its the total opposite.

No one is disputing that crime is bad. Saying that, is to ignore the other side of the coin: Men also sacrificed (literally and abstractly) themselves so that Women and Children could live and prosper.


Conversely, No rational person thinks any rational feminist targets all men for the crimes of a few.

Correct, What you leave out is that Feminism does a piss poor job at expelling the irrational Feminists - see the SWERFs, TERFs, Political Lesbianism etc. Feminism wants to be all inclusive - which, by definition, means including the nutjobs that do target all men.


While it may make you feel better to blame another sex the simple explanation is men dont talk about their problems.
Trying to blame others in the hope of regaining some outdated macho stereotype isn't going to help.
its actually making it worse.

Why do men not like to talk about their problems?

Here's a few ideas:

1: Enemies who know about your problems can exploit them and therefore exploit you
2: Acknowledging problems is to voluntarily lower yourself down the heirachy of competence
3: Women don't find that attractive

Now to put aside the false equivalency - no one is saying that talking about problems isn't needed and I'm not blaming feminism for that.

What I am blaming Feminism for - is pushing concepts like Toxic Masculinity, a myriad of grievances starting with man-, self-righteously declaring what is and isn't acceptable behaviour AND setting a blatant double standard, for continually pushing an implicit narrative that Men are born with original sin and can only be saved by castrating themselves before the god of Feminism.

[husaberg]

Is it? You've asserted something, I've asserted something - yet I'm the one talking Bollocks?

Clearly, What ai are talking about is backed by logic and facts rather than your opinion


No one is disputing that crime is bad. Saying that, is to ignore the other side of the coin: Men also sacrificed (literally and abstractly) themselves so that Women and Children could live and prosper.
There is no other side of the coin the two subjects are unrelated. One has nothing to do with the other.




Correct, What you leave out is that Feminism does a piss poor job at expelling the irrational Feminists - see the SWERFs, TERFs, Political Lesbianism etc. Feminism wants to be all inclusive - which, by definition, means including the nutjobs that do target all men.
There are Just as many male nutjobs as female nutjobs



Why do men not like to talk about their problems?

Here's a few ideas:

1: Enemies who know about your problems can exploit them and therefore exploit you
2: Acknowledging problems is to voluntarily lower yourself down the heirachy of competence
3: Women don't find that attractive

Women face all those issues your own expectation of how things must be shape how people act, your own excuses are adding to the problem.
if you are saying there is additional pressures on men ask yourself is that a result of their thinking or your own and societies out of date expectations


Now to put aside the false equivalency - no one is saying that talking about problems isn't needed and I'm not blaming feminism for that.
You are blaming feminism for male suicide, Its ridiculous in concept and has no basis in reality


What I am blaming Feminism for - is pushing concepts like Toxic Masculinity, a myriad of grievances starting with man-, self-righteously declaring what is and isn't acceptable behaviour AND setting a blatant double standard, for continually pushing an implicit narrative that Men are born with original sin and can only be saved by castrating themselves before the god of Feminism.
A lot of behavior by both men and women previously acceptable, is unacceptable by modern standards, we have evolved, you know times change, majority rules, You either accept modern conscientious of how a modern society is, or go off grid and become a polygamist or something.

Before you can solve a problem you need to be honest with yourself that there is a problem, And seek the real causes, rather than blame what is convenient to you.
Intersting enough you go on about islam being dangerous due to its teachings and them not wanting to align their belief with modern societies expectations of dress and culture, yet you seem to agree with their polices toward women or societies expectations regarding behaviour.

[Graystone]

Sure, if you remove all context, ignore who it was said to and ignore the actual accusation that I made against you.

But as above - you've demonstrated your blatant dishonesty, inability to back anything up, readiness to hand-waive away anything that counters your ideological narrative and your love of ignoring previous posts and context that you don't like.

Then you have the gall to accuse others of that which you've been doing.

Just how does any of that change your unambiguous answer of 'yes' to a no?

Your irrationality in these situations where it is obvious you have been proven wrong, is why it is a waste of time to go through your ToDoLists and point out how you are wrong on the other points too. You just lie, and then accuse others of lying instead of facing up to your intellectual inadequacies; which is a self perpetuating cycle of stupidity...

[TheDemonLord]

Just how does any of that change your unambiguous answer of 'yes' to a no?

"How does context change the interpretation"

That's a great question Graystone - maybe you should look into that, you might be onto something there...


Your irrationality in these situations where it is obvious you have been proven wrong, is why it is a waste of time to go through your ToDoLists and point out how you are wrong on the other points too. You just lie, and then accuse others of lying instead of facing up to your intellectual inadequacies; which is a self perpetuating cycle of stupidity...

Is that like where I asked you for a quotation and you then started spewing a bunch of Insults?

Even if we accept your point of Umbrage (which I don't), you're still left with the reality of you have done all of which you accuse me of. So, just how does that align with your own behavior? Are you as you say "self perpetuating cycle of stupidity..."?

[TheDemonLord]

Clearly, What ai are talking about is backed by logic and facts rather than your opinion

And yet, the logic and facts are curiously absent from your posts... If you want to go down the route of claiming Logical and factual superiority, a small thing called 'burden of proof' is necessary...


There is no other side of the coin the two subjects are unrelated. One has nothing to do with the other.

Try again - the comment you made is part of a narrative that goes something like "Evil Men oppressed Women all throughout history" - now, there is a lot of truth to that statement, but it's only one part of history. To make that statement without acknowledging that for all Men's 'oppression' of women, there was also a large amount of 'protection', paid for at the cost of Male Lives.


There are Just as many male nutjobs as female nutjobs

I'm not sure on this. Certainly, the Male NutJobs are much more prominent (for various reasons), but there isn't the same societal restrictions on bad Female behavior as there is on bad Male. This is both at the purely societal level and at a Legal level: in NZ, on average where a man and a woman commit the same crime with the same circumstances, the Woman will have a sentence that is 60% that of the Man, if she goes to prison at all. As a perfect example - the girl who ran over the guy on the Bike in Albany.


Women face all those issues your own expectation of how things must be shape how people act, your own excuses are adding to the problem.
if you are saying there is additional pressures on men ask yourself is that a result of their thinking or your own and societies out of date expectations

Do Women face the same pressures as Men do? Well, that's demonstrably not true. This is not to say Women don't face pressures or that their pressures are any worse or better than Mens (although the fact that on average Women are higher in the trait neuroticism is a factor that is relevant) - just that the Pressures are different.

You might argue that these are pure societal constructs - and to be fair, many of them have a societal element, but I put it to you many of them have a strong biological basis. As an example of what I mean - take a look at Women's erotic Fiction/Bodice rippers/Romance Novels - There isn't too many mentions of a 5'1" guy, that's ugly, unsuccessful, weak and timid.

As for pressures on young Men - here's one: Affirmative Consent laws.

Consider this - When was the last time you explicitly asked your Partner if you could touch her? When you are giving her the best 30 seconds of her life, do you stop every 5 seconds to ask permission to do something different?

If the answer is no, then according to legislation being pushed by Feminist groups - you're now a Rapist.

As another one, being able to post-hoc declare consensual sexual intercourse as rape.

Or another one, If you are drunk and you have sex with a Drunk woman - that's also Rape, because intoxicated people can't give consent, but curiously - it's only the Man that's guilty.


You are blaming feminism for male suicide, Its ridiculous in concept and has no basis in reality

Saying an Organization that has a long history of maintaining prominent man-haters in their ranks, who see all expression of Male competence as part of a mythical Patriarchy, who push legislation that would make normal sexual interaction between Men and Women illegal and who happen to hold sway over the education system - yes it's Totally ridiculous that such an organization might have something to do with Young Men killing themselves.

Do I need to quote some Andrea Dvorkin (who is still well regarded in Feminist circles)?


A lot of behavior by both men and women previously acceptable, is unacceptable by modern standards, we have evolved, you know times change, majority rules, You either accept modern conscientious of how a modern society is, or go off grid and become a polygamist or something.

And what if this modern consensus comes at the cost of Men killing themselves?

Is that a case of price worth paying? Taking you at your base assumption - Is that the best outcome? The irony here is that considering that you accuse me of holding to antiquated ideals - who is the one who is advocating most for the concept of Male disposability?

You say behavior by Men and Women previously acceptable - can you give an example of behavior by Women, once considered acceptable, now considered unacceptable?


Before you can solve a problem you need to be honest with yourself that there is a problem, And seek the real causes, rather than blame what is convenient to you.

Okay - how about this - Feminism doesn't understand Masculinity. I mean that deeply and sincerely - problem is, they think they do. They understand a caricature of Masculinity, but that is only based on the veneer that Men present that they understand. Since they don't understand it, they advocate for things based on bad data - that ends up hurting Men.

There's a fantastic book on this - Self Made Man by Norah Vincent. Where a Lesbian journalist lives as a Man for 18 months. By living the experience, she gained a much deeper understanding as to what it meant to be a Man. Interestingly enough - living as a Man for just 18 months gave her clinical depression, and after she dealt with that, she realized the many areas where Women do have it better.

There's a lot of things that are Paradoxical about Men and Boys - consider play-fighting, Women who have grown up without brothers can't tell the difference between Play Fighting and Real fighting and there is an erroneous belief that boys that Play fight will grow up to be Violent, whereas the opposite is overwhelmingly true.


Intersting enough you go on about islam being dangerous due to its teachings and them not wanting to align their belief with modern societies expectations of dress and culture, yet you seem to agree with their polices toward women or societies expectations regarding behaviour.

No, I don't. Can you provide a citation where I've said that?

The closest I will go in the discussion about dress is to express that some choices, are bad choices. I remember going out to Pubs, Clubs, Gigs, Festivals etc. And have seen ladies dressed in what can best be described as "3 strategically placed bits of string" (and enjoyed every moment of it)

Such a manner of dress is designed to be sexually provocative, either to entice a mate, or to make the wearer feel good about themselves by showing off their assets. That is a choice, I'm not advocating for the Government or any other agency infringe upon it.

Where I go with the discussion is to say that should something happen, we all agree that the legal blame falls purely on the perpetrator. We all agree it should not happen. We all agree that Women should be able to wear what they like.

The reality is, that there are Predators out there - there always will be. Predators typically go for the easiest prey. By making such a decision, the wearer has increased their risk. And as such, that gets factored into the discussion. Now, I've heard at length that this is some unrealistic expectation that only women are held to, yet this is complete BS. Go to any 'rider down' thread on any motorcycle forum - you'll see a myriad of posts about people discussing what risks the rider took even if the fault of the accident is not theirs, in much the same way.

To re-iterate, Women can wear what they want, but some choices may have unintended consequences, because the world isn't perfect.

[husaberg]

Drivel.

Making your posts longer doesn't alter the fact you are talking drivel.
I can post screeds of data that shows Men beat women.
Yet no one can claim its because of femism that this happens
On the other hand You cant produce any real data to show the reason young men commit suicide is because of sexual equality.
Yet if i could be bothered too i could produce reams of data show it was because of young men not talking through problems as they were trying to be stoic to live up to an outdated macho expectation that has nothing at all to do with sexual equality in-fact the total opposite.

[TheDemonLord]

Making your posts longer doesn't alter the fact you are talking drivel.

So you got nothing then?


I can post screeds of data that shows Men beat women.

I'm sure you can - although will you also post that when it comes to non-reciprocal violence - it's 70% women doing it?
Will you also post that in 50% of Domestic abuse scenarios - it's reciprocal? Erin Prizzy estimated that out of 100 women who came through the first womens shelter that she setup, 62 were "Violence Prone and as violent as the Men they left behind"
Will you also post that Lesbian relationships have the highest rate of Domestic abuse and homosexual male relationships have the lowest?

But if it makes you happy - yes, Domestic violence is a serious issue - it's almost like there's some biological underpinnings where one Gender has longer reach, greater bone density, 50% extra upper body strength, larger lungs, bigger Adrenal Glands that make them much more devastating in hand-to-hand combat.


Yet no one can claim its because of femism that this happens

No one is making that claim.


On the other hand You cant produce any real data to show the reason young men commit suicide is because of sexual equality.

I've never said that, I've said they commit suicide because of Policy pushed by Feminism. To be clear - I do not equate Feminism as it stands now with Sexual Equality.


Yet if i could be bothered too i could produce reams of data show it was because of young men not talking through problems as they were trying to be stoic to live up to an outdated macho expectation that has nothing at all to do with sexual equality in-fact the total opposite.

Okay Husa - let's take every word of that as holy writ. Here's the question:

You say that there is an outdated concept of Masculinity. This supposes that in times gone past, this was the accepted Standard.
You say that because of this Concept, Men don't talk about their issues. Following on from the above and the previous statement, it therefore stands to reason that in the past when this standard was the norm and no one had an issues with it, that a greater proportion of Men didn't talk about their issues.
You say that this is the cause of the current Suicide epidemic.

However - if everything you said is true - that is impossible, since the suicide rate for Men has been inceasing, whereas the Suicide rate for Women has been fairly constant.

So clearly, that line of logic, when placed against the rates of Male Suicide cannot be right.

You were saying something about "Before you can solve a problem you need to be honest with yourself that there is a problem, And seek the real causes, rather than blame what is convenient to you."

[husaberg]

So you got nothing then?



I'm sure you can - although will you also post that when it comes to non-reciprocal violence - it's 70% women doing it?
Will you also post that in 50% of Domestic abuse scenarios - it's reciprocal? Erin Prizzy estimated that out of 100 women who came through the first womens shelter that she setup, 62 were "Violence Prone and as violent as the Men they left behind"
Will you also post that Lesbian relationships have the highest rate of Domestic abuse and homosexual male relationships have the lowest?

But if it makes you happy - yes, Domestic violence is a serious issue - it's almost like there's some biological underpinnings where one Gender has longer reach, greater bone density, 50% extra upper body strength, larger lungs, bigger Adrenal Glands that make them much more devastating in hand-to-hand combat.



No one is making that claim.



I've never said that, I've said they commit suicide because of Policy pushed by Feminism. To be clear - I do not equate Feminism as it stands now with Sexual Equality.



Okay Husa - let's take every word of that as holy writ. Here's the question:

You say that there is an outdated concept of Masculinity. This supposes that in times gone past, this was the accepted Standard.
You say that because of this Concept, Men don't talk about their issues. Following on from the above and the previous statement, it therefore stands to reason that in the past when this standard was the norm and no one had an issues with it, that a greater proportion of Men didn't talk about their issues.
You say that this is the cause of the current Suicide epidemic.

However - if everything you said is true - that is impossible, since the suicide rate for Men has been unceasing, whereas the Suicide rate for Women has been fairly constant.

So clearly, that line of logic, when placed against the rates of Male Suicide cannot be right.

You were saying something about "Before you can solve a problem you need to be honest with yourself that there is a problem, And seek the real causes, rather than blame what is convenient to you."
Unstead of patting yourself on the back if you opened up your blinkers you might see that there are plenty of reasons in the modern world that apply to the youth of today.
You only look at one. you only see what you believe is one.
Here is a clue there is loads of research none of which names feminism as a cause of youth suicide.
If your latest ploy had merit, don't you think ity would have come up previously.
As for girls vs boys Boys are more impetuous where as girls tend to plan attempts, That why women have a higher success rate.
ps the blaming women for getting beaten by men places you high on the scale of individuals whose every word should be ignored there after.
What you are doing is the katspam ploy of talking crap posting up a theory and saying it has to be correct if it cant be 110% ruled out.
ps i love how you go "heres the question" which is followed by no question.j

[TheDemonLord]

As for girls vs boys Boys are more impetuous where as girls tend to plan attempts, That why women have a higher success rate.

Okay, now you are actually talking out your Arse. Women attempt Suicide more than men, Men successfully kill themselves more than Women.

To be crystal clear - Women do NOT have a higher success rate. You are 100% incorrect on this. So how about you get down from your high-horse, as you clearly don't know what you are talking about.


ps the blaming women for getting beaten by men places you high on the scale of individuals whose every word should be ignored there after.

Where have I blamed women for getting beaten? Is it blame to point to the statistical data (y'know, Facts and Logic that you so piously exclaimed) and state that Domestic Violence isn't as simple as "Bad Men beat helpless Women".

What's the matter? Don't like that facts don't align with your worldview?


ps i love how you go "heres the question" which is followed by no question.j

The question is (which I thought would have been obvious) given the presuppositions that you yourself supplied in your reasoning would lead to the logical conclusion that Suicide rates would be higher in a society where more Men don't talk about their problems - how do you explain that in the past, when the attitude of Stoicism was more prevalent (by your own admission), the Suicide rate was lower?

Your theory does not translate with the data.

[husaberg]

Okay, now you are actually talking out your Arse. Women attempt Suicide more than men, Men successfully kill themselves more than Women.

To be crystal clear - Women do NOT have a higher success rate. You are 100% incorrect on this. So how about you get down from your high-horse, as you clearly don't know what you are talking about.



Where have I blamed women for getting beaten? Is it blame to point to the statistical data (y'know, Facts and Logic that you so piously exclaimed) and state that Domestic Violence isn't as simple as "Bad Men beat helpless Women".

What's the matter? Don't like that facts don't align with your worldview?



The question is (which I thought would have been obvious) given the presuppositions that you yourself supplied in your reasoning would lead to the logical conclusion that Suicide rates would be higher in a society where more Men don't talk about their problems - how do you explain that in the past, when the attitude of Stoicism was more prevalent (by your own admission), the Suicide rate was lower?

Your theory does not translate with the data.
Wow now you are just trying to manipulate what i said. I said No women have a higher success rate i said nothing about how often they attempt suicide. they clearly have HIGHER RATE OF DEATH/ attempt as i said men are more impulsive.
Where have you blamed women for being beaten? its pretty clear in your post thats what you were attempting to do. Hiding behind the i am only posting stuff is a epic cop out on your behalf.
I will give you a clue there is nothing you can do or say that justifies domestic abuse of any kind.
Its another Katspam ploy to take data use it out of context and ignore anything else that doesnt suit
You are getting confused, You dont have facts you have your opinion that is not backed by any credible research.
So its time for you to produce some credible research to back our opinion that teen suicide is actually cause by feminism and female equality and not by all the other readons that are widely reaseached or admit you dont have any.

[TheDemonLord]

Wow now you are just trying to manipulate what i said. I said No women have a higher success rate i said nothing about how often they attempt suicide. they clearly have HIGHER RATE OF DEATH/ attempt as i said men are more impulsive.

No.
They Don't.

It's simple: Group A attempt suicide more than Group B. Group B completes suicide more than Group A. Which one has the higher success rate? Clearly if Group B attempt it less, but complete it more - then Group B (Men) have a higher Success Rate.

Men may be more Impulsive, but Impulsive Men use instantly fatal means, often means that leave gruesome wounds (Firearms, Hanging, Jumping etc.). Women prefer methods that leave their beauty intact - in particular, their face (even in death...) with hanging, Drug overdose and wrist slitting being the popular options.


Where have you blamed women for being beaten? its pretty clear in your post thats what you were attempting to do. Hiding behind the i am only posting stuff is a epic cop out on your behalf.

No, it's what you WANT me to attempt to do, as opposed of addressing the inconvenient facts that flies counter to your narrative.


You are getting confused, You dont have facts you have your opinion that is not backed by any credible research.

How do you reconcile your theory and your facts with reality? You cannot - which is why you aren't answering the challenge, but just coming back with a whole load of nothing.

[Katman]

Making your posts longer doesn't alter the fact you are talking drivel.


Oh, the irony.

[husaberg]

No.
They Don't.

It's simple: Group A attempt suicide more than Group B. Group B completes suicide more than Group A. Which one has the higher success rate? Clearly if Group B attempt it less, but complete it more - then Group B (Men) have a higher Success Rate.

Men may be more Impulsive, but Impulsive Men use instantly fatal means, often means that leave gruesome wounds (Firearms, Hanging, Jumping etc.). Women prefer methods that leave their beauty intact - in particular, their face (even in death...) with hanging, Drug overdose and wrist slitting being the popular options.



No, it's what you WANT me to attempt to do, as opposed of addressing the inconvenient facts that flies counter to your narrative.



How do you reconcile your theory and your facts with reality? You cannot - which is why you aren't answering the challenge, but just coming back with a whole load of nothing.

You are going off one set of data not the majority, not only that if we use your one set of data set we can see that women attempted it more often so you cause for teen suicide is clearly very wrong. Which is kind of inconvenient for you and your theory.
lets look at NZ data,
Your dramatic increase and epidemic doesnt hold water. thats 20 years of data rather than one study.

Age
The rates of suicide for youth tended to be higher than other life stage groups, but the rate for youth decreased significantly over the 20-year period.


For male youth, the rate of rural suicides decreased significantly from a peak of 54.4 per 100,000 in 2009 to 15.0 per 100,000 in 2015.
Seeing as you say feminism is the cause how pray tell did the rate of feminism decline over this period causing this drop.
https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/suicide-facts-data-tables-19962015

then if we go to global data
again your theories dont hold water
https://www.who.int/mental_health/suicide-prevention/globally_in_young_people_2016.JPG
https://www.who.int/mental_health/suicide-prevention/15_29_years_death_leading_causes_2016.JPG

So here is an idea mAaybe teen sucide is caused by a heap of other social and economic and mental health combined with comunication issues that have nothing at all to do with your theories about feminism being the cause.

[carbonhed]

You are going off one set of data not the majority, not only that if we use your one set of data set we can see that women attempted it more often so you cause for teen suicide is clearly very wrong. Which is kind of inconvenient for you and your theory.
lets look at NZ data,

:clap: Keep digging dude.

Women attempt suicide more often than men. Men succeed more often than women. More men die of suicide than women because we do everything better :laugh:

[husaberg]

:clap: Keep digging dude.

Women attempt suicide more often than men. Men succeed more often than women. More men die of suicide than women because we do everything better :laugh:

It never used to be the case the issue i can see is the data tends to include all people admitted for self harm.We were always taught the opposite, ie a woman decided to end their life there were more likely to be successful.
I would say the data is being skewed by the famale cutters being included as its also a form of self harm.

[TheDemonLord]

We were always taught the opposite, ie a woman decided to end their life there were more likely to be successful.

It's almost like you've been taught a lie, promolgated by Feminist theory....

[husaberg]

It's almost like you've been taught a lie, promolgated by Feminist theory....


The saddest part, is that Suicide is the biggest killer for Men under I think 25.

It's almost like theres a link between telling Men they are all tyrannical, Woman-Beating Rapists - and young men killing themselves.




You say that there is an outdated concept of Masculinity. This supposes that in times gone past, this was the accepted Standard.
You say that because of this Concept, Men don't talk about their issues. Following on from the above and the previous statement, it therefore stands to reason that in the past when this standard was the norm and no one had an issues with it, that a greater proportion of Men didn't talk about their issues.
You say that this is the cause of the current Suicide epidemic.

However - if everything you said is true - that is impossible, since the suicide rate for Men has been inceasing, whereas the Suicide rate for Women has been fairly constant.

So clearly, that line of logic, when placed against the rates of Male Suicide cannot be right.

You were saying something about "Before you can solve a problem you need to be honest with yourself that there is a problem, And seek the real causes, rather than blame what is convenient to you."

Age
The rates of suicide for youth tended to be higher than other life stage groups, but the rate for youth decreased significantly over the 20-year period.


For male youth, the rate of rural suicides decreased significantly from a peak of 54.4 per 100,000 in 2009 to 15.0 per 100,000 in 2015.
Seeing as you say feminism is the cause how pray tell did the rate of feminism decline over this period causing this drop.
https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/suicide-facts-data-tables-19962015

https://www.who.int/mental_health/suicide-prevention/globally_in_young_people_2016.JPG
https://www.who.int/mental_health/suicide-prevention/15_29_years_death_leading_causes_2016.JPG
None of what you said has proven to be true

[TheDemonLord]

You are going off one set of data not the majority, not only that if we use your one set of data set we can see that women attempted it more often so you cause for teen suicide is clearly very wrong. Which is kind of inconvenient for you and your theory.

No, I'm not.

We know women attempt suicide more than Men, if we look at the data you posted - in all but one Age Bracket, Men complete suicide more than Women. In the one age Bracket where women complete suicide more than Men, it's an exceptionally close margin. When you factor in the attempts, it's clear:

You are demonstrably wrong on this point.


lets look at NZ data,
Your dramatic increase and epidemic doesnt hold water. thats 20 years of data rather than one study.

The NZ data shows that Female suicide rates have remained fairly constant over time, Male suicide rates started to sky-rocket from about the 1980s onwards.


Seeing as you say feminism is the cause how pray tell did the rate of feminism decline over this period causing this drop.
https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/suicide-facts-data-tables-19962015

I'm not saying Feminism is THE cause, only that it is A cause.

As for the explanation: The dotcom boom provided a large number of Males with a path to achieve status, wealth and a position in a new hierarchy, the Internet also had a large number of predominantly Male-only areas, where Men were able to bond, relax, guy-talk etc. all without being brow-beaten by someone claiming that they are *ist every 5 seconds.

Now the Feminism has infiltrated and infected those areas, the rates have started to increase.


then if we go to global data
again your theories dont hold water

All your data is showing, is that you are wrong on your statement that Women are more successful than Men when it comes to Suicide. This is not something up for debate.

[TheDemonLord]

None of what you said has proven to be true

Except, by the data you yourself posted.

I'll be clear: Women do not have a higher success rate then Men when it comes to suicide. This is backed up by multiple cross-cultural studies.

The fact you persist with this idea that even the graphs you, yourself posted, disproves - would be laughable if it weren't such a serious topic.

[husaberg]

Except, by the data you yourself posted.

I'll be clear: Women do not have a higher success rate then Men when it comes to suicide. This is backed up by multiple cross-cultural studies.

The fact you persist with this idea that even the graphs you, yourself posted, disproves - would be laughable if it weren't such a serious topic.

So when you said it was the greatest cause of death in the under 25s ,although this clearly isnt true, you think it still is?
Or when the rate of males who dis in NZ significantly declined despite you suggesting otherwise, you still think what you said was true.
So when the Males vs Females that dies of suicide where far more 50-50 than you said there were, you still think what you said was true.
I am not surprised you are confused.
Declareing a win while ignoring the obvious glaring faults in what you said is so Steve of you

[carbonhed]

It never used to be the case the issue i can see is the data tends to include all people admitted for self harm.We were always taught the opposite, ie a woman decided to end their life there were more likely to be successful.
I would say the data is being skewed by the famale cutters being included as its also a form of self harm.

What's actually the case is that you are completely wrong. Right?

[husaberg]

What's actually the case is that you are completely wrong. Right?

I would be more tha keen to admit i was wrong on that one small part of the discussion if you could provide the data that has the suicide attempts minus the self harm where suicide was not attempted proved that.

[TheDemonLord]

So when you said it was the greatest cause of death in the under 25s ,although this clearly isnt true, you think it still is?

Mortality review in young persons (https://www.hqsc.govt.nz/assets/CYMRC/Publications/CYMRC-ninth-data-report-2008-2012.pdf)

Perhaps you should take it up with the University of Otago:

Look at the table on Page 33 (People aged 15-19) The single biggest cause of Death is Suicide, for all years listed
Look at the table on Page 37 (People aged 19-24) The single biggest cause of Death is Suicide, for all years listed


Or when the rate of males who dis in NZ significantly declined despite you suggesting otherwise, you still think what you said was true.

Try again, in English and in relation to what I actually said.


So when the Males vs Females that dies of suicide where far more 50-50 than you said there were, you still think what you said was true.

That's not what I said. From the graphs you posted, it averages out to be 57% Males, 43% Females - however, that ignores that we know Women attempt suicide more than Men.

If you attempt something more, but succeed less you have a lower success rate, not higher.


I am not surprised you are confused.
Declareing a win while ignoring the obvious glaring faults in what you said is so Steve of you

Except.
Your.
Own.
Data.
Disproves.
Everything.
You.
Have.
Said.

[husaberg]

Mortality review in young persons (https://www.hqsc.govt.nz/assets/CYMRC/Publications/CYMRC-ninth-data-report-2008-2012.pdf)

Perhaps you should take it up with the University of Otago:

Look at the table on Page 33 (People aged 15-19) The single biggest cause of Death is Suicide, for all years listed
Look at the table on Page 37 (People aged 19-24) The single biggest cause of Death is Suicide, for all years listed



Try again, in English and in relation to what I actually said.



That's not what I said. From the graphs you posted, it averages out to be 57% Males, 43% Females - however, that ignores that we know Women attempt suicide more than Men.

If you attempt something more, but succeed less you have a lower success rate, not higher.



Except.
Your.
Own.
Data.
Disproves.
Everything.
You.
Have.
Said.

Yet all of what you are trying to say is disproved.
So you go to another set of data. 2008-2012
while i posted 1996−2015 https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/suicide-facts-data-tables-19962015
I also posted the entire world figures.
you then ignore the rest. like how you said it wss dramatically growing when it was in decline in NZ plus worldwide its not the greatest killer.
PATHETIC


The saddest part, is that Suicide is the biggest killer for Men under I think 25.

It's almost like theres a link between telling Men they are all tyrannical, Woman-Beating Rapists - and young men killing themselves.

this is what you said yet you attempt to say now you were talking about people 19-24 and 15-19 only in NZ.

[TheDemonLord]

Yet all of what you are trying to say is disproved.
So you go to another set of data. 2008-2012
while i posted 1996−2015 https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/suicide-facts-data-tables-19962015
I also posted the entire world figures.
you then ignore the rest. like how you said it wss dramatically growing when it was in decline in NZ plus worldwide its not the greatest killer.
PATHETIC

The worlds figures - so that will include all the 3rd world countries where disease, poor safety, wars etc. all have an effect. It's like you are trying to muddy the water, in order to disprove something that was clearly in relation to the first world countries (yah know - the ones where Feminism is a thing)


this is what you said yet you attempt to say now you were talking about people 19-24 and 15-19 only in NZ.

Not just in NZ, in the UK it's Men under 45, in the US it's one of the highest, etc. etc. in fact, most of the western world. Guess where Feminism has taken strongest root?

It's almost like theres a strong correlation, some might even say Causation.

[carbonhed]

I would be more tha keen to admit i was wrong on that one small part of the discussion if you could provide the data that has the suicide attempts minus the self harm where suicide was not attempted proved that.

:lol:

You realise that when you're not just copying and pasting other peoples stuff you're completely incoherent?

[husaberg]

The worlds figures - so that will include all the 3rd world countries where disease, poor safety, wars etc. all have an effect. It's like you are trying to muddy the water, in order to disprove something that was clearly in relation to the first world countries (yah know - the ones where Feminism is a thing)



Not just in NZ, in the UK it's Men under 45, in the US it's one of the highest, etc. etc. in fact, most of the western world. Guess where Feminism has taken strongest root?
See there ypou go again katman cherry picking the low hanging fruit you only use figures and age groups that suit your agenda.
It's almost like theres a strong correlation, some might even say Causation.

The saddest part, is that Suicide is the biggest killer for Men under I think 25.
It's almost like theres a link between telling Men they are all tyrannical, Woman-Beating Rapists - and young men killing themselves.
So when you said the biggest killer under 25, you were meaning only in NZ and only between the ages of 15 and 25 ans only in the years 2008-2012.
PS the world figures clearly don't include disease, Plus neither do the world figures for suicide. these are the entire world figures not cherry picked certain years of certain countries of certain age groups
https://www.who.int/mental_health/suicide-prevention/15_29_years_death_leading_causes_2016.JPGhttps://www.who.int/mental_health/suicide-prevention/globally_in_young_people_2016.JPG


this is the cause of the current Suicide epidemic.
However - if everything you said is true - that is impossible, since the suicide rate for Men has been inceasing, whereas the Suicide rate for Women has been fairly constant.
So clearly, that line of logic, when placed against the rates of Male Suicide cannot be right.


Not only that, instead of your claims that youth Suicide is increasing and are at epidemic proportions, its actually dropping, rather dramatically, so has the feminism causative factor that you think causes the male suicides suddenly inexplicably disappeared?
https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/suicide-facts-data-tables-19962015 1996-2015 NZ data

Age
The rates of suicide for youth tended to be higher than other life stage groups, but the rate for youth decreased significantly over the 20-year period.
Sex
The rate of suicide for males decreased significantly (28.8%), from 22.9 per 100,000 males in 1996 to 16.3 per 100,000 males in 2015. During the same time period the rate for females did not change markedly.

For male youth, the rate of rural suicides decreased significantly from a peak of 54.4 per 100,000 in 2009 to 15.0 per 100,000 in 2015

[Graystone]

"How does context change the interpretation"

That's a great question Graystone - maybe you should look into that, you might be onto something there...



Is that like where I asked you for a quotation and you then started spewing a bunch of Insults?

Even if we accept your point of Umbrage (which I don't), you're still left with the reality of you have done all of which you accuse me of. So, just how does that align with your own behavior? Are you as you say "self perpetuating cycle of stupidity..."?

In this specific case. How does saying other stuff about what I've done, change your simple answer to a simple question, from a yes to a no?

Because this is exactly the point, why should I back up what I say about you, when you just lie and obfuscate instead of conceding a point that you are so clearly wrong on. What good does proving I'm not lying, when you are too irrational and illogical to even recognize what honesty is?

[TheDemonLord]

In this specific case. How does saying other stuff about what I've done, change your simple answer to a simple question, from a yes to a no?

Maybe, because the other stuff is what I actually accused you of? Maybe, given what I posted up in evidence should make it clear that this was explicitly what it was in relation to? Maybe, all the subsequent posts share a single unified string of logical fact that you are ignoring?


Because this is exactly the point, why should I back up what I say about you, when you just lie and obfuscate instead of conceding a point that you are so clearly wrong on. What good does proving I'm not lying, when you are too irrational and illogical to even recognize what honesty is?

So you're a Hypocrit by your own admission: You set one standard for other people, when they hold you to that same standard you just jump on your moral highhorse, claim irrationality and illogicality and hand-waive it away.

[TheDemonLord]

So when you said the biggest killer under 25, you were meaning only in NZ and only between the ages of 15 and 25 ans only in the years 2008-2012.
PS the world figures clearly don't include disease, Plus neither do the world figures for suicide. these are the entire world figures not cherry picked certain years of certain countries of certain age groups

Not only in NZ, most of the Western world.


Not only that, instead of your claims that youth Suicide is increasing and are at epidemic proportions, its actually dropping, rather dramatically, so has the feminism causative factor that you think causes the male suicides suddenly inexplicably disappeared?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/106532292/new-zealand-suicide-rate-highest-since-records-began

If you'd be so kind as to scroll down to the graph that shows a rather large increase, post 2015.

You were saying something about Cherry Picking and certain years?

I've given the reasons why I think that at the end of the 90's to the 2010's the Suicide rate for Men (remembering that the suicide rate for women remains fairly constant) decreased slightly. It has to do with Young Men's access to Male-only spaces where they can be themselves and learn how to be proper Men.

As some food for thought - many people consider the 'Gamergate' controversy as the start of the mass Feminist assault on Masculinity, It started in 2014. And post 2015, the Suicide rate starts to rise.

One might call that 'inexplicable'...

[TheDemonLord]

Also:

Get Woke, Go Broke - loosing $3.7 billion (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/electronic-arts-stock-heads-toward-largest-drop-in-more-than-a-decade-after-earnings-miss-2019-02-05)

[Graystone]

Maybe, because the other stuff is what I actually accused you of? Maybe, given what I posted up in evidence should make it clear that this was explicitly what it was in relation to? Maybe, all the subsequent posts share a single unified string of logical fact that you are ignoring?



So you're a Hypocrit by your own admission: You set one standard for other people, when they hold you to that same standard you just jump on your moral highhorse, claim irrationality and illogicality and hand-waive it away.

You answered yes when I asked if you were also accusing me of calling for censorship. If all your context shows that you do not have evidence for, or did not even mean to accuse me of that, shouldn't you have just answered no? Surely it means you were wrong when you answered yes? It's pretty dishonest to claim you meant no when you said yes, and that you were not in error to say yes...

Not at all, I set one standard for all people, but you have shown time and time again you do not even understand what that standard is, you simply don't understand the concept of honesty. As above, you refuse to admit you were wrong when it is bloody obvious yes does not mean no.

[TheDemonLord]

You answered yes when I asked if you were also accusing me of calling for censorship. If all your context shows that you do not have evidence for, or did not even mean to accuse me of that, shouldn't you have just answered no? Surely it means you were wrong when you answered yes? It's pretty dishonest to claim you meant no when you said yes, and that you were not in error to say yes...

The 'Yes' - was for what I accused you of.

Again, Context, both before and after, shows this to be the case, but you are deliberately ignoring it to try and claim some faux moral victory - presumably because you've got nothing to back your other talking points up, so you're reduced to trying to re-imagine a context where you are right.


Not at all, I set one standard for all people, but you have shown time and time again you do not even understand what that standard is, you simply don't understand the concept of honesty. As above, you refuse to admit you were wrong when it is bloody obvious yes does not mean no.

Then that's not one standard for all people if you've started creating exceptions.

Good to see you are repeatedly demonstrating your own hypocrisy.

[husaberg]

Not only in NZ, most of the Western world.
I posted the worlds figures you dimissed them as irrelevant as they made a liar of your claims sucide was the biggest killer of under 25's

The saddest part, is that Suicide is the biggest killer for Men under I think 25.



https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/106532292/new-zealand-suicide-rate-highest-since-records-began

If you'd be so kind as to scroll down to the graph that shows a rather large increase, post 2015.

You were saying something about Cherry Picking and certain years?
Cherry picking is exactly what you are doing i had the official long term figures i posted them over 20 years we had a 28% drop rather than a rise.
Now you still will not admit there has been a substantial drop over time rather than an epidemic rise as you claimed.




You say that there is an outdated concept of Masculinity. This supposes that in times gone past, this was the accepted Standard.
You say that because of this Concept, Men don't talk about their issues. Following on from the above and the previous statement, it therefore stands to reason that in the past when this standard was the norm and no one had an issues with it, that a greater proportion of Men didn't talk about their issues.
You say that this is the cause of the current Suicide epidemic.

However - if everything you said is true - that is impossible, since the suicide rate for Men has been inceasing, whereas the Suicide rate for Women has been fairly constant.

So clearly, that line of logic, when placed against the rates of Male Suicide cannot be right.

You were saying something about "Before you can solve a problem you need to be honest with yourself that there is a problem, And seek the real causes, rather than blame what is convenient to you."

Age
The rates of suicide for youth tended to be higher than other life stage groups, but the rate for youth decreased significantly over the 20-year period.


For male youth, the rate of rural suicides decreased significantly from a peak of 54.4 per 100,000 in 2009 to 15.0 per 100,000 in 2015.


I've given the reasons why I think that at the end of the 90's to the 2010's the Suicide rate for Men (remembering that the suicide rate for women remains fairly constant) decreased slightly. It has to do with Young Men's access to Male-only spaces where they can be themselves and learn how to be proper Men.

As some food for thought - many people consider the 'Gamergate' controversy as the start of the mass Feminist assault on Masculinity, It started in 2014. And post 2015, the Suicide rate starts to rise.

One might call that 'inexplicable'...
You clearly dont have a clue otherwise you wouldn't be going on about how radical femism is the reason behind males committing sucide
AS again in ther figures you again choose and posted there is a rise in Female sucides of THIS TIME 44% AND THEN 30%.
Your thoery doesnt stack up thats the reason why there is no experts that support it.


It's almost like theirs a link between telling Men they are all tyrannical, Woman-Beating Rapists - and young men killing themselves.

Female suicides increased by 44 compared to the year before - a 30 per cent increase to 193. .

Did somehow radical feminism stop those year increasing the number of female to males that killed themselves?
or between 1996 and 2015 when there was a 24% drop in total sucides was there a decrease in what you deem radical feminism then in those years.

ps seeing as you posted stuff news saying it was the highest rate of suicide sine records began can you explain how the official records i posted have much higher rates in 1996?
https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/suicide-facts-data-tables-19962015
or is having a headline that grabs attention more relevant to your point.

[Graystone]

The 'Yes' - was for what I accused you of.

Again, Context, both before and after, shows this to be the case, but you are deliberately ignoring it to try and claim some faux moral victory - presumably because you've got nothing to back your other talking points up, so you're reduced to trying to re-imagine a context where you are right.



Then that's not one standard for all people if you've started creating exceptions.

Good to see you are repeatedly demonstrating your own hypocrisy.

The 'yes' was a direct response to me asking if your post to somebody else applied to me. That is the context, why do you try and supplant it with other posts which came much before or after? They are clearly superseded by the immediate context.

The standard is the same, the problem is it requires honesty on your part to engage in the rational discussion such a standard requires. As seen above, you simply do not meet such basic prerequisites.

[TheDemonLord]

The 'yes' was a direct response to me asking if your post to somebody else applied to me. That is the context, why do you try and supplant it with other posts which came much before or after? They are clearly superseded by the immediate context.

Then clarified by the subsequent context (which you are also ignoring). Again - the only reason you are pursuing this argument is cause everything else fell flat on its face.


The standard is the same, the problem is it requires honesty on your part to engage in the rational discussion such a standard requires. As seen above, you simply do not meet such basic prerequisites.

Oh, so now the standard can't apply to me because I'm not worthy...

You should read a little history about what happens when delusional leftists start declaring that standards don't apply to some people who don't meet their prerequisites.

But I'll simply restate: If you are using an exception, it's not a standard - and you're a hypocrite.

[TheDemonLord]

I posted the worlds figures you dimissed them as irrelevant as they made a liar of your claims sucide was the biggest killer of under 25's

Did I state the World? No. I've clarified what the scope was (given the reference to Feminism, and that's only really applicable in the 1st world, I thought it would have been obvious).


Cherry picking is exactly what you are doing i had the official long term figures i posted them over 20 years we had a 28% drop rather than a rise.
Now you still will not admit there has been a substantial drop over time rather than an epidemic rise as you claimed.

Yeah, except your figures ended as the rise I am talking about started.


You clearly dont have a clue otherwise you wouldn't be going on about how radical femism is the reason behind males committing sucide

The reason?
No, I said A reason.
Stop this, you are better than that.

The rise in a particular strain of Feminism, coincides with the rise of young men killing themselves. Given some of the rhetoric, talking points and ideas (Toxic Masculinity, Rape Culture, Patriarchy etc.) this has an impact in making young men feel guilty for being themselves - Guess what people who feel guilty for Existing do? They choose not to Exist. There's a word for that: Suicide.



AS again in ther figures you again choose and posted there is a rise in Female sucides of THIS TIME 44% AND THEN 30%.
Your thoery doesnt stack up thats the reason why there is no experts that support it.

Female suicides increased by 44 compared to the year before - a 30 per cent increase to 193. .

http://socialreport.msd.govt.nz/content/images/figure-h3-2-RGB.png

You see that line down the bottom - you see how relatively flat it is, especially if you average out the peaks an troughs - that's the Female rate. Fairly consistent. See how the Male rate has shown an overal upward trend? Do you see how in the early 2000s it dropped off (like I said it did) - now, this graph ends at 2012 (unfortunately) but I think it's clear enough to illustrate the point.


Did somehow radical feminism stop those year increasing the number of female to males that killed themselves?

If you are asking what I think you are asking: see the above graph, yes there is variation, but overall the female rates have been pretty consistent.


or between 1996 and 2015 when there was a 24% drop in total sucides was there a decrease in what you deem radical feminism then in those years.

Yes - The internet was invented and everybody started to get rich - this has been discussed numerous times that at the beginning of the 90s was when we started to get the concept of Political Correctness, but after the dotcom boom - it seemed to stop.

As for the return of Radical Feminism - arguably the first opening salvo was in 2011, when the then Atheist Youtube Community was laying waste to Theists - the 4 Horsemen were in their prime etc. and Rebecca Watson got propositioned in an Elevator. This was the first major rift as some people (myself included) who heard her account of the incident thought she over-reacted: A Guy asked, she declined, he went about his business. Whereas to the Feminists in the Atheist community, this was a classic tail of Patriarchal Rape culture etc.

The next major event was Anita Sarkeesian's "Tropes vs Women in Video Games" series - which first got a major backlash on Kickstarter, then she released the videos. Amongst the complaints where:

1: She portrays herself as a lifelong Gamer, but there's video footage of her saying how she thinks games are stupid
2: She stole the Gameplay footage of the games she used
3: She deliberately removed all context from many of the games she critiqued - my favourite example is the game Prey - which was highly praised for it's portrayal of Native Americans and their culture
4: Most gamers don't buy into her Feminist presuppositions.

After that we had Gamergate and other events, we had people like Germaine Greer for a time become a regular on the Panel show circuit (until she committed the sin of Heresy and made a TERFish comment), we have multiple prominent (mainly) Women TV hosts espousing Feminist talking points. We have the entire education system which is run by people with a Left leaning bias (which invariably includes the Feminist world view) etc. etc.



ps seeing as you posted stuff news saying it was the highest rate of suicide sine records began can you explain how the official records i posted have much higher rates in 1996?
https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/suicide-facts-data-tables-19962015
or is having a headline that grabs attention more relevant to your point.

Did I say it was the highest rate? Or did I post it show the sharp rise over the last 3 years (which one might call an Epidemic)?

[Graystone]

Then clarified by the subsequent context (which you are also ignoring). Again - the only reason you are pursuing this argument is cause everything else fell flat on its face.



Oh, so now the standard can't apply to me because I'm not worthy...

You should read a little history about what happens when delusional leftists start declaring that standards don't apply to some people who don't meet their prerequisites.

But I'll simply restate: If you are using an exception, it's not a standard - and you're a hypocrite.

How can you clarify a yes to a no, without accepting you were in error?

The standard can't apply to anyone who does not have a basic grasp of honesty and rationality. Do not forget I am trying to apply it to you, in the above discussion. I have tried to apply it to you in the past, when I've pointed out your irrationality in your claims about things like what the Twitter CEO said, what an argument from authority means, etc; it all ends the same, with you being dishonest and irrational. This is why I only apply the standard to you in a limited 'pilot' scope, instead of going through one of you ToDoLists of bullshit.

[Laava]

Is this the right thread for abuse?

[carbonhed]

Is this the right thread for abuse?

:lol: It certainly is! Pull up a chair and how would you like it served?

[husaberg]

Did I state the World? No. I've clarified what the scope was (given the reference to Feminism, and that's only really applicable in the 1st world, I thought it would have been obvious).



Yeah, except your figures ended as the rise I am talking about started.



The reason?
No, I said A reason.
Stop this, you are better than that.

The rise in a particular strain of Feminism, coincides with the rise of young men killing themselves. Given some of the rhetoric, talking points and ideas (Toxic Masculinity, Rape Culture, Patriarchy etc.) this has an impact in making young men feel guilty for being themselves - Guess what people who feel guilty for Existing do? They choose not to Exist. There's a word for that: Suicide.

You see that line down the bottom - you see how relatively flat it is, especially if you average out the peaks an troughs - that's the Female rate. Fairly consistent. See how the Male rate has shown an overal upward trend? Do you see how in the early 2000s it dropped off (like I said it did) - now, this graph ends at 2012 (unfortunately) but I think it's clear enough to illustrate the point.



If you are asking what I think you are asking: see the above graph, yes there is variation, but overall the female rates have been pretty consistent.



Yes - The internet was invented and everybody started to get rich - this has been discussed numerous times that at the beginning of the 90s was when we started to get the concept of Political Correctness, but after the dotcom boom - it seemed to stop.

As for the return of Radical Feminism - arguably the first opening salvo was in 2011, when the then Atheist Youtube Community was laying waste to Theists - the 4 Horsemen were in their prime etc. and Rebecca Watson got propositioned in an Elevator. This was the first major rift as some people (myself included) who heard her account of the incident thought she over-reacted: A Guy asked, she declined, he went about his business. Whereas to the Feminists in the Atheist community, this was a classic tail of Patriarchal Rape culture etc.

The next major event was Anita Sarkeesian's "Tropes vs Women in Video Games" series - which first got a major backlash on Kickstarter, then she released the videos. Amongst the complaints where:

1: She portrays herself as a lifelong Gamer, but there's video footage of her saying how she thinks games are stupid
2: She stole the Gameplay footage of the games she used
3: She deliberately removed all context from many of the games she critiqued - my favourite example is the game Prey - which was highly praised for it's portrayal of Native Americans and their culture
4: Most gamers don't buy into her Feminist presuppositions.

After that we had Gamergate and other events, we had people like Germaine Greer for a time become a regular on the Panel show circuit (until she committed the sin of Heresy and made a TERFish comment), we have multiple prominent (mainly) Women TV hosts espousing Feminist talking points. We have the entire education system which is run by people with a Left leaning bias (which invariably includes the Feminist world view) etc. etc.




Did I say it was the highest rate? Or did I post it show the sharp rise over the last 3 years (which one might call an Epidemic)?
You're right i am better.
Lets recap.
You seek to blame Women for male Suicide.
Your own data doesn't support what you are saying.
all the worlds data doesn't correspond at all with what you are saying.
All the worlds experts don't support what you are saying.
the only way you can find anything close is by taking tiny amounts of data to show a small trend due to yearly variation when all the data shows a sizable drop of over time.Bravo..........

If that is what you need to make your penis feel adequate go ahead.
You deluding yourself doesn't change the real research finding that find its economic reasons and mental health the lack of male role models. Nor the size of you phallus.

ie a child is twice as likely to attempt suicide if they are from a single parent family,
Also males raised in a broken homes to be three times as likely to have thought seriously about suicide as those whose parents had stayed together.
Us figures show About 40% of children who do not live with their biological father have not seen him during the past 12 months; more than half of them have never been in his home and 26% of those fathers live in a different state than their children.
Teenagers in single-parent families and in blended families are 300% more likely to need psychological help within any given year than teens from intact, nuclear families.
Then we have drug and alcohol use.
40% of patients seeking treatment for alcohol/substance use disorder report at least one suicide attempt at some point in their lives.
Acute alcohol intoxication is present in about 30–40% of suicide attempts and suicides.
While 95% of individuals with a mental illness and/or substance use disorder will not die by suicide, 90% of individuals who do die by suicide have either a mental or substance use disorder, or both
Between 40–60% of those who die by suicide are intoxicated at the time of those who death.
Studies conducted in substance abuse rehabilitation programs typically reported that 50–75% of clients had some type of co-occurring mental disorder.
Men are more likely to commit suicide than women. Researchers suggest that men suffering from depression are more likely to go unrecognized and untreated than women suffering from depression, in part because men may avoid seeking help (viewing it as a weakness). Men who are depressed are also more likely to have co-occurring alcohol and substance use disorders than women.
Women are more likely than men to attempt suicide.
Being a parent, particularly for mothers, appears to decrease the risk of suicide. Even pregnant women have a lower risk of suicide than women of childbearing age who are not pregnant.
75% of global suicides occur in low- and middle-income countries, so suicide is not a problem that occurs only in industrialized, wealthy nations as had often be previously suggested in the past.
Unemployment is associated with increased rates of suicide.
While i am sure you will fire back that radical feminism is the cause of divorce, given the reasons women cite vs men when seeking divorce this is clearly not the case. Not that logic will preclude you from picking those undersized low hung fruit. (see what i did there)
For better or worse and love and cherish doesn't really include adultery or physical abuse.

[Katman]

Stop this, you are better than that.

No, he really isn't.

[husaberg]

No, he really isn't.

Of course ifs anyone on KB wanted someone to quantify data relevance and meaning in a logical manner everyone would automatically say yeah Katman.

[TheDemonLord]

How can you clarify a yes to a no, without accepting you were in error?

The only error was a presumption on my part of your ability to understand how English works, how statements addressed to distinct individuals works.

But it's clear - the only reason you are sticking with this - is because you've got nothing left.


The standard can't apply to anyone who does not have a basic grasp of honesty and rationality. Do not forget I am trying to apply it to you, in the above discussion. I have tried to apply it to you in the past, when I've pointed out your irrationality in your claims about things like what the Twitter CEO said, what an argument from authority means, etc; it all ends the same, with you being dishonest and irrational. This is why I only apply the standard to you in a limited 'pilot' scope, instead of going through one of you ToDoLists of bullshit.

And all very convenient that you, yourself just happen to be the arbiter of what is and what isn't...

In the words of Yoda:

Do, or do not.
There is no Try.

-Edit:

To claim you hold everyone to a standard, then to add an exception solely at your own whim, then to make the case that you'd love to try and apply that standard, but alas you cannot.

This is an extension of the Dishonesty I accused you of.

[TheDemonLord]

You're right i am better.
Lets recap.
You seek to blame Women for male Suicide.

No, try again. I'm saying certain Feminist theories that in turn drive certain public discussion and policy have an anti-male bias, which in turn is a key causal factor in the alienation that young men feel, which drives them to suicide.

Women =/= Feminists (remember, only about a maximum of 20% of women self-identify as Feminist)


Your own data data support what you are saying.

I'm glad you agree.


all the worlds data doesn't correspond at all with what you are saying.

That's because this issue is only applicable in western, first world countries - the same ones that have powerful Feminist lobbying organizations.


All the worlds experts don't support what you are saying.

All? So, Christina Hoff Sommers, Erin Prizzy, JBP, Bettina Ardnt etc. etc. aren't included as Experts?
Or are they only experts if they agree with what you are saying?


the only way you can find anything close is by taking tiny amounts of data to show a small trend due to yearly variation when all the data shows a sizable drop of over time.Bravo..........

'Cause fuck those young men right? They are just a small trend due to a yearly variation. Who gives a shit if they off themselves...

Right?

Who's the supposed Sexist again? For someone who claims to adhere to the Feminist viewpoint - you sure are doing a wonderful job of reinforcing the concept of Male Disposability...


If that is what you need to make your penis feel adequate go ahead.
You deluding yourself doesn't change the real research finding that find its economic reasons and mental health the lack of male role models. Nor the size of you phallus.

I'm flattered that you are thinking about the size of my cock - and for your information, it goes up, gives the wife the best 30 seconds of her life, then goes back down. If you need more information - you'll have to subscribe to my Premium service.

But here's the funny thing - Lack of Male Role Models you say? What an interesting idea...

Would the denigration of the traditional Male Role Model, being labelled as reinforcing Toxic Masculinity have anything to do with that? Naaaaaahhhhh.
Well done on proving my point. Also - if it was purely economic, then why aren't people in the 3rd world killing themselves en masse?

Now, before I begin this next series of rebuttals, I'd like to point out - that the below is a text Gish Gallop of throwing out a large number of tangentially related 'facts' in order to obfuscate the fact that you are talking shit.



ie a child is twice as likely to attempt suicide if they are from a single parent family,
Also males raised in a broken homes to be three times as likely to have thought seriously about suicide as those whose parents had stayed together.
Us figures show About 40% of children who do not live with their biological father have not seen him during the past 12 months; more than half of them have never been in his home and 26% of those fathers live in a different state than their children.

Okay.

Julie Bindel (Feminist)

Women, face it: marriage can never be feminist
Sheila Cronan (Feminist)

(Womens Liberation) cannot be won without the abolition of marriage
Marlene Dixon (Feminist)

The institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained
Andrea Dvorkin (Feminist)

marriage as an institution, developed from rape, as a practice
Review of the Female Eunuch (Watershed 2nd wave Feminist Text by Germaine Greer)

Revolution does little more than ‘peep to what it would’. It hints that women ought not to enter into socially sanctioned relationships, like marriage, and that once unhappily in they ought not to scruple to run away.

Shall I go on?


Teenagers in single-parent families and in blended families are 300% more likely to need psychological help within any given year than teens from intact, nuclear families.

In addition to the above, we've got to look at Feminist support of various bits of legislation that are hangovers from when women didn't have equal oppertunity - such as Alimony, Tender Years doctrine (which although has been replaced by more neutral laws, still has a hangover), the entire Divorce court proceedings - including false allegations of abuse being levied (I'll give you a clue in which direction the 'believable' ones are made) etc. etc.

We've removed the Societal pressure to keep families intact (Thanks to Feminism), We've removed the Legal pressure to keep families intact (Thanks to Feminism), We've setup a system where the group that on average is more prone to negative emotion can chuck in the towel, safe in the knowledge that they will get everything they want (Primary care of the kids, minimum 50% of the assets etc. etc.) with no immediate risk of loosing (Thanks to Feminism) - And you wonder why I say that Feminism might be a causal factor?



Then we have drug and alcohol use.
40% of patients seeking treatment for alcohol/substance use disorder report at least one suicide attempt at some point in their lives.
Acute alcohol intoxication is present in about 30–40% of suicide attempts and suicides.
While 95% of individuals with a mental illness and/or substance use disorder will not die by suicide, 90% of individuals who do die by suicide have either a mental or substance use disorder, or both

All very serious issues - I see you've refenced a JBP vid in another thread - you should hear what he says about helping young men with Drug and Alcohol problems. You don't tell them they are a predatory rapist whose sole existence is to oppress Wahmens underneath the heal of the tyrannical Patriarchy... Instead, you give them a challenge, one that they might be able to succeed in, but only if they work hard on it. You give them a vision of what the highest virtue of Masculinity is, and you tell them that they can achieve it.

One Message browbeats them, convinces them of their worthlessness and ties the noose around their Neck.
The other challenges them to the adventure of Life and tells them they could achieve their personal version of Greatness, provided they work hard, take responsibility and make the necessary sacrifices. Discipline equals Freedom.

Guess which message is promulgated by Feminists?


Men are more likely to commit suicide than women...Women are more likely than men to attempt suicide.

So you agree, this statement:



As for girls vs boys Boys are more impetuous where as girls tend to plan attempts, That why women have a higher success rate

Was/is factually BS (as I said it was)


Being a parent, particularly for mothers, appears to decrease the risk of suicide. Even pregnant women have a lower risk of suicide than women of childbearing age who are not pregnant.

It's almost like there's some Biology at work there...

But don't go suggesting to Women that they should aim to be Mothers - that's just the Sexist Patriarchal Tyranny talking...



75% of global suicides occur in low- and middle-income countries, so suicide is not a problem that occurs only in industrialized, wealthy nations as had often be previously suggested in the past.

Good thing I'm not (for the umpteenth time) talking about issues Globally.


Unemployment is associated with increased rates of suicide.

Yes, being cast down to the bottom of the Hierarchy, with all the associated pressures is a reason for Suicide.


While i am sure you will fire back that radical feminism is the cause of divorce, given the reasons women cite vs men when seeking divorce this is clearly not the case. Not that logic will preclude you from picking those undersized low hung fruit. (see what i did there)
For better or worse and love and cherish doesn't really include adultery or physical abuse.

Well, see above - Radical Feminism views Marriage as an extension of the Patriarchy. And yes, when 70% of all Divorces are initiated by Women, the loosening of the Social, Legal and other impediments might have something to do with it. You say 'Low Hanging Fruit' - but I think the correct description is:

"Inconvieniant facts that I'm trying to ignore because they run counter to my Narrative"

Where your pre-emptive strike fails is because the most common reason isn't Adultery or Physical Abuse - it's dissatisfaction - remember above when I pointed out Women (on average) are more prone to negative emotion than men? It's almost like theres a causal link here...

[husaberg]

.

So i missed one word, got one stat seemingly out of date. Where as you, misrepresented a whole 20 year trend that is worldwide, made up a another stat and claimed it was back by another study, but only, if you dismiss 18 years of it.
then you attempted to create a link that doesn't exist that no other resaecher has ever seen.
You make statements about one worldwide issue, but refuse to use world figures, but only want to use parts of years, of single countries, to try and prove a tie in it to a world movement thats been going on for 100 years.
Then to top it all off, you quote a whole heap of BS from some silly bints no ones listens to or has heard of,let alone the victims would have, vainly hoping it props up your argument.
I gave you the credible research its up to you to prove the link.
Judging by your previous attempts, you are nowhere there and heading towards Katman conspiracy level 201.
80% of what you post when its taken in its correct context using all the data does not support your argument at al,l it actually refutes it.
You have the floor, Now prove every other researcher and psychologist in the world wrong...............
ps pointing out the biological difference as being why less females of certain ages dont comt sucide as often, doesnt helpb your case much, when you claim the reason more men die from suicide is caused by radical feminism.

[TheDemonLord]

So i missed one word, got one stat seemingly out of date. Where as you, misrepresented a whole 20 year trend that is worldwide, made up a another stat and claimed it was back by another study, but only, if you dismiss 18 years of it.

I did no such thing - You keep mentioning 'worldwide' - I've made it clear that this is not speaking about the Worldwide issue.


then you attempted to create a link that doesn't exist that no other resaecher has ever seen.

Except for those researchers I mentioned.


You make statements about one worldwide issue, but refuse to use world figures, but only want to use parts of years, of single countries, to try and prove a tie in it to a world movement thats been going on for 100 years.

I'm not talking about the Worldwide issue, I'm not sure how I can make this clearer?

As for Feminism being a World movement - the current brand of 4th wave inter-sectional Feminism (which is what I take umbrage with) only exists in the west. The other areas that have Feminist movements (such as India, Saudi Arabia etc.) are still on the 2nd wave - fighting for legal equality, which is something I've got no issue with.


Then to top it all off, you quote a whole heap of BS from some silly bints no ones listens to or has heard of,let alone the victims would have, vainly hoping it props up your argument.

I agree they are Silly Bints, however Julie Bindel writes for the Guardian (surprise surprise), so does Germaine Greer - in fact, until she threw her lot in with the TERFs, she was invited on game shows, gave interviews on various News/Breakfast shows etc. Not to mention her book 'The Female Eunuch' is considered a seminal Feminist text.

Andrea Dvorkin was another hugely influential Feminist writer (as well as a bone fide man-hating Lesbian).

Now - at no point did I say the Victims would be aware of these people, however the Ideas - which these people have introduced, which have permeated to mainstream culture (you are aware of terms such as 'Patriarchy', 'Toxic Masculinity' etc. which proves the extent to which this poison has seeped in) do have an effect.


I gave you the credible research its up to you to prove the link.

I never took any issue with any of the data-points you cited - I simply linked them back to the rhetoric of prominent Feminists - it's funny that you ignore that part.


Judging by your previous attempts, you are nowhere there and heading towards Katman conspiracy level 201.
80% of what you post when its taken in its correct context using all the data does not support your argument at al,l it actually refutes it.

which, if we take your assessment as holy writ, leaves 20% that you are willfully ignoring, because it DOES support my Argument.


You have the floor, Now prove every other researcher and psychologist in the world wrong...............

I've already cited a number of prominent researchers and Psychologists who have talked on this issue, yet you seem to dismiss them - I wonder why?


ps pointing out the biological difference as being why less females of certain ages dont comt sucide as often, doesnt helpb your case much, when you claim the reason more men die from suicide is caused by radical feminism.

I'd suggest you might have better luck if you typed your posts yourself, as opposed to getting your dog to do it.

As for the point you tried to make - it happens to be very relevant. You'll no doubt dismiss it however because you don't like it.

[husaberg]

I did no such thing - You keep mentioning 'worldwide' - I've made it clear that this is not speaking about the Worldwide issue.

As for the point you tried to make - it happens to be very relevant. You'll no doubt dismiss it however because you don't like it.

You claimed it was the "biggest killer" and was reaching "epidemic proportions".


The saddest part, is that Suicide is the biggest killer for Men under I think 25.
.


Now later you mention that it only applied to "certain years" of "certain countries" you later wished to "hand pick".
You then used 2 years data but ignored when you use all the data there had been a 24% drop.
You claim radical feminism is the cause of the difference in Female vs Male suicide stats.
You said females numbers had remain static whilst ignoring a 33% and 44% rise in the female stats.


However - if everything you said is true - that is impossible, since the suicide rate for Men has been inceasing, whereas the Suicide rate for Women has been fairly constant.


Even if we ignored all these oversights you are left with a huge glaring omission
You claim the difference in the stats for male vs female is actually due to Some form of radical feminism that somehow causes young men to attempt suicide more so than women.


Only issue is young men dont attempt suicide more often than women, Women attempt it far more often.


Women attempt Suicide more than men, Men successfully kill themselves more than Women.

We know women attempt suicide more than Men, .

Not only that the recidivist rate for females attempting suicide is far higher as well.
So logically it cant clearly be the reason why they attempt it, there is must only effect the success rate then.
So exactly what is it with radical feminism that somehow makes men more successful at the act of killing themselves.

[TheDemonLord]

You claimed it was the "biggest killer" and was reaching "epidemic proportions".

I did - Nowhere did I say Globally. In the UK, the US, NZ, Australia etc.





Now later you mention that it only applied to "certain years" of "certain countries" you later wished to "hand pick".
You then used 2 years data but ignored when you use all the data there had been a 24% drop.
You claim radical feminism is the cause of the difference in Female vs Male suicide stats.
You said females numbers had remain static whilst ignoring a 33% and 44% rise in the female stats.

No, I said Feminism was a cause in the rise of Male Suicide.

As for the Female numbers staying fairly static - see the Graph I posted - see how the Female rate has peaks and troughs, but remains relatively stable, whereas the male graph shows a significant positive trend.

Given that I'm talking about this issue as a current issue, then pointing to historic data and saying 'but it was lower then' is irrelevant.



Even if we ignored all these oversights you are left with a huge glaring omission
You claim the difference in the stats for male vs female is actually due to Some form of radical feminism that somehow causes young men to attempt suicide more so than women.

No, the claim in regards to Feminist ideas is only in relation to Men. There are 2 distinct concepts:

1: Feminist ideas about Masculinity have a causal link with the increase in young, male suicide.
2: The Male vs Female aspect is to point out that Men complete suicide at a far higher rate than women, despite women attempting it more.

The second point is a rebuttal to your assertion that Women plan and therefore are more successful at committing Suicide - which, as I've pointed out and you are now implicitly agreeing, is 100% Bullshit.


Only issue is young men dont attempt suicide more often than women, Women attempt it far more often.

Which is a problem, I'd like no one to attempt and no one to complete Suicide. When faced with the limited means and resources - Do I focus on those people who will try and kill themselves, but survive or do I focus on those people who will actually kill themselves?


Not only that the recidivist rate for females attempting suicide is far higher as well.

It's hard to try and attempt suicide, when you are already dead....


So logically it cant clearly be the reason why they attempt it, there is must only effect the success rate then.
So exactly what is it with radical feminism that somehow makes men more successful at the act of killing themselves.

Your ability to disingenuously conflate 2 distinct topics is starting to amaze me.

I'll simply restate:

The success rate is one topic - it's one where you made a statement that is false, the reality is the complete opposite of what you said. This is believed to be a combination of 2 factors:

1: Men are more likely to use Violent and instantly lethal means
2: Women are more likely to use means that preserves their looks

Both of which are theorized to have a biological component.

Next topic is that Radical feminist ideas, theories and talking points - that have infiltrated into the mainstream dicourse, are damaging to young men and as such are a causal factor in Young Men wanting to kill themselves.

See if in your next reply you can:

A: Not try to reference global statistics - as I've addressed and clarified this
B: Maintain the distinction between separate concepts

[husaberg]

I did - Nowhere did I say Globally. In the UK, the US, NZ, Australia etc.






No, I said Feminism was a cause in the rise of Male Suicide.

As for the Female numbers staying fairly static - see the Graph I posted - see how the Female rate has peaks and troughs, but remains relatively stable, whereas the male graph shows a significant positive trend.

Given that I'm talking about this issue as a current issue, then pointing to historic data and saying 'but it was lower then' is irrelevant.




No, the claim in regards to Feminist ideas is only in relation to Men. There are 2 distinct concepts:

1: Feminist ideas about Masculinity have a causal link with the increase in young, male suicide.
2: The Male vs Female aspect is to point out that Men complete suicide at a far higher rate than women, despite women attempting it more.

The second point is a rebuttal to your assertion that Women plan and therefore are more successful at committing Suicide - which, as I've pointed out and you are now implicitly agreeing, is 100% Bullshit.



Which is a problem, I'd like no one to attempt and no one to complete Suicide. When faced with the limited means and resources - Do I focus on those people who will try and kill themselves, but survive or do I focus on those people who will actually kill themselves?



It's hard to try and attempt suicide, when you are already dead....



Your ability to disingenuously conflate 2 distinct topics is starting to amaze me.

I'll simply restate:

The success rate is one topic - it's one where you made a statement that is false, the reality is the complete opposite of what you said. This is believed to be a combination of 2 factors:

1: Men are more likely to use Violent and instantly lethal means
2: Women are more likely to use means that preserves their looks

Both of which are theorized to have a biological component.

Next topic is that Radical feminist ideas, theories and talking points - that have infiltrated into the mainstream dicourse, are damaging to young men and as such are a causal factor in Young Men wanting to kill themselves.

See if in your next reply you can:

A: Not try to reference global statistics - as I've addressed and clarified this
B: Maintain the distinction between separate concepts

Your taking yourself in circles,
You cant one one hand claim the reason more males die of suicide and say the reason is because of feminism. When actually More females attempt suicide in the first place.
its illogical in the extreme.


Nor can you claim the women's figures are static when in the same time period you keep banging on about, they rose by 34% and 40% in the two years respectively for the two year period you keep going on about.

I gave you the 20 year data that showed categorically there had been a 28% decline in Males. you said no i will only use two year data, So you are picking and choosing the data you use. When it suits
As for your tired "i was talking only about not global" posted your exact post.
tell me where in your post when you talked about the biggest killer and an epidemic where you were only referring to countries you wish to hand select data from afterwards only using only certain years you also hand select and then compared to to information over a 20 year period for females.

[TheDemonLord]

Your taking yourself in circles you cant one one hand claim the reason more males die of suicide and say the reason is because of feminism
When More females attempt suicide in the first place. its illogical in the extreme.

The only thing that's illogical is that Statement.

Literally, it's a classic non sequitur.


Nor can you claim the women's figures are static when in the same time period you keep banging on about, they rose by 34% and 40% in the two years respectively you keep going on about.

I never said they were static, stop with these Strawmen, Look at the graph.


I gave you the 20 year data that showed categorically there had been a 28% decline in Males. you said no i will only use two year data, So you are picking and choosing the data you use. When it suits

I've never said I only use 2 year data. Again, another strawman.

For the NZ data - for Women, the lowest rate per 100,000 is 135, the highest is 193 - that's from the last 10 years worth of data
For Men: 385 to 475

Both the highest were recorded in 2018.

It should be clear that due to the smaller sample size in the female population, a small change will have a larger effect to the overall rate. The difference between the highest and lowest in the last 10 years is 58 for women and 110 for Men.

This does not, however change the fact that the rates for Men, especially those in the 14-25 age bracket have increased significantly in the last few years.


As for your tired i was talking only about not global posted your exact post. tell me where in your post when you talked about the biggest killer and an epidemic you were only referring to countries you wish to hand select data from afterwards only using certain yesrs you also hand select and then compared to to information over a 20 year period for females.

Given the context, I thought the scope of the statement was clear - however, since you either ignored the Context or genuinely believed it to be a global statement, I've since clarified.

The fact that you persist, despite the clarification shows your argument for the crap that it is.

[husaberg]

The only thing that's illogical is that Statement.

Literally, it's a classic non sequitur.



I never said they were static, stop with these Strawmen, Look at the graph.



I've never said I only use 2 year data. Again, another strawman.

For the NZ data - for Women, the lowest rate per 100,000 is 135, the highest is 193 - that's from the last 10 years worth of data
For Men: 385 to 475

Both the highest were recorded in 2018.

It should be clear that due to the smaller sample size in the female population, a small change will have a larger effect to the overall rate. The difference between the highest and lowest in the last 10 years is 58 for women and 110 for Men.

This does not, however change the fact that the rates for Men, especially those in the 14-25 age bracket have increased significantly in the last few years.



Given the context, I thought the scope of the statement was clear - however, since you either ignored the Context or genuinely believed it to be a global statement, I've since clarified.

The fact that you persist, despite the clarification shows your argument for the crap that it is.
say Whatever change the dates used constantly then compare two years data to a 20 year average then blame what you call feminism for why more men attempt suicide when in fact less men attempt suicide then women do,flat refuse to use % variation as it clearly refutes your statements, ignore this, blame feminism, rinse repeat ad nausea
Thats what you are saying boils down to.
As far as preventing suicides what you post is a useful as Kastpams antivax misinformation is at preventing deaths from diseases that are easily vaccinated against.
Don't bother to reply i have lost interest in your latest stupid crusade

[TheDemonLord]

say Whatever change the dates used constantly then compare two years data to a 20 year average then blame what you call feminism for why more men attempt suicide when in fact less men attempt suicide then women do, ignore this blame feminism
Thats what you are saying boils down to.

Sure, if you are woefully misinterpreting what I say, ignoring the data (even the data you, yourself, posted) and are intent in sticking your head in your ideological sand.

However, if you want to try again:

I've not changed the dates constantly, since I'm talking about a current issue.
It's not what I call Feminism, it's what prominent Feminists have said/done (which is hilarious that you couldn't even acknowledge that or, if you disagreed with it, critique it).
Less Men attempt suicide, but far more men (about 3:1) complete Suicide. I think the completion bit is the more serious issue.
As for the 'Blame Feminism' - you cited a break down of the Nuclear family, at length, as a causal factor in Suicide. I pointed to multiple direct quotations of prominent Feminists denouncing the Concept of Marriage and the nuclear family unit.


So, let's try some basic logic:

If the breakdown of the nuclear family increases the risk of Suicide. (your statement, backed up with citations)
and
Prominent, highly influential Feminists advocate for the breaking down of the Nuclear Family. (My statement, backed up by citations)

Therefore, Feminist advocacy is associated with increasing the risk of Suicide. (My premise)

Exactly how is it an illogical statement? Unless you want to dispute my presupposition, but the best you could do was call them 'Silly Bints' and attempt to belittle their influence.

Remembering that one of them (Germaine Greer) was called 'The Mother of Modern Feminism'...

[husaberg]

...

say Whatever change the dates used constantly then compare two years data to a 20 year average then blame what you call feminism for why more men attempt suicide when in fact less men attempt suicide then women do,flat refuse to use % variation as it clearly refutes your statements, ignore this, blame feminism, rinse repeat ad nausea
Thats what you are saying boils down to.
As far as preventing suicides what you post is a useful as Kastpams antivax misinformation is at preventing deaths from diseases that are easily vaccinated against.
Don't bother to reply i have lost interest in your latest stupid crusade

[TheDemonLord]

say Whatever change the dates used constantly then compare two years data to a 20 year average then blame what you call feminism for why more men attempt suicide when in fact less men attempt suicide then women do,flat refuse to use % variation as it clearly refutes your statements, ignore this, blame feminism, rinse repeat ad nausea
Thats what you are saying boils down to.
As far as preventing suicides what you post is a useful as Kastpams antivax misinformation is at preventing deaths from diseases that are easily vaccinated against.
Don't bother to reply i have lost interest in your latest stupid crusade

So it's Denialism and head in the ideological Sand then.

[husaberg]

So it's Denialism and head in the ideological Sand then.

ie a child is twice as likely to attempt suicide if they are from a single parent family, Fact
Also males raised in a broken homes to be three times as likely to have thought seriously about suicide as those whose parents had stayed together. FACT
US figures show, About 40% of children who do not live with their biological father have not seen him during the past 12 months; more than half of them have never been in his home and 26% of those fathers live in a different state than their children. FACT
Teenagers in single-parent families and in blended families are 300% more likely to need psychological help within any given year than teens from intact, nuclear families. FACT
40% of patients seeking treatment for alcohol/substance use disorder report at least one suicide attempt at some point in their lives. FACT
Acute alcohol intoxication is present in about 30–40% of suicide attempts and suicides. FACT
While 95% of individuals with a mental illness and/or substance use disorder will not die by suicide, 90% of individuals who do die by suicide have either a mental or substance use disorder, or both FACT
Between 40–60% of those who die by suicide are intoxicated at the time of those who death. FACT
Studies conducted in substance abuse rehabilitation programs typically reported that 50–75% of clients had some type of co-occurring mental disorder. FACT
Young men in Australia have poorer mental health than their female counterparts including higher rates of completed suicide, antisocial behaviour, and alcohol and substance misuse problems FACT
Young men are also less likely to seek help during adolescence and young adulthood: only 13% of young men aged 16 to 24 years seek help when experiencing mental health difficulty compared with 31% of young females FACT
Young men have poorer mental health knowledge and higher mental health stigma than young females FACT
Research also suggests that young men find it difficult to seek help as a result of culturally dominant (or hegemonic) masculine traits which place an emphasis on men to be independent, to suppress emotion, and show a lack of vulnerability. For example, to be seen to endure pain and to be strong and resilient about mental health or emotional problems has been identified as a key practice of masculinity FACT
The increase to 2013 to 2014 was primarily due to an increase in the proportion of young women reporting symptoms of anxiety or depression; in 2013 to 2014 around 26% of young women reported symptoms compared with 22% in 2009 to 2010. Overall, young women were significantly more likely to report symptoms of anxiety and depression than young men; in 2014 to 2015, around 1 in 4 young women (25%) reported symptoms of anxiety or depression compared with fewer than 1 in 6 young men (15%).FACT
Men are more likely to commit suicide than women. Researchers suggest that men suffering from depression are more likely to go unrecognized and untreated than women suffering from depression, in part because men may avoid seeking help (viewing it as a weakness). Men who are depressed are also more likely to have co-occurring alcohol and substance use disorders than women. FACT
Women are more likely than men to attempt suicide. FACT
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/2D2F/production/_97676511_mental_health_624_young_people.png
Being a parent, particularly for mothers, appears to decrease the risk of suicide. Even pregnant women have a lower risk of suicide than women of childbearing age who are not pregnant.FACT
75% of global suicides occur in low- and middle-income countries, so suicide is not a problem that occurs only in industrialized, wealthy nations as had often be previously suggested in the past. FACT
Unemployment is associated with increased rates of suicide. FACT
http://archive.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/browse-categories/income-work/employment-unemployment/young-people-employment-education-training/figure-2.Gif

For better or worse and love and cherish doesn't really include adultery or physical abuse.

According to a Pennsylvania State University study, these are the top 10 reasons why women divorce:

1. Infidelity
2. Incompatible
3. Drinking/drug use
4. Grew Apart
5. Personality problems
6. Lack of communication
7. Physical or mental abuse
8. Loss of love
9. Not meeting family obligations
10. Employment problems
Surprisingly, financial problems was thirteenth on the list, which goes to show you that fighting over money all the time (or lack of money) is NOT one of the primary causes of divorce.





In a 2003 study, Paul Amato and Denise Previti used data from the “Marital Instability Over the Life Course” project, which is based on a national survey of men and women in 1980 and 1997.2 Those who divorced were asked, “What do you think caused the divorce?” The open-ended responses were coded into categories, with the top reasons for divorcing being:

Infidelity
Incompatibility
Drinking or drug use
Growing apart



A poll revealed the top ten reasons why women divorce their husbands
Of the 43,000 women who took part, infidelity came second, followed by non-stop arguing and a lack of intimacy."In fact, 29.2 per cent of the women polled stated adultery as the reason for leaving their marriages."
The top ten reasons women divorced their husbands,
1) Different life goals
2) Infidelity
3) Constant quarreling
4) Lack of intimacy
5) Mental illness6) Misconduct
7) Boredom
8) Physical abuse
9) Household problems
10) Money problems


The number of divorces has also decreased over the last 25 years. In 2017, there were 8,001 divorces and the divorce rate (number of divorces per 1,000 existing marriages) was 8.4. In 1992, 9,114 couples were granted a divorce, and the divorce rate was 11.9.
The decrease in the divorce rate coincides with a fall in the number of children affected by divorce. FACT

Then we have your posts

The saddest part, is that Suicide is the biggest killer for Men under I think 25.
.


Now later you mention that it only applied to "certain years" of "certain countries" you later wished to "hand pick".
You then used 2 years data but ignored when you use all the data there had been a 24% drop.
You claim radical feminism is the cause of the difference in Female vs Male suicide stats.
You said females numbers had remain static yet ignored a 33% and 44% rise in the female stats that you posted for the same timeframe as the males.


However - if everything you said is true - that is impossible, since the suicide rate for Men has been inceasing, whereas the Suicide rate for Women has been fairly constant.


Even if we ignored all these oversights you are left with a huge glaring omission
You claim the difference in the stats for male vs female is actually due to Some form of radical feminism that somehow causes young men to attempt suicide more so than women.


Only issue is young men dont attempt suicide more often than women, Women attempt it far more often.


Women attempt Suicide more than men, Men successfully kill themselves more than Women.

We know women attempt suicide more than Men, .

Not only that, the recidivist rate for females attempting suicide is far higher as well.
So logically it cant clearly be the reason why they attempt it, there is must only effect the success rate then?
So exactly how can you say that due to radical feminism that somehow s men want to kill themselves more often than women do, because it certainly doesn't make them more prone to attempt suicide than women now does it?

[Graystone]

The only error was a presumption on my part of your ability to understand how English works, how statements addressed to distinct individuals works.

But it's clear - the only reason you are sticking with this - is because you've got nothing left.



And all very convenient that you, yourself just happen to be the arbiter of what is and what isn't...

In the words of Yoda:

Do, or do not.
There is no Try.

-Edit:

To claim you hold everyone to a standard, then to add an exception solely at your own whim, then to make the case that you'd love to try and apply that standard, but alas you cannot.

This is an extension of the Dishonesty I accused you of.

English like how when you reply to a question from an individual, that's who and what the reply is directed to? English like how yes and no mean different things? Specifically, what English is it that I am misunderstanding here?

The exception was not added at my whim, nor am I even applying it to you. For you, I am only applying a limit of concurrency, I refuse to let you gish gallop on through your ToDoLists without allowing me to apply my standard to the first item on that list. Only by showing rationality and honesty, can you move to the second item on your list.

[TheDemonLord]

English like how when you reply to a question from an individual, that's who and what the reply is directed to? English like how yes and no mean different things? Specifically, what English is it that I am misunderstanding here?

Context.

Both previous and subsequent.


The exception was not added at my whim, nor am I even applying it to you. For you, I am only applying a limit of concurrency, I refuse to let you gish gallop on through your ToDoLists without allowing me to apply my standard to the first item on that list. Only by showing rationality and honesty, can you move to the second item on your list.

"...Not added at my Whim..."
"...I am only applying..."

Pick one.

[TheDemonLord]

i have lost interest in your latest stupid crusade

Really?


ie a child is twice as likely to attempt suicide if they are from a single parent family, Fact
Also males raised in a broken homes to be three times as likely to have thought seriously about suicide as those whose parents had stayed together. FACT
Us figures show About 40% of children who do not live with their biological father have not seen him during the past 12 months; more than half of them have never been in his home and 26% of those fathers live in a different state than their children. FACT
Teenagers in single-parent families and in blended families are 300% more likely to need psychological help within any given year than teens from intact, nuclear families. FACT
Then we have drug and alcohol use.
40% of patients seeking treatment for alcohol/substance use disorder report at least one suicide attempt at some point in their lives. FACT
Acute alcohol intoxication is present in about 30–40% of suicide attempts and suicides. FACT
While 95% of individuals with a mental illness and/or substance use disorder will not die by suicide, 90% of individuals who do die by suicide have either a mental or substance use disorder, or both FACT
Between 40–60% of those who die by suicide are intoxicated at the time of those who death. FACT
Studies conducted in substance abuse rehabilitation programs typically reported that 50–75% of clients had some type of co-occurring mental disorder. FACT
Men are more likely to commit suicide than women. Researchers suggest that men suffering from depression are more likely to go unrecognized and untreated than women suffering from depression, in part because men may avoid seeking help (viewing it as a weakness). Men who are depressed are also more likely to have co-occurring alcohol and substance use disorders than women. FACT
Women are more likely than men to attempt suicide. FACT
Being a parent, particularly for mothers, appears to decrease the risk of suicide. Even pregnant women have a lower risk of suicide than women of childbearing age who are not pregnant.FACT
75% of global suicides occur in low- and middle-income countries, so suicide is not a problem that occurs only in industrialized, wealthy nations as had often be previously suggested in the past. FACT
Unemployment is associated with increased rates of suicide. FACT
While i am sure you will fire back that radical feminism is the cause of divorce, given the reasons women cite vs men when seeking divorce this is clearly not the case. Not that logic will preclude you from picking those undersized low hung fruit. (see what i did there)
For better or worse and love and cherish doesn't really include adultery or physical abuse.FACT


You notice how in your lists of reasons for divorce, you've highlighted the ones you like, but conveniently, you ignore the ones that I referenced, such as Incompatibility, Grew Apart, Different Life goals etc.

It's funny because you tout Divorce as decreasing, but you've conveniently left out the fall in Marriage rates (Y'know, that thing Feminists advocated for) - which might have something to do with with Single Parent families, might have something to do with Children not living with or seeing their Father?

It's funny because in that splurge, you've repeated a number of things I've already and clearly addressed - as if repeating it and adding FACT will change things.

[husaberg]

Really?



You notice how in your lists of reasons for divorce, you've highlighted the ones you like, but conveniently, you ignore the ones that I referenced, such as Incompatibility, Grew Apart, Different Life goals etc.

It's funny because you tout Divorce as decreasing, but you've conveniently left out the fall in Marriage rates (Y'know, that thing Feminists advocated for) - which might have something to do with with Single Parent families, might have something to do with Children not living with or seeing their Father?

It's funny because in that splurge, you've repeated a number of things I've already and clearly addressed - as if repeating it and adding FACT will change things.


So it's Denialism and head in the ideological Sand then.

ie a child is twice as likely to attempt suicide if they are from a single parent family, Fact
Also males raised in a broken homes to be three times as likely to have thought seriously about suicide as those whose parents had stayed together. FACT
US figures show, About 40% of children who do not live with their biological father have not seen him during the past 12 months; more than half of them have never been in his home and 26% of those fathers live in a different state than their children. FACT
Teenagers in single-parent families and in blended families are 300% more likely to need psychological help within any given year than teens from intact, nuclear families. FACT
40% of patients seeking treatment for alcohol/substance use disorder report at least one suicide attempt at some point in their lives. FACT
Acute alcohol intoxication is present in about 30–40% of suicide attempts and suicides. FACT
While 95% of individuals with a mental illness and/or substance use disorder will not die by suicide, 90% of individuals who do die by suicide have either a mental or substance use disorder, or both FACT
Between 40–60% of those who die by suicide are intoxicated at the time of those who death. FACT
Studies conducted in substance abuse rehabilitation programs typically reported that 50–75% of clients had some type of co-occurring mental disorder. FACT
Young men in Australia have poorer mental health than their female counterparts including higher rates of completed suicide, antisocial behaviour, and alcohol and substance misuse problems FACT
Young men are also less likely to seek help during adolescence and young adulthood: only 13% of young men aged 16 to 24 years seek help when experiencing mental health difficulty compared with 31% of young females FACT
Young men have poorer mental health knowledge and higher mental health stigma than young females FACT
Research also suggests that young men find it difficult to seek help as a result of culturally dominant (or hegemonic) masculine traits which place an emphasis on men to be independent, to suppress emotion, and show a lack of vulnerability. For example, to be seen to endure pain and to be strong and resilient about mental health or emotional problems has been identified as a key practice of masculinity FACT
The increase to 2013 to 2014 was primarily due to an increase in the proportion of young women reporting symptoms of anxiety or depression; in 2013 to 2014 around 26% of young women reported symptoms compared with 22% in 2009 to 2010. Overall, young women were significantly more likely to report symptoms of anxiety and depression than young men; in 2014 to 2015, around 1 in 4 young women (25%) reported symptoms of anxiety or depression compared with fewer than 1 in 6 young men (15%).FACT
Men are more likely to commit suicide than women. Researchers suggest that men suffering from depression are more likely to go unrecognized and untreated than women suffering from depression, in part because men may avoid seeking help (viewing it as a weakness). Men who are depressed are also more likely to have co-occurring alcohol and substance use disorders than women. FACT
Women are more likely than men to attempt suicide. FACT
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/2D2F/production/_97676511_mental_health_624_young_people.png
Being a parent, particularly for mothers, appears to decrease the risk of suicide. Even pregnant women have a lower risk of suicide than women of childbearing age who are not pregnant.FACT
75% of global suicides occur in low- and middle-income countries, so suicide is not a problem that occurs only in industrialized, wealthy nations as had often be previously suggested in the past. FACT
Unemployment is associated with increased rates of suicide. FACT
http://archive.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/browse-categories/income-work/employment-unemployment/young-people-employment-education-training/figure-2.Gif

For better or worse and love and cherish doesn't really include adultery or physical abuse.

N
"Inconvieniant facts that I'm trying to ignore because they run counter to my Narrative"
Where your pre-emptive strike fails is because the most common reason isn't Adultery or Physical Abuse - it's dissatisfaction - remember above when I pointed out Women (on average) are more prone to negative emotion than men? It's almost like theres a causal link here...




According to a Pennsylvania State University study, these are the top 10 reasons why women divorce:

1. Infidelity
2. Incompatible
3. Drinking/drug use
4. Grew Apart
5. Personality problems
6. Lack of communication
7. Physical or mental abuse
8. Loss of love
9. Not meeting family obligations
10. Employment problems
Surprisingly, financial problems was thirteenth on the list, which goes to show you that fighting over money all the time (or lack of money) is NOT one of the primary causes of divorce.





In a 2003 study, Paul Amato and Denise Previti used data from the “Marital Instability Over the Life Course” project, which is based on a national survey of men and women in 1980 and 1997.2 Those who divorced were asked, “What do you think caused the divorce?” The open-ended responses were coded into categories, with the top reasons for divorcing being:

Infidelity
Incompatibility
Drinking or drug use
Growing apart



A poll revealed the top ten reasons why women divorce their husbands
Of the 43,000 women who took part, infidelity came second, followed by non-stop arguing and a lack of intimacy."In fact, 29.2 per cent of the women polled stated adultery as the reason for leaving their marriages."
The top ten reasons women divorced their husbands,
1) Different life goals
2) Infidelity
3) Constant quarreling
4) Lack of intimacy
5) Mental illness6) Misconduct
7) Boredom
8) Physical abuse
9) Household problems
10) Money problems


The number of divorces has also decreased over the last 25 years. In 2017, there were 8,001 divorces and the divorce rate (number of divorces per 1,000 existing marriages) was 8.4. In 1992, 9,114 couples were granted a divorce, and the divorce rate was 11.9.
The decrease in the divorce rate coincides with a fall in the number of children affected by divorce. FACT

Then we have your posts

The saddest part, is that Suicide is the biggest killer for Men under I think 25.
.


Now later you mention that it only applied to "certain years" of "certain countries" you later wished to "hand pick".
You then used 2 years data but ignored when you use all the data there had been a 24% drop.
You claim radical feminism is the cause of the difference in Female vs Male suicide stats.
You said females numbers had remain static yet ignored a 33% and 44% rise in the female stats that you posted for the same timeframe as the males.


However - if everything you said is true - that is impossible, since the suicide rate for Men has been inceasing, whereas the Suicide rate for Women has been fairly constant.


Even if we ignored all these oversights you are left with a huge glaring omission
You claim the difference in the stats for male vs female is actually due to Some form of radical feminism that somehow causes young men to attempt suicide more so than women.


Only issue is young men dont attempt suicide more often than women, Women attempt it far more often.


Women attempt Suicide more than men, Men successfully kill themselves more than Women.

We know women attempt suicide more than Men, .

Not only that, the recidivist rate for females attempting suicide is far higher as well.
So logically it cant clearly be the reason why they attempt it, there is must only effect the success rate then?
So exactly how can you say that due to radical feminism that somehow s men want to kill themselves more often than women do, because it certainly doesn't make them more prone to attempt suicide than women now does it?

[Graystone]

Context.

Both previous and subsequent.



"...Not added at my Whim..."
"...I am only applying..."

Pick one.

So how does previous context (I think it a little unreasonable to bas interpretation on subsequent context, given it has not been supplied at the time of interpretation) make a direct and unambiguous reply to a question, mean something completely different?

I did pick one, as I called out the the 'not added at my whim' part was not applying to you.

[TheDemonLord]

So how does previous context (I think it a little unreasonable to bas interpretation on subsequent context, given it has not been supplied at the time of interpretation) make a direct and unambiguous reply to a question, mean something completely different?

If only it had something to do with what accusation was leveled against you, by me.

If only...

If only subsequent posts had shown this to be the correct Context.

If only...


I did pick one, as I called out the the 'not added at my whim' part was not applying to you.

Right, so first it's you have a Standard, then it's your Standard with an Exception, then it's your Standard, but this exception is mandated by some ethereal 'other' (that's not you), that you have no control over and are 100% definitely not implementing arbitrarily to avoid discussion.

Sounds a lot like backpedaling...

[TheDemonLord]

Verbal Diarrhea

Simply repeating yourself, without actually rebutting any of the points I've made - is making you look like a fool who is sticking his fingers in his ears and reduced to reciting Mantras of faith to ward off the evil spirits of reality.

There are numerous points that you raise and cite as 'FACT' - which I've not only not disagreed with (so why bother reposting?) but have in fact linked them to various ideological utterances - which bolster the point I'm making.

It's curious that you never actually address that last part. Almost like you know you're wrong...

[Katman]

Simply repeating yourself, without actually rebutting any of the points I've made - is making you look like a fool

Took you a while to figure that one out.

[husaberg]

Simply repeating yourself, without actually rebutting any of the points I've made - is making you look like a fool who is sticking his fingers in his ears and reduced to reciting Mantras of faith to ward off the evil spirits of reality.

There are numerous points that you raise and cite as 'FACT' - which I've not only not disagreed with (so why bother reposting?) but have in fact linked them to various ideological utterances - which bolster the point I'm making.

It's curious that you never actually address that last part. Almost like you know you're wrong...

You don't have any points you just spout further opinionated unsubstantiated drivel.
i am posting facts that are the real time tested repeatable drivers of Teen suicide.
I keep posting them as you seem to need constant reminders of what is real and what is simply your opinion.

Everything i raised as a fact is a fact about suicide.
They are postd for the reason that they are facts, not your self-serving masturbation of what you think.
As for my last bit bolstering your view yeah right.

Not only that, the recidivist rate for females attempting suicide is far higher as well.
So logically it can’t clearly be the reason why they attempt it, there is must only effect the success rate then?
So exactly how can you say that due to radical feminism that somehow s men want to kill themselves more often than women do, because it certainly doesn't make them more prone to attempt suicide than women now does it?
More female attempt suicide than men do.
Yet the whole basis of your claim is the reason for the difference in male and female suicide, is the raving of some feminists, few have ever heard of, let alone the victims, let alone reading or listened too, yet it is emasculating young men. making more men want to kill themselves than women.
Only issue for you is. The answer clearly is, this not the case at all. As more women attempt to kill themselves than men do.

Here is your chance why not post some facts that actually back up your opinion.
By, fact i dont mean cherry picked data.
#hint the fact that katspam is "stroking you on" should be the first clue.

[TheDemonLord]

You don't have any points you just spout further opinionated unsubstantiated drivel.
i am posting facts that are the real time tested repeatable drivers of Teen suicide.
I keep posting them as you seem to need constant reminders of what is real and what is simply your opinion.

Except for all the 'Facts' you've posted, I've not disputed any of them - so why keep posting them?

What I have done is linked a number of them to Feminist talking points (you know - the thing you keep ignoring)


Everything i raised as a fact is a fact about suicide.
They are postd for the reason that they are facts, not your self-serving masturbation of what you think.
As for my last bit bolstering your view yeah right.

You say 'Yeah Right' - but curiously, you have yet to actually make a rebuttal.


More female attempt suicide than men do.
Yet the whole basis of your claim is the reason for the difference in male and female suicide, is the raving of some feminists, few have ever heard of, let alone the victims, let alone reading or listened too, yet it is emasculating young men. making more men want to kill themselves than women.

Attempt, but not complete. More young Men kill themselves than Women.

Some Feminists? Considering one of them is referred to as 'The Mother of Modern Feminism' - this isn't the fringe ravings of someone, these are the statements and ideas of figureheads of the movement.

But even that is a misdirection, you don't need to know specifics about the people that came up with these ideas, in order to be aware of the existence of those Ideas. You've probably not heard of Chuck Schuldiner, nor Chris Barnes, nor Pete Sandoval - yet I'm going to suspect you are aware of the concept of 'Death Metal', I'd even go so far as to suggest that if you heard some, you'd be able to identify it as such.

As proof of this:

You've heard of The Guardian? You've heard of the terms "Patriarchy", "Toxic Masculinity", "Rape Culture" etc? You've heard of Affirmative Consent? These ideas come from a single source. They have entered into our social fabric, they have formed government policy, education policy, Adverts, changes to existing, beloved IP etc.

So yes, it is Emasculating to young men - young men who actually go out and kill themselves, as opposed to young women who only pretend to.


Only issue for you is. The answer clearly is, this not the case at all. As more women attempt to kill themselves than men do.

That presupposes that Men and Women are identical and react identically to the tenants of Feminism.

That's neither supported by Biology, Psychology or Sociology.


Here is your chance why not post some facts that actually back up your opinion.
By, fact i dont mean cherry picked data.
#hint the fact that katspam is "stroking you on" should be the first clue.

Why? You've already posted enough facts - a number of which can trace a causal link to Feminist Activism - which you have yet to actually address.

So, I'll back up my opinion with the Facts you, yourself provided, I've added in some relevant references to source material that you've yet to actually address - so how about you back up why this opinion is wrong?

And no, calling them 'Silly Bints' (as much as I agree with the characterization) and trying to play a sleight of hand that since the average person doesn't know about a specific person, they can't be aware of the ideas that said person popularised, that isn't going to cut it.

[husaberg]

more drivel

Still no facts from you. i have challenged you to produce facts to back your opinion, again you have failed.

You claim there is links in the facts i have posted, yet you don't address them. In any logical maner

As i can be bothered with you anymore, i will lt the NZ mental health foundation spell it out for you.
As they seem to have more patience.

You remember how much we laugh each time Katspam claims he knows more tha experts.


A response to the newspaper editor who thinks feminism may cause male suicide


On Thursday Mark Dawson, the editor of the Wanganui Chronicle, published an editorial suggesting that ‘the growing empowerment of women’ is partly to blame for New Zealand’s high rate of male suicide. The Mental Health Foundation’s Sophia Graham responds.
Dear Mr Dawson,
I read your editorial ‘Tough topic we need to talk about’ with dismay. Many people responded with outrage to your speculation that male suicide is caused by female empowerment, and the Mental Health Foundation echoes the criticism you have received and strongly encourages you to issue an immediate retraction and apology. I note that NZME, publisher of your paper, has already removed your column from their website.
You wrote of the disproportionate number of men dying by suicide compared to women, suggesting: “one explanation for this disproportion may be the growing empowerment of women and their increasing role in society.”
“…Is it an unfortunate side effect that men feel less secure, less sure of their place in a world where they were once more dominant?”
Firstly, to answer your question, no, male suicides are not “an unfortunate side effect” of recent female empowerment. Male suicide rates have been significantly higher than female suicide rates since at least the 1920s. Many countries see a similar pattern. Suicide prevention research since the 1920s has found changes in male suicide rates are tied more closely to economic pressures than changing social roles.
Mr Dawson, your comments are not only wrong, they’re dangerous. We know many men still find it extremely difficult to ask for help when they’re going through a hard time. Alongside other agencies in New Zealand we work hard, every day, to encourage men not to let pride or fear prevent them from seeking and accepting the help they need. We all go through difficult times and we all deserve support.

Your editorial undermines this message and reinforces toxic stereotypes that contribute to men feeling they must soldier on and never show a sign of weakness.
I encourage you to reflect not only on the anger caused by your ill-informed words, but also the hurt. There are thousands of empowered women around New Zealand who have used their agency and education to work to support men from all walks of life to seek help and recover from challenges they face throughout their lives.
Among your readers will be countless women who live with the grief of suicide loss every day, who may have read your editorial and felt guilt or shame and perhaps wondered whether if they had just been a little less empowered and more dependent, their loved one might still be alive. This is a disgraceful message to send to these women. You owe each of them an apology.
Many people who have lost someone to suicide are left with questions that are difficult or impossible to answer. They seek desperately to understand why their loved one took their life and what could have prevented it. Contrary to your headline, your editorial shed no light on this issue for them but instead sought to place blame where none is warranted.
Additionally, you showed a marked lack of compassion toward women who live with depression, anxiety and other mental illnesses. Women experience almost twice the rates of psychological distress as men and are more than twice as likely to be hospitalised for intentional self-harm. The issue is not as black and white as you would have it appear. There are no winners here.
As an editor of a newspaper, you should know better. Journalists have an important role in shaping social attitudes to, and perceptions of, suicide. Your careless and dangerous words betrayed the trust your readers place in you as an editor and a leading voice in your community.
I acknowledge your editorial contained some valid and interesting remarks on the how the pressures men face can contribute to suicide. It’s a shame these were left unexplored.
There are a large number of organisations who would be willing to work with you to better understand the complexities of suicide and mental health in New Zealand, the Mental Health Foundation is among them. By talking to suicide prevention experts in your community or the Mental Health Foundation we could work together to support our shared goal of preventing suicide in New Zealand.

Sophia Graham communications and marketing manager at the Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand.https://thespinoff.co.nz/media/01-07-2017/a-response-to-the-newspaper-editor-who-thinks-feminism-may-cause-male-suicide/


One piece of Dawsons editorial also deverses special mention.

[suicide is] one area where women don’t want gender equality

[TheDemonLord]

Still no fact i have challenged you to produce fcts to back your opinion, again you have failed.

So you're ignoring the citations then, from Prominent Feminists.


You claim there is links in the facts i have posted, yet you don't address them.

Are you blind?


As i can be bothered with you anymore i will lt the NZ mental health foundation spell it out for you.

You remember how much we laugh each time Katspam claims he knows more tha experts.

What an interesting Article - let's have a look to see the credentials of who wrote it:

https://www.mentalhealth.org.nz/home/about/our-people/person/44


Working for the MHF has allowed her to pursue her interests in social justice and mental health.

So, definitely no ideological bias there...


She hates tomatoes. And maths.

So, if she hates Maths - how can she properly and accurately analyze rates of change?

Furthermore - I don't see any published papers or research done by her - it's almost like she's just regurgitating the Party Line, in accordance with her Feminist beliefs.

I'll simply point to the likes of JBP, who is most definitely an expert in this field, experts who you claim don't exist.

[husaberg]

So you're ignoring the citations then, from Prominent Feminists.



Are you blind?



What an interesting Article - let's have a look to see the credentials of who wrote it:

https://www.mentalhealth.org.nz/home/about/our-people/person/44



So, definitely no ideological bias there...



So, if she hates Maths - how can she properly and accurately analyze rates of change?

Furthermore - I don't see any published papers or research done by her - it's almost like she's just regurgitating the Party Line, in accordance with her Feminist beliefs.

I'll simply point to the likes of JBP, who is most definitely an expert in this field, experts who you claim don't exist.

The letter was written on behalf of he NZ Mental health foundation the person who wrote it happens to be woman
Are you seriously that out of touch with reality.
https://www.mentalhealth.org.nz/home/news/article/177/open-letter-to-wanganui-chronicle-editor-mark-dawson


Why would you think you would know more about suicide in NZ than the NZ mental health foundation does?

ps as well as liking twiight novels Sophia has a BA from the University of Auckland, majoring in psychology.

pps i notice still have yet to produce any facts just opinions.

[TheDemonLord]

The letter was written on behalf of he NZ Mental health foundation the person who wrote it happens to be woman

And yet, I never critiqued her, based on her Gender... So why did you bring it up?

I critiqued her by showing that her self-declared interests mean that on this issue, she is a biased source.


Are you seriously that out of touch with reality.
https://www.mentalhealth.org.nz/home/news/article/177/open-letter-to-wanganui-chronicle-editor-mark-dawson

Read the letter itself, critically, Notice how it's heavily gendered - towards Women? I'll paraphrase:

Paragraph 7: "But all these Women are helping the poor men who can't help themselves"
Paragraph 8: "But your are hurting the feelings of Women who had someone kill themselves, these poor traumitised Women - because fuck those selfish Men who killed themselves, they don't deserve a shred of compassion or an editorial written about them"
Paragraph 10: "But Women attempt it more, so therefore we should only care about them, as opposed to the people who actually kill themselves more (and I'm going to ignore the fact this might be due to a biological predisposition towards being Neurotic because this doesn't align with my beliefs)"


Why would you think you would know more about suicide in NZ than the NZ mental health foundation does?

Do I know more about Masculinity than a bunch of SJW Feminists? Absolutely.

And that's a demonstrable fact that they clearly don't understand how the Male Psyche works - how that if you try to repress healthy Male Behavior (Competitiveness, Sexual pursuit, righteous Aggression), you'll end up with a monster of your own creation.

See for example the results of Parents who raised their sons in a gender neutral way, only for their sons to grow up and embrace very traditionally masculine ideals (such as Hunting, taking up Martial arts, joining the Military etc.)
See also the resurgence of Facial hair in modern fashion (I'm looking at you, Hipsters)
See also the hyper-success of the Marvel Super Hero movies

These are all collective rebellions, in an effort to reclaim that which they've lost.

I'll say it again that Men have a paradox in terms of upbringing that is absent from Women: The ideal of what it means to be a Good man is best expressed in this chinese proverb:


Master and disciple walked side by side through a beautiful garden. The disciple suddenly stops and asks: “Master, you talk about and preach to me the ways of peace. Yet I have learned from you deadly techniques of combat and the tactics of war. How do you reconcile the two?” The master gracefully squats, chooses a flower and plucks it. “My disciple: it is better to be a warrior tending to his garden than a gardener in a war.”

The goal is to be the most competent, the most resilient and the most dangerous version of yourself you can be.
And never have to use it.

But all datapoints that you will no-doubt dismiss aside - this I think is probably the best articulation of the issue


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmKtyeQ9Ikk


ps i notice still have yet to produce any facts just opinions.

Except all those facts about the stated goals of Feminism and the outcome that said stated goals have had on society, goals, which you yourself have pointed to as a risk factor for Suicide.

[husaberg]

And yet, I never critiqued her, based on her Gender... So why did you bring it up?

I critiqued her by showing that her self-declared interests mean that on this issue, she is a biased source.



Read the letter itself, critically, Notice how it's heavily gendered - towards Women? I'll paraphrase:

Paragraph 7: "But all these Women are helping the poor men who can't help themselves"
Paragraph 8: "But your are hurting the feelings of Women who had someone kill themselves, these poor traumitised Women - because fuck those selfish Men who killed themselves, they don't deserve a shred of compassion or an editorial written about them"
Paragraph 10: "But Women attempt it more, so therefore we should only care about them, as opposed to the people who actually kill themselves more (and I'm going to ignore the fact this might be due to a biological predisposition towards being Neurotic because this doesn't align with my beliefs)"



Do I know more about Masculinity than a bunch of SJW Feminists? Absolutely.

And that's a demonstrable fact that they clearly don't understand how the Male Psyche works - how that if you try to repress healthy Male Behavior (Competitiveness, Sexual pursuit, righteous Aggression), you'll end up with a monster of your own creation.

See for example the results of Parents who raised their sons in a gender neutral way, only for their sons to grow up and embrace very traditionally masculine ideals (such as Hunting, taking up Martial arts, joining the Military etc.)
See also the resurgence of Facial hair in modern fashion (I'm looking at you, Hipsters)
See also the hyper-success of the Marvel Super Hero movies

These are all collective rebellions, in an effort to reclaim that which they've lost.

I'll say it again that Men have a paradox in terms of upbringing that is absent from Women: The ideal of what it means to be a Good man is best expressed in this chinese proverb:



The goal is to be the most competent, the most resilient and the most dangerous version of yourself you can be.
And never have to use it.

But all datapoints that you will no-doubt dismiss aside - this I think is probably the best articulation of the issue

Except all those facts about the stated goals of Feminism and the outcome that said stated goals have had on society, goals, which you yourself have pointed to as a risk factor for Suicide.

You are a fool.
The letter from the NZ Mental health foundation, the writers has a Degree in psychology.
As it on the NZ Mental health foundation website and letterhead and was an open letter to a newspaper publication an editorial the the newspaper removed no less, you can bet it was cleared by the foundation before the letter was sent.
Yet you of course think you know better.

You dont have neither the necessary degree of expertise or the objectivity or the qualifications to even begin critique the NZ mental health foundation.
Unless of course you wish to show us your previously unknown vast experience in dealing with mental health issues and suicides or your degree in psychology i would say your opinion is worthless baseless and infantile.
#again you have yet to produce any facts to back up your opinion.

PS
One piece of Dawsons editorial also deverses special mention.

[suicide is] one area where women don’t want gender equality Seems like he really thinks he knows what all women want.

DAVID MACK AGAINST WANGANUI CHRONICLE
CASE NUMBER:2463
COUNCIL MEETING:SEPTEMBER 2015
VERDICT:UPHELD
PUBLICATION:WANGANUI CHRONICLE
RULING CATEGORIES:ACCURACY
BALANCE, LACK OF
BIAS
UNFAIR COVERAGE

The editor, Mark Dawson, denied that the newspaper or its reporter on this story had any bias or agenda against David Mack. Nor did the fact that theChronicle was still owed money by Mr Mack have any influence on its reporting.

[TheDemonLord]

You are a fool.
The letter from the NZ Mental health foundation, the writers has a Degree in physiology.

*Psychology, you can't even cite your own sources correctly.


As it on the NZ Mental health foundation website and letterhead and was an open letter to a newspaper publication an editorial the the newspaper removed no less, you can bet it was cleared by the foundation before the letter was sent.

Indeed - how many people working at that organization do you think are die-hard conservatives? From her own statement - working at the organization has allowed her to pursue an interest in Social Justice - it's a reasonable conclusion to presuppose that the organization is aligned with Social Justice - and as such, aligned with certain intersectional feminist viewpoints.


Yet you of course think you know better.

About Masculinity, yes, I do - none of their theories have proved true in the real world. So on that basis alone - what reason do you have to assume that adherants of Social Justice know better?


You dont have neither the necessary degree of expertise or the objectivity or the qualifications to even begin critique the NZ mental health foundation.
Unless of course you wish to show us your previously unknown vast experience in dealing with mental health issues and suicides or your degree in psychology i would say your opinion is worthless baseless and infantile.

Fine - let's take that as Holy Writ then, that experts in a field know more:

How do you explain JBP's conclusion then? Or Warren Farrell? Or Christina Hoff Sommers? Or Bertina Ardntt?

You repeatedly claim there are no experts who support this theory, yet you've repeatedly ignored the Experts that I've presented as supporting this.


#again you have yet to produce any facts to back up your opinion.

Except the stated goals of Prominent Feminists that are tightly aligned with the facts that you cited. You still fail to address these.


PS
One piece of Dawsons editorial also deverses special mention.
Seems like he really thinks he knows what all women want.

No, it's an observation that where Women are perceived as getting less than Men, we get pussyhats, marches, global hashtags, ad nauseum talk show 'discussions' by several champagne socialists stating how awful and oppressive it is (despite clearly not being oppressed).

Yet...

When it's Men getting less than Women -There's a conspicuous silence.

There's constant calls for more Women on the Board, more Women politicians, etc. etc. with the stated reason that these are areas that are disproportionately occupied by Men and therefore something something Sexism something Muh Vagina something.
But curiously I've not seen the campaign for more Women garbage collectors or more Women Sewage workers.

The comment is to show that the call for Equality only ever goes one way.

[husaberg]

*Psychology, you can't even cite your own sources correctly.



Indeed - how many people working at that organization do you think are die-hard conservatives? From her own statement - working at the organization has allowed her to pursue an interest in Social Justice - it's a reasonable conclusion to presuppose that the organization is aligned with Social Justice - and as such, aligned with certain intersectional feminist viewpoints.



About Masculinity, yes, I do - none of their theories have proved true in the real world. So on that basis alone - what reason do you have to assume that adherants of Social Justice know better?



Fine - let's take that as Holy Writ then, that experts in a field know more:

How do you explain JBP's conclusion then? Or Warren Farrell? Or Christina Hoff Sommers? Or Bertina Ardntt?

You repeatedly claim there are no experts who support this theory, yet you've repeatedly ignored the Experts that I've presented as supporting this.



Except the stated goals of Prominent Feminists that are tightly aligned with the facts that you cited. You still fail to address these.



No, it's an observation that where Women are perceived as getting less than Men, we get pussyhats, marches, global hashtags, ad nauseum talk show 'discussions' by several champagne socialists stating how awful and oppressive it is (despite clearly not being oppressed).

Yet...

When it's Men getting less than Women -There's a conspicuous silence.

There's constant calls for more Women on the Board, more Women politicians, etc. etc. with the stated reason that these are areas that are disproportionately occupied by Men and therefore something something Sexism something Muh Vagina something.
But curiously I've not seen the campaign for more Women garbage collectors or more Women Sewage workers.

The comment is to show that the call for Equality only ever goes one way.


So far you have yet to offer any facts only your opinion
As for your attack on the NZ mental health Foundation their mandate is mental health not feminism.
By you starting that must be biased againdt your view is as hilarious as you failing to mention the writer had a degree psychology.Or was writing on half of the NZ mental Health foundation.

So in your mind because you allegedly have a penis, exactly that qualifies you higher than someone with a psychology degree and the entire NZ mental health foundation to what the causes are for suicide.
Your further self serving twaddle is just more proof you are the one with an axe to grind and a agenda.
I ignore your suposed experts as you have not produced anything, other than video no one will watch and a claim they support your view. Nothing else.
Does this tactic remind you of anyone, all you need to do is throw in a couple of beggings to vacuum your phallus and your metamorphosis will be complete.

The Dawson exert was part of his editorial about suicide you shaved ape


[suicide is] one area where women don’t want gender equality
it was a barb at all women, out of line, pathetic, uncalled for and totally wrong.

[Graystone]

If only it had something to do with what accusation was leveled against you, by me.

If only...

If only subsequent posts had shown this to be the correct Context.

If only...



Right, so first it's you have a Standard, then it's your Standard with an Exception, then it's your Standard, but this exception is mandated by some ethereal 'other' (that's not you), that you have no control over and are 100% definitely not implementing arbitrarily to avoid discussion.

Sounds a lot like backpedaling...

Of course it has to do with that, the things you said before and after, don't line up with the accusation you confirmed applied to me as well. This makes the accusation wrong, and since the statements before and after contradict it; they do not clarify it, since a yes can't be clarified to a no. How can you still dispute this? You're literally arguing against one of the basic underpinnings of rationality, that concepts such as agreement and disagreement exist and are not interchangeable.

It remains all of those things, you might even say I clarified it with the correct context :killingme

[TheDemonLord]

So far you have yet to offer any facts only your opinion

Except for the Facts you've repeatedly Ignored.


As for your attack on the NZ mental health Foundation their mandate is mental health not feminism.

Except where have I attacked them? The field they represent is well known to have a left-wing bias (There's a Fact for you) and the admission by their staff that it aligns with Social Justice means we are allowed to infer that the organizations holds certain intersectional Feminist ideals.

Which taints the rebuttal (considering the viewpoint espoused is in direct opposition to said ideals) furthermore, the multiple 'What about the Womens' in the article confirms this inference to be correct.


So in your mind because you allegedly have a penis, exactly that qualifies you higher than someone with a psychology degree and the entire NZ mental health foundation to what the causes are for suicide

These are some Strawmen of Biblical proportions. No, what I'm saying is that the ideological viewpoint that has a clear majority in said organization has numerous theories (based on Intersectional Feminism - AKA Social Justice), None have been successful when policies based on those theories. Especially when it comes to Men and Masculinity.

Based on the failure of their predictive models - that qualifies me higher to talk about Masculinity.


I ignore your suposed experts as you have not produced anything, other than video no one will watch and a claim they support your view. Nothing else.
Does this tactic remind you of anyone, all you need to do is throw in a couple of beggings to vacuum your phallus and your metamorphosis will be complete.

Look who's been referencing what swings between my legs... Metamorphosis indeed...

If I was going to pull a Katman, I'd have linked to the entire 2 hour lecture, but instead I gave you the 6 minute clip that is entirely relevent to what we are discussing. Namely giving a demonstration of what the difference is between brow-beating someone and giving them the strength to proceed.

FYI - the person that asked the question, they are still alive today - so on that basis I ask you:

Who's a more credible expert when it comes to Suicide prevention?

What's double hilarious about this 'rebuttal' (which is nothing other than pure denialism) is that I deliberately didn't hit you up on an appeal to authority charge: I let you set the standard you were happy with, I then complied with the standard you set - but instead of honestly arguing the point, it's just pure dismissal.

It's your classic hypocritical double standard.


The Dawson exert was part of his editorial about suicide you shaved ape

I know - hence why I explained the context.


it was a barb at all women, out of line, pathetic, uncalled for and totally wrong.

Are you saying that Women are weak and can't handle getting their feeling hurt?

How very Sexist of you...

[TheDemonLord]

Of course it has to do with that, the things you said before and after, don't line up with the accusation you confirmed applied to me as well. This makes the accusation wrong, and since the statements before and after contradict it; they do not clarify it, since a yes can't be clarified to a no. How can you still dispute this? You're literally arguing against one of the basic underpinnings of rationality, that concepts such as agreement and disagreement exist and are not interchangeable.

Sure, if you deliberately ignore all prior and subsequent context, in order to avoid having to argue an actual point.


It remains all of those things, you might even say I clarified it with the correct context :killingme

They are mutually exclusive, but I guess it does paint a very clear picture of how much you are willing to warp reality, to mask your hypocrisy.

I'll simply restate:

Either it's a Standard (in which case all your twaddle about exceptions is irrelevant) and so argue the point.
Or
You're a hypocrite.

Pick one.

[Graystone]

Sure, if you deliberately ignore all prior and subsequent context, in order to avoid having to argue an actual point.



They are mutually exclusive, but I guess it does paint a very clear picture of how much you are willing to warp reality, to mask your hypocrisy.

I'll simply restate:

Either it's a Standard (in which case all your twaddle about exceptions is irrelevant) and so argue the point.
Or
You're a hypocrite.

Pick one.

It is not ignored, I pointed out how it contradicts your answer to my question. Why is it so hard for you to admit you were wrong, when it is so obvious?

Care to explain how they are mutually exclusive then?

[husaberg]

Except for the Facts you've repeatedly Ignored.



Except where have I attacked them? The field they represent is well known to have a left-wing bias (There's a Fact for you) and the admission by their staff that it aligns with Social Justice means we are allowed to infer that the organizations holds certain intersectional Feminist ideals.

Which taints the rebuttal (considering the viewpoint espoused is in direct opposition to said ideals) furthermore, the multiple 'What about the Womens' in the article confirms this inference to be correct.



These are some Strawmen of Biblical proportions. No, what I'm saying is that the ideological viewpoint that has a clear majority in said organization has numerous theories (based on Intersectional Feminism - AKA Social Justice), None have been successful when policies based on those theories. Especially when it comes to Men and Masculinity.

Based on the failure of their predictive models - that qualifies me higher to talk about Masculinity.



Look who's been referencing what swings between my legs... Metamorphosis indeed...

If I was going to pull a Katman, I'd have linked to the entire 2 hour lecture, but instead I gave you the 6 minute clip that is entirely relevent to what we are discussing. Namely giving a demonstration of what the difference is between brow-beating someone and giving them the strength to proceed.

FYI - the person that asked the question, they are still alive today - so on that basis I ask you:

Who's a more credible expert when it comes to Suicide prevention?

What's double hilarious about this 'rebuttal' (which is nothing other than pure denialism) is that I deliberately didn't hit you up on an appeal to authority charge: I let you set the standard you were happy with, I then complied with the standard you set - but instead of honestly arguing the point, it's just pure dismissal.

It's your classic hypocritical double standard.



I know - hence why I explained the context.



Are you saying that Women are weak and can't handle getting their feeling hurt?

How very Sexist of you...

Oh please show these facts you have categorically linking male suicide to what you deem to be radical feminism.
I think we both know you want to pull katman
........More your opinion.
More your opinion
More your opinion
more drivel
More misdirection
Funny enough i doubt many professions would deem you to be a superior expert than the NZ mental health foundation or someone with a psychology degree when it comes to suicide risk and reasons.
Irrespective of you own musing that being a male gives you some kind of insight that supersedes university degrees the human behavior.
You pretending dawsons barb wasnt directed at all women not wanting to lower the male suicides stats is pathetic, even for someone channeling katspam

[TheDemonLord]

It is not ignored, I pointed out how it contradicts your answer to my question.

By ignoring the context...


Care to explain how they are mutually exclusive then?

Do you have Standards or do you have exceptions?
Furthermore these exceptions are applied solely at your discretion, so your waffle about 'it's not me...' is demonstrable BS.

[TheDemonLord]

Oh please show these facts you have categorically linking male suicide to what you deem to be radical feminism.

Did you miss the part about Radical Feminism wanting to abolish Marriage? Kinda relevant when you, yourself, have cited single parent families and Divorce as two large risk factors.


Funny enough i doubt many professions would deem you to be a superior expert than the NZ mental health foundation or someone with a psychology degree when it comes to suicide risk and reasons.

Fine, if that's the standard you want to set - why is it that you get to dismiss JBPs comments on the matter? He's a clinical Psychologist, one who happens to be very well cited in this field.


Irrespective of you own musing that being a male gives you some kind of insight that supersedes university degrees the human behavior.

Cool - Name me one theory promoted by Intersectional Feminism that has achieved the desired result when put into practice operationally?

I can name several off-hand that have not only not produced the desired result, but have, in fact, produced the opposite result

On that basis - who should you put your trust in? A system that produces consistently wrong results, or someone who at worst produces Neutral results?


You pretending dawsons barb wasnt directed at all women not wanting to lower the male suicides stats is pathetic, even for someone channeling katspam

It's not, it's part of a very long line of criticism that points out that Feminists will decry, at length, any perceived injustice, where they feel they aren't being granted the same opportunity as Men.
But in areas where it's the other way round, there is silence.

It's the same as the critique 'we only ever see calls for Female Lawyers and Board members, never female lumberjills or sewage workers'

[Graystone]

By ignoring the context...



Do you have Standards or do you have exceptions?
Furthermore these exceptions are applied solely at your discretion, so your waffle about 'it's not me...' is demonstrable BS.

Context? Feel free to add the applicable bits to change the how the 'yes ' is interpreted in the conversation below.

"Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?"
to which I replied
"Have I done the same for the causes as above?"
and you replied "yes", from post 10275

Or another tack, answer the following question with a simple yes or no. Have I called for censuring of any member of posts on the topic of equality? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in any way?

But I think we both know all the above with be met with your classic evasion to avoid conceeding a point you know is wrong, no matter how small it may be.

Standards often have exceptions, these are not mutually exclusive. I outlined exactly how and why the exception would apply, so this is certainly not just applied at my whim or discretion. There are few people who fit your special case of stupidity, to which the exception applies so you are probably mixing causation and correlation up again (bit of a trait with you isn't it :laugh:)

[TheDemonLord]

Context? Feel free to add the applicable bits to change the how the 'yes ' is interpreted in the conversation below.

"Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?"
to which I replied
"Have I done the same for the causes as above?"
and you replied "yes", from post 10275

Or another tack, answer the following question with a simple yes or no. Have I called for censuring of any member of posts on the topic of equality? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in any way?

But I think we both know all the above with be met with your classic evasion to avoid conceeding a point you know is wrong, no matter how small it may be.

When you add in the prior context of what I actually accused you of and the subsequent context of showing this was what it was in relation to - then I'll answer your question, but until then, it's just a repeat demonstration of you ignoring things you don't like - as you say, 'bit of a trait with you isn't it'


Standards often have exceptions, these are not mutually exclusive. I outlined exactly how and why the exception would apply, so this is certainly not just applied at my whim or discretion. There are few people who fit your special case of stupidity, to which the exception applies so you are probably mixing causation and correlation up again (bit of a trait with you isn't it :laugh:)

Sure, Standards can have Exceptions - however, it's rather funny that these 'exceptions' only materialised after I hit you up on it.
Even then, Exceptions are purely at the discretion of those who are applying the standard. Just for clarity (since you seem to struggle with context) - that would be you.
Your waffle as to trying to appeal to some abstract, higher power mandating these exceptions is both laughable and is an exercise in just passing the buck to justify the summary dismissal of arguments for which you have no counter-point to.

So, I'll simply repeat: Which one is it? Because currently you are trying to play both fields: Either it's a Standard, so I'm going to hold you to it. Or it's your own application of an exception - based on your personal biases in an attempt to mask your intellectual weakness, flawed ideology and cowardliness in this debate.

[husaberg]

Did you miss the part about Radical Feminism wanting to abolish Marriage? Kinda relevant when you, yourself, have cited single parent families and Divorce as two large risk factors.



Fine, if that's the standard you want to set - why is it that you get to dismiss JBPs comments on the matter? He's a clinical Psychologist, one who happens to be very well cited in this field.



Cool - Name me one theory promoted by Intersectional Feminism that has achieved the desired result when put into practice operationally?

I can name several off-hand that have not only not produced the desired result, but have, in fact, produced the opposite result

On that basis - who should you put your trust in? A system that produces consistently wrong results, or someone who at worst produces Neutral results?



It's not, it's part of a very long line of criticism that points out that Feminists will decry, at length, any perceived injustice, where they feel they aren't being granted the same opportunity as Men.
But in areas where it's the other way round, there is silence.

It's the same as the critique 'we only ever see calls for Female Lawyers and Board members, never female lumberjills or sewage workers'

Again i ask for these facts you have claimed to have posted that define radical feminism as being a cause of male suicide.
You go on about "JBPs comments" have you posted them?
You post a few quotes from some silly person and say look what they said shes feminist but you have failed to prove how this causes the male suicide or is even remotely linked in anyway shape or form.
i could quote hundreds of stupid quotes about females by men or females but this isnt evidence that it causes female suicides or for them to dye their hair change their facebook status or any other of a million different things.

[TheDemonLord]

Again i ask for these facts you have claimed to have posted that define radical feminism as being a cause of male suicide.

It's simple:

If the breakdown of the nuclear family increases the risk of Suicide. (your statement, backed up with citations)
and
Prominent, highly influential Feminists advocate for the breaking down of the Nuclear Family. (My statement, backed up by citations)

Therefore, Feminist advocacy is associated with increasing the risk of Suicide. (My premise)


You go on about "JBPs comments" have you posted them?

Did you not see the Video? If you want some specific quotations, I can post them - will you accept that:

A: According to the standard of evidence you yourself set out, that they meet said standard
B: Since they meet your standard, that you cannot dismiss them and must take them seriously and scholarly
C: Since you must take them seriously and scholarly, your entire premise of 'you don't know anything, this is all in your head because you hate the Wahmens' is BS.

If you can agree to the above, I'll be happy to post them up - but we both know you won't....


You post a few quotes from some silly person and say look what they said shes feminist but you have failed to prove how this causes the male suicide or is even remotely linked in anyway shape or form.

A few silly person? I think you mean 'The most influential Feminist of the 2nd wave' (Germaine Greer), not to mention Andrea Dvorkin (who was a very influential 3rd wave Feminist) and Julie Bindel (who is a regular columist for a Major national newspaper) - It's hilarious about how desperate you are to downplay the credibility of these Women (You sexist, you) - because you know the fundamental point that Feminists have advocated for policies that have directly contributed to both the lowering of the Marriage rate, the increase in divorce rate and the increase in single parent children.

Which, as you so kindly pointed out, are all risk factors in Male Suicide. There's your causal link, and it's also in your attempted character assassination that we find the truth: you wouldn't need to resort to such a tactic, if it wasn't true.


i could quote hundreds of stupid quotes about females by men or females but this isnt evidence that it causes female suicides or for them to dye their hair change their facebook status or any other of a million different things.

I'm sure you could, however:

How many of them have published books that make up the required reading of Feminist courses?
How many of them write feminist articles for national newspapers?
How many of them have Wikipedia pages that talk at length about their Feminist activism?
How many of them get invited onto talk shows to discuss Feminist and Womens issues?

Because the people I quoted do - and that happens to be relevant.

[Berries]

Or another tack, answer the following question with a simple yes or no. Have I called for censuring of any member of posts on the topic of equality? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in any way?

That's two questions with the possibility of two different answers. No wonder you fuckers have spent the last 80 pages going round in circles.

[husaberg]

It's simple:




Did you not see the Video? If you want some specific quotations, I can post them - will you accept that:

A: According to the standard of evidence you yourself set out, that they meet said standard
B: Since they meet your standard, that you cannot dismiss them and must take them seriously and scholarly
C: Since you must take them seriously and scholarly, your entire premise of 'you don't know anything, this is all in your head because you hate the Wahmens' is BS.

If you can agree to the above, I'll be happy to post them up - but we both know you won't....



A few silly person? I think you mean 'The most influential Feminist of the 2nd wave' (Germaine Greer), not to mention Andrea Dvorkin (who was a very influential 3rd wave Feminist) and Julie Bindel (who is a regular columist for a Major national newspaper) - It's hilarious about how desperate you are to downplay the credibility of these Women (You sexist, you) - because you know the fundamental point that Feminists have advocated for policies that have directly contributed to both the lowering of the Marriage rate, the increase in divorce rate and the increase in single parent children.

Which, as you so kindly pointed out, are all risk factors in Male Suicide. There's your causal link, and it's also in your attempted character assassination that we find the truth: you wouldn't need to resort to such a tactic, if it wasn't true.



I'm sure you could, however:

How many of them have published books that make up the required reading of Feminist courses?
How many of them write feminist articles for national newspapers?
How many of them have Wikipedia pages that talk at length about their Feminist activism?
How many of them get invited onto talk shows to discuss Feminist and Womens issues?

Because the people I quoted do - and that happens to be relevant.

You claimed to have produced evidence from prominent experts directly linking Suicide to causes other than what is clearly spelled out as being factors.
You have not done so yt but keep on making out you somehow have.
You claimed the reason there was a difference between male and female suicides and it was directly attributed to "RADICAL FEMINISM"
Even thouh iys clear more females actually attempt suicide, A fact you keep glossing over in the hope no one notices.
I have asked you to produce evidence that the cause of Male suicides is Racicial feminism over and over again, So where is it?
All you are posting is your opinion.

ps I really enjoy how your continued anti feminist rants ignore that more women attempt Suicide plus also there has been a larger number of males as far back as the 1920's that die from Suicide which is generally associated with there freer access and familiarity with firearms. But bugger the logic Maybe in your mind the rot really started with those women getting the vote.:msn-wink:

So in your leaned opinion (that is i am sure even better then the LTSA judging by your disdain showed for the NZ mental health foundation)
Is radical feminism also responsible for the Crash stats and deaths that show men are far more likely to die /mile than women traveled as well.
340877

Or could there possibly be other reasons

[Graystone]

When you add in the prior context of what I actually accused you of and the subsequent context of showing this was what it was in relation to - then I'll answer your question, but until then, it's just a repeat demonstration of you ignoring things you don't like - as you say, 'bit of a trait with you isn't it'



Sure, Standards can have Exceptions - however, it's rather funny that these 'exceptions' only materialised after I hit you up on it.
Even then, Exceptions are purely at the discretion of those who are applying the standard. Just for clarity (since you seem to struggle with context) - that would be you.
Your waffle as to trying to appeal to some abstract, higher power mandating these exceptions is both laughable and is an exercise in just passing the buck to justify the summary dismissal of arguments for which you have no counter-point to.

So, I'll simply repeat: Which one is it? Because currently you are trying to play both fields: Either it's a Standard, so I'm going to hold you to it. Or it's your own application of an exception - based on your personal biases in an attempt to mask your intellectual weakness, flawed ideology and cowardliness in this debate.

You can add that in to show how it changes the context if you like. Well, if you weren't lying about it that is...

Did they only materialise then? or did I only point them out to you then... Again, correlation and causation are not the same thing. Also, an exception which is explained and justified, is not purely at the discretion of those who are applying the standard as it can be argued whether or not it should be applied based on that justification.

[Graystone]

That's two questions with the possibility of two different answers. No wonder you fuckers have spent the last 80 pages going round in circles.

Not round in circles, just bashing ones head against a wall and making no progress whatsoever. Two simple questions, and he won't answer either of them...

[TheDemonLord]

You claimed to have produced evidence from prominent experts directly linking Suicide to causes other than what is clearly spelled out as being factors.
You have not done so yt but keep on making out you somehow have.

Broken families are a risk factor in Suicide.
Prominent Feminists have called for the Break up of Family unit.

But in your mind- these two things are completely unrelated...

I'll ask again - do you accept that if I post up exact quotations (as you demanded) from a well respected Psychologist, you'll retract all of your BS statements? Curiously, you are quite silent on this.


You claimed the reason there was a difference between male and female suicides and it was directly attributed to "RADICAL FEMINISM"

Nice Strawman, try again - this time, reference what I've actually said.

Since this is the umpteenth time you've got it wrong, the only thing I've claimed is that the rise in Male suicides (so no comparison in that statement to Women) is related to the pushing of certain Feminist ideas and policies.


Even thouh iys clear more females actually attempt suicide, A fact you keep glossing over in the hope no one notices.

I've acknowledged it's true, what you ignore is more males ACTUALLY DIE from Suicide.

I consider death to be the more permanent and serious of the 2 issues.


I have asked you to produce evidence that the cause of Male suicides is Racicial feminism over and over again, So where is it?
All you are posting is your opinion.

And I've provided it, referencing it back to your Facts. You repeatedly ignore this.


ps I really enjoy how your continued anti feminist rants ignore that more women attempt Suicide plus also there has been a larger number of males as far back as the 1920's that die from Suicide which is generally associated with there freer access and familiarity with firearms. But bugger the logic Maybe in your mind the rot really started with those women getting the vote.:msn-wink:

More twaddle - how do you explain the disparity in the likes of Britain where Firearm ownership is much more difficult? Not to mention that only a small percentage of suicides use Firearms (except the US).

What I think you mean to say is that when Men decide to kill themselves, they use means which are very violent and instantly lethal. It's almost like there's some biology at work here, where the more Violent of the Genders uses more Violent means....

It's even funnier when you brought up the Recidivism rate - ignoring the main reason why women have a higher recidivism rate than men: Men actually kill themselves, so there's no possibility to try again.


So in your leaned opinion (that is i am sure even better then the LTSA judging by your disdain showed for the NZ mental health foundation)
Is radical feminism also responsible for the Crash stats and deaths that show men are far more likely to die /mile than women traveled as well

Or could there possibly be other reasons

Cool - let's entertain that Analogy shall we - if you can just point to prominent Feminists seeking policies that are directly in line with the risk factors you yourself identify, then I'll allow it.

Double funny because I pointed out that Intersectional policies (which is what I'm critiquing) have a shitty track record for their predictive merits, yet - curiously, you've gone all shy on this point. Afterall, if it was just that I hated the Mental Health Foundation (I don't), then it would be an easy win for you - but we both know that the ideology (which is what I actually hold disdain for) has had multiple real-world implementations where the opposite effect from their predictive model occurred, and it's on that basis that I claim superiority.

Just like anyone would claim superiority over a 'scientist' who contended that Gravity caused things to float upward from the ground.

If not, it's a Red Herring.

[TheDemonLord]

You can add that in to show how it changes the context if you like. Well, if you weren't lying about it that is...

That sounds a lot like Backpedaling... As for 'if I weren't lying...' I've not edited those posts, you can clearly see the accusation I made against you - so I'm not sure how this would even be a question.

Although given your previous efforts to strip any and all context, I shouldn't be surprised.


Did they only materialise then?

Can you point previously in this discussion where you've outlined them? If not, the timing is suspect at the very least.

This could be forgiven, however the subsequent wrangling we see below removes any inclination I have to grant benefit of the doubt.


Also, an exception which is explained and justified, is not purely at the discretion of those who are applying the standard as it can be argued whether or not it should be applied based on that justification.

This is you, it's what you say, you are the one applying the standard and the exception and are doing so entirely at your whim - stop trying to make it out to be anything other than this. All you are doing is attempting to hide your inadequacies, but I'm not buying it.

[husaberg]

Broken families are a risk factor in Suicide.
Prominent Feminists have called for the Break up of Family unit.

But in your mind- these two things are completely unrelated...

I'll ask again - do you accept that if I post up exact quotations (as you demanded) from a well respected Psychologist, you'll retract all of your BS statements? Curiously, you are quite silent on this.



Nice Strawman, try again - this time, reference what I've actually said.

Since this is the umpteenth time you've got it wrong, the only thing I've claimed is that the rise in Male suicides (so no comparison in that statement to Women) is related to the pushing of certain Feminist ideas and policies.



I've acknowledged it's true, what you ignore is more males ACTUALLY DIE from Suicide.

I consider death to be the more permanent and serious of the 2 issues.



And I've provided it, referencing it back to your Facts. You repeatedly ignore this.



More twaddle - how do you explain the disparity in the likes of Britain where Firearm ownership is much more difficult? Not to mention that only a small percentage of suicides use Firearms (except the US).

What I think you mean to say is that when Men decide to kill themselves, they use means which are very violent and instantly lethal. It's almost like there's some biology at work here, where the more Violent of the Genders uses more Violent means....

It's even funnier when you brought up the Recidivism rate - ignoring the main reason why women have a higher recidivism rate than men: Men actually kill themselves, so there's no possibility to try again.



Cool - let's entertain that Analogy shall we - if you can just point to prominent Feminists seeking policies that are directly in line with the risk factors you yourself identify, then I'll allow it.

Double funny because I pointed out that Intersectional policies (which is what I'm critiquing) have a shitty track record for their predictive merits, yet - curiously, you've gone all shy on this point. Afterall, if it was just that I hated the Mental Health Foundation (I don't), then it would be an easy win for you - but we both know that the ideology (which is what I actually hold disdain for) has had multiple real-world implementations where the opposite effect from their predictive model occurred, and it's on that basis that I claim superiority.

Just like anyone would claim superiority over a 'scientist' who contended that Gravity caused things to float upward from the ground.

If not, it's a Red Herring.

You are talking utter bollocks, talking round and round in circles. Yet never producing anything. You only ever produce is your own opinion.
You never answer a question you just constantly change the subject, you claim any department or group that opposes your view is biased. Yet never produce any evidence at all. Although the groups you call biased have screeds of supporting data.
You claim to have produced evidence to show you are right, yet have never produced anytrhing.
You give few quotes from some feminist and somehow in your head think that is evidence that it has caused male suicides, where is the evidence it has?
For ever feminist quote you produce i could post a misogynistic rant. No ones claiming these make women commit suicide.
It's time for you to stop katspaming the thread and produce this evidence you say you have posted, yet haven't , Evidence that directly links radical feminism to male suicides, from credible sources.

post it HERE

[TheDemonLord]

You are talking utter bollocks, talking round and round in circles. Yet never producing anything. You only ever produce is your own opinion.
You never answer a question you just constantly change the subject, you claim any department or group that opposes your view is biased. Yet never produce any evidence at all. Although the groups you call biased have screeds of supporting data.

I've not changed the subject at all, I've answered all your questions, you've just ignored the inconvenient answers. I'll note you've still not agreed to the standard of proof for a citation that I set out, based on what you've put forth as evidence. One wonders why you'd decline to do so...

I've presented the evidence, from well respected figureheads of Feminism advocating for the breakdown of the nuclear family unit. You've still not addressed this point, except to try and dismiss it with nothing but character assassinations (which, given how prominent those that I cited are, is doubly hilarious).

You refuse to acknowledge a link between the advocacy of the breaking down of the family unit and the risk factor you, yourself, identified associated with that.

Why won't you honestly argue this point? But of course, we both know the answer - to do so would invalidate your reasons for dismissal. Which forms a rather nice circular bit of 'logic'.


You claim to have produced evidence to show you are right, yet have never produced anytrhing.
You give few quotes from some feminist and somehow in your head think that is evidence that it has caused male suicides, where is the evidence it has?

Not, 'Some Feminists' - try again, try 'Among the most influential Feminists of the 20th Century' - Do you wish to retract your 'fact' that Divorce and single parenthood is a risk factor for Suicide? Because there is your evidence. I'll simply repeat that you are ignoring this.


For ever feminist quote you produce i could post a misogynistic rant. No ones claiming these make women commit suicide.

Really? Are you sure that no one has ever claimed that mean things said to Wahmens might cause them to commit suicide?

You sure about that? (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/29/women-self-harm-misogyny-social-pressure-pain)
I mean, Really Sure? (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03847t8)

The recent suicide of teenager Hannah Smith who hanged herself after she was taunted on-line,
It's not like this hasn't been one of the talking points of Online Feminism for the last 5 years or anything, deliberately misrepresenting data to promote the narrative that all women are victims to a Kabal of Evil Men, therefore we must use the government to censure them (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/604979/IPOL_STU(2018)604979_EN.pdf)

But I guess this goes to show just how clueless you are in this area - like when you said Women have a higher success rate than men....


It's time for you to stop katspaming the thread and produce this evidence you say you have posted, yet haven't , Evidence that directly links radical feminism to male suicides, from credible sources.

post it HERE

Do you accept the standard of evidence that I set out, based on what you've put forward? So far you've ignored and dismissed, via attempted discreditation what I have posted.

[carbonhed]

Jordan Peterson on fire on gender equality. Julie Ann Genter take note.


https://youtu.be/PhpowcYxPkw

[carbonhed]

The chick in this ad is channeling Cindy our leader... spooky.

https://www.facebook.com/NZNATS/videos/495106447684628/

[oldrider]

A documentary exposing Jordan Peterson's agenda to subvert and destroy the rising political right wing, and neutralize European nationalism. - :scratch: - :wait:


<iframe width="905" height="509" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WXYuqrO8LLo" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[husaberg]

I've not changed the subject at all, I've answered all your questions, you've just ignored the inconvenient answers. I'll note you've still not agreed to the standard of proof for a citation that I set out, based on what you've put forth as evidence. One wonders why you'd decline to do so...

I've presented the evidence, from well respected figureheads of Feminism advocating for the breakdown of the nuclear family unit. You've still not addressed this point, except to try and dismiss it with nothing but character assassinations (which, given how prominent those that I cited are, is doubly hilarious).

You refuse to acknowledge a link between the advocacy of the breaking down of the family unit and the risk factor you, yourself, identified associated with that.

Why won't you honestly argue this point? But of course, we both know the answer - to do so would invalidate your reasons for dismissal. Which forms a rather nice circular bit of 'logic'.



Not, 'Some Feminists' - try again, try 'Among the most influential Feminists of the 20th Century' - Do you wish to retract your 'fact' that Divorce and single parenthood is a risk factor for Suicide? Because there is your evidence. I'll simply repeat that you are ignoring this.



Really? Are you sure that no one has ever claimed that mean things said to Wahmens might cause them to commit suicide?

You sure about that? (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/29/women-self-harm-misogyny-social-pressure-pain)
I mean, Really Sure? (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03847t8)

It's not like this hasn't been one of the talking points of Online Feminism for the last 5 years or anything, deliberately misrepresenting data to promote the narrative that all women are victims to a Kabal of Evil Men, therefore we must use the government to censure them (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/604979/IPOL_STU(2018)604979_EN.pdf)

But I guess this goes to show just how clueless you are in this area - like when you said Women have a higher success rate than men....



Do you accept the standard of evidence that I set out, based on what you've put forward? So far you've ignored and dismissed, via attempted discreditation what I have posted.

Which part of post the evidence here did you miss?
post or Poseidon off.
Here is the place you are to post the evidence
HERE

In the above post you linked two articles that upset you put the exact words statement and sentences you have an issue with
HERE

AS for the rest of your stuff you are one of Trumps most ardent supporters on KB
Trump is the US president the most powerful person in the world
even more powerful the germaine greer or a hundred other feminists no one has heard of let alone read.
How many times did you condeme Trump for what he said about being a rich and famous man
When it com,es to women what was it you can do anything you want to them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o21fXqguD7U

[oldrider]

LA Drowning In Homeless Street Slums, Filth, Disease? - :rolleyes: - https://rense.com/general96/la-drowning-in-homeless-street-slums-filth-disease.php - :whocares:

[Katman]

Which part of post the evidence here did you miss?
post or Poseidon off.
Here is the place you are to post the evidence
HERE

In the above post you linked two articles that upset you put the exact words statement and sentences you have an issue with
HERE

There's that retarded pedantic child again.

[husaberg]

There's that retarded pedantic child again.

So whats the odds on this week for when you are back in the sin bin again:laugh:
Anyone would think you only troll post to get attention.
http://photos.myjoyonline.com/photos/news/201902/2569847024149_9852981425614.jpg

[Katman]

So whats the odds on this week for when you are back in the sin bin again.

Well I suppose that all depends on the amount of effort you put into crying to the moderators.

Knock yourself out.

[husaberg]

Well I suppose that all depends on the amount of effort you put into crying to the moderators.

Knock yourself out.

You seem to have it Arse backwards as normal, you get binned for what you say rather than what anyone else says.

[TheDemonLord]

Which part of post the evidence here did you miss?
post or Poseidon off.
Here is the place you are to post the evidence
HERE

Do you accept the Standard of evidence I laid out previously? I've articulated a standard, based on what you've posted, yet curiously you are reluctant to agree with this standard.


In the above post you linked two articles that upset you put the exact words statement and sentences you have an issue with
HERE

I posted 3 articles Deary, with all the frothing at the mouth you are doing, I can understand that fundamentals such as Logic, reading and counting can fall by the wayside.

It's simple really though, nothing in the articles upset me, it was a demonstration that your assertion that:


For ever feminist quote you produce i could post a misogynistic rant. No ones claiming these make women commit suicide.

Is not only incorrect, it's actually the opposite - they've been bitching and whining about that for years. Remember when Anita Sarkeesian (Con-woman, faux gamer extraordinaire) got invited to the UN (That's the United Nations - kinda a big deal) to talk about Online Harassment and it's effect on Women (and yes, that includes Suicide)?

Add in for bonus points that you've been trying to attack my Credibility: Yet, I'm not the one who has posted multiple things that are the opposite to reality.


AS for the rest of your shit you are one of Trumps most ardent supporters on KB
Trump is the US president the most powerful person in the world
even more powerful the germaine greer or a hundred other feminists no one has herd of let alone read.
How many times did you condeme Trump for what he said about being a rich and famous man
When it com,es to women what was it you can do anything you want to them.

Why are you bringing up Trump? Doubly funny when:


You never answer a question you just constantly change the subject,

But to answer the Question: I've never condemned him. Groupies are a thing. Women like rich and powerful Men, and as such the Women ALLOW said Men to do things they wouldn't for other people.

If you have a problem with that - I suggest you take it up with the Women who decide what the acceptable limits are for them and their body and with Whom.

[husaberg]

Do you accept the Standard of evidence I laid out previously? I've articulated a standard, based on what you've posted, yet curiously you are reluctant to agree with this standard.



I posted 3 articles Deary, with all the frothing at the mouth you are doing, I can understand that fundamentals such as Logic, reading and counting can fall by the wayside.

It's simple really though, nothing in the articles upset me, it was a demonstration that your assertion that:



Is not only incorrect, it's actually the opposite - they've been bitching and whining about that for years. Remember when Anita Sarkeesian (Con-woman, faux gamer extraordinaire) got invited to the UN (That's the United Nations - kinda a big deal) to talk about Online Harassment and it's effect on Women (and yes, that includes Suicide)?

Add in for bonus points that you've been trying to attack my Credibility: Yet, I'm not the one who has posted multiple things that are the opposite to reality.



Why are you bringing up Trump? Doubly funny when:



But to answer the Question: I've never condemned him. Groupies are a thing. Women like rich and powerful Men, and as such the Women ALLOW said Men to do things they wouldn't for other people.

If you have a problem with that - I suggest you take it up with the Women who decide what the acceptable limits are for them and their body and with Whom.

Post it Here

And Here

Seeing as you keep saying you have posted it, it won't be hard for you to do it again then, Unless off course you haven't posted it previously and you can't.


As for the article show me the claims where it says the articles make women commit suicide.
I asked you to post the objectionable material, you didn't do so.

ps of course why would you condemn Trump being a RICH WHITE/ORANGE MAN OF COURSE HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING HE WANTS TO DO AND WHEN.
WOMEN, CHILDREN, SHIT WHATEVER HE WANTS
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-trumps-accusers-allegations-sexual-misconduct/story?id=51956410
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12?r=US&IR=T

[Graystone]

That sounds a lot like Backpedaling... As for 'if I weren't lying...' I've not edited those posts, you can clearly see the accusation I made against you - so I'm not sure how this would even be a question.

Although given your previous efforts to strip any and all context, I shouldn't be surprised.



Can you point previously in this discussion where you've outlined them? If not, the timing is suspect at the very least.

This could be forgiven, however the subsequent wrangling we see below removes any inclination I have to grant benefit of the doubt.



This is you, it's what you say, you are the one applying the standard and the exception and are doing so entirely at your whim - stop trying to make it out to be anything other than this. All you are doing is attempting to hide your inadequacies, but I'm not buying it.

No, just calling you out. If you had context that was applicable to add, you could add it. You can't because you are lying about it's applicability. You were asked a simple question, and gave a simple answer. You now refuse to answer the same question with different phrasing. You also refuse to back up your assertions that there was other relevant context.

The exception was always present in my standard, just because you were not aware of it, doesn't mean it was not there. I have explained my exception and standard to you, you cannot argue against the logic, so you pointlessly argue against their admission.

[TheDemonLord]

Post it Here

And Here

Seeing as you keep saying you have posted it, it won't be hard for you to do it again then, Unless off course you haven't posted it previously and you can't.

Do you accept the Standard of Evidence?


ps of course why would you condemn Trump being a RICH WHITE/ORANGE MAN OF COURSE HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING HE WANTS TO DO AND WHEN.
WOMEN, CHILDREN, SHIT WHATEVER HE WANTS

I've never said that, I said that the Women were free to set the limits for themselves and their bodies. If that means people who are worth over $X can do whatever, that's their business.

Why are you concerned as to what Women allow some men to do to them? Are you Jealous?


As for the article show me the claims where it says the articles make women commit suicide.
I asked you to post the objectionable material, you didn't you haven't.


‘Cyberbullying’, is one form of cyber violence which has been well-studied and defined in detail by the EU institutions. It is understood as a form of cyber harassment most commonly affecting minors, regardless of their gender. It consists of repeated aggressive online behaviour with the objective of frightening and undermining someone’s self-esteem or reputation, which sometimes pushes vulnerable individuals to depression and suicide.


Women’s self-harm is being fuelled by misogyny

And since you clearly articulated that Self-harm is a risk factor for Suicide, and your quote was 'Mysoginistic Rant' - would that be sufficient or will you need to do some more Hand waiving?

[TheDemonLord]

No, just calling you out. If you had context that was applicable to add, you could add it. You can't because you are lying about it's applicability. You were asked a simple question, and gave a simple answer. You now refuse to answer the same question with different phrasing. You also refuse to back up your assertions that there was other relevant context.

I've given you the correct Context umpteen times. The fact you still ask for it, shows you've been willfully ignoring it.


The exception was always present in my standard, just because you were not aware of it, doesn't mean it was not there.

And yet, the Timing was impeccable.

Some might even say 'suspicious'


I have explained my exception and standard to you, you cannot argue against the logic, so you pointlessly argue against their admission.

Oh, so now it IS your exception, applied at your Whim (like I said it was all along)

Tell you what - you take some time to work it out, come back to me when you can make two consecutive posts that don't contradict each other. Then we can talk about Logic (and your clear lack thereof)

[husaberg]

Do you accept the Standard of Evidence?



I've never said that, I said that the Women were free to set the limits for themselves and their bodies. If that means people who are worth over $X can do whatever, that's their business.

Why are you concerned as to what Women allow some men to do to them? Are you Jealous?







And since you clearly articulated that Self-harm is a risk factor for Suicide, and your quote was 'Mysoginistic Rant' - would that be sufficient or will you need to do some more Hand waiving?

So not evidence yet aye
Depite you saying you had already posted it.
Why isn't it Here
And Here

ps i think you are confusing me posting stupid stuff to match your equally stupid stuff dude.

Also saying you don't like a headline is when i asked for the objectionable material grasping a straws even for you, you do realise the editors write the headlines and that publications editor is a dude.

[TheDemonLord]

So not evidence yet aye
Depite you saying you had already posted it.
Why isn't it Here
And Here

Curiously, the acknowledgement of the Standard of Evidence is also missing.

You're the one making the demand, yet you refuse to set the parameters of the Demand, most dishonest.


ps i think you are confusing me posting stupid shit to match your stupid shit dude.

You mean trying to change the subject - the thing you accused me of doing? The point was, you seem to have an issue with what some women will let some men do to them.

I'm highlighting this as a hilarious example of Double Standards: You argue from the Feminist perspective, but then implicitly place dictates on what they can do with their body.


Also saying you don't like a headline is when i asked for the objectionable material grasping a straws even for you, you do realise the editors write the headlines and that publications editor is a dude.

I've never said I didn't like the Headline, or the content of the Article, Are you drunk?
The point of those articles was to show that your statement was not only incorrect, but the opposite was actually true: That Feminists for YEARS have been linking 'Mysoginistic rants' (as you put it) with Self Harm (a suicide risk factor) and Suicide itself.

[husaberg]

Curiously, the acknowledgement of the Standard of Evidence is also missing.

You're the one making the demand, yet you refuse to set the parameters of the Demand, most dishonest.



You mean trying to change the subject - the thing you accused me of doing? The point was, you seem to have an issue with what some women will let some men do to them.

I'm highlighting this as a hilarious example of Double Standards: You argue from the Feminist perspective, but then implicitly place dictates on what they can do with their body.



I've never said I didn't like the Headline, or the content of the Article, Are you drunk?
The point of those articles was to show that your statement was not only incorrect, but the opposite was actually true: That Feminists for YEARS have been linking 'Mysoginistic rants' (as you put it) with Self Harm (a suicide risk factor) and Suicide itself.

yet to see this evidence funny how you are now struggling to find it considering you claimed to have already posted it.

You gave the title i asked you twice to post exactly what was in the contents you produced nothing.

now you are saying the feminists for years have linked misogynistic rants with female suicide
seeing as you said this has been going on for years"and post 20 examples of credible material to back up your statement.

[TheDemonLord]

yet to see this evidence funny how you are now struggling to find it considering you claimed to have already posted it.

I'm not struggling at all, I'll elaborate further below.


You gave the title i asked you twice to post exactly what was in the contents you produced nothing.

The Title, in this case, is sufficient. Since it shows clearly that people are doing the opposite of what you said they were.


now you are saying the feminists for years have linked misogynistic rants with female suicide
seeing as you said this has been going on for years"and post 20 examples of credible material to back up your statement.

I posted 3 (well, 4 if you include the Anita Sarkeesian reference), you ignore them and demand 20.

This is your classic moving of the Goal Posts. It's also why you refuse to agree to the standard of evidence I set out, because once you agree to it, you can't move the Goal Posts. It's also why I'm insisting that you set out your requirements for evidence before posting up the exact quotations from the various people I cited (which was what you originally asked for).

I'll simply restate: Agree to the standard of Evidence (which is an articulation of the level of evidence you posted), and I'll proceed.

However, all this Strawmen, Goalpost moving, Non-sequiturs, Red Herrings etc. etc. that you've tried is a demonstration that you have nothing tenable to backup your position.

[husaberg]

I'm not struggling at all, I'll elaborate further below.



T.

If you simply posted your evidence you wouldn't need to go on and on why you weren't posting it.:laugh:
Especially given you claim to have it:facepalm:
Plus you claim to have already posted it:shutup:
So post the evidence here or get off the pot.

[Viking01]

Not content with getting up Russian noses in recent times, the UK
Defence Minister has just sized up Chinese noses for good measure
as well - and with quite predictable results ..... 8-)

https://southfront.org/china-dramatically-cancels-uk-trade-talks-hours-after-defense-secretarys-bellicose-speech/

https://eurasiafuture.com/2019/02/15/brexit-britain-should-be-trading-freely-with-china-not-threatening-china-with-war/

When your own home team (currently negotiating Brexit) calls you
an idiot for your comments, you know that you've managed to shift
the bar of gross stupidity to new lows. Well done.

[Graystone]

I've given you the correct Context umpteen times. The fact you still ask for it, shows you've been willfully ignoring it.



And yet, the Timing was impeccable.

Some might even say 'suspicious'



Oh, so now it IS your exception, applied at your Whim (like I said it was all along)

Tell you what - you take some time to work it out, come back to me when you can make two consecutive posts that don't contradict each other. Then we can talk about Logic (and your clear lack thereof)

If you simply posted your context you wouldn't need to go on and on why you weren't posting it. :laugh: I can post mine again if that would help?

"Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?"
to which I replied
"Have I done the same for the causes as above?"
and you replied "yes", from post 10275

Perhaps not posting it is your discretionary exception to the basic standard of evidence and backing yourself up, that you seek to apply to others?

The timing, is due to relevance. The exception, is part of my standard, so I'm not sure why you would think it was anyone else's, but the clarity I provide, means it cannot be applied at a whim. There was no contradiction in the posts, when have I stated it was not my standard or exception?

[TheDemonLord]

If you simply posted your evidence you wouldn't need to go on and on why you weren't posting it.:laugh:
Especially given you claim to have it:facepalm:
Plus you claim to have already posted it:shutup:
So post the evidence here or get off the pot.

All could be resolved if you'd simply state your standard of Evidence.

I post 3 articles to show you are talking crap, you dismiss them, and demand 20.

The reason for dismissal is curiously never articulated. You've made claims how I should just believe a Psychologist who works for Mental Health NZ, but are curiously silent when I reference a world-famous Psychologist with 1000's of citations of his work.

We both know the refusal on your part to agree to a standard, is because you are smart enough to know damn well that I can back up what I've said, in such a way that meets said standard - which would be rather inconvenient for your ideologically driven position.

[TheDemonLord]

If you simply posted your context you wouldn't need to go on and on why you weren't posting it. :laugh: I can post mine again if that would help?

"Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?"
to which I replied
"Have I done the same for the causes as above?"
and you replied "yes", from post 10275

Perhaps not posting it is your discretionary exception to the basic standard of evidence and backing yourself up, that you seek to apply to others?

Did you miss the parts where I repeatedly referred to the prior and subsequent posts, you know, the ones that give the context? Did you miss the part where I linked this specifically to the accusation I made against you, not the question I made against others?

Seeing as you are having trouble with this - see the paragraph of post 10262 (where I made the accusation), the middle of post 10275 (where the evidence for said accusation was given) bottom half of post 10280 (where the context is clarified as to what it's in relation top).




The timing, is due to relevance.

Indeed:

"Oh shit! I got busted, better make up some Bullshit to try and save face"

Very relevant indeed.


The exception, is part of my standard, so I'm not sure why you would think it was anyone else's, but the clarity I provide, means it cannot be applied at a whim.

Except that is exactly what it means. It's fun to see how badly you are tying yourself in Knots here.

Let me help (cause I'm a nice person like that) - If I was to reference the Law on a matter, it's not my Standard, nor am I the one setting it, nor am I the one who sets the exception. All I can do is make comparison between what is presented and the 3rd party, objective standard.

If I'm referencing my own judgement, then any standards I may personally hold and any exceptions are applied solely at my Whim. I may choose to hold to those standards (such as having to defend Alex Jones, because his right is my right) or may choose not to hold those standards (like you are doing, when those standards become a tad inconvenient) but to try and make out that it is anything other than your Whims that dictate how and when you apply your own standards is farcical.

Either set the Standard, hold to it.
Or
Admit your hypocrisy.

Eitherway, we both know your reluctance to do so is because regardless of your choice - I'm going to nail you on it.


There was no contradiction in the posts, when have I stated it was not my standard or exception?

Implicitly, everytime you tried to deny that it was solely at your discretion that this was being applied - see above.

[Graystone]

Did you miss the parts where I repeatedly referred to the prior and subsequent posts, you know, the ones that give the context? Did you miss the part where I linked this specifically to the accusation I made against you, not the question I made against others?

Seeing as you are having trouble with this - see the paragraph of post 10262 (where I made the accusation), the middle of post 10275 (where the evidence for said accusation was given) bottom half of post 10280 (where the context is clarified as to what it's in relation top).





Indeed:

"Oh shit! I got busted, better make up some Bullshit to try and save face"

Very relevant indeed.



Except that is exactly what it means. It's fun to see how badly you are tying yourself in Knots here.

Let me help (cause I'm a nice person like that) - If I was to reference the Law on a matter, it's not my Standard, nor am I the one setting it, nor am I the one who sets the exception. All I can do is make comparison between what is presented and the 3rd party, objective standard.

If I'm referencing my own judgement, then any standards I may personally hold and any exceptions are applied solely at my Whim. I may choose to hold to those standards (such as having to defend Alex Jones, because his right is my right) or may choose not to hold those standards (like you are doing, when those standards become a tad inconvenient) but to try and make out that it is anything other than your Whims that dictate how and when you apply your own standards is farcical.

Either set the Standard, hold to it.
Or
Admit your hypocrisy.

Eitherway, we both know your reluctance to do so is because regardless of your choice - I'm going to nail you on it.



Implicitly, everytime you tried to deny that it was solely at your discretion that this was being applied - see above.

That's a different accusation, there you claimed I just sat idly by. When you answered yes in 10275 you added an accusation that I also called for censorship (by confirming an accusation you made at somebody else also applied to me). If you only meant the original one, you would have answered 'no' to my question in 10272

A rather biased narrative, do you have anything to back that up?

And by clarifying what the standard/exceptions are, it makes an objective measure that anyone can argue the merits for/against. I have set the standard and held to it, if you were going to 'nail' me on it, you would have done so instead of all this whinging about how it can't have any exceptions since I didn't tell you about them before I told you about them :rolleyes:

Oh right, 'implicit' contradiction :laugh: you claim you've made no error when you say yes instead of no, yet try to pull me up on an implicit contradiction? :killingme: fuck you love your own biased narrative don't you?

[husaberg]

All could be resolved if you'd simply state your standard of Evidence.

I post 3 articles to show you are talking crap, you dismiss them, and demand 20.

The reason for dismissal is curiously never articulated. You've made claims how I should just believe a Psychologist who works for Mental Health NZ, but are curiously silent when I reference a world-famous Psychologist with 1000's of citations of his work.

We both know the refusal on your part to agree to a standard, is because you are smart enough to know damn well that I can back up what I've said, in such a way that meets said standard - which would be rather inconvenient for your ideologically driven position.

There you go again
Post the facts you claim to have.
i shouldn't be hard to Post them as you claim you already have.
Post them or go away.
As what what "we both know" I know you cant post evidence that backs up your statements.
In any way shape or form that meets any logical conclusion or if using your own criteria you have already illustrated here in this thread for what you accept based on what you have already defined yourself.

[TheDemonLord]

There you go again
Post the fact you claim to have.
i shouldn't be hard to Post them as you claim you already have
Post them or go away.

Then we are at Impasse.

You want evidence, but decline to set the Standard.
I've got no faith that you'll accept the evidence (as per prior behavior, such as dismissing prominent, world renowned feminists as 'Silly bints' or dismissing 3 articles and demanding 20 ), without declaring a Standard that said evidence can be measured against.

Your reluctance is proof positive that your intention was to move the goal posts (see above 3 vs 20) once I'd posted anything,

[TheDemonLord]

That's a different accusation, there you claimed I just sat idly by. When you answered yes in 10275 you added an accusation that I also called for censorship (by confirming an accusation you made at somebody else also applied to me). If you only meant the original one, you would have answered 'no' to my question in 10272

It is different - as I've said multiple times, its the only accusation I've made against you, glad you've finally understood that. I've not added in anything, you did the adding in, then wished to argue against something you want me to have said.

And if I meant the original one, I would have clarified the context in subsequent posts. Just like I did. Y'know - all that Context I kept referencing and you kept ignoring.


A rather biased narrative, do you have anything to back that up?

Your actions thus far would be proof enough. Hell, your actions in this post alone are proof enough.


And by clarifying what the standard/exceptions are, it makes an objective measure that anyone can argue the merits for/against. I have set the standard and held to it, if you were going to 'nail' me on it, you would have done so instead of all this whinging about how it can't have any exceptions since I didn't tell you about them before I told you about them :rolleyes:

Ah yes, a post-hoc justification... And you wonder why I might be a tad bit critical?

Except it's not an Objective measure, it's only your measure and it's only you doing the applying.

As for the rest of it, it's really simple: You stated (sans exceptions) that you have this high and noble standard.

Fine.
I expect you to stick to it.

And I called you as such, then miraculously, an exception appears - excusing you from having to meet this high and noble standard.

Then you tried to worm around by disavowing responsibility for the application of said standard and exceptions (as an attempt to make it appear objective, when it clearly is subjective, and being applied to save face) and now you are simultaneously trying to claim it's your standard and your exceptions but it's also objective but it's also not being applied at your discretion.


Oh right, 'implicit' contradiction :laugh: you claim you've made no error when you say yes instead of no, yet try to pull me up on an implicit contradiction? :killingme: fuck you love your own biased narrative don't you?

Let me help you here:


it makes an objective measure

There's your explicit attempt to remove you, your biases and your actions from the equation.

[husaberg]

Then we are at Impasse.

You want evidence, but decline to set the Standard.
I've got no faith that you'll accept the evidence (as per prior behavior), without declaring a Standard.

Yet yoiu still claim to have already posted the evidence yet there is none
Lets see what you have posted
jordan peterson
Well using your already defined theorem hes out on account of this statement alone

Why did he decide to engage in politics at all? He says a couple years ago he had three clients in his private practice.


Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

really the cure for violence is enslaving women into forced marriage........
you cited him
yet refuse to accept the views of the NZ mental health foundation on the subject of Suicides in NZ claiming you know more that the foundation and the person who made the statement on on account of what you term as radical beliefs.

[TheDemonLord]

really the cure for violence is enslaving women into forced marriage........
you cited him

Oh this old Chestnut.

Enforced Monogamy is an Anthropology term. Simply put:

If one of your daughters or sons came to you and said they were cheating on their partner, would you:

A: Hi-5 them and tell them 'Go you!'
or
B: Disaprove of their actions

If it's option B - then congratulations, you are part of Enforced Monogamy.

Not to mention this is a Red Herring, an attempt at Poisoning the Well AND a Character Assassination.


yet refuse to accept the views of the NZ mental health foundation on the subject of Suicides in NZ claiming you know more that the foundation and the person who made the statement on on account of what you term as racial beliefs.

Racial Beliefs? Is there no end to the shit you are going to make up? Can you point to where I've made reference to anyones Race?

[Graystone]

It is different - as I've said multiple times, its the only accusation I've made against you, glad you've finally understood that. I've not added in anything, you did the adding in, then wished to argue against something you want me to have said.

And if I meant the original one, I would have clarified the context in subsequent posts. Just like I did. Y'know - all that Context I kept referencing and you kept ignoring.



Your actions thus far would be proof enough. Hell, your actions in this post alone are proof enough.



Ah yes, a post-hoc justification... And you wonder why I might be a tad bit critical?

Except it's not an Objective measure, it's only your measure and it's only you doing the applying.

As for the rest of it, it's really simple: You stated (sans exceptions) that you have this high and noble standard.

Fine.
I expect you to stick to it.

And I called you as such, then miraculously, an exception appears - excusing you from having to meet this high and noble standard.

Then you tried to worm around by disavowing responsibility for the application of said standard and exceptions (as an attempt to make it appear objective, when it clearly is subjective, and being applied to save face) and now you are simultaneously trying to claim it's your standard and your exceptions but it's also objective but it's also not being applied at your discretion.



Let me help you here:



There's your explicit attempt to remove you, your biases and your actions from the equation.

So why did you answer yes to confirm you also accused me of calling for censorhsip?

My actions fit both narratives.

Where did I state my noble standard, sans exceptions?

Still no contradiction there. Objectivity comes from the clarification/discussion/justification of subjective opinions all the time.

[Katman]

Is there no end to the shit you are going to make up?

No, there really isn't.

I thought you would have figured that out about the Berk by now.

[husaberg]

Oh this old Chestnut.

Enforced Monogamy is an Anthropology term. Simply put:

If one of your daughters or sons came to you and said they were cheating on their partner, would you:

A: Hi-5 them and tell them 'Go you!'
or
B: Disaprove of their actions

If it's option B - then congratulations, you are part of Enforced Monogamy.

Not to mention this is a Red Herring, an attempt at Poisoning the Well AND a Character Assassination.



Racial Beliefs? Is there no end to the shit you are going to make up? Can you point to where I've made reference to anyones Race?

Bullshit
! he gave the explanation afterwards. as an excuse.
2 if you use his explanation his definition is what happened and yet men are still violent
# racial was a autocorect from radical.

Also i hate to tell you divorce rates have been steadily dropping, yet the suicide for males climbed for those two years you quoted and hand choose right down to an individual country, for that one reason its still horseshit.
340907

You said the Mental health foundation was biased as was the writer yet your cited person is "PAY PER VIEW POLITICAL FREAK SHOW" did you not notice he is biased and shares some interesting views.
His views that were so far out of the accepted norm he was "retired from teaching"

As a fix for this, Peterson recommends a variety of things including "enforced monogamy" — a solution that implies men are oppressed due to lack of consensual sex.


Mr. Peterson illustrates his arguments with copious references to ancient myths — bringing up stories of witches, biblical allegories and ancient traditions. I ask why these old stories should guide us today.
“It makes sense that a witch lives in a swamp. Yeah,” he says. “Why?”
It’s a hard one.
“Right. That’s right. You don’t know. It’s because those things hang together at a very deep level. Right. Yeah. And it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower.”
But witches don’t exist, and they don’t live in swamps, I say.
“Yeah, they do. They do exist.


Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.


When Mr. Peterson talks about good women — the sort a man would want to marry — he often uses these words: conscientious and agreeable.


Wherever he goes, he speaks in sermons about the inevitability of who we must be. “You know you can say, ‘Well isn’t it unfortunate that chaos is represented by the feminine’ — well, it might be unfortunate, but it doesn’t matter because that is how it’s represented. It’s been represented like that forever. And there are reasons for it. You can’t change it. It’s not possible. This is underneath everything. If you change those basic categories, people wouldn’t be human anymore.


he left, he believes, refuses to admit that men might be in charge because they are better at it. “The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence,”
Peteron talks a lot at going back to old values the 1950 marriages etc etc as if we need to seriously do this
but if were are going back to old values they include slavery, segregation, Death penalty, Censorship of movies books no internet.
A far as i can see the majority of Peterson supporters are long haired gamers with no girlfriends. these same people lack the social girls to find girlfriends or interact with people.

[carbonhed]

Bullshit
! he gave the explanation afterwards. as an excuse.
2 if you use his explanation his definition is what happened and yet men are still violent

Oh noes! You should have stuck to copy and paste... because as soon as you says what you think it's fucking retarded... AGAIN!


https://youtu.be/v6H2HmKDbZA?t=4006

[AllanB]

I don't even know what the F you lot are arguing about. But I do agree there is stupid shit in the world.

Like Christchurch council spending hundreds and thousands on annoying cycle lanes while ignoring serious road repairs. Fucked in the head that lot.

[husaberg]

Oh noes! You should have stuck to copy and paste... because as soon as you says what you think it's fucking retarded... AGAIN!


Pardon.......
posting hour long videos is retarded.
If he said anything worthwhile you could either quote him or sum it it.
You can do that as he does give facts to back up his opinion, or he gives is his opinion a far right opinion that is aimed at empowering disenfranchised gamer-boy losers
ps that video was created posted after the NYT article.

This video makes illustrates why Peterson followers are single gamers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLS1oAQQuc8

listen to his last line yet he expects the reverse not to happen.

[carbonhed]

Pardon.......
posting hour long videos is retarded.
Ifv he said anything worthwile youcould either quote him or sum it it.
ps that video was created posted after the NYT article

It starts just before a question on this very topic.

So you imagine he should have... replied.. to... the... NYT's... article... before... it..was............ published...........:laugh:

[husaberg]

It starts just before a question on this very topic.

So you imagine he should have... replied.. to... the... NYT's... article... before... it..was............ published...........:laugh:

Really but seeing as he wrote books and talked before then how exactly did it not come up previously.
Hes an attention whore, educated yes, but a attention whore nevertheless, He want to make money, not help the world.
Not only that how do you account for the fact his whole premise carries no factual BASIS OF FOUNDATION.
Thats why the people that follow him are not educated productive members of society, But single white gamer males.

that said here is a gamer critique of Peterson. Same dude as above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb3oh3dhnoM

I have noticed your only reason for even posting in this thread is the same as katmans, Your simply to troll.
Peterson's a far right religious nut
Who says have doesn't know how to handle conflict with a women as he cant punch them.
Or how he is a Brave free speech warrior who wants to stop Richard Dawkins speaking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SNCrNqxPNM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kktI8-lZw8
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life
There is a reason neanderthals died out.


I don't even know what the F you lot are arguing about. But I do agree there is stupid shit in the world.

Like Christchurch council spending hundreds and thousands on annoying cycle lanes while ignoring serious road repairs. Fucked in the head that lot.

I was over there a month ago, your waters undrinkable now.
No idea what greystone andd TDL are arguing about but i am aguing With TDl as he claims he has evidence that radical feminism is the reason young men kill themselves.

[carbonhed]

Not only that how do you account for the fact his whole premise carries no factual BASIS OF FOUNDATION.


Oh shit "no factual BASIS OF FOUNDATION"... that's bad right?

ESPECIALLY SINCE IT"S IN FUCKING CAPITALS?????????????

Poor old Jordan "no factual BASIS OF FOUNDATION". Man he's going to be pissed that this fucking retarded loser on the interweb has blown his world tour and multi million selling book out of the water.

I'll wake up tomorrow to global headlines that Jordan Peterson like has "no factual BASIS OF FOUNDATION" and they'll be helicoptering into shitsville, west coast, NZ to interview a snaggle toothed, banjo plucker fresh out of the bush on how he exposed the scam of the century "literally no factual BASIS OF FOUNDATION"!!!!!!!???????????????? :rofl:

Here's a panel on Bill C16.


https://youtu.be/2PPXwcYtHn0

[Voltaire]

I don't even know what the F you lot are arguing about. But I do agree there is stupid shit in the world.

Like Christchurch council spending hundreds and thousands on annoying cycle lanes while ignoring serious road repairs. Fucked in the head that lot.

I went on a course run by a guy with Dr in his title the other day regarding stress.

Who knew that taking a deep breath counting to 10, going for a walk, or keeping ones mouth closed could be so useful.

Personally I find spending a few hours in the shed tinkering, listening to the BFM Jazz show on a Sunday and going for a ride works well too.

Whilst recovering from surgery I watched a few Pederson videos, they go well with Tramadol.

To keep with the Stupid World theme, been instructed at work to supply all the female toilets with a selection of Sanitary Products, yet they

won't supply tea and coffee.

[layton]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9GqLhEF1Lg

[Katman]

It starts just before a question on this very topic.

So you imagine he should have... replied.. to... the... NYT's... article... before... it..was............ published...........:laugh:

Back in the bin, huh?

I see the Berk has been a busy little beaver again.

[husaberg]

Back in the bin, huh?

I see the Berk has been a busy little beaver again.
No one ever gets binned based on what others say, people get binned based on what they actually posts themselves.
I wouldn't expect you would be able to figure that out though.
I remember when i was binned 1/2 hour after i called you "stupid idiot."
That must have been a co-incidence aye:killingme
But wait, its look now like you are in their sulking yourself with him now too, ya egg

[mashman]

To keep with the Stupid World theme, been instructed at work to supply all the female toilets with a selection of Sanitary Products, yet they won't supply tea and coffee.

It burns the labia.