BainsBane Propositioned By A Pimp

[anti-spelunker]

Are guns more important than human life? Nope. Is crime already illegal? Yup.

So, you are advocating outlawing a legal thing in order to punish criminals? How does that work again?

(I know... I said I wouldn't ask you about guns...)

I specifically said I would not outlaw guns and that I would own one if I lived in a rural area.  I want increased background checks and other provisions to keep guns out of the hands of felons and others adjudicated dangerous.  SCOTUS gives the federal government the right to regulate guns and even ban certain types of "exotic weapons' but not handguns.  The balance between gun rights and public safety has become skewed, that is in clear opposition to what the majority of Americans want, the majority of Republicans, and even the majority of NRA members, which polling date show support a variety of enhanced gun control provisions. 

[anti-spelunker]

Okay, here's a hypothetical for you:

Feminists and liberals (but I repeat myself) love to prattle on about the "equal pay for equal work" canard.  But ask yourself, is it really "equal pay" or "equal work"?  I'm a hiring manager who is looking to fill a position.  Now regardless of the applicant, I'm going to try to employ that person at the lowest possible wage, such is the nature of any business, regardless of the political persuasion of who runs it.

Now who is going to present the better option to me, the person with a steady work history, positions of increasing authority and responsibility, ability to do more of the work the company requires, greater ability to fit what the company needs, less likely to miss work, more likely to stay with the company for a longer time, etc.?

If you said the man, well, now you're just being sexist, aren't you?  Cause both men and women can raise children at home, can't they?

Oh, and which administration currently pays women less than 80 percent of what their male counterparts make?

If you are a hiring manager you know the law.  You have every right to hire the most qualified person.  Not only are you not required to hire a woman less qualified but it is illegal to do so.    If, however, your company has a pattern of choosing lesser qualified men or better qualified women, or hiring men because you THINK a woman will miss work due to child care, you open yourself up to lawsuit.  You also open yourself up to lawsuit if you pay a man with the same qualifications a higher wage than a woman for the same job .  Those are the laws.  If you work for a company that takes on federal contracts, you must follow those laws.  If you are a private company, the laws still apply but the burden is less and a plaintiff would need to show a clear pattern of discrimination, which is difficult to do.  Laws may exclude small companies from some of those requirements, but I'm not sure to what extent. 

This are laws established years ago and supported by Republican and Democratic administrations.  Affirmative Action is now for all intents and purposes illegal in the US. 

[anti-spelunker]

Where is it you can buy and own a guy? I could have sworn owning people was illegal.

Indeed it is.  I'm a constant typo generator due to typing and posting too quickly. 

[anti-spelunker]

"Dr. Freud. Paging Dr. Freud."

 

Aww, Big Dog, are you offering yourself for sale? 

[b-ONE-b]

Do all the DUpes at the DUmp know that they are just a bunch of useful idiots assembled to pay for Skin's and EarlG's lifestyle? By your own definitions Skins is a 1%'er. Between the ads, stars and fund drives etc, he is making a fortune. I've seen the pics, Skins and EarlG and the other one are half grown men-children who if it were not for the DUmp  would be living in their parents basements masturbating to Rachel Madcow on TV. Well... on second thought that's probably what they do anyways... lol

EDIT: can you request that Skins comes here to visit us? It would be fantastic research for us all.

[miskie]

You don't appear to have read what I wrote at all.  I didn't talk about using the law against men.  Unless you are talking about rapists and batterers?  Those laws are targeted at the crime, not the gender.  Surely you are not suggesting there is something wrong with seeing those criminals prosecuted?  85% of killers are male.  Would that make homicide laws sexist?  I'm not sure I'm following your point about using the law against men.  

I talked about reaching better equality that would benefit both men and women to share responsibilities and rights in society.  I talked about how men too are hurt by patriarchy, societal sexism, and provided a link to a video to show it's effects on young boys.  That is all part of a feminist movement that seeks not just rights for women but also shared responsibility with men.  There is nothing that privileges women over men under the law, or seeks to establish such a position.  I understand that feminism has many different manifestations, but I have been clear about what it means to me.  Nothing you have criticized is part of any concept of feminism that I support.  

Sigh, Once again I'll make this point in this thread.

You posted this in November.

7. Exactly

Some have taken exception to the fact the law deems such behavior rape, and here they claim men don't need anti-rape education. The contradictions are clear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125528987

You remember it, I'm sure. It started a massive firestorm at DU. Making the case that men need anti-rape education is a sexist position, as just a small minority of men are / will be rapists.

-And just like criminals with guns in gun-free zones, rapists are going to attempt to target victims regardless of what the law says, or what some video he may have been forced to sit through during school told him. The implication of anti-rape education for males only is that being male gives one the predisposition to rape, and the education serves as an attempt to shame a potential rapist in the mix by shaming all males equally.

-I cant help but to wonder how many otherwise healthy males would develop abnormal relationships with women because they are afraid they may end up raping them ?

[anti-spelunker]

I think we're missing a very salient point here ...

BB, do you have any boobie shots for us? A tight sweater pic or two will do.

Hi Dandi.
   I did cover this earlier.  I'm concerned about Frank not being traumatized again.  He still hasn't gotten over seeing that other picture of me.  And of course Frank isn't the only one who was made ill, but he seemed to be the most troubled by it.  I can't inflict that kind of injury on you folks.  It just wouldn't be right. 

[Big Dog]

You don't appear to have read what I wrote at all.  I didn't talk about using the law against men.  Unless you are talking about rapists and batterers?  Those laws are targeted at the crime, not the gender.  Surely you are not suggesting there is something wrong with seeing those criminals prosecuted?  85% of killers are male.  Would that make homicide laws sexist?  I'm not sure I'm following your point about using the law against men.  

I talked about reaching better equality that would benefit both men and women to share responsibilities and rights in society.  I talked about how men too are hurt by patriarchy, societal sexism, and provided a link to a video to show it's effects on young boys.  That is all part of a feminist movement that seeks not just rights for women but also shared responsibility with men.  There is nothing that privileges women over men under the law, or seeks to establish such a position.  I understand that feminism has many different manifestations, but I have been clear about what it means to me.  Nothing you have criticized is part of any concept of feminism that I support.  

Knock off the bullshit, Alex. I read it.

"Reaching better equality" is a handful of Jello. It can't be nailed down. And as long as it can't be nailed down, you can claim victim status and excuse your own sexism, and that of your confederates.

Equality can only exist as equality under the law. Literally nothing else about any two people is "equal", nor can it be. Returning to Aristotelian logic, A =/= non-A.

Equality under the law can only exist when each person is considered individually, not as a member of a group. Women and racial minorities do receive preferential treatment under the law. Federal (DOJ) interference and lower standards for minorities in the hiring practices of cities; selective investigation and prosecution of "hate crime" laws by the DOJ (reflecting your attitude that "only men/whites/straights can commit hate crimes"); and the reduction or elimination of physical fitness standards among the Armed Forces by regulation (which carry the force of law) are three examples.

You support so-called "equal opportunity" laws which disproportionately favor members of "disenfranchised" groups.  Since we are talking specifically about sex-based preferences, that is sexist, but the principle applies to race-based preferences as well.

You support special treatment for special people, based on group identity. Martin Luther King would weep at the way you and your kind have perverted his dream.

[anti-spelunker]

Do you keep one tied up in your basement? I know you're a big guy-control advocate.

I'm sure that will be a source of amusement for some time. 

[anti-spelunker]

Do all the DUpes at the DUmp know that they are just a bunch of useful idiots assembled to pay for Skin's and EarlG's lifestyle? By your own definitions Skins is a 1%'er. Between the ads, stars and fund drives etc, he is making a fortune. I've seen the pics, Skins and EarlG and the other one are half grown men-children who if it were not for the DUmp  would be living in their parents basements masturbating to Rachel Madcow on TV. Well... on second thought that's probably what they do anyways... lol

EDIT: can you request that Skins comes here to visit us? It would be fantastic research for us all.

I've not the best person to convey messages to him.  You might try Tucker or one of your other long term moles. 

[Dori]

Ditto.   I am a woman and the mother of young women and I am having a really tough time trying to understand what in the world "feminists" have so much to gripe about.  What is it you want to do that you are not already doing?  Yes, many years ago, females WERE discriminated against.  Women couldn't vote...that was rectified.   At one time, females couldn't own land.  That is not true now.

You wanted legalized abortion...you got it...and I will tell you that as a woman, nothing is more abhorrent to me that murdering an innocent unborn child.  I HATE it.  But "feminists" wanted it and they got it.  No one is keeping you down, but yourself.  Ditch the  hate, be the woman God intended you to be and you just might find out how wonderful it is to be a woman.  

^H5

As much as I hate abortion, I also hate what the radical feminists are doing to the men in this country.  I wonder how many of these women have ever been wives and mothers of sons.  As far as equality goes, I also think women have had it a lot better.  You would think, according to feminists, that the traditional roles of men and women, all women were slaves to their husbands and fathers, when nothing could be further from the truth.  That is not the natural or instinctive role men play in women's lives, nor is it the natural roles of women to be submissive objects and treated like doormats.  I find most men to be respectful and protective of women, which, as a woman, I happen to like. 

I could go on and on about this subject, but you get my point.



 

 

[dandi]

Hi Dandi.
   I did cover this earlier.  I'm concerned about Frank not being traumatized again.  He still hasn't gotten over seeing that other picture of me.  And of course Frank isn't the only one who was made ill, but he seemed to be the most troubled by it.  I can't inflict that kind of injury on you folks.  It just wouldn't be right. 

I know. But they're like Mt. Everest, or should I say, Mt. Everests.

I want to scale them just because they're there.

[anti-spelunker]

^H5

As much as I hate abortion, I also hate what the radical feminists are doing to the men in this country.  I wonder how many of these women have ever been wives and mothers of sons.  As far as equality goes, I also think women have had it a lot better.  You would think, according to feminists, that the traditional roles of men and women, all women were slaves to their husbands and fathers, when nothing could be further from the truth.  That is not the natural or instinctive role men play in women's lives, nor is it the natural roles of women to be submissive objects and treated like doormats.  I find most men to be respectful and protective of women, which, as a woman, I happen to like. 

I could go on and on about this subject, but you get my point.

Thanks to feminism, being a homemaker is now a choice for you, not a requirement. 



 

 

[anti-spelunker]

Knock off the bullshit, Alex. I read it.

"Reaching better equality" is a handful of Jello. It can't be nailed down. And as long as it can't be nailed down, you can claim victim status and excuse your own sexism, and that of your confederates.

Equality can only exist as equality under the law. Literally nothing else about any two people is "equal", nor can it be. Returning to Aristotelian logic, A =/= non-A.

Equality under the law can only exist when each person is considered individually, not as a member of a group. Women and racial minorities do receive preferential treatment under the law. Federal (DOJ) interference and lower standards for minorities in the hiring practices of cities; selective investigation and prosecution of "hate crime" laws by the DOJ (reflecting your attitude that "only men/whites/straights can commit hate crimes"); and the reduction or elimination of physical fitness standards among the Armed Forces by regulation (which carry the force of law) are three examples.

You support so-called "equal opportunity" laws which disproportionately favor members of "disenfranchised" groups.  Since we are talking specifically about sex-based preferences, that is sexist, but the principle applies to race-based preferences as well.

You support special treatment for special people, based on group identity. Martin Luther King would weep at the way you and your kind have perverted his dream.

EEOC laws do not privilege women and minorities.  They make it illegal to discriminate and create hostile work environments.  Sex and race based preferences have been struck down by the courts.  They no longer exist.  Your information is out of date. 

Bullshit on your MLK comment. 

[anti-spelunker]

You remember it, I'm sure. It started a massive firestorm at DU. Making the case that men need anti-rape education is a sexist position, as just a small minority of men are / will be rapists.

-And just like criminals with guns in gun-free zones, rapists are going to attempt to target victims regardless of what the law says, or what some video he may have been forced to sit through during school told him. The implication of anti-rape education for males only is that being male gives one the predisposition to rape, and the education serves as an attempt to shame a potential rapist in the mix by shaming all males equally.

-I cant help but to wonder how many otherwise healthy males would develop abnormal relationships with women because they are afraid they may end up raping them ?

Why would a healthy male be afraid of raping a woman?  All he needs is her consent.  If she is drunk to the point of incoherence or passed out, she cannot give her consent, but then men who assault women in such circumstances are not interested in healthy relationships.

Your question strikes me as odd.  It's not at all difficult to know if a woman wants to have sex with you.  She behaves eagerly.  Perhaps you need to wait a bit longer until she feels comfortable enough to be eager.  Is that such a bad thing? 

[anti-spelunker]

Can you honestly name one woman who sought to have an abortion and was denied?  It is legal in every state.  It offends the crap out of me, but that's the way it is.  Where is it impossible to get an abortion...name the state, the city.  I don't believe that.

Yes, many, many women.  I'll have to hunt up more detailed information on this at another time. 

[Dori]

Thanks to feminism, being a homemaker is now a choice for you, not a requirement.

That's also a bunch of crap.  How many working moms would love to stay home with their kids, but because of the economy they can't?  Telling women they can "have it all", that they can "fry up the bacon and bring it home too" is one of the worst things feminists have given their sisters.

There was a time in this country when the average middle class family could survive on one income.  Can't do it today, if you want to own a home, two cars, put the kiddies through college etc.

The NATURAL roles of men and women have been diluted to the point of having a screwed up society, fatherless homes and kids being raised by their nanny's, stuck in institutions from the time they are six weeks old and left to their own devices.  

[anti-spelunker]

That's also a bunch of crap.  How many working moms would love to stay home with their kids, but because of the economy they can't?  Telling women they can "have it all", that they can "fry up the bacon and bring it home too" is one of the worst things feminists have given their sisters.

There was a time in this country when the average middle class family could survive on one income.  Can't do it today, if you want to own a home, two cars, put the kiddies through college etc.

The NATURAL roles of men and women have been diluted to the point of having a screwed up society, fatherless homes and kids being raised by their nanny's, stuck in institutions from the time they are six weeks old and left to their own devices.  

That more women cannot stay home is indeed due to economic changes, but that is not the fault of feminism.  Wages have declines in this country since the 1970s.  That is a result of the decline of unions, deindustrialization, and outsourcing. 

Your argument about natural roles is false.  Such roles are culturally constructed.  That is evident by the great differences in distribution of labor in different societies across geography and history.  You may be happy with the role of homemaker, which is your choice.  But what if you had not been so wise in your choice of husband?  In past generations, women stayed in abusive marriages because they had no other economic options.  They were kept from most jobs.  Now women at least have the right to work if they choose.  What is so terrible about that? 

[Freeper]

Yes, many, many women.  I'll have to hunt up more detailed information on this at another time. 

Oh the horror women not able to murder their offspring.

[Freeper]

That more women cannot stay home is indeed due to economic changes, but that is not the fault of feminism.  Wages have declines in this country since the 1970s.  That is a result of the decline of unions, deindustrialization, and outsourcing. 

Your argument about natural roles is false.  Such roles are culturally constructed.  That is evident by the great differences in distribution of labor in different societies across geography and history.  You may be happy with the role of homemaker, which is your choice.  But what if you had not been so wise in your choice of husband?  In past generations, women stayed in abusive marriages because they had no other economic options.  They were kept from most jobs.  Now women at least have the right to work if they choose.  What is so terrible about that? 

Well seems to me, unions and the government, the EPA, have made industry much more expensive since the 1970s, but I'm sure it's all Bush's fault.

[anti-spelunker]

Well seems to me, unions and the government, the EPA, have made industry much more expensive since the 1970s, but I'm sure it's all Bush's fault.

Do you have evidence to support that assumption?  And can you show how it might have led to decreasing wages?

[CollectivismMustDie]

The emotional trope is a constant refrain for anyone who considers the importance of human lives and not simply the the precious guns. 

No. Just no.

You have deliberately framed the argument as "guns versus human lives".

Spare me the bullshit of "thats how I see it".

You've framed it this way, so that you can point at others and whine "they care for their guns more than human lives". Its a form of trying to pin a view on someone who doesn't hold it, and to shame and silence those who disagree with you on that issue. It seems to me you were castigated heavily by long time DUmmies on the island for doing just that in a recent but now now locked thread in which you deleted your OP.

Let me check to make sure...

Yup:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024310566

How do I know thats what you're doing? Simple:

First, you don't actually know any of those DUmmies even half well enough to try to pin that position on them. All you really know, is that they disagree with you on that particular issue, and that warrants, in your opinion, your actions in framing it the way you do, and making the insinuations, both stated and unstated, that you make.

Second, you have a habit of doing that, as the thread I linked to demonstrates. DUmmies that have been on the island ten years longer than you or longer, rubbed your nose in it. Are you going to sit here and tell us they're all wrong but you're right?

Third, it may not have occured to you, but most people who give more than a passing care about gun rights have seen this before, and you aren't coming up with anything new. It reminds me of how offspring number one always tried to put something over on the parents, but could never figure out how we knew what was being done. You aren't coming up with anything novel, untried, or new.

So yeah, guilty as charged, you.

It's unfounded and itself emotional in that it doesn't deal with any of the concerns I raised having to do with criminals' access to guns, protected by the NRA and the Republican Party. 

No, its completely founded. Thats how you anti-gun types operate. Furthermore, what concerns you have, that I have seen on this issue, are based on false dogmatic understandings on your part of the issue itself. Your concerns are overblown, completely based on emotion, focused like a laser beam on the exception rather than the rule, and based on ideological dogma.

About the NRA...Like the NRA or not, they're here to stay.  I laugh every time I see one of you DUmmies complain about the NRA, or suggest that such organizations be outlawed, because not a one of you have given so much as a single solitary neuron firings worth of thought to the unintended consequences of a world without them.

CMD











                                                                                           

[CollectivismMustDie]

There are many, many restrictions on abortions and very few on guns.

If I have ever seen something more ignorant in print, it sure isn't coming to mind right now.

This is why you earn so much of the "hate" you get...Because you try to speak authoritatively about things you know nothing about, and then demonstrate to everyone you're speaking to that you know nothing about that which you speak, all in the same sentence.

I'm not saying you're always that efficient, but I suspect its rather habitual with you. Its obvious when someone speaks authoritatively whether or not they don't know what they don't know, to people that do. What is it you got your PHD in? African studies? Something along those lines? Doesn't matter. Whatever it was, if someone came along and was attempting to speak authoritatively on it, but had no ****ing clue what they were talking about, you'd view them a certain way. Call them out on it. Point and laugh. Make fun of them. Wonder how someone could possibly try to do something so stupid, and so stupidly obvious, and not expect anyone to notice.

That, is what you just did in your above quote.

CMD

[RobJohnson]

 You can buy and own a gun everywhere.  

If you look into that you will find otherwise. Up until recently you could not own a gun if you lived in Chicago and the laws are still very restrictive.

We get it, you do not like guns and you are pro choice.

You are more then welcome to express those views here.

[anti-spelunker]

If I have ever seen something more ignorant in print, it sure isn't coming to mind right now.

This is why you earn so much of the "hate" you get...Because you try to speak authoritatively about things you know nothing about, and then demonstrate to everyone you're speaking to that you know nothing about that which you speak, all in the same sentence.

I'm not saying you're always that efficient, but I suspect its rather habitual with you. Its obvious when someone speaks authoritatively whether or not they don't know what they don't know, to people that do. What is it you got your PHD in? African studies? Something along those lines? Doesn't matter. Whatever it was, if someone came along and was attempting to speak authoritatively on it, but had no ****ing clue what they were talking about, you'd view them a certain way. Call them out on it. Point and laugh. Make fun of them. Wonder how someone could possibly try to do something so stupid, and so stupidly obvious, and not expect anyone to notice.

That, is what you just did in your above quote.

CMD

You have a lot of insults and nothing else.  You are factually wrong, so much so it's startling, I gave you a simple statement of fact. That you haven't bothered to inform yourself on abortion restrictions is obvious, probably because you refuse to read any decent news source.  You can buy a gun in virtually every town and county in America while abortion restrictions have increased at a rapid pace thanks to your party's efforts to impose big government on women's bodies.

Abortion was at the forefront of the state legislative debate during the past three years -- so much so that states added more restrictions to the books from 2011-2013 than during the entire preceding decade, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit reproductive health research organization that tracks such things.
More than 200 abortion restriction laws were passed and signed into law from 2011 to 2013, according to Guttmacher's data. That's a very sharp uptick from the pace of the previous decade: From 2001 to 2010, 189 such laws were enacted , the data show.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2014/01/clip_image002.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/02/the-rapid-surge-of-state-abortion-restrictions-in-one-chart/

During this same period, gun rights have expanded.  Shall issue concealed carry has systematically expanded throughout the nation.  Chicago's gun ban was struct down.  The gun lobby has continued to increase influence, with some exceptions in CT, CO and a few other places. 



That is one article.  Someone who thinks himself as superior as you should have no trouble to do a google search to inform yourself on the subject.

You're obviously a mole with an ax to grind against me.  Get over it.  You're not half as smart as you think you are.