Please don't hit me any more, Sleeps.
Re: Women and violence
Please don't hit me any more, Sleeps.
Re: Women and violence
(Aaaaand Exy is making light of abuse. How droll. Oh, but he doesn't care one way or the other about it, so I guess that shouldn't be too surprising.)
Oh noes! I'm being tag teamed by Exy and Sleeps! I'm so intimidated!
Exy, I asked you why you're continuing to post after you told me to shut the fuck up. Spinning it around to me telling you to shut the fuck up is ridiculous and changes nothing. But, since I'm not prepared to stoop to your kindergarten "he told me to shut up first" level, I'm just gonna drop that one.
Sleeps, I'm sorry you feel you have to keep a running tab in your head of all the various ways someone might have slighted you in the distant past. Personally, I have better things to do than worry about who said what to me half a year ago. Your mileage obviously varies. As for your speaking for Exy, well, when you start a sentence with "What Excalibur was trying to say is..." I have to assume that you presume to know what Exy is trying to say, since that is what you are doing. That's neither deflecting nor mis-representing. And let's be perfectly clear here about one other thing, while we're at it: I was perfectly civil to you in this thread right up until your rant about my wanting people to bow down to me. I wasn't itching for a fight, but you certainly seemed to be and now you're all up in my grill for giving you exactly what you asked for? You admonish me for having a fucked up way of discussing things with people who agree with me when that's precisely how you have chosen to operate? You accuse me of debating dishonestly while using the same tactics yourself? You don't actually expect me to take your accusations seriously, do you? 'Cuz I don't.
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
...aaaaaand he posts more blabbering bullshit without backing up what he accused me of earlier.
Also, up in your grill? Grandpa, you might want to stop using that phrase.
Cute "tagteam" stupidity, too. Pot & Kettle meet Jimbo & Feather. I suppose it would be time for me to use a dumb smiley and a term from the 90s to match your "wit" and skills.
Re: Women and violence
I suggested you shut up because you apparently have nothing to say that doesn't depend upon accusing random people of not caring about domestic violence. Since that appears to still be true, what I said still stands.Originally posted by dread pirate jimbo
. . . but you just couldn't help trying hard to accuse random people of not caring about victims of domestic violence, right?I wasn't itching for a fight, but
Re: Women and violence
(bolding mine)
I have no idea where I got the impression that you don't care. I'm not sure you could drop more "I don't cares" into a single papragraph, but don't take that as a challenge.
Random? Hardly. I took a run at you specifically and then responded to an attack from Sleeps in kind as well. That's not random. Look it up in the dictionary someday. In the meantime, you have had nothing to say that doesn't depend on summing things up with "shut the fuck up," so perhaps you need to look in the mirror while doling out your sage advice.
See above.. . . but you just couldn't help trying hard to accuse random people of not caring about victims of domestic violence, right?
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
I have no children, so I could hardly be classified as a Grandpa. And again, the best you've got is to criticise my use of idiom when I'm so diligently trying to dumb things down to your level? That's not very gracious -- someone should have taught you to respect you elders!
You are going to have to do way better than weak "Grandpa" and "'tagteam' stupidity" cracks if your goal is to get under my skin or, more laughably, try to demonstrate that your "wit" and "skills" are somehow superior. What's your next tactic -- fart and poo-poo jokes?
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
.aaaaaaaaaaaaand more dumb jokes from Jimbo and still no retraction or proof of what he accused me of earlier. You should work for Fox News
Re: Women and violence
Uh, right. Because I'm not invested in some game of "who's the REAL victim here?" the way you are.
Well, as I've pointed out, and as you haven't disputed, you did so by assigning me a viewpoint that I obviously do not hold. Maybe it's not random; is "arbitrary" a better choice?Random? Hardly. I took a run at you specifically and then responded to an attack from Sleeps in kind as well. That's not random.
Well, I pointed out that the statistics you brought mostly don't have anything to do with the comparative prevalence of domestic violence; you did not manage to dispute that. I pointed out that you were drawing them from obviously unreliable sources; you did not manage to dispute that. There wasn't really anything else to talk about, once you ran out of all steam on the actual point you failed to make.Look it up in the dictionary someday. In the meantime, you have had nothing to say that doesn't depend on summing things up with "shut the fuck up," so perhaps you need to look in the mirror while doling out your sage advice.
Since you obviously recognize that you lost the argument, wouldn't it be pretty appropriate to just apologize to me for repeatedly trying to suggest that I'm somehow minimizing violence against men, and then bow out in hopes that this is forgotten? Rather than your current course of just continuing to prove that my advice was good.
Re: Women and violence
Oh, Jimbo. You try, you really do.
One thing some people don't really seem to understand is that loudly talking about how much you don't care what someone else says, over and over, actually ends up just illustrating how very, very much you do care.You are going to have to do way better than weak "Grandpa" and "'tagteam' stupidity" cracks if your goal is to get under my skin or, more laughably, try to demonstrate that your "wit" and "skills" are somehow superior. What's your next tactic -- fart and poo-poo jokes?
Re: Women and violence
You pointed out nothing. You made an off-the-cuff comment based on your best guess with absolutely no backup whatsoever. Allow me to summarize what you consider to be the "winning" argument:
Jimbo: I believe X and here's some proof to back it up.
Exy: That's not proof.
Jimbo: Yes it is.
Exy: No it isn't.
Jimbo: This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.
Exy: No it isn't.
Jimbo: There! You just contradicted me.
Exy: No I didn't. I've been agreeing with you all along.
Jimbo: Seriously, where's your evidence that my proofs are wrong?
Exy: They are wrong. That is all. Good day.
Jimbo: What do you mean good day?
Exy: I have won the argument by proving you wrong and now I'm done.
Jimbo: No you haven't; you've just contradicted me without any proof whatsoever.
Exy: You haven't shown further proof to prove that my denial of your proof as wrong, therefore I'm right.
(with apologies to Monty Python for Exy stealing their material and taking it to be an actual lesson on how to argue a point)
And so on. You seem to believe that just by saying "No it isn't" that you have somehow disproved something and that you have now placed the burden of proof back on the person you're contradicting. That is stupid and wrong. Not to mention dishonest and lazy. If you had, at any point, even half-assedly pulled some googled cite to demonstrate that I am barking up the wrong tree -- even something from a questionable or completely unreliable source -- we could have had a discussion. Give me anything other than "no it isn't" and I'll go find some other sources to use OR I might even be swayed by what you have to say. But simply hang your entire argument on "no it isn't" and then declare victory when I call bullshit on your bullshit contradiction game and refuse to play by the rules you have decided to set out? Not a chance. You aren't capable of having an actual debate, are you? You wouldn't recognize an actual, two-way discussion if it came up and tweaked your nose, would you?
No, you haven't won anything. You might frustrate some people into stalemates with your tactics, but you really shouldn't delude yourself into thinking you've ever won a debate, since you don't even know what one looks like and likely couldn't last six sentences in one. I put it to you that you are the one who should apologize -- to anyone you have ever had a "debate" with, for wasting their valuable time and the time of anyone who had hoped to learn something from the discussion.
Did you want me to re-quote that paragraph where you feel the need to tell me three times in two sentences that you don't care and are not invested or were you posting that while taking my advice about looking in the mirror?
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
Fox News? Now you're just being nasty.
But, to humour you, here's some proof, which took me about five minutes to locate and didn't even require me to go to a different day of posting to find:
[quote=dread pirate jimbo]And so on. I never said that all smaller women look emaciated, but you still felt the urge to hop onto your soapbox and scream about it anyway. Sure, you preface your rant by saying you're not flipping out on me specifically, but holy crap, did you have a lot to say about a general comment on my own personal preferences that obviously didn't apply to you since I didn't know who the hell you were at the time. Massive over-reaction.
Yes, I addressed that in post #18[/quote:3quc5pv3]
I went into more detail about that in post #20.[/quote:3quc5pv3][quote=Sleeps w/Butterflies]Actually what you did is disregard where I indicated that it wouldn't be "people" rising up against the obese and then restated that people wouldn't rise up against obese people in case we didn't catch that the first time.[/quote]
My post wasn't directed at you and in your second response you seem to be arguing that I didn't say what you claimed I said when you first challenged me out of the blue for the transgression of -- gasp -- posting my thoughts on a message board! Itching for a fight much? Maybe a little over the top on your part, perhaps? One might even call it an... over-reaction?
How about this bit, from upthread, which prompted my initial comment:
[quote=Sleeps w/Butterflies]Well, since you're speaking for [b]Featherlou[/b] even though I asked her, I still fail to see how anyone is saying what you're claiming. The quote I responded to by her certainly seemed to insinuate that Exy was claiming that it wasn't happening. Perhaps she will come along and explain it since I asked her about it.
The quote she used earlier:
[quote]As many men as women are victims of physical and emotional abuse at the hands of their partners, according to numerous Canadian, American and British studies.[/quote]
could not be any more vague. I'm sorry, but you can find "numerous" studies proving just about anything if you look hard enough for it, especially since that quote is talking about physical and emotional abuse. Emotional abuse is very subjective. It's easy to claim and hard to prove.
What [b]Excalibur[/b] was trying to say is that although abuse from female to male is happening, wrong, and in high numbers it *does not* result in the kind of injuries or fatalities that male to female abuse does. Does not.
Now, I'm not going to play the "let's match studies to show each other how it is!" game by pulling cites from this special interest group or that special interest group, the cites I've read over the years clearly demonstrate that far, far more women are killed at hands of their "SO" than the other way around. If someone doesn't believe that, then no amount of cites will help.
No one here is saying that it's okay for women to hit men. No one here is saying it isn't a problem. No one here is dismissing it. Nobody advocates for women to beat up men.
I thought most of us were saying that NO ONE should be hitting ANYONE, so why is there some kind of argument?[/quote]
[quote=Sleeps w/Butterflies][quote=featherlou]I'm not sure when this turned into a competition, but if we're going there, how about stats that say that the majority of abuse of children is at the hands of women? Or the ones that say women are more likely to use a weapon? It sounds like your question, Sleeps, is whether or not women are doing as much damage to men as men are doing to women, and I don't know the answer to that. I do know that women are being AS abusive to men as men are to women, and since women are more likely to grab a weapon, I'd say they are doing some significant damage to men and children.[/quote]
I think it turned into a competition when Jimbo started wanting to prove to everyone what we were already saying because it hit close to home for him. No one here was arguing that women weren't sometimes violent, but it's like he wanted us all to bow down and tell him that yes, women are evil too!
Which question of mine are you referring to? I guess I don't remember asking a question that you seem to want to be answering.
Also, Jimbo's very first line had me scratching my head:
[quote]This whole subject tends to get me very upset, since I've been on the wrong end of it before and understand all too well the process that goes along with it.[/quote]
What's the right end of domestic abuse? If a woman hitting him is the wrong end, what's the right end?[/quote]
First of all, the way message boards work, you see, is that people respond to other people's posts. Sometimes a post asks for a response from a particular poster, but more often the question is asked to the general populace. In either event, by the very nature of people all over the world reading and posting at different rates than other people, some questions that were asked of a particular person get answered by someone else -- if that didn't happen and we were all forced to stop everything and wait until the specified poster returned to provide their answer, things would quickly grind to a halt, which happens to be a major concern around these parts right now. More germane to this example is the fact that you did not direct your question to [b]featherlou[/b], notwithstanding your protestations, since quoting someone hardly qualifies as specifying direction. Moreover, your snotty responses both to me and to [b]featherlou[/b] ("since you're speaking for featherlou"; "I think it turned into a competition when Jimbo started wanting to prove to everyone...") clearly demonstrate that you weren't looking for a discussion -- you were looking for a fight. I didn't challenge you, but you sure took things there in a hurry for no particular reason. Over-reaction to a situation that simply didn't exist for anyone but you.
And finally, since this seems to be a pre-occupation of yours, I went to the trouble of pulling this little gem from a different message board. My apologies in advance for saying this happened six months ago -- it's actually from December 2008, which makes it more like eight months ago:
[quote=Sleeps With Butterflies]Everyone is entitled to a preference, and Nigella is certainly very pretty although not really what I think of when I think of curvy. What I take exception to is your likening a size zero to be emaciated and like a 12 year old boy. I see this *a lot* on this board so I'm sorry to direct this at you, but this is the most recent use of it.
Most women wear a few different sizes because of the stupid differences in clothes for women. I have clothing in a zero and a 2 for the most part. I have a couple of fours. I have a couple of shirts and a dress that I bought in the "pre juniors" department at The Limited. [url="http://s287.photobucket.com/albums/ll135/WithButterflies/?action=view¤t=trashy.jpg
That's three examples without my even going to the effort of looking for your over-reactions to other people. I mean, if I can pull all that without even taking my hand off the mouse to type a search parameter, how many dozens of examples might I dredge up if I actually tried?
So, are you happy now?
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
Oh just shut the fuck up already. You are bizarrely emotionally wrapped up in this thread - get a grip and go to bed or something.
Re: Women and violence
Jimbo, you seriously need help if you think you're proving anything to anyone here. You specifically said that I over-react to things when I don't understand. What, exactly, do you think I don't understand from ANY of your examples? Seriously, what do you think you've said that's so brain busting and intelligent that mere mortals like me can't grasp? But since you want to do it post by post, let's do just that...
Here is what you posted:
Did you really think that we all didn't know that second hand fat doesn't kill? Did you think you were imparting knowledge that we didn't know? Did you think we didn't know that smoking kills smokers and non-smokers? I think most of us around here assume that we all have a basic grasp of reality and we don't need to spell out every single little thing about a topic. Maybe you think we didn't know that and you were telling us something we didn't know. A gold star for Jimbo! Now, last sentence was you saying that people aren't going to rise up against obese people for these reasons. No shit, Jimbo... I already clarified that in post #18 so I pointed that out to you. You said that you EXPANDED on what I'd cleared up. How, exactly, did you do that? Oh wait, you did that by telling us that second hand fat doesn't kill. Well shit, we're lucky you're here because we didn't know that. Exy had already said that he didn't think that the public would turn on the obese and I'd already clarified that I didn't mean the public, I meant the insurance companies. Still, you had to come in and quote me and tell us all again that what I never said would happen won't happen.
As for your second "item of proof" I am not even going to quote that big mess and whatever you're trying to say. I think you've got your panties twisted about me saying that you were speaking for Featherlou but I didn't really ask a question of her? I quoted her claim and asked for her to clarify. Do I need to say "Dearest Featherlou, please respond to this quote I am taking since I am directing this quote back to you since you said it?" Jimbo, you're realllllly reaching here. Really. Reaching. Here. You have been like a dog with a bone on this topic because of it hitting too close to home for you and that's apparent as you are seeing slights and dismissing tones and things that aren't even there. That brings me to the next one....
[quote=dread pirate jimbo]And finally, since this seems to be a pre-occupation of yours, I went to the trouble of pulling this little gem from a different message board. My apologies in advance for saying this happened six months ago -- it's actually from December 2008, which makes it more like eight months ago:
And so on. I never said that all smaller women look emaciated, but you still felt the urge to hop onto your soapbox and scream about it anyway. Sure, you preface your rant by saying you're not flipping out on me specifically, but holy crap, did you have a lot to say about a general comment on my own personal preferences that obviously didn't apply to you since I didn't know who the hell you were at the time. Massive over-reaction.
That's three examples without my even going to the effort of looking for your over-reactions to other people. I mean, if I can pull all that without even taking my hand off the mouse to type a search parameter, how many dozens of examples might I dredge up if I actually tried?
So, are you happy now?
First, thank you Captain Obvious for telling us that December 2008 is closer to 8 months ago than 6. Once again you've stepped up and helped us all understand things we already know.
Now...honest-to-God Jimbo, if you really think that is a "screaming" and "flipping out" quote then I have to seriously question if you are capable of determining what is and isn't abuse. I don't mean physical abuse because that's pretty obvious, I mean verbal/emotional abuse. I start the quote APOLOGIZING for directing the comment to you then I simply explain that on the Dope (and here and Giraffe. In fact, your wife did it just the other day so I assume you're familiar with the behavior) people like to equate size zero to anorexic/child like/boyish and that it's just as ignorant and hurtful as when people make assumptions about people weighing too much. My response to that thread that you quoted was not hysterical, screaming, or nasty *at all* and yet you choose to characterize that way so that (I can only assume) if you say something enough someone besides you will believe it. There is nothing about that comment that is attacking, unkind, or combative and you are delusional if you really think otherwise.
Funny enough, THAT is the comment I made that had you responding that I'd called that woman obese. Care to point out where I did that as long as you're stretching and exaggerating? I'd love to see how you can take "not exactly what I'd call curvy" and twist it into obese.
Here is what I was responding to:
"The emaciated size zero" means you are calling a size zero emaciated. Please don't try the semantics-lawyering bullshit and tell me that you meant the HOLLYWOOD size zero is emaciated but not the REGULAR WORLD size zero because they are the same thing. Then you go on to say that you like women to look like women and not twelve year old boys. Nothing wrong with liking big women, it's good that you do! But what you did was no different than someone saying "I like thin women, not big blubbery fatasses." Rude behavior is rude behavior whether it's aimed at fat or not fat people. My response that you think is *so terrible* was simply pointing that out. Oh yes, I know that you said it's just your opinion, but if the way you express your opinion is boorish and rude.I love Nigella and want to marry her, but my wife won't let me.
Nigella is curvy. When I think curvy I don't think "fat." I think "woman with tits and hips." I also think the emaciated Size 0 look that is currently the Hollywood standard for What Is Attractive is decidedly unattractive. I like women to look like women, and not twelve-year-old boys. Just my opinion, though.
So I guess I'm mean because I said my friends and I aren't emaciated. Or was it where I said that no one type of beauty is better than another? Wait, wait... maybe when I said that different people are attracted to different body types. Nope, nothing wrong with that either. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to point out to me which part of that quote is screaming and over the top because failing that I really think you should have to wear a sign that says "Don't say anything even in the ballpark of controversial because I am but a frail and delicate flower." so that the rest of us know to make sure always address you in simple and soothing tones, especially us mean old womenfolk.
Re: Women and violence
To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.
Re: Women and violence
"I like big butts and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist
And a round thing in your face
You get sprung, wanna pull out your tough
'Cause you notice that butt was stuffed"
Re: Women and violence
[quote=Dangerously Unqualified]"I like big butts and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist
And a round thing in your face
You get sprung, wanna pull out your tough
'Cause you notice that butt was stuffed"[/quote:3q53nfkj]
Nice! You have given me my earworm du jour!
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.
Re: Women and violence
[quote=Dangerously Unqualified]"I like big butts and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist
And a round thing in your face
You get sprung, wanna pull out your tough
'Cause you notice that butt was stuffed"[/quote:429a4f99]
I've never understood how this song became the anthem of fat girls when he clearly says "itty bitty waist"
Re: Women and violence
They have anthems?
To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.
Re: Women and violence
Once again, you're the only person interested in the argument you're trying to have. No matter how many times you attempt to smear me by trying to claim I'm somehow minimizing violence against men, it won't change reality.
I'm sorry you're so invested in this victim thing.
You, uh, you're actually trying to conflate these two things? For post after post after post, now, you've alternated between whimpering about Sleeps being mean to you and then trying to claim over and over that you don't care -- and you're trying to compare that with me trying my best to truthfully explain in small enough words that your stupid "who's the bigger victim" game is uninteresting to everyone else? You really think those things are equivalent? Jimbo, you think you've found some gotcha or contradiction or something, but the only thing those two situations had in common was the word "care". With the goal of -- what? Just yet more effort to "prove" that I'm somehow your opponent in the crusade against abuse of men?Did you want me to re-quote that paragraph where you feel the need to tell me three times in two sentences that you don't care and are not invested or were you posting that while taking my advice about looking in the mirror?
You know what, Jimbo? I don't know what to say. I can't possibly dumb myself down enough to even explain how stupid that comparison is. I know you try, but you're not going to succeed. Even if you can't see why, what you're doing here just makes you look like an idiot. You may not understand why, but that doesn't change it. Maybe your wife will come back and continue sticking up for you, although she seems to have thought better of getting involved in this. No one else is buying it, dude. Sorry, but all the tldr in the world isn't going to change that.
Vaguely apropos of this whole thing, isn't it funny that the "skinny Hollywood blah blah blah" rhetoric still gets play? I mean, it's been, what, at least a decade, probably more, since the trendy body type in Hollywood changed to a slim but rounder, curvier look. But for some reason, even though being skinny has not been in style in a long time, it's somehow still considered okay to say "real women have curves" and talk shit about how anyone who's slimmer than Rosie O'Donnell is "anorexic".
Re: Women and violence
[quote=Excalibur]Once again, you're the only person interested in the argument you're trying to have. No matter how many times you attempt to smear me by trying to claim I'm somehow minimizing violence against men, it won't change reality.
I'm sorry you're so invested in this victim thing.
You, uh, you're actually trying to conflate these two things? For post after post after post, now, you've alternated between whimpering about Sleeps being mean to you and then trying to claim over and over that you don't care -- and you're trying to compare that with me trying my best to truthfully explain in small enough words that your stupid "who's the bigger victim" game is uninteresting to everyone else? You really think those things are equivalent? Jimbo, you think you've found some gotcha or contradiction or something, but the only thing those two situations had in common was the word "care". With the goal of -- what? Just yet more effort to "prove" that I'm somehow your opponent in the crusade against abuse of men?Did you want me to re-quote that paragraph where you feel the need to tell me three times in two sentences that you don't care and are not invested or were you posting that while taking my advice about looking in the mirror?
You know what, Jimbo? I don't know what to say. I can't possibly dumb myself down enough to even explain how stupid that comparison is. I know you try, but you're not going to succeed. Even if you can't see why, what you're doing here just makes you look like an idiot. You may not understand why, but that doesn't change it. Maybe your wife will come back and continue sticking up for you, although she seems to have thought better of getting involved in this. No one else is buying it, dude. Sorry, but all the tldr in the world isn't going to change that.
Vaguely apropos of this whole thing, isn't it funny that the "skinny Hollywood blah blah blah" rhetoric still gets play? I mean, it's been, what, at least a decade, probably more, since the trendy body type in Hollywood changed to a slim but rounder, curvier look. But for some reason, even though being skinny has not been in style in a long time, it's somehow still considered okay to say "real women have curves" and talk shit about how anyone who's slimmer than Rosie O'Donnell is "anorexic".[/quote:27dyh6hw]
You seem to be labouring under the misguided notion that I'm upset with you not accepting my world view. I don't give a fuck what you believe or whether or not you agree or disagree with anything I post. I do have a problem with your complete inability to have an honest back-and-forth discussion of any topic without resporting to your contradiction game and then smugly insisting that you are right and everyone else is too daft to comprehend you. You think I'm so traumatized that I won't accept anyone not agreeing with me on one small element of one post? Not even close. As I said earlier, if you had given me anything at all to consider and move the discussion forward, I would have. But that's not how you operate. If I didn't find it so amusing to watch you going around and around in circles with your "No it isn't" "No I didn't" "Yes it is" "Yes I did" act, I would've dropped this a long time ago.
You're response is, as usual, a lot of noise with no content whatsoever. But thanks for being a good sport and continuing to play along. Dance, puppet, dance!
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
Since I'm on a bit of a Monty Python roll with Exy, I'll just continue the theme here. [professional logician]"Emaciated size zero" does not mean all size zeros are emaciated. A universal affirmitive can only be partially converted; all of Elmer Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Elmer Cogan. Obvious, one would think. However, Sleeps does not understand this necessary limitation of a proposition, consequently she jumps to conclusions and has a hissy fit over them. [/professional logician homage]
I'll get over myself right about the time you get over yourself. How's that for a sweet deal, hmmm?
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
For about the tenth time, Jimbo: I am not obligated to find statistics or citations or anything like that to support the view you want to pretend I hold. The fact that I didn't agree to defend the opposite viewpoint of yours just because you want me to does not make me dishonest.
Jimbo, there's a reason why the only person who would back you up was your wife, and even she gave up. Get a clue, dude. You're not accomplishing anything. You're just making yourself look stupider and stupider.
You made up a stupid lie about a domestic violence organization, one that was contradicted by what you yourself quoted from their literature. I pointed that out. Boom. There was my point. I made it. And you had no response. Done. And then it all fell apart, when you moved on to post after post of whining that I'm somehow breaking the rules by not holding the viewpoint you want to argue with. What's the point, Jimbo? What do you think you're accomplishing? What do you want to get out of this? Do you think there's some secret cadre of people here who haven't said anything, but are actually impressed by your performance here?
Talking to you is starting to feel like beating up a retarded kid. You can't even tell that the statistics you posted don't support the point you're trying to make. You can't even tell that no one's contesting your point anyway. You can't respond to any of the points I've made in the thread, so you haven't even tried. But you're sure that if you pretend hard enough, somehow, you will stop looking stupid and you'll win the internet. Jesus, Jimbo, you've never been, you know, intellectual, but are you really so dumb that you don't realize how bad you look in this thread?
Re: Women and violence
Well, you've been on a whiny "I'm a victim, damnit!" kick even before the Monty Python bit, good to see you're continuing in that as well!
I see you aren't going to explain to me how that response was screaming and over the top? Once again Jimbo just makes stuff up and thinks if he continues to repeat it that everyone else will fall into line and agree with him. Nothing about that response was hateful so you (once again) demonstrate that you have no leg to stand on when speaking on what is or isn't abuse. You're far too sensitive to objectively define it for anyone who has skin at all. Not just thin skin, any skin at all.
So come on back and do some more ducking and dodging and make some 70s comedy nerd references to amuse yourself. You've already done lame-phrases-from-the-90s, now you need to hit on some retardation from the 80s and you'll have a lame-o trifecta.
Re: Women and violence
I didn't even know they had a flag...
Re: Women and violence
[quote=Sleeps w/Butterflies]Well, you've been on a whiny "I'm a victim, damnit!" kick even before the Monty Python bit, good to see you're continuing in that as well!
I see you aren't going to explain to me how that response was screaming and over the top? Once again Jimbo just makes stuff up and thinks if he continues to repeat it that everyone else will fall into line and agree with him. Nothing about that response was hateful so you (once again) demonstrate that you have no leg to stand on when speaking on what is or isn't abuse. You're far too sensitive to objectively define it for anyone who has skin at all. Not just thin skin, any skin at all.
So come on back and do some more ducking and dodging and make some 70s comedy nerd references to amuse yourself. You've already done lame-phrases-from-the-90s, now you need to hit on some retardation from the 80s and you'll have a lame-o trifecta.[/quote:1a8fvnpu]
You certainly seem fixated on my repeating again and again that I'm a victim, when I haven't. That hasn't been remotely my argument at any point, even if you seem utterly fixated on it. You see an emotional outburst where there hasn't been one -- perhaps your projecting your own emotional responses onto everything you see? You see someone crying that he is a victim when he hasn't. You maybe need to sit down and take a deep breath or something 'cuz you're halucinating.
So I guess this means you're not getting over yourself?
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
For about the tenth time, Jimbo: I am not obligated to find statistics or citations or anything like that to support the view you want to pretend I hold. The fact that I didn't agree to defend the opposite viewpoint of yours just because you want me to does not make me dishonest.
Jimbo, there's a reason why the only person who would back you up was your wife, and even she gave up. Get a clue, dude. You're not accomplishing anything. You're just making yourself look stupider and stupider.
You made up a stupid lie about a domestic violence organization, one that was contradicted by what you yourself quoted from their literature. I pointed that out. Boom. There was my point. I made it. And you had no response. Done. And then it all fell apart, when you moved on to post after post of whining that I'm somehow breaking the rules by not holding the viewpoint you want to argue with. What's the point, Jimbo? What do you think you're accomplishing? What do you want to get out of this? Do you think there's some secret cadre of people here who haven't said anything, but are actually impressed by your performance here?
Talking to you is starting to feel like beating up a retarded kid. You can't even tell that the statistics you posted don't support the point you're trying to make. You can't even tell that no one's contesting your point anyway. You can't respond to any of the points I've made in the thread, so you haven't even tried. But you're sure that if you pretend hard enough, somehow, you will stop looking stupid and you'll win the internet. Jesus, Jimbo, you've never been, you know, intellectual, but are you really so dumb that you don't realize how bad you look in this thread?Dance, puppet, dance!
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
Jimbo, look, I'm sorry you embarrassed yourself in this thread, but I don't know what you think you're going to accomplish by being a dick to me. Take a step back and look at Jeff's advice.
Re: Women and violence
so you still aren't going to defend your accusations about my quote above? Why am I not surprised?
I didn't say that you've claimed you're a victim. You're acting like one by personalizing this argument to the extreme. You're behaving this way because (as you mentioned) this is a personal issue for you because you say you've been abused. As other people have told you here, you are weirdly obsessed with this topic by arguing with people who agree that violence against men by women is WRONG. You just can't seem to stop yourself. I'm continuing to respond to you because you have repeatedly misrepresented and outright lied about me here. You are either doing it deliberately or you are delusional.
Each time you respond to anyone in this thread you seem a little more infantile and unintelligent. Your "dance puppet dance" is pure trolling. If you're comfortable being a troll, who am I to stop you if your own self esteem won't?
Re: Women and violence
Dance, puppet, dance!Jimbo, look, I'm sorry you embarrassed yourself in this thread, but I don't know what you think you're going to accomplish by being a dick to me. Take a step back and look at Jeff's advice.
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
[quote=Sleeps w/Butterflies]so you still aren't going to defend your accusations about my quote above? Why am I not surprised?
I didn't say that you've claimed you're a victim. You're acting like one by personalizing this argument to the extreme. You're behaving this way because (as you mentioned) this is a personal issue for you because you say you've been abused. As other people have told you here, you are weirdly obsessed with this topic by arguing with people who agree that violence against men by women is WRONG. You just can't seem to stop yourself. I'm continuing to respond to you because you have repeatedly misrepresented and outright lied about me here. You are either doing it deliberately or you are delusional.
Each time you respond to anyone in this thread you seem a little more infantile and unintelligent. Your "dance puppet dance" is pure trolling. If you're comfortable being a troll, who am I to stop you if your own self esteem won't?[/quote:tc8j29tg]
Oh noes! Sleeps thinks I'm a troll and is once again instructing me on what I can and cannot post! I wonder if it will work...
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
I'm not even involved in this fight, but dude, if that's all the effort you are going to put into it.............I think you're done.
everything in nature is sort of gross when you look at it too closely. what is an apple? basically the uterus of a tree - terrifel
Re: Women and violence
Another post by Jimbo where he is incapable of backing up the bullshit he spews and once again resorts to "rubber and glue" junior high jokes. Now he's attempting to say I'm trying to tell him what he can and can't post. More lies and misrepresentation. You can post anything you want to, but if you can't back up what you type then your opinion becomes a joke to anyone who takes words seriously. Words have meaning, Jimbo. If you can't back up what you say, your words are impotent.
So, come on back with more of your nonsense and I'll point out your stupidity as many times as you'd like me to. We can do this until they take the messageboard down. I have a feeling you have an endless well of stupidity that you can draw from, and I'll never tired of laughing at you so win/win.
But, since I am sensitive to your victimization... I'm really very sorry that bad woman beat you up. I am.
Re: Women and violence
I had my say so I've no hound in this horse race but it is certainly an entertaining train wreck to watch.
Kind of like watching my kids argue, discover that they agree with each other, agree that this is also unacceptable and start scrambling against each other for the moral high ground.
Wish I had some popcorn.
Re: Women and violence
Myrnalene, I stopped putting in an effort two pages ago when it became abundantly clear that nobody in this little fray was willing to discuss things in a reasonable manner. What blows my mind is that the local pit bulls still can't unclench their jaws and let it go. But hey, if the train wreck is amusing a few people around here, who am I to let it die?
Let's face it -- this thread features more activity than the rest of the Thunderdome has had in weeks. Now, if you're saying I have to stop giggling with glee at each new response from Exy and Sleeps and step my game up to keep it fresh and bubbling over with indignant drama, I will do my best to accept that challenge.
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
[quote=Sleeps w/Butterflies]Another post by Jimbo where he is incapable of backing up the bullshit he spews and once again resorts to "rubber and glue" junior high jokes. Now he's attempting to say I'm trying to tell him what he can and can't post. More lies and misrepresentation. You can post anything you want to, but if you can't back up what you type then your opinion becomes a joke to anyone who takes words seriously. Words have meaning, Jimbo. If you can't back up what you say, your words are impotent.
So, come on back with more of your nonsense and I'll point out your stupidity as many times as you'd like me to. We can do this until they take the messageboard down. I have a feeling you have an endless well of stupidity that you can draw from, and I'll never tired of laughing at you so win/win.
But, since I am sensitive to your victimization... I'm really very sorry that bad woman beat you up. I am.[/quote:3o3gb3as]
You've admonished me for answering a question that was directed at someone else (although it wasn't and that's irrelevant anyway). You've admonished me for posting an opinion in another thread. Twice. Because apparently you think you are the arbiter of what is worthy or unworthy to be said in a post -- especially when it touches on a point you already addressed. Those aren't lies, honey, nor are they misrepresentation. You want to decide who can post what, when and why, go start you're own board. I sincerely promise not to register.
Have you been over-reacting to something again? And it wasn't one of my posts? Are you trying to make me jealous or are we simply continuing to establish a pattern of behaviour here?Dude. She's always like that. Save your pixels for someone capable of logic.
Look, I'm sure that, as a pretty blonde girl, you grew up thinking that if you bat your eyes at a guy, he'll fall all over himself trying to do your bidding and, no doubt, you got lots of positive reinforcement for that. But it doesn't work that way here and all your tired demands that I stop being a big jerk and obey you aren't gonna fly -- you have no authority over me or anyone else. Neither is going back to the "sorry about your victimization" well -- that was pretty played out about before we got to the second page (sorry, I'm not keeping count).
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
And Jimbo answers again without explaining his accusations of the comment he posted from the Dope. Not surprising at all. When you have no leg to stand on, you want to try to dance all around the issue.
And played out? I really am sorry that some mean woman beat you up. Honest.
Re: Women and violence
You're sounding like a broken record. Or is that a reference from too far back for you to remember? See, a record is what we Grandpas used to listen to music on, before the age of cassette tapes and compact discs. Sometimes they would become scratched and they would skip, repeating the same couple of seconds of the track over and over and over -- sometimes CDs do this very same thing. So, to sound like a broken record means that you keep repeating the same couple phrases over and over and over. Hope that helps.
I'm sorry you're life is so empty that you think it makes you look good to repeatedly victimize a victim (your term, by the way, not mine -- I have yet to refer to myself as a victim, nor will I). Or maybe you just get off on it. Either way, I'm sure your family must be so proud.
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
And Jimbo answers again without explaining his accusations of the comment he posted from the Dope. He still fails to realize that words have actual meanings and when you make accusations you should be able to back them up. Instead, he plays the "I got jokes!" game and hopes that no one will notice that his words are impotent.
Re: Women and violence
Is that all you've got left? "Jimbo won't explain himself." "Jimbo won't explain himself." "Jimbo won't explain himself." "Jimbo won't explain himself." "Jimbo won't explain himself." "Jimbo won't explain himself." I guess we're done here, then, if you're tapped out?
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
Don't accuse someone else of throwing the fight when you've only been trolling for the past two pages, asshat.
Re: Women and violence
There have been three people in here wasting bandwidth for the last two pages, Jeff, not one.
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
You really are 12 years old aren't you?
Quick, stamp your feet, hold your breath and say the words "He started it!"
Re: Women and violence
Have left? You still don't get it, although I'm not surprised. When you make accusations you need to be able to back them up. When you characterize people and statements, you should be able to prove what you say. Come on, even you're not that dumb. I can't understand how you can have the balls to ask for a cite from anyone in any thread if you can't bring yourself to back up the stuff that YOU say. You're a dishonest debater and if you think I'm all tapped out because I expect you to be able to prove your bullshit, then perhaps it is YOU that is done here. Why can't you back up your own accusations?
Re: Women and violence
I guess we have four wasting bandwidth now...
Sleeps, I've responded to your stupid demands for answers, in spite of you rejecting them. If, in my travels, I stumble across more of your over-reactions, I promise you'll be the first to know.
In the meantime, why are you still even here? The ONLY thing you've had to say to me for the entire thread is what a combative, broken, fragile, victimized, dishonest debater I am. You haven't had anything worth saying since the 6th post! Are you that invested in getting the last word in?
Hell is other people.
Re: Women and violence
QFT bitch.
Re: Women and violence
Jimbo, I'm going to spell it out for you so you can wrap your brain around it. You characterized the quote of mine you brought over from the dope as screaming! and over the top. It was anything but. Either you are the most delicate flower that ever existed or you are a lying, dishonest debater who throws out accusations without the ability to back it up. I guess you're more comfortable admitting that you're a fragile flower (with a wink and a nod) than admitting that you lied or made a mistake. For anyone else who isn't your wife it's obvious that you're dishonest and petty much a coward for deflecting this. How anyone can take you seriously here on any topic after seeing how absolutely out of your mind you are on this subject is beyond me. You're so warped about this topic that you'd rather look like a "rubber and glue" 12 year old than concede that you characterized something unfairly.
I think it's also funny that you label my demands for an explanation of YOUR WORDS to be stupid. You used the Dope comment as an example of me being too much of a bitch but refuse to say what's so terrible about it. Pardon me for expecting you to be able to back up your claims.
Now, since you're clearly not capable of honesty in debate I will let you have all the last words your testosterone filled body needs to feel like you WON THE THREAD since that is so clearly what this is all about for you. So, Jimbo wins! YaY for Jimbo. Hopefully in the future you can back up the bullshit you spew and not try to alienate people who actually agree with you about a subject.
Re: Women and violence
Excellent train wreck! People always get so spun up about these things.
But getting back to the OP, the issue doesn't seem all that real to me. I'm no ninja but I am handy with weapons and depressingly familiar with combat. I'm also roughly twice the size and four times the strength of an average woman. To put that in perspective, imagine going up against a 400 lb gorilla who can dead lift half a ton.
So yes I have been slapped and kicked by soon-to-be-ex's before. But I've never felt the need to hit back. Seriously; if I'm awake there's very little a woman can do to me without weapons. The only way she is going to physically abuse me is if I let her.
In reality I've suffered far more from heartless words. And that too only goes on as long as I allow it.
Re: Women and violence
A question since you've brought this up. I assume you're still with her because you're saying soon-to-be-ex. Was she always like that (slapping and such) or did this start after you were already exclusive/dating? Does it happen often? Does she throw things, too?
I'm curious because I've known quite a few women (personally and professionally) who've been abused by men (or by other women) and few men who've been abused by women. I am curious if it starts the same way and how it comes about. Does she do it in a rage or is it more like an every-time-she's-mad thing?
Re: Women and violence
I think he meant soon-to-be-ex at the time. That is, they are actual exes by now.
Posting rules
Reply with quote
