Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » My god!!
| Re: My god!! [message #83277 is a reply to message #83232] |
Tue, 17 April 2007 12:33   |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
i have no problem with what you say but...
http://www.wpaonline.org/institute/hardhit/index.htm
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:58:46 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
wrote:
>I'm not offended in the least, but I don't think what I said was sexist.
>I'm not blaming "men," in fact, I'm not really blaming anyone, except maybe
>our culture for making violence cool. However, I don't think you can solve
>a problem if you pretend that an obvious aspect of that problem doesn't
>matter just because it pushes buttons.
>
>Women aren't "better" than men, or vice versa. Men and women are "equal,"
>but you may have noticed they are very different. One major difference
>related to aggressive and combative behavior is testosterone, which a male
>typically has 7 to 10 times as much of as a female. Testosterone levels
>rise rapidly, sometimes drastically, with threat, anger, and competition.
>
>Just as girls are taught about their special hormonal differences and
>reproductive cycles, boys should be taught about this special aspect of
>their physiology, and the emotions it can produce. Instead of thwarting
>their natural aggression and energy, we should teach them to channel it into
>creative, constructive activity. We should also teach them that empathy and
>compassion are not "gay," and that having brain and a heart are more
>important than having "balls," so to speak. I bet most of the men here
>avoided violent behavior in part when they were growing up by beating the
>shit out of drums or guitars instead of other guys.
>
>Of course we need to discourage violence in all our children, but it's a
>bigger problem among boys, and I think some special attention is needed
>there. Does this make sense?
>
>Sarah
>
>
>"Carl Amburn" <carlamburn@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
>news:46245d87@linux...
>>" I think we need to seriously change the way we raise our male children. "
>>
>> Sarah - I realize that the majority of shootings are probably male, but
>> this
>> is a silly sexist thing to say - isn't it? I have no doubt that a girl
>> could
>> do a similar thing. Our society gives us example after example of this
>> destructive behavior with guns (what else are guns for?) and women are no
>> exception to shootings or destruction.
>>
>> There is also no guaranteed way to stop this kind of violence. Sad but
>> true.
>> It is, unfortunately, one of the very high prices/possibilities that comes
>> with our liberties in the US (guns, guns rights, etc..). At very minimum,
>> at
>> least this particular person won't cause further damage.
>>
>> Here's my personal edit to your quote.... "I think we need to seriously
>> raise our children."
>>
>> I know you have good interests at heart Sarah - hope you don't take
>> offense
>> to my post.
>>
>> Peace be to all the VT family.
>>
>> rock on,
>> -Carl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83279 is a reply to message #83275] |
Tue, 17 April 2007 13:27 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
..allowances can be made, rules bent and broken and contingencies allowed
for.........damn!!! now I'm starting to sound like Cheyney......or Clinton.
;oO
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:46251eef$1@linux...
>
> Including the one I'm taking to see Son Volt tomorrow night in NYC? Who
> also
> works as a bank teller and regularly causes multi-car pileups in Queens?
> Who is obviously insane, blind, or both?
>
> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>Well OK then. I'm glad we've arrived a a logical, sane solution to all of
>
>>this. I do think that a few intelligent topless dancers should be spared
>
>>though.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:462507a3$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Deal. You get to decide who we get rid of for being and idiot, I get to
>
>>> decide
>>> who we bump off for being an asshole. I believe that will leave you and
>
>>> Amy
>>> (and Crash) as the new Adam and Eve (and Fido) 'cause I'm sure no idiot
>
>>> but
>>> . .
>>>
>>> TCB
>>>
>>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>>Well....shit!!!.....Thad, I didn't say that we should ban video games
> now
>>>
>>>>did I? If you've ever paid attention to the bottom line of any of my
>>>>environmental rants, it always comes down to global population control.
>>> Even
>>>>the tiniest bit of help we can get, from video games and from legalizing
>>>
>>>>drugs in order to identify the latent psychos, works for me..........and
>>> if
>>>>they just happen to get wasted during the *disarmament process*, well,
>
>>>>shit
>>>
>>>>happens now doesn't it???.....and I used to have a carry permit when I
>
>>>>lived
>>>
>>>>in Texas. Street violence was significantly reduced once these became
>
>>>>legal.
>>>
>>>>Up here in Colorado, people just do it anyway (though I probably should
>>> get
>>>>one here as well) ................. but I still get dibs on being able
> to
>>>
>>>>make the call on who's an idiot.
>>>>
>>>>;o)
>>>>
>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:4624f32a$1@linux...
>>>>>
>>>>> But this ignores the fact that tens of millions, maybe hundreds of
>>>>> millions,
>>>>> of people play violent video games and don't shoot anyone. And also
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> explain the billions of people who are occasional users of drugs,
>>>>> ranging
>>>>> from caffeine to chewing coca leaves to ecstasy to heroin, and live
>>>>> normal,
>>>>> well adjusted lives, again without shooting anyone. And, to go
>>>>> further,
>>>
>>>>> how
>>>>> is it that the Romans could enjoy entertainments that other ancient
>>>>> societies
>>>>> (far more tolerant of blood and gore than we are) found so disturbing
>>> they
>>>>> would be physically ill at performances?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not video games or pot smoking that's the problem. The problem
> is
>>> a
>>>>> tiny, tiny, microscopic, so small you need a societal electron
>>>>> microscope
>>>>> to see them group of people are really messed up. They're tough to
>>>>> identify,
>>>>> and no amount of denying the rest of us who aren't nuts access to
>>>>> things
>>>>> we may enjoy (video games, drugs, guns) will change that. So we need
> to
>>>
>>>>> get
>>>>> better at identifying those people.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, the main thing that stopped copycat Columbine events was
>>> that
>>>>> kids started telling parents and school officials when they thought
>>>>> another
>>>>> kid might be about to go off the deep end. In essence, they were
>>>>> 'human
>>>
>>>>> intelligence'
>>>>> for the authorities.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the same way 'human intelligence' operatives are the best defense
>>>>> against
>>>>> terrorism, other random acts of violence, suicides, and a lot of other
>>>
>>>>> things.
>>>>> Banning shampoo on airplanes, in case you're wondering, is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> TCB
>>>>>
>>>>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:462447ec@linux...
>>>>>>>I don't think anyone understands it, Aaron. We may learn that the
>>>>>>>shooter
>>>>>
>>>>>>>had a history of mental problems. We may learn that alcohol and/or
>
>>>>>>>drugs
>>>>>
>>>>>>>were involved. No, I don't understand how anyone can just randomly
>
>>>>>>>kill
>>>>>
>>>>>>>people. I also don't understand why idiots, psychos, drunks, or drug
>>>>>>>addicts need to have the right to bear this kind of arms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we need to seriously change the way we raise our male
>>>>>>> children.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "When we don't let boys cry tears, some will cry bullets." - William
>>>>>>> Pollack
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sad, very sad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, I don't understand how anyone can just randomly kill people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hmmmmm........ there seems to be a few online training films that
>>>>>>specialize
>>>>>
>>>>>>in this sort of thing........
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.mortalkombatonline.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>.......now mix in a kid who feels alienated (and maybe a few
>>>>>>hallucenogens
>>>>>
>>>>>>just to enhance the experience) and ........voila!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I wouldn't mind if idiots, psychos, drunks, or drug addicts didn't
> have
>>>>> the
>>>>>>right to bear these kind of arms.......and in the process of disarming
>>>
>>>>>>these
>>>>>
>>>>>>folks we would probably cull a few of them from the population, along
>>> with
>>>>>
>>>>>>quite a few of the "cullors". I think it would be pretty easy to
>>>>>>identify
>>>>>
>>>>>>the drug addicts and drunks and we should legalize them in order to
> make
>>>>> all
>>>>>>of these folks more identifyable. If we did, that would probably cover
>>>
>>>>>>about
>>>>>
>>>>>>40% of our national population (a conservative estimate....sorry, for
>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>>"c" word ;o).....and psychos usually aren't identified until they act
>>> out,
>>>>>
>>>>>>which often happens when they are drunk and/or on drugs. so this would
>>>>>>accellerate the process .........Yeah!!! that's the
>>>>>>ticket!!!............and
>>>>>
>>>>>>the criteria be for classifying someone as an idiot ........well, that
>>>>>>decision should be left up to me, I think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>;o)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83306 is a reply to message #83277] |
Wed, 18 April 2007 01:33 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks for that link . . . I definitely want to look through that when I
haven't just gotten off work. I worked with women in a "halfway house" for
recent prison releases. All of them had been in jail for drug offenses. I
think if we examine those rising female imprisonment stats, we'll find that
the vast majority are there for drugs, or drug-related malfeasance of some
kind, and not violent crimes.
S
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:648a235llmrvkcvmr7ssbf6kjtd8k5vqr0@4ax.com...
>i have no problem with what you say but...
> http://www.wpaonline.org/institute/hardhit/index.htm
>
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:58:46 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I'm not offended in the least, but I don't think what I said was sexist.
>>I'm not blaming "men," in fact, I'm not really blaming anyone, except
>>maybe
>>our culture for making violence cool. However, I don't think you can
>>solve
>>a problem if you pretend that an obvious aspect of that problem doesn't
>>matter just because it pushes buttons.
>>
>>Women aren't "better" than men, or vice versa. Men and women are "equal,"
>>but you may have noticed they are very different. One major difference
>>related to aggressive and combative behavior is testosterone, which a male
>>typically has 7 to 10 times as much of as a female. Testosterone levels
>>rise rapidly, sometimes drastically, with threat, anger, and competition.
>>
>>Just as girls are taught about their special hormonal differences and
>>reproductive cycles, boys should be taught about this special aspect of
>>their physiology, and the emotions it can produce. Instead of thwarting
>>their natural aggression and energy, we should teach them to channel it
>>into
>>creative, constructive activity. We should also teach them that empathy
>>and
>>compassion are not "gay," and that having brain and a heart are more
>>important than having "balls," so to speak. I bet most of the men here
>>avoided violent behavior in part when they were growing up by beating the
>>shit out of drums or guitars instead of other guys.
>>
>>Of course we need to discourage violence in all our children, but it's a
>>bigger problem among boys, and I think some special attention is needed
>>there. Does this make sense?
>>
>>Sarah
>>
>>
>>"Carl Amburn" <carlamburn@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:46245d87@linux...
>>>" I think we need to seriously change the way we raise our male children.
>>>"
>>>
>>> Sarah - I realize that the majority of shootings are probably male, but
>>> this
>>> is a silly sexist thing to say - isn't it? I have no doubt that a girl
>>> could
>>> do a similar thing. Our society gives us example after example of this
>>> destructive behavior with guns (what else are guns for?) and women are
>>> no
>>> exception to shootings or destruction.
>>>
>>> There is also no guaranteed way to stop this kind of violence. Sad but
>>> true.
>>> It is, unfortunately, one of the very high prices/possibilities that
>>> comes
>>> with our liberties in the US (guns, guns rights, etc..). At very
>>> minimum,
>>> at
>>> least this particular person won't cause further damage.
>>>
>>> Here's my personal edit to your quote.... "I think we need to seriously
>>> raise our children."
>>>
>>> I know you have good interests at heart Sarah - hope you don't take
>>> offense
>>> to my post.
>>>
>>> Peace be to all the VT family.
>>>
>>> rock on,
>>> -Carl
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83307 is a reply to message #83306] |
Wed, 18 April 2007 02:10 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
actually the incident of violent crime is one of the leading stats,
though the same can be said for men...drug wise.
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:33:54 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
wrote:
>Thanks for that link . . . I definitely want to look through that when I
>haven't just gotten off work. I worked with women in a "halfway house" for
>recent prison releases. All of them had been in jail for drug offenses. I
>think if we examine those rising female imprisonment stats, we'll find that
>the vast majority are there for drugs, or drug-related malfeasance of some
>kind, and not violent crimes.
>
>S
>
>
>"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:648a235llmrvkcvmr7ssbf6kjtd8k5vqr0@4ax.com...
>>i have no problem with what you say but...
>> http://www.wpaonline.org/institute/hardhit/index.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:58:46 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not offended in the least, but I don't think what I said was sexist.
>>>I'm not blaming "men," in fact, I'm not really blaming anyone, except
>>>maybe
>>>our culture for making violence cool. However, I don't think you can
>>>solve
>>>a problem if you pretend that an obvious aspect of that problem doesn't
>>>matter just because it pushes buttons.
>>>
>>>Women aren't "better" than men, or vice versa. Men and women are "equal,"
>>>but you may have noticed they are very different. One major difference
>>>related to aggressive and combative behavior is testosterone, which a male
>>>typically has 7 to 10 times as much of as a female. Testosterone levels
>>>rise rapidly, sometimes drastically, with threat, anger, and competition.
>>>
>>>Just as girls are taught about their special hormonal differences and
>>>reproductive cycles, boys should be taught about this special aspect of
>>>their physiology, and the emotions it can produce. Instead of thwarting
>>>their natural aggression and energy, we should teach them to channel it
>>>into
>>>creative, constructive activity. We should also teach them that empathy
>>>and
>>>compassion are not "gay," and that having brain and a heart are more
>>>important than having "balls," so to speak. I bet most of the men here
>>>avoided violent behavior in part when they were growing up by beating the
>>>shit out of drums or guitars instead of other guys.
>>>
>>>Of course we need to discourage violence in all our children, but it's a
>>>bigger problem among boys, and I think some special attention is needed
>>>there. Does this make sense?
>>>
>>>Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>>"Carl Amburn" <carlamburn@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:46245d87@linux...
>>>>" I think we need to seriously change the way we raise our male children.
>>>>"
>>>>
>>>> Sarah - I realize that the majority of shootings are probably male, but
>>>> this
>>>> is a silly sexist thing to say - isn't it? I have no doubt that a girl
>>>> could
>>>> do a similar thing. Our society gives us example after example of this
>>>> destructive behavior with guns (what else are guns for?) and women are
>>>> no
>>>> exception to shootings or destruction.
>>>>
>>>> There is also no guaranteed way to stop this kind of violence. Sad but
>>>> true.
>>>> It is, unfortunately, one of the very high prices/possibilities that
>>>> comes
>>>> with our liberties in the US (guns, guns rights, etc..). At very
>>>> minimum,
>>>> at
>>>> least this particular person won't cause further damage.
>>>>
>>>> Here's my personal edit to your quote.... "I think we need to seriously
>>>> raise our children."
>>>>
>>>> I know you have good interests at heart Sarah - hope you don't take
>>>> offense
>>>> to my post.
>>>>
>>>> Peace be to all the VT family.
>>>>
>>>> rock on,
>>>> -Carl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83308 is a reply to message #83243] |
Wed, 18 April 2007 02:18 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well Don, as is often is the case, you seem to be reading what I write, and
translating it into something entirely different. I don't even see how your
response contradicts anything I said! I said nothing against martial arts,
shooting guns, or Jesus Christ for that matter. Nor did I say testosterone
was a bad thing. Testosterone gives men a special power -- I'm just
advocating teaching them to use that power for good rather than the evil you
correctly refer to. I'm not even against violence, as I think you know, if
it's justified.
As for "masculinity," I think definitions may vary greatly from person to
person, but you'll have to do some fancy talking to convince me that empathy
and compassion make a man less masculine. Are you saying you can't be a
"real man" and still express the full range of human emotions?
And I never said anything about "teaching" anyone to cry. You may have
noticed that people of both sexes cry naturally at times -- they don't need
to be taught. But I've certainly seen enough kids being taught not to cry
in my life, sometimes violently. "I'll give you something to cry about!"
Finally, I do not agree that men are more likely than women to step up and
protect someone, because my personal experience contradicts that assertion.
I don't like "balls" being synonymous with "courage." I've seen too many
"ballsy" women.
S
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:4624cce1$1@linux...
>
> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>
>>Women aren't "better" than men, or vice versa. Men and women are "equal,"
>
>>but you may have noticed they are very different. One major difference
>
>>related to aggressive and combative behavior is testosterone, which a male
>
>>typically has 7 to 10 times as much of as a female. Testosterone levels
>
>>rise rapidly, sometimes drastically, with threat, anger, and competition.
>
> And genuine heroism and righteousness.
>
> ooops
>
>
>>Just as girls are taught about their special hormonal differences and
>>reproductive cycles, boys should be taught about this special aspect of
>
>>their physiology, and the emotions it can produce. Instead of thwarting
>
>>their natural aggression and energy, we should teach them to channel it
> into
>>creative, constructive activity. We should also teach them that empathy
> and
>>compassion are not "gay," and that having brain and a heart are more
>>important than having "balls," so to speak. I bet most of the men here
>
>>avoided violent behavior in part when they were growing up by beating the
>
>>shit out of drums or guitars instead of other guys.
>
> And there you have it. A nearly complete version of a "man" as
> determined by women... One problem, it's all wrong.
>
> I avoided violence, as my daughter is, by years and years of martial
> arts training. Oh, and shooting... Oh, and my relationship with Jesus
> Christ.
>
> In short, by becoming a better man, not a womans version of one.
> Ironic huh?
>
> Traditional martial artists are the least violent people on the planet,
> as are shooters. As were the real people of the old west, not the
> Hollywood lie that has replaced them.
>
>
> DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83310 is a reply to message #83308] |
Wed, 18 April 2007 02:57 |
erlilo
Messages: 405
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I understand you very well Sarah and am with you, but I think it will
allways be problems when a mans brain often is in the balls when women and
weapons are involved.
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:4625e335@linux...
> Well Don, as is often is the case, you seem to be reading what I write,
> and translating it into something entirely different. I don't even see
> how your response contradicts anything I said! I said nothing against
> martial arts, shooting guns, or Jesus Christ for that matter. Nor did I
> say testosterone was a bad thing. Testosterone gives men a special
> power -- I'm just advocating teaching them to use that power for good
> rather than the evil you correctly refer to. I'm not even against
> violence, as I think you know, if it's justified.
>
> As for "masculinity," I think definitions may vary greatly from person to
> person, but you'll have to do some fancy talking to convince me that
> empathy and compassion make a man less masculine. Are you saying you
> can't be a "real man" and still express the full range of human emotions?
>
> And I never said anything about "teaching" anyone to cry. You may have
> noticed that people of both sexes cry naturally at times -- they don't
> need to be taught. But I've certainly seen enough kids being taught not
> to cry in my life, sometimes violently. "I'll give you something to cry
> about!"
>
> Finally, I do not agree that men are more likely than women to step up and
> protect someone, because my personal experience contradicts that
> assertion. I don't like "balls" being synonymous with "courage." I've
> seen too many "ballsy" women.
>
> S
>
>
> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:4624cce1$1@linux...
>>
>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Women aren't "better" than men, or vice versa. Men and women are
>>>"equal,"
>>
>>>but you may have noticed they are very different. One major difference
>>
>>>related to aggressive and combative behavior is testosterone, which a
>>>male
>>
>>>typically has 7 to 10 times as much of as a female. Testosterone levels
>>
>>>rise rapidly, sometimes drastically, with threat, anger, and competition.
>>
>> And genuine heroism and righteousness.
>>
>> ooops
>>
>>
>>>Just as girls are taught about their special hormonal differences and
>>>reproductive cycles, boys should be taught about this special aspect of
>>
>>>their physiology, and the emotions it can produce. Instead of thwarting
>>
>>>their natural aggression and energy, we should teach them to channel it
>> into
>>>creative, constructive activity. We should also teach them that empathy
>> and
>>>compassion are not "gay," and that having brain and a heart are more
>>>important than having "balls," so to speak. I bet most of the men here
>>
>>>avoided violent behavior in part when they were growing up by beating the
>>
>>>shit out of drums or guitars instead of other guys.
>>
>> And there you have it. A nearly complete version of a "man" as
>> determined by women... One problem, it's all wrong.
>>
>> I avoided violence, as my daughter is, by years and years of martial
>> arts training. Oh, and shooting... Oh, and my relationship with Jesus
>> Christ.
>>
>> In short, by becoming a better man, not a womans version of one.
>> Ironic huh?
>>
>> Traditional martial artists are the least violent people on the planet,
>> as are shooters. As were the real people of the old west, not the
>> Hollywood lie that has replaced them.
>>
>>
>> DC
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83318 is a reply to message #83308] |
Wed, 18 April 2007 06:34 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>Well Don, as is often is the case, you seem to be reading what I write,
and
>translating it into something entirely different.
You said:
>I think we need to seriously change the way we raise our male children.
>"When we don't let boys cry tears, some will cry bullets." - William
>Pollack
And I am damn fed up with "men" taking the blame for the evil actions
of an indivdual.
You fail to notice that the crime rate is massively higher today, when
many hold your view of men, than in a time when men decided what we
are to be and what our values are. To me, we retain that, while adding
in freedom, equality, and self-determination for women and you have a
better world.
As soon as some piece of sh*t does something evil and insane, somebody
starts talking about testosterone and hardware rather than personal
ethics and responsibility. Of course no one talks about estrogen and
the need to raise women better when some sicko stabs her newborn
100 times. Nah, we whine about depression... Poor women... bad men!!
Bull
Perhaps we have to damned many crying men and not enough heroes.
Just a thought...
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83320 is a reply to message #83284] |
Wed, 18 April 2007 06:46 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I realize the stats can be misleading, and a good statistician can make them
say anything anyway. Nevertheless, there _are_ a lot of fatal gun accidents
in this country. Also, I'm the least likely demographic to be a victim of
violent crime, I white, male, 6'2", and look a little menacing. So for me,
having a gun is probably a bad idea, statistically speaking.
But, it's a good idea in the sense that I can walk safely pretty much wherever
I want, which is something any citizen ought to expect as a matter of course.
Sadly, in this country we can't. Unfortunately New York State doesn't recognize
out or state carry permits, so when I'm in NYC I either carry illegally or
don't carry. One of my cop friend in New Haven told me he'd rather take a
pinch for carrying illegally than be attacked, and that in any case the fact
that I have a CT permit would be at least considered by the police if something
happens.
Anywho, it's odd. The three states I've lived in--Wisconsin, Minnesota, and
Connecticut--are some of the bluest of blue states, but are surprisingly
gun friendly. I guess it's the old farm boy traditions in the midwest, in
WI one doesn't even need a permit to carry and even handguns don't have to
be registered, the law says only that one should 'exercise caution' when
carrying a firearm.
TCB
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Nobody carries a gun because it's statistically a smart thing to do. At
>least
>>if they're being honest with themselves they aren't. In fact, we're far
>more
>>likely to hurt/kill ourselves or a family member with it than a threatening
>>stranger.
>
>This is incredibly misleading.
>
>Did you know that this "fact" includes the defense of one's
>self or family from someone who just happens to be related
>to you? It also fails to take into account the 4-5 million
>times a year that guns are used to end a crime with no shots
>being fired.
>
>In reality, armed citizens do better than cops in shootouts
>with criminals, and no one is trying to take cops guns away...
>
>http://hematite.com/dragon/gcmythexplode.html#myth2
>
>http://hematite.com/dragon/gunclock_stats.html
>
>People with carry permits are part of the solution, not
>part of the problem. And I think they are pretty smart.
>
>I applaud your decision to be able to defend yourself, and I
>wish they would authorized permits here in California...
>
>DC
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83322 is a reply to message #83320] |
Wed, 18 April 2007 06:49 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
One more thing, as I keep on saying, the people who should _really_ be able
to carry are women. Much more likely to be victims of violent crime and also
less like to hurt/kill others or themselves accidentally. Oddly, most women
I know are the most anti-gun, until I take them to the range. I've made a
number of converts ;-)
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>I realize the stats can be misleading, and a good statistician can make
them
>say anything anyway. Nevertheless, there _are_ a lot of fatal gun accidents
>in this country. Also, I'm the least likely demographic to be a victim of
>violent crime, I white, male, 6'2", and look a little menacing. So for me,
>having a gun is probably a bad idea, statistically speaking.
>
>But, it's a good idea in the sense that I can walk safely pretty much wherever
>I want, which is something any citizen ought to expect as a matter of course.
>Sadly, in this country we can't. Unfortunately New York State doesn't recognize
>out or state carry permits, so when I'm in NYC I either carry illegally
or
>don't carry. One of my cop friend in New Haven told me he'd rather take
a
>pinch for carrying illegally than be attacked, and that in any case the
fact
>that I have a CT permit would be at least considered by the police if something
>happens.
>
>Anywho, it's odd. The three states I've lived in--Wisconsin, Minnesota,
and
>Connecticut--are some of the bluest of blue states, but are surprisingly
>gun friendly. I guess it's the old farm boy traditions in the midwest, in
>WI one doesn't even need a permit to carry and even handguns don't have
to
>be registered, the law says only that one should 'exercise caution' when
>carrying a firearm.
>
>TCB
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Nobody carries a gun because it's statistically a smart thing to do. At
>>least
>>>if they're being honest with themselves they aren't. In fact, we're far
>>more
>>>likely to hurt/kill ourselves or a family member with it than a threatening
>>>stranger.
>>
>>This is incredibly misleading.
>>
>>Did you know that this "fact" includes the defense of one's
>>self or family from someone who just happens to be related
>>to you? It also fails to take into account the 4-5 million
>>times a year that guns are used to end a crime with no shots
>>being fired.
>>
>>In reality, armed citizens do better than cops in shootouts
>>with criminals, and no one is trying to take cops guns away...
>>
>>http://hematite.com/dragon/gcmythexplode.html#myth2
>>
>>http://hematite.com/dragon/gunclock_stats.html
>>
>>People with carry permits are part of the solution, not
>>part of the problem. And I think they are pretty smart.
>>
>>I applaud your decision to be able to defend yourself, and I
>>wish they would authorized permits here in California...
>>
>>DC
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83326 is a reply to message #83323] |
Wed, 18 April 2007 07:11 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
One of the really funny dynamics at the range is that I'll take a pretty girl
out to the range. I have a Walter P22, the James Bond gun, that I'll show
her how to shoot. They're damn near cute so that's why I choose it. So she'll
take a couple of shots and, almost always, she's the only girl at the range.
A bunch of times one of the 'creepy gun guys,' the kind who has a arsenal
in the basement and still lives with his mom, will take notice and start
to sheepishly chat my girl up. I always do the same thing, 'You know I bet
[fill in pretty girl's name] really would enjoy the chance to shoot that
[fill in assault rifle/Dirty Harry revolver/$5k European sniper rifle/platinum
plated antique .45 semi-auto/etc. here] you have there.' So my usually very
respectable, perhaps academic date goes from being mildly horrified I own
a gun to emptying clips out of an AR-15. It's pretty damn funny.
TCB
P.S. If you ever live in a state that's more sane about concealed carry,
this http://www.kel-tec.com/p32.html is by far my favorite for truly concealed
carry. You need to be wearing some real hip huggers for to be even remotely
visible in a pocket holster from here http://www.hedleyholsters.com/keltec.html.
It's far less obvious than my Blackberry.
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>One more thing, as I keep on saying, the people who should _really_ be
able
>>to carry are women. Much more likely to be victims of violent crime and
>also
>>less like to hurt/kill others or themselves accidentally. Oddly, most women
>>I know are the most anti-gun, until I take them to the range. I've made
>a
>>number of converts ;-)
>
>Oh yeah...
>
>My teenage daughter loves shooting. Just loves it. My wife believes in
>owning guns, but does not want to shoot them. Oh well.
>
>DC
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83327 is a reply to message #83318] |
Wed, 18 April 2007 07:30 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I've never seen any studies that attempt to correlate the odds of
someone stepping up and doing a heroic thing with an inability to feel
tears. It might just as well be that having a full range of empathy
could make someone more likely to act to defend others in such a situation.
I think the assertion that "there are too damned many crying men and not
enough heroes" begs that question and is only an assumption, albeit a
common one. Part of the Hollywood cowboy characterization, for example.
I also don't know of any studies that attempt to compare hormonal levels
with empathy levels.
There's a whole lot we don't yet know about the brain and brain
chemistry. But we do know that the brain, like other organs, is not
immune to having functional problems.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
DC wrote:
> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>> Well Don, as is often is the case, you seem to be reading what I write,
> and
>> translating it into something entirely different.
>
> You said:
>
>> I think we need to seriously change the way we raise our male children.
>
>> "When we don't let boys cry tears, some will cry bullets." - William
>> Pollack
>
>
> And I am damn fed up with "men" taking the blame for the evil actions
> of an indivdual.
>
> You fail to notice that the crime rate is massively higher today, when
> many hold your view of men, than in a time when men decided what we
> are to be and what our values are. To me, we retain that, while adding
> in freedom, equality, and self-determination for women and you have a
> better world.
>
> As soon as some piece of sh*t does something evil and insane, somebody
> starts talking about testosterone and hardware rather than personal
> ethics and responsibility. Of course no one talks about estrogen and
> the need to raise women better when some sicko stabs her newborn
> 100 times. Nah, we whine about depression... Poor women... bad men!!
>
> Bull
>
> Perhaps we have to damned many crying men and not enough heroes.
>
> Just a thought...
>
> DC
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83357 is a reply to message #83322] |
Thu, 19 April 2007 01:39 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey, I love shooting. I got to be a really good shot when I was growing up
in Montana. Even in our backyard, my sister and I kept the grasshopper
population down with our BB gun. I have really bad grasshopper karma. :)
Sarah
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:462621d4$1@linux...
>
> One more thing, as I keep on saying, the people who should _really_ be
> able
> to carry are women. Much more likely to be victims of violent crime and
> also
> less like to hurt/kill others or themselves accidentally. Oddly, most
> women
> I know are the most anti-gun, until I take them to the range. I've made a
> number of converts ;-)
>
> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>I realize the stats can be misleading, and a good statistician can make
> them
>>say anything anyway. Nevertheless, there _are_ a lot of fatal gun
>>accidents
>>in this country. Also, I'm the least likely demographic to be a victim of
>>violent crime, I white, male, 6'2", and look a little menacing. So for me,
>>having a gun is probably a bad idea, statistically speaking.
>>
>>But, it's a good idea in the sense that I can walk safely pretty much
>>wherever
>>I want, which is something any citizen ought to expect as a matter of
>>course.
>>Sadly, in this country we can't. Unfortunately New York State doesn't
>>recognize
>>out or state carry permits, so when I'm in NYC I either carry illegally
> or
>>don't carry. One of my cop friend in New Haven told me he'd rather take
> a
>>pinch for carrying illegally than be attacked, and that in any case the
> fact
>>that I have a CT permit would be at least considered by the police if
>>something
>>happens.
>>
>>Anywho, it's odd. The three states I've lived in--Wisconsin, Minnesota,
> and
>>Connecticut--are some of the bluest of blue states, but are surprisingly
>>gun friendly. I guess it's the old farm boy traditions in the midwest, in
>>WI one doesn't even need a permit to carry and even handguns don't have
> to
>>be registered, the law says only that one should 'exercise caution' when
>>carrying a firearm.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Nobody carries a gun because it's statistically a smart thing to do. At
>>>least
>>>>if they're being honest with themselves they aren't. In fact, we're far
>>>more
>>>>likely to hurt/kill ourselves or a family member with it than a
>>>>threatening
>>>>stranger.
>>>
>>>This is incredibly misleading.
>>>
>>>Did you know that this "fact" includes the defense of one's
>>>self or family from someone who just happens to be related
>>>to you? It also fails to take into account the 4-5 million
>>>times a year that guns are used to end a crime with no shots
>>>being fired.
>>>
>>>In reality, armed citizens do better than cops in shootouts
>>>with criminals, and no one is trying to take cops guns away...
>>>
>>>http://hematite.com/dragon/gcmythexplode.html#myth2
>>>
>>>http://hematite.com/dragon/gunclock_stats.html
>>>
>>>People with carry permits are part of the solution, not
>>>part of the problem. And I think they are pretty smart.
>>>
>>>I applaud your decision to be able to defend yourself, and I
>>>wish they would authorized permits here in California...
>>>
>>>DC
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83360 is a reply to message #83318] |
Thu, 19 April 2007 02:32 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
OK, have it your way:
Men are inherently evil.
Women are inherently good.
Testosterone is responsible for all the misery in the world.
All men should be castrated at birth, except for a few designated breeders.
There, now your arguments make sense. I'm not sure who you're arguing with,
however, since I haven't said anything like that.
If you were to describe to me what your view of a "real man" is, I'm 99%
certain I would agree with you! I can see that I really hit a sore spot
with you by bringing gender into the conversation, and I kind of regret even
bringing it up, since the bigger issue here is crazy idiots with guns, and
how to better predict and prevent this stuff from happening, regardless of
gender.
But riddle me this, Batman: how do you think the world, including yourself,
would be responding right now if this lunatic had been a woman?
Just curious.
S
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:46261e48$1@linux...
>
> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>Well Don, as is often is the case, you seem to be reading what I write,
> and
>>translating it into something entirely different.
>
> You said:
>
>>I think we need to seriously change the way we raise our male children.
>
>>"When we don't let boys cry tears, some will cry bullets." - William
>>Pollack
>
>
> And I am damn fed up with "men" taking the blame for the evil actions
> of an indivdual.
>
> You fail to notice that the crime rate is massively higher today, when
> many hold your view of men, than in a time when men decided what we
> are to be and what our values are. To me, we retain that, while adding
> in freedom, equality, and self-determination for women and you have a
> better world.
>
> As soon as some piece of sh*t does something evil and insane, somebody
> starts talking about testosterone and hardware rather than personal
> ethics and responsibility. Of course no one talks about estrogen and
> the need to raise women better when some sicko stabs her newborn
> 100 times. Nah, we whine about depression... Poor women... bad men!!
>
> Bull
>
> Perhaps we have to damned many crying men and not enough heroes.
>
> Just a thought...
>
> DC
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83375 is a reply to message #83360] |
Thu, 19 April 2007 07:30 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>OK, have it your way:
>
>Men are inherently evil.
>Women are inherently good.
>Testosterone is responsible for all the misery in the world.
>All men should be castrated at birth, except for a few designated breeders.
>
>There, now your arguments make sense. I'm not sure who you're arguing with,
>however, since I haven't said anything like that.
ArrggHHHHHH!
ANDREA DWORKIN HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE!!
Ok, excuse me a sec while I drive this stake in what passed for a heart
with her....
There, that's better...
My arguments make sense in the context of your points, not your
silly strawman above. The raising of boys plays no role in the issue
of crazy mass murderers. Surely you know this by now?
Allowing boys to cry? Please...
Face it, women don't have a clue how to be men. All those thousands of
years men tried to make women fit into their cartoon version of
themselves, and now women want men to do the same damned thing
back to us? Nah... No sale.
Here's what raising boys to be women's version of "men" has caused:
The highest divorce rate in history.
"Men" who feel no need to tell women the truth. Ever.
"Men's" actual respect for women is lower than ever.
The highest number of young men growing up without a father present.
The lowest percentage enrollment in higher ed by males in modern times.
there's much more...
Take a look:
http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Feminism/dp /0684849569
>But riddle me this, Batman: how do you think the world, including yourself,
>would be responding right now if this lunatic had been a woman?
The discussion would center on depression, and digging into her past
to look for abuse.
One of my great examples of successful men and women was an old
gunsmith and his wife who became good friends to me in the late 1970's.
He was in his 80's then and had been a cowboy and railroad guard as a
young man. What a kind, decent, pair they were. And, without talking
about it, without ideology, and without lowering anyone, they were
implicitly, and purely equal in each other's eyes. This was the case,
many more times than anyone talks about, in that generation of
westerners. It just seemed like the right thing to do, and so they
did it. Such respect and kindness. I hope someday that my marriage
lives up to their standard. Did he cry? I'll bet he did, but for damn
sure he did not do it in front of others to validate his sensitive-card...
He was too busy holding up the world around him to even think about
that. I miss him a lot.
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83378 is a reply to message #83375] |
Thu, 19 April 2007 08:12 |
gene lennon
Messages: 565
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I can’t argue with you anymore DC.
I can only imagine where I fall on your Manly-Man scale (Or 99% of all the
men I know for that matter.) Not only am I not a cowboy, I don’t even chew
tobacco.
But I can’t let some of these comments go without any response. So…
No comment.
Gene
PS I think I’ll go here for a good argument:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety .htm
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
>"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>OK, have it your way:
>>
>>Men are inherently evil.
>>Women are inherently good.
>>Testosterone is responsible for all the misery in the world.
>>All men should be castrated at birth, except for a few designated breeders.
>>
>>There, now your arguments make sense. I'm not sure who you're arguing
with,
>
>>however, since I haven't said anything like that.
>
>ArrggHHHHHH!
>
>ANDREA DWORKIN HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE!!
>
>Ok, excuse me a sec while I drive this stake in what passed for a heart
>with her....
>
>There, that's better...
>
>My arguments make sense in the context of your points, not your
>silly strawman above. The raising of boys plays no role in the issue
>of crazy mass murderers. Surely you know this by now?
>
>Allowing boys to cry? Please...
>
>Face it, women don't have a clue how to be men. All those thousands of
>years men tried to make women fit into their cartoon version of
>themselves, and now women want men to do the same damned thing
>back to us? Nah... No sale.
>
>Here's what raising boys to be women's version of "men" has caused:
>The highest divorce rate in history.
>"Men" who feel no need to tell women the truth. Ever.
>"Men's" actual respect for women is lower than ever.
>The highest number of young men growing up without a father present.
>The lowest percentage enrollment in higher ed by males in modern times.
>
>there's much more...
>
>Take a look:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Feminism/dp /0684849569
>
>
>>But riddle me this, Batman: how do you think the world, including yourself,
>
>>would be responding right now if this lunatic had been a woman?
>
>The discussion would center on depression, and digging into her past
>to look for abuse.
>
>One of my great examples of successful men and women was an old
>gunsmith and his wife who became good friends to me in the late 1970's.
>He was in his 80's then and had been a cowboy and railroad guard as a
>young man. What a kind, decent, pair they were. And, without talking
>about it, without ideology, and without lowering anyone, they were
>implicitly, and purely equal in each other's eyes. This was the case,
>many more times than anyone talks about, in that generation of
>westerners. It just seemed like the right thing to do, and so they
>did it. Such respect and kindness. I hope someday that my marriage
>lives up to their standard. Did he cry? I'll bet he did, but for damn
>sure he did not do it in front of others to validate his sensitive-card...
>He was too busy holding up the world around him to even think about
>that. I miss him a lot.
>
>DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83381 is a reply to message #83378] |
Thu, 19 April 2007 08:41 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Gene,
Give me a break with your Manly-Man jive ok?
Holy cow what intolerant people liberals can be...
Sad really...
DC
"Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>I can’t argue with you anymore DC.
>
>I can only imagine where I fall on your Manly-Man scale (Or 99% of all the
>men I know for that matter.) Not only am I not a cowboy, I don’t even chew
>tobacco.
>
>But I can’t let some of these comments go without any response. So…
>
>No comment.
>
>Gene
>
>PS I think I’ll go here for a good argument:
> http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety .htm
>
>
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>OK, have it your way:
>>>
>>>Men are inherently evil.
>>>Women are inherently good.
>>>Testosterone is responsible for all the misery in the world.
>>>All men should be castrated at birth, except for a few designated breeders.
>>>
>>>There, now your arguments make sense. I'm not sure who you're arguing
>with,
>>
>>>however, since I haven't said anything like that.
>>
>>ArrggHHHHHH!
>>
>>ANDREA DWORKIN HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE!!
>>
>>Ok, excuse me a sec while I drive this stake in what passed for a heart
>>with her....
>>
>>There, that's better...
>>
>>My arguments make sense in the context of your points, not your
>>silly strawman above. The raising of boys plays no role in the issue
>>of crazy mass murderers. Surely you know this by now?
>>
>>Allowing boys to cry? Please...
>>
>>Face it, women don't have a clue how to be men. All those thousands of
>>years men tried to make women fit into their cartoon version of
>>themselves, and now women want men to do the same damned thing
>>back to us? Nah... No sale.
>>
>>Here's what raising boys to be women's version of "men" has caused:
>>The highest divorce rate in history.
>>"Men" who feel no need to tell women the truth. Ever.
>>"Men's" actual respect for women is lower than ever.
>>The highest number of young men growing up without a father present.
>>The lowest percentage enrollment in higher ed by males in modern times.
>>
>>there's much more...
>>
>>Take a look:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Feminism/dp /0684849569
>>
>>
>>>But riddle me this, Batman: how do you think the world, including yourself,
>>
>>>would be responding right now if this lunatic had been a woman?
>>
>>The discussion would center on depression, and digging into her past
>>to look for abuse.
>>
>>One of my great examples of successful men and women was an old
>>gunsmith and his wife who became good friends to me in the late 1970's.
>>He was in his 80's then and had been a cowboy and railroad guard as a
>>young man. What a kind, decent, pair they were. And, without talking
>>about it, without ideology, and without lowering anyone, they were
>>implicitly, and purely equal in each other's eyes. This was the case,
>>many more times than anyone talks about, in that generation of
>>westerners. It just seemed like the right thing to do, and so they
>>did it. Such respect and kindness. I hope someday that my marriage
>>lives up to their standard. Did he cry? I'll bet he did, but for damn
>>sure he did not do it in front of others to validate his sensitive-card...
>>He was too busy holding up the world around him to even think about
>>that. I miss him a lot.
>>
>>DC
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83389 is a reply to message #83388] |
Thu, 19 April 2007 09:24 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"erlilo" <erlingl@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:
>What's the problem Don? I only asked you a question that you didn't answered
>at all;-)
>But never mind, I'm being too old to argue like a offended teenager;-)
>
>erlilo, just curious why there isn't a more serious and respectable answer
>from the cowboyside of our planet;-)
Because, instead of a serious a respectable question, you asked this:
>>>Don, in respect for you as a bombastic writer and the man you are, but
>>>with
>>
>>>all you have written here about women in the lasts, do you ever believe
>> you
>>>can live up to be respected that standard way from now and 'till you'll
>> be
>>>80?-)
We have a saying in english. Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.
Or in your case, ask a loaded and clearly prejudiced question, and get a
sarcastic answer.
Fair enough, no?
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83391 is a reply to message #83390] |
Thu, 19 April 2007 09:40 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>So personal attacks aside, I may choose to post something like.
>"No Comment."
>If that makes you sad, so be it.
>Gene
That's the problem... You did NOT post "no comment", you included
"no comment" in the context of snide "chewing tobacco", "manly-man",
and "flat earth" references.
Guys, we can accept that others see the world differently, and hang out
anyway, or we can fight. We cannot be smartasses and then claim to
be "tolerant". It's bullshit, and you can do better.
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83395 is a reply to message #83389] |
Thu, 19 April 2007 10:22 |
erlilo
Messages: 405
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
He, he, I can see you're fired up as the cowboy youre trying to be;-) I knew
it, if you had a gun, you would try to do shooting before thinking, like
you're allways trying to shoot people down with words here when something is
burning on;-) Relax man, take a deep breath, most of the cowboys are dying
young and hard. As I can see, Hollywood have documented it very well up
against the years;-)
erlilo
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> skrev i en meddelelse news:462797c8$1@linux...
>
> "erlilo" <erlingl@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:
>>What's the problem Don? I only asked you a question that you didn't
>>answered
>
>>at all;-)
>>But never mind, I'm being too old to argue like a offended teenager;-)
>>
>>erlilo, just curious why there isn't a more serious and respectable answer
>
>>from the cowboyside of our planet;-)
>
> Because, instead of a serious a respectable question, you asked this:
>
>>>>Don, in respect for you as a bombastic writer and the man you are, but
>
>>>>with
>>>
>>>>all you have written here about women in the lasts, do you ever believe
>>> you
>>>>can live up to be respected that standard way from now and 'till you'll
>>> be
>>>>80?-)
>
>
> We have a saying in english. Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.
>
> Or in your case, ask a loaded and clearly prejudiced question, and get a
> sarcastic answer.
>
> Fair enough, no?
>
> DC
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83397 is a reply to message #83381] |
Thu, 19 April 2007 10:52 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DC wrote:
> Hey Gene,
>
> Give me a break with your Manly-Man jive ok?
>
> Holy cow what intolerant people liberals can be...
>
> Sad really...
Doesn't it seem a bit intolerant to generalize about an entire perceived
group of people when you're really just talking to one person?
DC wrote:
> Think of the distaste I could imply with a couple of words like
> "no comment"
>
> Sad really.
Looky there, is that implying distaste with couple of words like "sad
really"??
Artful. (I've got it down to one word. ;^)
DC wrote:
> Guys, we can accept that others see the world differently, and hang out
> anyway, or we can fight. We cannot be smartasses and then claim to
> be "tolerant". It's bullshit, and you can do better.
We can all do better. And hanging out is great. Happy really.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>> I can’t argue with you anymore DC.
>>
>> I can only imagine where I fall on your Manly-Man scale (Or 99% of all the
>> men I know for that matter.) Not only am I not a cowboy, I don’t even chew
>> tobacco.
>>
>> But I can’t let some of these comments go without any response. So…
>>
>> No comment.
>>
>> Gene
>>
>> PS I think I’ll go here for a good argument:
>> http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety .htm
>>
>>
>>
>> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>> OK, have it your way:
>>>>
>>>> Men are inherently evil.
>>>> Women are inherently good.
>>>> Testosterone is responsible for all the misery in the world.
>>>> All men should be castrated at birth, except for a few designated breeders.
>>>>
>>>> There, now your arguments make sense. I'm not sure who you're arguing
>> with,
>>>> however, since I haven't said anything like that.
>>> ArrggHHHHHH!
>>>
>>> ANDREA DWORKIN HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE!!
>>>
>>> Ok, excuse me a sec while I drive this stake in what passed for a heart
>>> with her....
>>>
>>> There, that's better...
>>>
>>> My arguments make sense in the context of your points, not your
>>> silly strawman above. The raising of boys plays no role in the issue
>>> of crazy mass murderers. Surely you know this by now?
>>>
>>> Allowing boys to cry? Please...
>>>
>>> Face it, women don't have a clue how to be men. All those thousands of
>>> years men tried to make women fit into their cartoon version of
>>> themselves, and now women want men to do the same damned thing
>>> back to us? Nah... No sale.
>>>
>>> Here's what raising boys to be women's version of "men" has caused:
>>> The highest divorce rate in history.
>>> "Men" who feel no need to tell women the truth. Ever.
>>> "Men's" actual respect for women is lower than ever.
>>> The highest number of young men growing up without a father present.
>>> The lowest percentage enrollment in higher ed by males in modern times.
>>>
>>> there's much more...
>>>
>>> Take a look:
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Feminism/dp /0684849569
>>>
>>>
>>>> But riddle me this, Batman: how do you think the world, including yourself,
>>>> would be responding right now if this lunatic had been a woman?
>>> The discussion would center on depression, and digging into her past
>>> to look for abuse.
>>>
>>> One of my great examples of successful men and women was an old
>>> gunsmith and his wife who became good friends to me in the late 1970's.
>>> He was in his 80's then and had been a cowboy and railroad guard as a
>>> young man. What a kind, decent, pair they were. And, without talking
>>> about it, without ideology, and without lowering anyone, they were
>>> implicitly, and purely equal in each other's eyes. This was the case,
>>> many more times than anyone talks about, in that generation of
>>> westerners. It just seemed like the right thing to do, and so they
>>> did it. Such respect and kindness. I hope someday that my marriage
>>> lives up to their standard. Did he cry? I'll bet he did, but for damn
>>> sure he did not do it in front of others to validate his sensitive-card...
>>> He was too busy holding up the world around him to even think about
>>> that. I miss him a lot.
>>>
>>> DC
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83411 is a reply to message #83395] |
Thu, 19 April 2007 11:52 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks Erling. Excruciatingly clever as always...
DC
"erlilo" <erlingl@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:
>He, he, I can see you're fired up as the cowboy youre trying to be;-) I
knew
>it, if you had a gun, you would try to do shooting before thinking, like
>you're allways trying to shoot people down with words here when something
is
>burning on;-) Relax man, take a deep breath, most of the cowboys are dying
>young and hard. As I can see, Hollywood have documented it very well up
>against the years;-)
>
>erlilo
>
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> skrev i en meddelelse news:462797c8$1@linux...
>>
>> "erlilo" <erlingl@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:
>>>What's the problem Don? I only asked you a question that you didn't
>>>answered
>>
>>>at all;-)
>>>But never mind, I'm being too old to argue like a offended teenager;-)
>>>
>>>erlilo, just curious why there isn't a more serious and respectable answer
>>
>>>from the cowboyside of our planet;-)
>>
>> Because, instead of a serious a respectable question, you asked this:
>>
>>>>>Don, in respect for you as a bombastic writer and the man you are, but
>>
>>>>>with
>>>>
>>>>>all you have written here about women in the lasts, do you ever believe
>>>> you
>>>>>can live up to be respected that standard way from now and 'till you'll
>>>> be
>>>>>80?-)
>>
>>
>> We have a saying in english. Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.
>>
>> Or in your case, ask a loaded and clearly prejudiced question, and get
a
>> sarcastic answer.
>>
>> Fair enough, no?
>>
>> DC
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83416 is a reply to message #83411] |
Thu, 19 April 2007 12:41 |
erlilo
Messages: 405
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
No comments;-) ;-) ;-)
erlilo
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> skrev i en meddelelse news:4627ba7a$1@linux...
>
> Thanks Erling. Excruciatingly clever as always...
>
> DC
>
> "erlilo" <erlingl@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:
>>He, he, I can see you're fired up as the cowboy youre trying to be;-) I
> knew
>>it, if you had a gun, you would try to do shooting before thinking, like
>
>>you're allways trying to shoot people down with words here when something
> is
>>burning on;-) Relax man, take a deep breath, most of the cowboys are dying
>
>>young and hard. As I can see, Hollywood have documented it very well up
>
>>against the years;-)
>>
>>erlilo
>>
>>
>>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>>news:462797c8$1@linux...
>>>
>>> "erlilo" <erlingl@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:
>>>>What's the problem Don? I only asked you a question that you didn't
>>>>answered
>>>
>>>>at all;-)
>>>>But never mind, I'm being too old to argue like a offended teenager;-)
>>>>
>>>>erlilo, just curious why there isn't a more serious and respectable
>>>>answer
>>>
>>>>from the cowboyside of our planet;-)
>>>
>>> Because, instead of a serious a respectable question, you asked this:
>>>
>>>>>>Don, in respect for you as a bombastic writer and the man you are, but
>>>
>>>>>>with
>>>>>
>>>>>>all you have written here about women in the lasts, do you ever
>>>>>>believe
>>>>> you
>>>>>>can live up to be respected that standard way from now and 'till
>>>>>>you'll
>>>>> be
>>>>>>80?-)
>>>
>>>
>>> We have a saying in english. Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.
>>>
>>> Or in your case, ask a loaded and clearly prejudiced question, and get
> a
>>> sarcastic answer.
>>>
>>> Fair enough, no?
>>>
>>> DC
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My god!! [message #83444 is a reply to message #83375] |
Thu, 19 April 2007 23:08 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Holy crap. You are just going off like Yosemite Sam here because I said, "I
think we need to seriously change the way we raise our male children," and
you have no idea what kind of changes I'm even talking about. You just take
off on a rant about "women's idea of what a man should be" as though there
is some sort of established standard, assuming angrily that I am in
agreement with this undefined standard.
And then, to top it off, you refer me to a book that says essentially that
boys are in trouble and need to be raised differently!
From my post of 4/17/2007 1:58 AM: "Instead of thwarting their natural
aggression and energy, we should teach them to channel it into creative,
constructive activity."
From Christina Hoff Sommers' book The War Against Boys: "No one denies that
boys' aggressive tendencies must be checked and channeled in constructive
ways. Boys need discipline, respect, and moral guidance. Boys need love and
tolerant understanding."
Gosh, is it my imagination, or is there a similarity in those two
assertions?
Regarding "The raising of boys plays no role in the issue of crazy mass
murderers. Surely you know this by now?" . . . Are we talking about planet
Earth here? Third from the sun? Mostly water, kinda pretty? Are you
seriously going to deny that there are any cultural influences contributing
to school shootings, gang violence, gay bashings, the "going postal"
phenomenon, etc? Next you'll deny the relationship of childhood abuse to
violent behavior.
And what's with this huge button on "allowing boys to cry"? Jeez, get over
it. People cry. It's an emotional response. Doesn't make a man less
manly.
"No one denies that boys' aggressive tendencies must be checked and
channeled in constructive ways." Well, Christina, I know this one guy who
might deny that . . .
Sarah Dworkin
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Apr 27 12:53:59 PDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01645 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
