394 replies to this topic

[Romy]

Black males are over represented in a lot of crime which can be directly linked to poverty. However, mass shootings aren't linked to poverty and a lot of the perpetrators of mass shootings tend to be well off. I wonder what that means....

 

That if you're white and wealthy you're more likely to commit mass murder...?

[Sweeney]

I feel the need to make a baking a cake analogy. I love cake baking analogies.

[Mishelle]

That if you're white and wealthy you're more likely to commit mass murder...?

 

Please explain to me how you even got to that conclusion from what I posted.

[NapisaurusRex]

I feel the need to make a baking a cake analogy. I love cake baking analogies.

Just because you can read directions doesn't mean it'll turn out right.

[Romy]

The majority of mass shooters are white, male, and upper/middle class. Yes they have mental issues but these only compound their feelings of isolation rather than is the cause of what they do. Men are raised in a culture where they're made to feel like they can't express their emotions because expressing emotions is a feminine trait when it's not, it's a human trait. And when this just piles on top of each other they snap. It's hard to get men to even go to a doctor let alone go to a psychologist because we live in a society that tells men that they must be impervious to any kind of ailment or illness.

 

 

Black males are over represented in a lot of crime which can be directly linked to poverty. However, mass shootings aren't linked to poverty and a lot of the perpetrators of mass shootings tend to be well off. I wonder what that means....

 

o-o;;

[Mishelle]

o-o;;

 

After everything I just posted about hypermaculinities that wasnt read....smh

[Tetiel]

I think it's story time with Tet, now.

 

I had been friends with a guy for almost a year. I knew he had a crush on me, but he controlled himself because I was in a serious relationship. When that ended, even though I was grieving over not only a miscarriage, but also losing the baby's father, he readily started to pursue me only two or three weeks after it happened. I was in no shape to date anybody at all. I was still losing weight rapidly because I was so distressed that I couldn't eat. He knew this, yet he insisted that he'd make me happy. He said that we had so much in common. He said that he had high standards in women and I met all of them. He said that he deserved me. When I told him that I was sorry, I just wasn't attracted to him, he insisted that it was just because I had met him while I was dating this other guy. He said my mindset was still that he was a friend only. He said that anybody can love someone if they try hard enough.

 

I shut him down and I shut him down, but it was never enough. He was a good friend. I didn't want to lose him, too. I hung out with him one night and he tried to grope me in a public place. I blew it off because he was tipsy, but I did call him on it. I went for a walk with him once he sobered up and he still pursued me, demanded to know my mindset. He acted like there was something wrong with him or something wrong with me because I wasn't attracted to him. It ended up with me breaking down in tears because he was causing me so much pain on top of everything else I was going through and I rarely ever cry in front of anybody.

 

He felt obligated to have me. He acted like I didn't know what I want in a man, that he knew better what was inside my heart than I did. He did not. I lost a good friend to the idea that one person can claim another. You can't force feelings. You give your heart to someone else, they can't take it, no matter how hard they try.

 

Tonight, months later, he sent me an apology. He said because of recent events in the news, he recognized that he was the problem and he will never forgive himself for it. I don't care what your opinion on this whole #yesallwomen thing is. I'm not even sure how I feel about it. But I'm telling you that good came out of it. This conversation on obligation helped a man recognize how much of a shitty person he was being. That he tried to violate me when I was at my most vulnerable. That he tried to take advantage of me when I needed my friend the most. This dialogue made a man change for the better and therefore, no matter how this started, it is good and obviously something which is needed.

[Magical]

I think it's story time with Tet, now.

 

I had been friends with a guy for almost a year. I knew he had a crush on me, but he controlled himself because I was in a serious relationship. When that ended, even though I was grieving over not only a miscarriage, but also losing the baby's father, he readily started to pursue me only two or three weeks after it happened. I was in no shape to date anybody at all. I was still losing weight rapidly because I was so distressed that I couldn't eat. He knew this, yet he insisted that he'd make me happy. He said that we had so much in common. He said that he had high standards in women and I met all of them. He said that he deserved me. When I told him that I was sorry, I just wasn't attracted to him, he insisted that it was just because I had met him while I was dating this other guy. He said my mindset was still that he was a friend only. He said that anybody can love someone if they try hard enough.

 

I shut him down and I shut him down, but it was never enough. He was a good friend. I didn't want to lose him, too. I hung out with him one night and he tried to grope me in a public place. I blew it off because he was tipsy, but I did call him on it. I went for a walk with him once he sobered up and he still pursued me, demanded to know my mindset. He acted like there was something wrong with him or something wrong with me because I wasn't attracted to him. It ended up with me breaking down in tears because he was causing me so much pain on top of everything else I was going through and I rarely ever cry in front of anybody.

 

He felt obligated to have me. He acted like I didn't know what I want in a man, that he knew better what was inside my heart than I did. He did not. I lost a good friend to the idea that one person can claim another. You can't force feelings. You give your heart to someone else, they can't take it, no matter how hard they try.

 

Tonight, months later, he sent me an apology. He said because of recent events in the news, he recognized that he was the problem and he will never forgive himself for it. I don't care what your opinion on this whole #yesallwomen thing is. I'm not even sure how I feel about it. But I'm telling you that good came out of it. This conversation on obligation helped a man recognize how much of a shitty person he was being. That he tried to violate me when I was at my most vulnerable. That he tried to take advantage of me when I needed my friend the most. This dialogue made a man change for the better and therefore, no matter how this started, it is good and obviously something which is needed.

 

That's absolutely beautiful Tet. I'm really touched by this - it shows that anyone can be brought back down to earth, even men. It's wonderful, and I'm sincerely glad something good came out of this for you. *hug*

[Mishelle]

California is proposing a bill that allows a person or law enforcement to petition to the courts to put a gun restraining order on a person if they believe them to be a danger to themselves or others. The judge will decide within 7 days and the restraining order will block a person from being able to purchase a gun and confiscates any weapons they already own. It's most likely going to pass because our legislature is majority Democrat. 

[Pamplemousse]

Crazy idea!!!!

How about instead of  "not ALL men!!!" 

y'all actually take the time and effort to shit on your dudebros for even being a part of what people have to talk about on #yesallwomen

 

or do you only care enough to defend yourself and, you know, not care about women as human beings and see how it's all extremely relevant and realize that maybe, JUST maybe, it ISN'T ABOUT YOU? 

[Dan]

Crazy idea!!!!

How about instead of  "not ALL men!!!" 

y'all actually take the time and effort to shit on your dudebros for even being a part of what people have to talk about on #yesallwomen

 

or do you only care enough to defend yourself and, you know, not care about women as human beings and see how it's all extremely relevant and realize that maybe, JUST maybe, it ISN'T ABOUT YOU? 

 

Thanks for your valuable contribution

[Pamplemousse]

 

Thanks for your valuable contribution

 

Not too surprised since you've made a few efforts to denounce the fact that this had anything to do with misogyny. 

[Hawk]

California is proposing a bill that allows a person or law enforcement to petition to the courts to put a gun restraining order on a person if they believe them to be a danger to themselves or others. The judge will decide within 7 days and the restraining order will block a person from being able to purchase a gun and confiscates any weapons they already own. It's most likely going to pass because our legislature is majority Democrat. 

I love overreactions to really random events like this.  Throw a fun name on it like we did with the Patriot Act and call it a day.

 

That's also a gross violation of citizen's rights.  Here's a quoted portion of the bill, and the points I wish to address.

 

 

 

18102.  (a) The magistrate, before issuing the gun violence restraining order, may examine on oath, the person seeking the order and any witnesses the person produces, and shall take his or her affidavit or affidavits in writing, and cause the affidavit or affidavits to be subscribed by the parties making them.

(b) In determining whether grounds for a gun violence restraining order exist, the magistrate shall consider all of the following:

(1) A recent threat or act of violence by the named person directed toward others.

(2) A recent threat or act of violence by the named person directed toward himself or herself.

© In determining whether grounds for a gun violence restraining order exist, the magistrate may consider any of the following:

(2) The history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force by the named person against other persons.

(6) Evidence of recent or ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the named person.

(7) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms or other deadly weapons.

A)  A vengeful individual can claim someone is threatening him, all it takes is a few friends or witnesses to back them up, and somebody's 2nd Amendment right is about to be denied.

B1)  No timetable on 'recent', and what is the threshold for something to be considered a threat? 

B2)  Ever have a rough day and say anything along the lines of "I'm going to kill myself"?  Goodbye 2nd Amendment right.

C2)  What is the criteria?  Someone who got in a bar fight a decade ago now cannot own a gun?

C6)  Where is the line drawn with alcohol abuse?  If it's drawn as DSM-IV suggests, I'm fine with that.

C7)  How dare you be interested in guns?  As a result of your interest, we shall repossess them all.  Thank you for legally purchasing guns in a trackable manner!  Goodbye 2nd Amendment right.

 

Fuck it, why doesn't some state try and deny people their 19th Amendment right for similar causes?  Why don't we torture citizens until they narc on themselves, because fuck the 5th Amendment.

[Dan]

Not too surprised since you've made a few efforts to denounce the fact that this had anything to do with misogyny. 

 

Your earlier post reads like an angsty sarcastic teenager and doesn't add a single thing to either side of the argument - you were just whining, and personally I think it's very cheap and obvious.

 

I'd be glad to read a well-thought out and reasoned post by you, but I have a feeling you'll be keeping us all waiting for a while yet.

[Mishelle]

I love overreactions to really random events like this.  Throw a fun name on it like we did with the Patriot Act and call it a day.

 

That's also a gross violation of citizen's rights.  Here's a quoted portion of the bill, and the points I wish to address.

 

A)  A vengeful individual can claim someone is threatening him, all it takes is a few friends or witnesses to back them up, and somebody's 2nd Amendment right is about to be denied.

B1)  No timetable on 'recent', and what is the threshold for something to be considered a threat? 

B2)  Ever have a rough day and say anything along the lines of "I'm going to kill myself"?  Goodbye 2nd Amendment right.

C2)  What is the criteria?  Someone who got in a bar fight a decade ago now cannot own a gun?

C6)  Where is the line drawn with alcohol abuse?  If it's drawn as DSM-IV suggests, I'm fine with that.

C7)  How dare you be interested in guns?  As a result of your interest, we shall repossess them all.  Thank you for legally purchasing guns in a trackable manner!  Goodbye 2nd Amendment right.

 

Fuck it, why doesn't some state try and deny people their 19th Amendment right for similar causes?  Why don't we torture citizens until they narc on themselves, because fuck the 5th Amendment.

 

 

I care more about my right to live than the right for a psychopath to own a gun. Not sorry. 

Yeah and screaming #notallmen for pages isn't whinging and adds LOADS to the debate. Y'all need to have a seat. 

[Frizzle]

California is proposing a bill that allows a person or law enforcement to petition to the courts to put a gun restraining order on a person if they believe them to be a danger to themselves or others. The judge will decide within 7 days and the restraining order will block a person from being able to purchase a gun and confiscates any weapons they already own. It's most likely going to pass because our legislature is majority Democrat.

How the fuck is that not law already? Whilst gun rights are a civil liberty, they are still a privilege.

[Mishelle]

How the fuck is that not law already? Whilst gun rights are a civil liberty, they are still a privilege.

 

People talk about California as if we have the strictest gun laws in the country when in reality our gun laws aren't that strict. Anyone who even suggests some common sense gun reforms gets called a nazi who hates all rights and wants to take all guns away it's insanity.

[Hawk]

I care more about my right to live than the right for a psychopath to own a gun. Not sorry. 

Yeah and screaming #notallmen for pages isn't whinging and adds LOADS to the debate. Y'all need to have a seat. 

 

I'm with you on that.  The problem, however, is that anyone can initiate the process to disarm another individual for any reason they wish.  Any "He said/She said" situation could lead to a huge step over a right granted to citizens by the 2nd Amendment.

 

Odd, I haven't seen myself post anything like that at all.  For the most part, I've been bringing actual sources into all posts and attempting to debate most issues.

 

 

How the fuck is that not law already? Whilst gun rights are a civil liberty, they are still a privilege.

It is a law.  

 

 

There are nine categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms under the Gun Control Act:

• Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
• Fugitives from justice;
• Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
• Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;
• Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
• Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
• Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
• Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
• Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

[Mishelle]

Anyone can bring the case but if they don't have proof then that case isn't going to go anywhere since it's mandated that they must go through a full trial and have the decision made by a judge. 

[Frizzle]

It is a law.

Well it's not otherwise there wouldn't be a bill in place to make it law.

Plus your quote makes no mention of police making an application to the courts to seize said persons armoury.

[Dan]

I care more about my right to live than the right for a psychopath to own a gun. Not sorry. 

Yeah and screaming #notallmen for pages isn't whinging and adds LOADS to the debate. Y'all need to have a seat. 

 

Are you serious? The longer this thread goes on the more foolish you look Mishelle.

 

You can harp on and on about latest word you learned in Women's Studies last week, but you're still trying to push a square shape into the triangular hole. At the end of the day, women are mostly equal in my country, your country and generally most western countries. 

 

Every rational person on this planet agrees with the following:

• Sexual assault (including any form of non-consensual sexual contact) is something that neither sex should have to endure, however it does happen and we have to try and mitigate that the only way we can - by both providing victims with the support and care that they need and teaching both sexes about the dangers of the inevitably existent criminals in our society
• All people should have equal rights and equal opportunities, and we should work toward educating people and achieving this

 

There are many factors within society today that are not perfect, and I encourage you and everybody else with a voice to explore the possibilities in which we can fix it and move forward. We wouldn't be where we are today without people doing that.

 

However, you need to realise that people will not take you or your opinions seriously if it appears that you're not actually trying to help.

 

If your mission in life is to stop people sexually assaulting each other, or to improve the system to provide equal rights for everyone then please voice this in a manner that doesn't make it look like you're targeting a certain sex, color, gender. If you truly want to end sexual assault then we need to recognise that these criminals exist in both genders, and we should fighting the core issue and not sparking what ends up looking like an attack on anyone. We need both sexes to work together if we're going to solve these issues.

[Hawk]

Anyone can bring the case but if they don't have proof then that case isn't going to go anywhere since it's mandated that they must go through a full trial and have the decision made by a judge. 

No, it takes a sworn affidavit.  No trial required.  

Well it's not otherwise there wouldn't be a bill in place to make it law.

Plus your quote makes no mention of police making an application to the courts to seize said persons armoury.

Valid point.  It's only to prevent selling to individuals in those groups.

[Bone]

If your mission in life is to stop people sexually assaulting each other, or to improve the system to provide equal rights for everyone then please voice this in a manner that doesn't make it look like you're targeting a certain sex, color, gender. If you truly want to end sexual assault then we need to recognise that these criminals exist in both genders, and we should fighting the core issue and not sparking what ends up looking like an attack on anyone. We need both sexes to work together if we're going to solve these issues.

 

Alternatively, we can address the realities of the demographics of rape and focus on supporting the most vulnerable people, even if it comes at the expense of bruising some egos. I'd rather see an actual improvement than go out of my way to ensure no one's feelings are hurt.

 

Anyways, there are plenty of men who are fully engaged in combating rape culture and supporting victims (male and female) without feeling personally attacked or the need to cry "not all men!". 

[Futurama]

Your earlier post reads like an angsty sarcastic teenager and doesn't add a single thing to either side of the argument - you were just whining, and personally I think it's very cheap and obvious.

 

I'd be glad to read a well-thought out and reasoned post by you, but I have a feeling you'll be keeping us all waiting for a while yet.

 

 

 

God damn.

 

 

 

 

-edit-

 

This should be moved to the debate thread, cause this has turned into a massive debate.

Edited by Futurama, 29 May 2014 - 04:59 PM.