Great gift for wife beaters too! Make that marriage work just a little bit longer.

Your video, Assemblage of Crooks, Weirdos, Wife Beaters - Steve Schmidt, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Rapist and wife beater is good at hitting people.

Great write-up here.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/the-three-hours-of-lemelons-the-annual-alberta-race-that-pits-300-beaters
-against-each-other

*quality amazing and bump the *music selection for this *actionpack while we're at it.

Your video, Destroyed By Giant Egg Beaters, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm trying to point out(and failing obviously lol): If we feel so bad for this poor dog, why do we turn a blind eye to farm animals that are mistreated and killed? They all feel pain and have emotional responses just the same.

We all like eating meat and butter, but is that worth the animals suffering and dying for it? (especially when there are some great alternatives. Nut butters, coconut butters, cashew spreads you name it, margarine at worst case) That's a decision for you to make. :-)

If a dog beater told you that "animals kill each other in nature all the time" would you accept that answer? Would that stop you from feeling bad for the dog?

When someone at the Yulin dog festival says "it's my tradition" or "I like the taste" do you accept that?

Then why do we make the same statements for cows? (don't worry, I remember yelling "lions tho" at vegans, so I'm not pointing fingers)

I just want to raise awareness about the horrors of animal agriculture and it's knock-on effects to the planet. And that we have a choice, and the power to change the world. We don't need to wait for governments or laws, we can make this change now, ourselves and there are no down sides, only wins.

It's just a matter of changing a few ingredients
https://www.forksoverknives.com/recipes/?recipe_type=wraps-and-burgers

OK, one last reply....
Um...no. They didn't do commentary pieces in the constitution. If it's in there, it's because it's important to understanding the law/right it's attached to.
OK, it's meaningless huh?...."[Because our countrymen having farmers tans and wearing wife beaters is an inalienable right, the] right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Not so meaningless now, is it? ;-)

Bi yearly training/testing was Hamilton's FAR LESS invasive and LESS time wasting idea to counter the idea of a "well regulated militia" which he saw as far too time consuming for the entire populace to live up to. HIS way of seeing it was that twice yearly proficiency and equipment testing was far LESS restrictive than what "well regulated militia" meant...because to live up to "well regulated militia" would require extensive training, and re-training constantly.

Not true, and that's why I posted the actual definition, rather than my personal feeling on what the word means. Then we can all start from the ACTUAL definition(s) rather than just making some up and arguing about it.

Your second paragraph/sentence makes no sense at all to me, and sounds like a disjointed red herring/straw man/bad attempt at creating a false argument you can shoot down....but it's so all over the place it's unfollowable.

You continue to confuse feminism with Feminism, and also continue to paint all Feminists in the worst possible light based on a few overboard examples rather than describing the normal, average Feminist.
For instance, many Feminists see pornography and prostitution as empowering and taking control of their own sexuality, and it was actually prudish anti-feminist men who tried to censor it in the courts.

In fact, there ARE many people in the civilized world who still think women don't deserve the same rights as men in many areas, and insist they are unable to perform tasks men can perform, must be coddled and subservient, and are lesser beings based purely on gender, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It's only because of this continuing misunderstanding on your part that you claim anyone said anything like "The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank... "...you are again confusing feminist with Feminist, and using the wrong one. We don't have Feminist advocacy to thank, we do however have feminist advocacy to thank for the advancements in women's rights...it's what the word means.


It doesn't sound at all like you 'appreciate the attempt at consensus building', or even understood my point, since you continue to conflate feminism with Feminism. I can't be certain, but it seems you are doing that intentionally in order to argue a moot point.



EDIT:sorry, I thought I quoted you @gorillaman, so I'll cut and paste....

gorillaman said:
Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

Surrender yourself to the whim of a gang of thugs, or suffer the whim of a gang of thugs. Interesting proposal considering they clearly don't care about adhering to the law.

I affectionately refer to this pathetic excuse-making as 'the wife-beater'. Cos if she doesn't want to get savagely beaten, she should just do what i said, right?

I'm with you on this one. I haven't been following it either. My whole take on this is, why does it fall on his employer to punish him and why isn't he in jail? I can understand his team and sponsors ditching him not wanting to be associated with a wife beater, but if it was just some burger flipper at McDonald's that nobody knew, would anyone be pressuring McDonald's to fire or suspend an employee for doing the same?

"...8th grader Easton Gamoke is enjoying fame like never before. He manages to hit an incredible full court buzzer beater to give his team the win. As if that's not enough, when local TV news shows up to interview him, he sinks the same shot for the second time - and a legend among his peers is born..."

He's just bitter and still living the fantasy from when he was substituted in for a Beater in the '94 World Cup Playoffs. He originally played Keeper for the Sumbawanga Sunrays, and has complained loudly and blamed their loss on his unconventional reassignment in lieu of his teammate Kenyatta Walker being injured the day before.

Depends on what you mean.
If you mean are the prisons some kind of sci-fi dystopia where the prisoners are left to fight it out, then no, it's not legal and the authorities took a pretty dim view of this commercial.

If you mean the ad itself, I can't find the details, but I seem to recall it was banned by the advertising standards people, which meant it was immediately shown on the news and thus seen by far more people anyway.

Personally, as much as beating the shit out of women beaters and rapists appeals to me on a gut level, I don't agree with the message.

Even if I doubt I'd shed many tears over them, prisoners (even scumbags) shouldn't live under the threat of violence.

That said, the ad succeeded brilliantly. It was just the right amount of controversy to put the topic of domestic abuse back in the spotlight, and frankly, that can only be a good thing.