Thanks. Him equating the hags with feminists completely fell under my radar. :-)

Edit: To clarify: I agree with all you said.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.

For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.

Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.

For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.

Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

Really? Why should mutilation be punished more severely than, say, murder? Just because it's a dick? Would your reaction be the same if she had cut of his nose, or hand, or foot?

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Bitch ought to be in there for life. Hell, it's only about 40 years. That man is severely disfigured and will be so when he dies.>> ^shagen454:
Prison for life? Sometimes it really seems like our government and lawmakers are only looking out for dicks.

Sorry to offend you. Just saying what I think.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

@bareboards2 It's annoyingly hypocritical to have you finish off your comment with "Not that this is a gender contest in who is worse to whom...." after you put three gender oriented arguments out there.
I'd say that it's near impossible to fairly compare one kind of suffering to another as a justification for anything close to this. For example, which is worse? Cutting off a man's penis, or female circumcision? It's pretty pointless to compare (and again annoying to have to read followed by a "Dont worry about what I just wrote, this isn't a contest! ) but one thing we can agree on is it's wrong to mutilate/disfigure another human being.

@bareboards2 It's annoyingly hypocritical to have you finish off your comment with "Not that this is a gender contest in who is worse to whom...." after you put three gender oriented arguments out there.

I'd say that it's near impossible to fairly compare one kind of suffering to another as a justification for anything close to this. For example, which is worse? Cutting off a man's penis, or female circumcision? It's pretty pointless to compare (and again annoying to have to read followed by a "Dont worry about what I just wrote, this isn't a contest! ) but one thing we can agree on is it's wrong to mutilate/disfigure another human being.

@bareboards2

Don't even get me started.

If you and SD wanna argue that science is just a tool that's fine.
It only shows your ignorance.

But it's funny cause you still rely on the group consensus of scientists to support your claims about religion. "It's biological human nature."

If you studied biology and neuroscience, you'd have an actual understanding of the shit you're always spoutin' about.

Instead you go off on some zen master "howlin' winds & walls" bullshit without understanding why the wind is so intense in the first place.
~~~

For example, circumcision is wrong. In the same way murder is.

Your rational mind will immediately identify that it's wrong to mutilate babies.

But you'll defend it because it comes packaged with religion.

Your hippie "multiculturalist" mind will identify the act of baby mutilation as part of "biological human nature". [Church sanctioned Genital Mutilation is just part of the inevitable all-natural wind, right? -_-]

"It's really great for all those parents who come out of the 'anti-genital mutilation closet' because after enough time & laws have passed, I'm sure there will be no more infant genital mutilation." [This is your wall. Your weak, takes centuries to build wall.]
~~~
If you really supported stuff like It Gets Better you'd realize that apologist [like you and SD] who place religion on a pedestal..

..contributes to the problems of those closeted gay and lesbian kids face you apparently want someone to help.

Yet you still continue to defend religion because of some "humans err, it's natural" bullshit.

It's a self defeating "solution" whether you're talking about governments or religions.
~~~

Which is brings us to the question of why you continue to use that reason/logic, Gale.

You're either disingenuous or stupid as fuck.

I'm going with the latter. Here is why:

Police brutality and ritualized genital mutilations are constructs of human cultural.

There is no need for either of them.

You Gale, are attempting to argue that both are inherent evils that have to be dealt with because there is no other way around them.

I've been shouting and flinging evidence at you for that last month or two to prove otherwise.

You're too old and set in your ways to think otherwise.

[Don't worry it happens to all of us to some extent.]

But for you to sit here and continue to say that -

"Yes certain things are awful but we need to put up with them cause there's no other way"

[WHEN THERE ARE CLEARLY MUCH BETTER WAYS.]

Is again, a worldview born from stupidity [ignorance about why things are that way] or insincerity
~~~
Kumquat? Yeah, it's okay. You were never listening in the first place.

[redacted]

Meh, he's simply making a charitable donation to our tireless sewage workers!

>> ^GDGD:

Title 18 United States Code, Section 333
Mutilation of national bank obligations
Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites
or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft,
note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking
association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System,
with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence
of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

I can also tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.>> ^westy:

>> ^GDGD:
Title 18 United States Code, Section 333
Mutilation of national bank obligations
Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites
or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft,
note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking
association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System,
with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence
of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Its ok I can tell by the pixels that it was a compute generated bank note.

>> ^GDGD:

Title 18 United States Code, Section 333
Mutilation of national bank obligations
Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites
or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft,
note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking
association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System,
with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence
of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than six months, or both.


Its ok I can tell by the pixels that it was a compute generated bank note.

Title 18 United States Code, Section 333

Mutilation of national bank obligations

Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites
or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft,
note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking
association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System,
with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence
of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

"Our definition of "snuff" does include (...) any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera."

also from the FAQ

"Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment)."


Sorry burd, but you're still wrong. The site has properly defined snuff, but you are extending its meaning to include gore, mutilation, corpses, post-mortem imagery, what-have-you. I agree this shouldn't be on the Sift, but first and foremost stand for the proper use of language used to enforce such rules. A change is required to the FAQ to eliminate any misinterpretation. Per Sarzy, it needs to be re-written.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Wait? So because Wong can't handle the big girl world of politics we make a fuss about this??? Booho,o he was sexist. And? That's real world when people get off the playground. You fight dirty, you use all the tools to crush the weak---it's probably how Wong got to where she got in politics. Dirty shit...
God forbid she live in Africa (Where women are raped and mutilated every day) or combat (Where their limits are tested) or even women's baseball (Where she could be hit by a ball...)

For shame.

Why? See the comment above to understand why I said what I said. If you still stand up for someone who sensationalizes in politics, then go for it. Also, if you can tell me that the male lawmaker isn't scum to everyone (Men and women) then that makes him sexist. Otherwise, it just makes him a "politician."


Show me a video of this (or any) politician meowing a male colleague, maybe then I'll reconsider said act as simple politician douchebaggery and not downright sexism.

Do tell. I am open to actually changing my points of view (I have done so since I was born on things like race, sexual orientation and such) but I must know reason.

In the cut throat world, I simply bring up "don't complain in the big boy/girl ring." If you do, then stay out of the ring.

Is the catcall right, mature, a positive? Of course not. It is fucking childish. But neither is half the shit thrown at Obama, or Bill Clinton or John McCain. Obama was basically accused of trying to teach really underage children sex. That, I would assume, is worse than a catcall.

Again, is it wrong of them to do so? Of course--and yet people are face palming this statement just because I attach the fact that politicans are scum, and expect this behavior, and stop complainig... I want to hear why.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^hpqp:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Wait? So because Wong can't handle the big girl world of politics we make a fuss about this??? Booho,o he was sexist. And? That's real world when people get off the playground. You fight dirty, you use all the tools to crush the weak---it's probably how Wong got to where she got in politics. Dirty shit...
God forbid she live in Africa (Where women are raped and mutilated every day) or combat (Where their limits are tested) or even women's baseball (Where she could be hit by a ball...)

For shame.

Why? See the comment above to understand why I said what I said. If you still stand up for someone who sensationalizes in politics, then go for it. Also, if you can tell me that the male lawmaker isn't scum to everyone (Men and women) then that makes him sexist. Otherwise, it just makes him a "politician."

raise palm to forehead, close eyes, sigh, lower head. Begin shaking head

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Wait? So because Wong can't handle the big girl world of politics we make a fuss about this??? Booho,o he was sexist. And? That's real world when people get off the playground. You fight dirty, you use all the tools to crush the weak---it's probably how Wong got to where she got in politics. Dirty shit...
God forbid she live in Africa (Where women are raped and mutilated every day) or combat (Where their limits are tested) or even women's baseball (Where she could be hit by a ball...)

For shame.

Why? See the comment above to understand why I said what I said. If you still stand up for someone who sensationalizes in politics, then go for it. Also, if you can tell me that the male lawmaker isn't scum to everyone (Men and women) then that makes him sexist. Otherwise, it just makes him a "politician."


*raise palm to forehead, close eyes, sigh, lower head. Begin shaking head*