No, I'll do as I please.

Your reading of this, or interacting with me is your choice. If I'm pestering you, then you're equally pestering me.

That I am any of the things you've listed is only because you fail to comprehend anything outside of your extremely narrow world view.

You wrote "This conversation is over."

Looks like you were wrong. It'll only be over for you when you stop. Remember, my actions don't dictate whether you continue or not.

It seems to me you want the last word.

Go on then. Eat your heart out.

Yeah, I found it on urban dictionary....as I said, it's not English.
So, not only are you incredibly poor at comprehension, you're a complete douchebag....but no, I'm not unjustified, nor does it matter that you posted my private reply to you, I stand behind every word. It only goes to show you are the kind of asshole that posts private comments publicly if you think it helps you be an asshole.
EDIT: What you also failed to comprehend was I posted privately to indicate that I wasn't trying to publicly shame or lambast you for misreading....clearly the sentiment was not mutual, although you failed miserably in the attempt to shame me.
thank you come again....actually don't, I'm done with you're 12 year old girl bullshit. Fuck off, douchebag.
Smell you later, forever.

Laughable. First you quote from a site that anyone would recognize as 100% pushing it's own agenda, then you fail to see that the site you are referencing is happy to toss terms like apex predator around. The very definition of Apex Predator is a predator at the top of a food chain.

If you bothered to learn anything other than regurgitate information that is basically dogma that they want you to spread, you could have easily clicked on one of the links at the bottom of the paper you reference, links that blow gaping holes into the 'science' that supports yours viewpoint.

Here is one: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/E796.long

The scientist used the same methodology and proved that in a REEF environment, Humans ARE apex predators. Why doesn't your dogmatic site list competitive theories? Does it not bother you that they are giving you information designed to influence others into following your beliefs without bothering to suggest counter-theories?

Personally, I consider both studies to be flawed, as we developed into an apex predator through use of tools. We trump other apex predators by either outsmarting them, using tools to defeat them (weapons,traps), or by changing their environment to suit ours (domestication, eradication).

For someone who is telling others to think outside the box, you have buried yourself IN the box on this issue. That's perfectly fine if you like it, but don't expect to not be called to task for it.

As far as morality goes, I know at least one of the two vegans here absolutely supports the development of new technological terrors (heh) that are designed to kill other humans. Since we are designing weapons to kill other humans, doesn't that go directly against the vegan outlook of do no harm to other sentient species for our own benefit? Eh, @transmorpher?

They didn't wait around for it to collapse? You fail at shooting video.

this is pretty high on the retarded scale.
and tagging this in the *education *philosophy and *learn channels is insulting to those who use their brains.

look man,i get that you disagree with socialism as an economic system,and you are perfectly within your rights to hold that opinion,but it is apparent that you have no clue what socialism is and continue to regurgitate the tired old tropes from the mcarthy era.

you,my friend,suffer from an incredibly bad case of doublethink.

you cannot on the one hand view taxes as theft and then turn around and support the military.which is a socialist institution and uses taxes to fund itself.

what you fail to realize is that this discussion goes back to the beginning of this country:what is the governments role.since the constitution was a brilliant document,and what made it brilliant was NOT simply the words written but the fact that our forefathers KNEW that they didnt know everything and they allowed for the constitution to be changed,as our society changed.

which is why we got rid of slavery,and allowed women to vote.we expanded the bill of rights to include blacks.

we did these things as a society.

we got rid of child labor and we decided that basic education was a fundamental right.

socialism is not a utopian philosphy.it is an economic philosophy and it can be just as abused as capitalism.the bank bailouts in 2007 was a socialist reaction,and one the majority of the american people disagreed with,but so was the interstate highways...which we DID agree upon.

so to title this "socialism explained" is pretty fucking stupid.

i already linked you an actual breakdown of american socialism,which appears you failed to read.so allow me to try again and i implore you.give it a read:
https://mises.org/blog/bernie-sanders-right-us-already-socialist-country

Actually, every single person in this has been in a fail video, I guarantee it.

You don't get to be good at something until you fail at it thousands of times.

eric posted already.
you fail siftbot.
*discard

Sweet Bastard Zombie Jesus!

You don't think well, and are 100% wrong about both my education and acquaintances, but you, on the other hand, do not seem to have either education or personal acquaintances to draw from on this subject. It seems some militant Feminist (they are not the only brand of Feminist, BTW) left a bad taste in your mouth, so now all feminism, to you, is distasteful. That's like eating a single spoilt sausage and from then on loudly telling people at dinner "meat is all tainted and it all makes you sick...you're just too dumb to know it", and continuing on that vein until they either (from exasperation) either stop eating it in your presence or find a way to ignore you, IMO, because attempting to rationally explain that some improperly handled meat is tainted, but not all, falls on deaf ears.

Dictionaries are where you look up the definitions of words, which is exactly what I did. Because you can't grasp the concept doesn't make it wrong.

Because your mind can't grasp the difference between the name of a movement based loosely on an idea and that idea does not mean there isn't one. Sorry, fail, just like your second paragraph in your last post which included many ANTI-feminist theories along with some overboard militant Feminist theories...I wonder if you can follow that thought since you don't grasp the difference in the words and claim there isn't one.

Equality is not advancement of one group at the expense of the other, it's the discontinuation of that process.

MY dictionary?!? Me thinks you protest too much. What's your issue with the English language (or language in general) that use of one of the main tools of language causes you such consternation and spawns such disrespectful and angry sounding replies? I honestly think you're just angry that I proved your argument's major flaw (that flaw being your inability to distinguish between a loose group's name and an idea...which makes one wonder, do you believe there were roaming gangs of large, dark colored cats protesting and attacking police in the US in the 60's and 70's?), but can't bring yourself to admit your argument had any flaw.

"Cultural fiction of gender"?!? Oh...I didn't realize I was having a discussion with a completely crazy person. If you actually believe gender is a "cultural fiction", there's no point discussing anything with you, because you live in a different reality from the rest of us that actually HAVE a gender, and not just culturally derived gender, and have ancestors that had gender before there was such a thing as "culture". What an insane statement, one that totally missed the point as well.

Spit on me, you'll find yourself in a bad place, and you'll find that many in favor of Women's rights are also in favor of removing ALL involuntary cultural distinctions of gender, a thing that has NOT been done by far, and you wish to stop any advancement towards equality of genders while one side is SO far ahead based solely on their GENDER. (damn, that word again describing a thing that doesn't exist...you must hate that, huh?)

Yes, if you fail to even conceive that, unfairly, there is a gender split in society that 99% of the time favors one gender to the detriment of the other, you by default fall into that opposing force, opposing fairness and equality, and individualism. No question. It's sad to me that you can't see that.

I'll ignore your last 2 paragraphs, I'm not speaking for @bareboards2, she's perfectly capable of speaking for herself, but has intelligently decided that further discussion with you on this subject is pointless...and I see she's likely right, you just want to argue about it, as made clear by your never ending arguments spawning from a simple clarification of what 2 words (spelled the same, but one being a proper name, the other an idea) actually mean...according to THE dictionary, and your insistence that the dictionary is wrong because it doesn't support your position that feminism and Feminism are the same thing. BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAA!! That's too funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Enjoy exploring that hypothesis further, but without my further input. My points are made, some repeatedly.

You fail at subtlety of humor.

You fail internet class.

Congratulations, you've managed to recognise an obviously tongue-in-cheek comment by applying basic reading skills. Oh no, wait... you didn't.

You want credible sources?

Here ya go:
correlation of gun ownership with suicide and homocide
How right-to-carry impacts the crime rate (hint: it's not good)

Understand, I don't want to ban guns. I have friends who hunt and shoot a lot, (I've done it myself a few times and quite frankly, shooting is fun).

The problem is that it's simply way too easy to get a gun in the US. You know why you have "armed thugs" breaking into your house? BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS A FUCKING GUN. In other 1st world countries, most break-ins are unarmed, because as Jim said, most people just want your TV.

Now, it may be that the ship has sailed in the U.S. because you failed to do anything about this for so long. But it would absolutely make sense to make it just a bit more difficult for anyone to have access to a gun.

I'll only deal with point #1....
When she says "Here is a very small sample of the harassment I deal with for daring to criticize sexism in video games. Keep in mind that all this is in response to my Kickstarter project for a video series called Tropes vs. Women in Video Games (which I have not even made yet)." she is clearly NOT saying the comments she expects are BECAUSE of the kickstarter campaign, she says they are EVEN posted on the kickstarter campaign, because these people want to post their hatred anywhere they think she (and her supporters) might read it, and they completely ignore where they're posting the hatred and threats, even posting them on kickstarter pages that have little or nothing to do with what they whine about.
When she started her kickstarter campaign, yes, she knew full well what type of angry posts would show up if she left comments open, and not surprisingly she was proven to be 100% right. She did not say they were BECAUSE of the kickstarter campaign as you falsely claim.

The fact that Sarkesian haters must consistently make angry, easily proven false claims (or impossible to prove negative claims) about her makes one think they know they have no leg to stand on when denouncing and degrading her, and so they need to make up strawmen to rally against. Because you failed completely on point #1, I didn't read farther, so even if you might have had a valid point to make, it was completely lost in the morass of falsehoods and misrepresentations.

Calling people bigots when you have no clue only indicates the depth of your unfortunate, unnecessary and willful ignorance.

The law in Indiana is meant to keep gay people from suing those who refuse to participate in their ceremonies. The point of my comment, which you fail to comprehend, is that it also protects you from lunatics like those from the WBC.

But good job with that chaos-spreading.

@GenjiKilpatrick

First, don't be a smarmy dick and try to tell me what to do, you aren't my parent.

Second, please learn how to read carefully, then actually READ before replying.

This ^ is ANOTHER comment off topic. THE TOPIC IS HER POSITION ON SEX WORKERS, AND YOUR INABILITY TO PROVE WHAT THAT POSITION IS.

Please learn how to stick with one argument and not move on to another, then another, then another when you can't back up your first. That's what you've done, you made a specific claim, I asked you for proof, you gave 'proof' that she's a bad person (which no one ever denied)...but not about your claim. EVER. STILL.

GET IT?!?! ONE ARGUEMENT/TOPIC. STICK TO IT AND ANSWER IT.

If you are going to make specific claims about her position(s) PROVE IT or stop saying it...at least to me.

You completely failed to provide a single piece of evidence about what you said about her sex worker stance...still. All you've ever provided is numerous non-sequitur videos and articles that did NOT address your claim.

YOU HAVE NEVER BACKED UP YOUR CLAIM about her hating sex workers with evidence. Other people's opinion is not evidence of hers, and that's all you've given. Not a single quote or video of HER backing you up. It must not exist, since you've spent hours trying to convince me, if you had a video or article where she clearly attacks sex workers, you would have provided it. Instead you've wasted hours of my time with links that had nothing to do with our topic.


Either learn to stick to the topic you start with, or leave me alone. I can't stand peoole who agrue like you, making a claim, claiming you can prove it, then providing nothing but time wasting, non-sequitur, off topic pieces showing how bad a person she is....when that's completely not the topic, then angrily attacking the listener because you failed to convince them.

I have NEVER supported Sarkeesian. Requireing proof of something NEW about her that's illogical is not "supporting her". Seeing that you've provided ZERO proof of your claim is not " supporting her" or "closing my mind due to bias"...it's a complete failure of you to provide a single word of EVIDENCE of your claim.

Change your tactic, or join lantern and trancecoach on ignore, because you are being completely ridiculous.

You don't convince me the sky is green by sending articles and videos about your pond. You won't convince me she hates sex workers by sending articles and videos about her terrible work as a 'feminist gamer' that has nothing to do with your claim.

Do I need to say it 7 more times, because I've said the same thing over and over and over and over...but you still act like I just ignored your evidence....but YOU DON"T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE ON THE TOPIC WE'RE ON.

STAY ON TOPIC.STAY ON TOPIC.STAY ON TOPIC.STAY ON TOPIC.STAY ON TOPIC.STAY ON TOPIC.STAY ON TOPIC.