Quick, get the patent lawyers on the phone!
-
@morbiuswilters said:
It's pretty easy to memorize the hypocrites' position. Just remember this easy rule: if treating people differently based on sex benefits women, it's
goodcatastrophic; if treating people differently based on sex benefits men, it isbadtraditional.FTFY.
The standard feminist position is that treating people differently based on sex is a stupid idea that hurts everybody, so we should just give it up. Morbs and the rest of his whining men's-rights manbaby fellow travelers will naturally never admit that this is so, preferring instead to cling tightly to their own petty little grievances and try to pin every perceived wrong they've ever suffered in their pathetic little lives on feminists in general and female feminists in particular. If they'd only man up and take positive action to improve the world instead, we'd all be better off; but you can't really expect that kind of enlightened self-interest from people so far down the propaganda rabbit hole as to believe that watching advertisements is the patriotic duty of every citizen.
-
@flabdablet said:
Morbs and the rest of his whining men's-rights manbaby fellow travelers will naturally never admit that this is so, preferring instead to cling tightly to their own petty little grievances and try to pin every perceived wrong they've ever suffered in their pathetic little lives on feminists in general and female feminists in particular.
Is there some other Morbs on this site? Do you ever get tired working so hard to be this dumb? Is there some sort of inversion of language that happens when this stuff crosses the equator?
-
@boomzilla said:
Is there some other Morbs on this site?
One morbs is quite enough any universe.
-
@flabdablet said:
The standard feminist position is that treating people differently based on sex is a stupid idea that hurts everybody, so we should just give it up.
Not from my experience. More like constant demands for special treatment.
remembers having to do all the physical loading and unloading of stock in a shop job because the women were too physically weak, but getting paid the same because of "equality"
Equality is fine and dandy, feminism rarely seems to be about that though.
-
@flabdablet said:
The standard feminist position is that treating people differently based on sex is a stupid idea that hurts everybody, so we should just give it up.
The 1940s called, they want your definition of "standard feminism" back. Today standard feminism has nothing to do with equality.
@flabdablet said:
How long have you been off your meds? Have the police been informed?
You do make a good point, though, even if you are too dumb to realize it. If women are treated the same as men, then a woman being beaten would only be as big a deal as a man being beaten. So either you think all those battered women are no big deal (relative to the rest of society's ills) or you are going to try to explain why you aren't a hypocrite and how deliberately meant to contradict yourself publicly.
The other interesting thing is that women were traditionally less battered than they are today. It would seem that modern feminism has actually resulted in more frequent battery. I would imagine drilling it into men's heads that women are "no different" has made some less-moral men see battery as No Big Deal.
-
@boomzilla said:
@flabdablet said:
Morbs and the rest of his whining men's-rights manbaby fellow travelers will naturally never admit that this is so, preferring instead to cling tightly to their own petty little grievances and try to pin every perceived wrong they've ever suffered in their pathetic little lives on feminists in general and female feminists in particular.
Is there some other Morbs on this site? Do you ever get tired working so hard to be this dumb? Is there some sort of inversion of language that happens when this stuff crosses the equator?
The funny thing is, I wouldn't consider myself a "men's rights" person any more than I would consider myself a feminist. I think women and men have both been pretty badly fucked-over by a modern attempt to disconnect sexual identity from any kind of social responsibility. One-hundred and fifty years ago, if some man had badly battered any woman I knew, they would never find his body. But that's because I believe men and women are different, that social roles should be constructed in such a way that women are protected from violence and in such a way that the unfortunate physical aggressiveness of men was blunted by social convention, obligation, responsibility to his family and, if that failed, death at the hands of other men.
I also recognize that people are not naturally monogamous and that marriage was construct of society which bound men and women in mutual obligation before the law, society and God. Instead, we've replaced that with a "hookup culture", where women are reduced solely to their sexual characteristics and a man's only responsibility is to pay for any children that need exterminating. Women are apparently liberated to be passed around like a dog-eared copy of Hustler. Parenthood--in particular motherhood--which should be a society's highest calling, has been systematically reduced to a mere inconvenience to be "cured" with abortion so that women can pursue their "careers" (as if sitting it a cubicle under a flickering fluorescent light for fifty hours a week--doing a job they hate so they can afford things they don't really need--is a higher, more noble calling than nurturing the bodies, minds and spirits of the next generation) and men can go back to playing X-Box.
Meanwhile, boys are treated like criminals if they make finger-guns, they're forced onto drugs and into an abusive mental health system which is merely designed to keep them labeled and subservient. Girls are told their role models should be women like Randi Zuckerberg, Wendy Davis and Michelle Obama, which is probably even crueler than what happens to boys. Men die in large numbers to suicide, substance abuse or crime.
In America, more men are raped than women, but damned if you'll hear about it. Instead, asking that the due process rights of male college students not be thrown out the window if a female student makes a claim of rape (and, yes, there are many false claims of rape made in this country every day) is proof of Rape Culture. (This one hits close to him as I had a crazy ex threaten me on several occasions by saying she was going to file a false rape report with the police.)
Oh, and we're told that joking about rape is evil. Do these same people never joke about death? But, of course, the point is not to be self-consistent. It's the fascistic impulse which says that individuals are only allowed to relate to the world in the ways they've been told to. Humor, which is one of mankind's greatest attributes, is reviled by the totalitarians. All humor is falsely derided as "disrespectful", while ignoring the very real function that humor plays in helping a sane mind relate to a brutal world without being consumed by pain. But if individuals were allowed to follow natural processes to relate to their world, then they would have no need for top-down-imposed ideology, which is meant to serve as a substitute for genuine human experience.
So, no, humor must go. You can't joke about anything bad, despite that being how people have dealt with the bad for as long as people have existed. Instead your relationship to the bad things in life must only exist within the strictly-proscribed limits of someone else's ideology.
-
@KillaCoda said:
@flabdablet said:
The standard feminist position is that treating people differently based on sex is a stupid idea that hurts everybody, so we should just give it up.
Not from my experience. More like constant demands for special treatment.
remembers having to do all the physical loading and unloading of stock in a shop job because the women were too physically weak, but getting paid the same because of "equality"
Equality is fine and dandy, feminism rarely seems to be about that though.I don't even mind being paid the same and doing all the physical work. But what is intolerable is then being told that we are still the same; that only some woman-hating monster would suggest that maybe men and women are different and, instead of engaging in ludicrous denial of that fact, our society should go back to recognizing, enshrining and even celebrating those differences.
What's even worse is when the radfems then go on to imply this is all my fault, as if I got together with the other "homo rapiens" (Google it) and conspired to make the Y chromosome imbue men with, in general, greater physical strength.
What's insane is that once-upon-a-time, it would have been nuts to suggest that women were somehow inferior because of this. Different? Sure. Less desirable for working in a coal mine? You betcha. But sane men did not say "Fuck women, they aren't worth anything because they can't lift heavy stuff." But modern feminists have sold women on this notion that they must be equal, when such equality is in fact impossible. So the difference in capabilities goes from being a product of nature with societies constructed to take that into account, to being an insult directed to women everywhere.
It's insane, of course, but modern feminists have more-or-less set the goalposts at "women should become identical to men". That's not possible, and it's not even a desirable goal, and that's why you get so much impotent bitching and crying when reality asserts itself.
-
@PJH said:
@morbiuswilters said:
It's pretty easy to memorize the hypocrites' position. Just remember this easy rule: if treating people differently based on
The template works with all forms of Affirmative Action/Positive Discrimination/Political Correctness/whatever it's being called this week.sexskin colo(u)r benefitswomenblacks, it's good; if treating people differently based onsexskin colo(u)r benefitsmenwhites, it is bad.
See also: Religion. Sexuality.It was a moment of immense pride in my country (something which is, sadly, becoming less and less common) when Chief Justice John Roberts recently stated that "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" with regard to affirmative action.
And, before someone starts bitching, no, I don't think racism is "gone"*. But treating racism like some hobgoblin we can hunt down and kill if we just throw enough meticulously-cultivated institutional racism at it is just mind-boggling in its hopeless stupidity. Racism will never go away, but the way a sane society deals with it is to be eternally vigilant in making the case against racism. As another eminent Chief Justice noted (paraphrasing), "the remedy for bad speech is more good speech, not enforced silence." And it's definitely not the establishment of a monolithic Ministry of Racial Grievances.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
And, before someone starts bitching, no, I don't think racism is "gone"*.
*Unless you are Donald Sterling and have no idea that the concept of racism exists.
-
Wow, three reasoned, articulate posts in a row from Morbs this evening. Quite a change from the frothing ad hominem earlier in the day. Of course, the opinions expressed in those posts will make some of the more liberal denizens of this forum froth at the mouth, but that should make for some good entertainment tomorrow. With luck, at least some of them will attempt to rebut his points before descending into personal attacks.
Morbs, you should* post more in the evening when you've gone home and had a chance to mellow. It makes for a better read.
* IMHO, of course. You're free to, and I'm sure will continue to, post whatever you want whenever you want.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
Of course, the opinions expressed in those posts will make some of the more liberal denizens of this forum froth at the mouth
I feel no desire to froth at the mouth for any of that. Morbs is just as entitled to express his factually challenged, poorly researched, vacuous opinions in non-hyperbolic language as he is to employ his more usual unhinged style. Nobody with an actual grasp of the concept of feminism is going to take him seriously in either case.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
Wow, three reasoned, articulate posts in a row from Morbs this evening.
I'm concerned that you think transparently paranoid rants are "well-reasoned".
-
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
And, before someone starts bitching, no, I don't think racism is "gone"*.
*Unless you are Donald Sterling and have no idea that the concept of racism exists.
Or if I was Eric Holder, The Most Racist Man In America™!
-
@HardwareGeek said:
With luck, at least some of them will attempt to rebut his points before descending into personal attacks.
They never try to rebut anything. They only resort to name-calling. I name-call and provide intelligent, witty commentary, which is quite different.
@HardwareGeek said:
Morbs, you should* post more in the evening when you've gone home and had a chance to mellow. It makes for a better read.
I work at home, actually. I don't remember, but I was probably drunk when I wrote that. Now, if you want to convince my boss I should be allowed to work drunk all-day, I'm more than willing to hear you out.
-
@dhromed said:
@HardwareGeek said:
Wow, three reasoned, articulate posts in a row from Morbs this evening.
I'm concerned that you think transparently paranoid rants are "well-reasoned".
Oh good, more dipshittery from dhromed. You know what's easier than dealing with facts? Just post more stupid shit about video games!
You are so pathetically vacuous.
Edit: Oh, and I know you aren't very smart and were indoctrinated to recoil in fear from truths your sad little mind can't grasp, but can you please stop wasting my valuable time with your pointless, ignorant one-liners? You are a very dumb child, and I don't have the time to correct you like your parents so-clearly failed to do.
-
@flabdablet said:
I feel no desire to froth at the mouth for any of that. Morbs is just as entitled to express his factually challenged, poorly researched, vacuous opinions in non-hyperbolic language as he is to employ his more usual unhinged style. Nobody with an actual grasp of the concept of feminism is going to take him seriously in either case.
That was a really long way to say "I'm wrong, but too egomaniacal to admit it."
Thanks, though, for confirming for everyone what a moron you are!
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@flabdablet said:
I feel no desire to froth at the mouth for any of that. Morbs is just as entitled to express his factually challenged, poorly researched, vacuous opinions in non-hyperbolic language as he is to employ his more usual unhinged style. Nobody with an actual grasp of the concept of feminism is going to take him seriously in either case.
That was a really long way to say "I'm wrong, but too egomaniacal to admit it."
Thanks, though, for confirming for everyone what a moron you are!
No, he has an excellent argument perfectly rebutting you, but sadly it won't fit in the CS tag box.
-
[Edited so image fits on screen. -TheShadowMod]
-
@DrakeSmith said:
big goddamn image
Man, those male Titanic crew were kind of dicks, huh?
(Yes, yes, I know how it went down. Don't correct a joke.)
Other than that, my only comment is that the military standards for females are asinine. It's a recipe for disaster based completely on detached-from-reality ideology.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@DrakeSmith said:
big goddamn image
Uploaded from my phone since work blocks imgur, so I didn't realize it was that big. haha
-
How many male chauvinists does it take to open a beer?
None, the bitch better have it open when she gives it to you.
-
The best thing about whining men's-rights manbabies is how reliably they out themselves.
-
@DrakeSmith said:
How many male chauvinists does it take to open a beer?
None, the bitch better have it open when she gives it to you.That's actually pretty funny, but I see it as more of a joke mocking male chauvinists than women.
-
@flabdablet said:
The best thing about whining men's-rights manbabies is how reliably they out themselves.
What do you have against our homosexual brothers, friend?
-
What kills me is that flabdablet apparently things I'm serious.... maybe this is more hire he thinks I should feel
-
@DrakeSmith said:
What kills me is that flabdablet apparently things I'm serious....
I think he's just one of those humourless, sexless people who think any joking at all is offensive. Unless it's, like, a Benny Hill sketch. Although, Mr. Hill did use scantily-clad women, which was clearly an expression of his psychosexual desire to rape those women.
@DrakeSmith said:
Ten rules? I can't remember all that.. do you have some kind of Twitter hashtag I can use to remind myself not to rape everyone? Something I can share with the other SJWs?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
do you have some kind of Twitter hashtag I can use to remind myself not to rape everyone?
How about #RapeRules, to remind yourself of the rules about not raping everyone?
-
@flabdablet said:
The best thing about whining men's-rights manbabies is how reliably they out themselves.
Isn't that sort of a tautology, given that the way to know whether they are whining men's-rights manbabies is if they out themselves as such? Or do you mean they out themselves as in they reveal their homosexuality? Because I think it's pretty intolerant to suggest that gays are anti-women. What kind of hate monger are you?
-
@bstorer said:
@morbiuswilters said:
do you have some kind of Twitter hashtag I can use to remind myself not to rape everyone?
How about #RapeRules, to remind yourself of the rules about not raping everyone?Here:
Now we will all be reminded to not rape in the dignified, yet hectoring, voice of our elegant First Lady.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@DrakeSmith said:
How many male chauvinists does it take to open a beer?
None, the bitch better have it open when she gives it to you.That's actually pretty funny, but I see it as more of a joke mocking male chauvinists than women.
Hmm, the joke doesn't portray the men as stupid, nor does Drake obviously play the joke with pretending-to-be-the-bad-guy, as in "look this a stupid joke such as chauvinists would make" or go stylistically overboard and reformat the joke like so: "HURR DURR MAKE ME A SAMMICH BITCHSDSFFDS LOL I AM MAN".
So there's a slight disconnect in interpretation between us here, and I don't understand how you arrived at yours.
@DrakeSmith said:
What kills me is that flabdablet apparently things I'm serious
Ah, so you did do the pretend delivery. Ok. Since that's not your common style of posting, I did not see it.
-
@dhromed said:
Hmm, the joke doesn't portray the men as stupid, nor does Drake obviously play the joke with pretending-to-be-the-bad-guy, as in "look this a stupid joke such as chauvinists would make" or go stylistically overboard and reformat the joke like so: "HURR DURR MAKE ME A SAMMICH BITCHSDSFFDS LOL I AM MAN".
That seems it would be a bit heavy-handed. Subtlety, man, subtlety.
That said, it already seems really over-the-top. It's not a joke where the woman is the fool; clearly the male chauvinist is the one whose a jerk. Anyway, jokes don't only have a single interpretation; so maybe it is intended to be cruel to women, but I don't see it that way.
Q: How many radical feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: "That's not funny!"
-
@dhromed said:
Hmm, the joke doesn't portray the men as stupid, nor does Drake obviously play the joke with pretending-to-be-the-bad-guy, as in "look this a stupid joke such as chauvinists would make" or go stylistically overboard and reformat the joke like so: "HURR DURR MAKE ME A SAMMICH BITCHSDSFFDS LOL I AM MAN".
So there's a slight disconnect in interpretation between us here, and I don't understand how you arrived at yours.
@DrakeSmith said:
What kills me is that flabdablet apparently things I'm serious
Ah, so you did do the pretend delivery. Ok. Since that's not your common style of posting, I did not see it.
I really thought the joke was over the top enough to not need the 4chan style "make myself feel smarter by making opposing views sound dumb" commentary. I also figured the term make chauvinist to have a negative enough connotation to convey it was over the top.
-
@DrakeSmith said:
I really thought the joke was over the top enough to not need the 4chan style "make myself feel smarter by making opposing views sound dumb" commentary. I also figured the term make chauvinist to have a negative enough connotation to convey it was over the top.
That stuff seemed obvious to me, too. It's possible this is a cultural thing. Neither of the people who admitted to not getting it were American, and they couldn't see you doing your Silly Walk when you typed the joke. Just don't listen to this song, whatever you guys do.
-
@boomzilla said:
It's possible this is a cultural thing.
Yeah, maybe in Dutchlandia and the Australia they only recently stopped beating their women, which is why this is such a sensitive topic for them. Whereas we stopped beating our women in the early 80s, so we can laugh about it now.
Q: What do you tell an Australian wife with two black eyes?
A: Nothing that her husband hasn't already told her twice, mate.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Also, a "loser pays" rule would discourage patent trolls from filing frivolous lawsuits.
Apparently, the Endangered Species Act allows defendants to collect fees for frivolous suits. And so now animal rights groups are paying off the circus. They've been ordered to pay a total of $25M at this point for apparently paying some guy to make shit up about animal abuse.
-
@boomzilla said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Also, a "loser pays" rule would discourage patent trolls from filing frivolous lawsuits.
Apparently, the Endangered Species Act allows defendants to collect fees for frivolous suits. And so now animal rights groups are paying off the circus. They've been ordered to pay a total of $25M at this point for apparently paying some guy to make shit up about animal abuse.
Yup. This is the thing about "Loser Pays."We already have plenty of laws to counter frivolous suits. Not only are there mechanisms in place in federal courts (and most state courts) to have defendants recoup their costs if a suit is actually frivolous or abusive, the lawyer can and will get disbarred for bringing the suit. Loser Pays isn't actually in improvement when it comes to frivolous lawsuits. What it is, is a deterrent to legitimate suits that are somewhat shaky, or suits where the plaintiff is too poor to take the risk of losing and ending up fucked even harder.
The thing about Loser Pays in other countries is that they tend to be countries with a pretty high social welfare burden. The prevailing legal theory in this country is that if someone fucks you over, then you sue them and get recompensed that way. In other countries the theory tends to be that the government takes care of you and maybe punishes the offender. And that's fine, but not really an American way to view things in my opinion. And if you want the "little man" to be able to stand up to more powerful defendants on his own without direct government assistance, then punishing for even trying is counter productive.
-
@Snooder said:
We already have plenty of laws to counter frivolous suits
The post I linked to said this was the first time this particular one was ever used, and it seems like an odd thing to me, though I admit to not following lawsuit news. I think you're making shit up here. I know that you can sometimes counter-sue for damages in some cases, like anti-SLAPP stuff, but that seems to vary a lot by jurisdiction, and I suspect counter-suits don't have nearly the same deterrent power, since there's a whole lot of extra effort that needs to be done.
-
@Snooder said:
Yup. This is the thing about "Loser Pays."We already have plenty of laws to counter frivolous suits. Not only are there mechanisms in place in federal courts (and most state courts) to have defendants recoup their costs if a suit is actually frivolous or abusive, the lawyer can and will get disbarred for bringing the suit. Loser Pays isn't actually in improvement when it comes to frivolous lawsuits. What it is, is a deterrent to legitimate suits that are somewhat shaky, or suits where the plaintiff is too poor to take the risk of losing and ending up fucked even harder.
The trick about Loser Pays is that it should only really kick in when both sides are using roughly equivalent levels of legal firepower. Thus, it shouldn't so much be an automatic part of the resolution of the case so much as something done in equity; if a party to a case uses inappropriate levels of expenditure relative to their means in pursuing a case (whether they spend too little or too much) it shouldn't be deeply harmful to the other party if that party is sensible.Equity is a funny old thing in the legal system.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
We already have plenty of laws to counter frivolous suits
The post I linked to said this was the first time this particular one was ever used, and it seems like an odd thing to me, though I admit to not following lawsuit news. I think you're making shit up here. I know that you can sometimes counter-sue for damages in some cases, like anti-SLAPP stuff, but that seems to vary a lot by jurisdiction, and I suspect counter-suits don't have nearly the same deterrent power, since there's a whole lot of extra effort that needs to be done.
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Evidence specifically bars frivolous suits brought in Federal Court, and has been in place for a while. States do differ widely, but it's a fairly common part of the rules of evidence and/or state bar rules of most states. This version has been in place since 1983. Before that, there were rules against frivolous pleadings, but they were apparently not well-enforced.
Again, this sort of thing doesn't really happen a lot for the very obvious reason that lawsuits are EXPENSIVE so throwing a bunch of money away on a suit you can't win isn't a smart idea in the best of times, and is a terrible idea for a lawyer whose continued professional reputation depends on not pissing off the judge who has to listen to his bullshit. Every lawyer has heard the horror story of some idiot who got disbarred for filing bullshit claims.Note, Rule 11 is seperate from and does not supercede specific language within statutes that provide for the legal costs of the prevailing party to be paid by the other party. That's probably what the article you read was referring to. I'm just pointing out that this sort of remedy has been widely available for a while.
-
@Snooder said:
Again, this sort of thing doesn't really happen a lot for the very obvious reason that lawsuits are EXPENSIVE so throwing a bunch of money away on a suit you can't win isn't a smart idea in the best of times, and is a terrible idea for a lawyer whose continued professional reputation depends on not pissing off the judge who has to listen to his bullshit. Every lawyer has heard the horror story of some idiot who got disbarred for filing bullshit claims.
In Canada they're apparently a bit more tolerant of this kind of thing.
Frivolous litigation - Wikipedia