That's fair enough, and I wasn't trying to start a flame war with you or anthing like that. I don't think our opinions are all that different. I think we just differ on the extent of what is or is not imposed.
Uncovered Meat
- Thread starter MudGrrl
- Start date
Technically all three of those were complete sentences minus maybe a comma error. It's good to see that this is what your argument has devolved into. Pretty typical for you and a good sign that you really have no substance.
More name calling, etc...
...and another OMGF rant of the bizarre. Gool luck in your campaign against the evil that is "traditional American business attire." Those "damned christian nutjobs" have ruined your life, haven't they?
I think all societies impose on their citizens, some more than others. It's probably unavoidable to a certain extent, getting on with others is the grease in the wheels.
****F:ck I have been assimilated, sound just like a Japanese there.
going back at the point.
if the imposition of an asian aesthetic standard upon hispanics only happened. and you started to see voluntarily bleached hispanics.... that wouldnt make the discriminating standard, in principle, more acceptable.
in the case of burkas, they follow a trend of women rights cuts for the sake of society/men, instead of the "enhancing" nature for the individual of aesthetic standards.
this being a important difference.
Granted what I said may have been a little harsh, I stand by it.
"I was talking about your posting of the article on down there fella."
I posted no articles, nor do I know of a place "on down there" where one would find said article. Perhaps you meant some specific post of mine regarding the article that started this thread at some unspecified point down the thread?
Also, I'll note that asking you to clarify has no bearing on my argument, especially as the bit I asked you to clarify was not about my specific argument. So, of course it isn't about substance considering that I was responding to something that didn't involve any substance.
It's not really name calling, per se. You do have a tendency to over-simplify my arguments as is the case here.
Who said I was campaigning against anything, and where did I say that "those 'damned christian nutjobs' have ruined [my] life?" Here is an example of the over-simplification that I spoke of, not to mention a nice straw man. I find it ironic that you attack my "lack of substance" while simultaneously bringing your own straw men to the table. If you can actually discuss something from the substance of what I said, then go to it, but leave the straw out of it.
You have to wonder which is worse, actually. Having a society that views women as sex objects, inciting fashion trends that promote that, or having one that declares women "off limits" and has trends that promote that. I guess the bigger issue is the human view of women altogether as unable create their own image.
Hopefully I haven't given you the idea that I disagree with that. I do wear pants afterall.I think all societies impose on their citizens, some more than others. It's probably unavoidable to a certain extent, getting on with others is the grease in the wheels.
****F:ck I have been assimilated, sound just like a Japanese there.
You know, somewhere out there there's some Japanese guys chanting, "One of us, one of us."
Finally, you say something worthwhile.
If you would take the time and read instead of trying to point out grammar mistakes, you'd see that Ive made quite a few points.
And, if you read what I wrote, you would notice that I have been reading what you wrote, those points have been addressed, and I was forced into pointing out your grammar mistakes because it made the sentence unreadable. It's not my fault if you can't make your arguments clear. In fact, instead of attacking me for asking for clarification, you should try to clarify. That's what I do when someone says they don't understand what I am getting at. I try to explain things in different ways, like using analogies or examples. You might want to try it sometime.
Never real easy trying to work out what you're going on about but here goes. You wanna f*ck a bleached Asian wearing a Hispanic burka? How'd I go? I have taken a pill so it's getting harder to pay attention.
If you cant make sense of the quite simple things I wrote, then just dont respond to me anymore.
Let's say we open it up, shall we?
Can anyone else make sense of this "sentence"?
Let's say I assumed incorrectly that you posted the article, does that make sense? Is it that hard for you? It is barely relevant to the argument at hand, becuase no matter the topic, you turn it into "damn that religion," for whatever it is. So congratulations. Your woman posted it and you didn't.
At least Ciaran can't come in crying about how people just bash Xtians.
So what if I did post it? Does that mean that I am automatically bashing all religions? Just because you jump to a conclusion doesn't make it the right conclusion. And, simply because you consistently jump to the same conclusion doesn't make it an indictment of me. If anything, it is an indictment of your inability to think rationally and discuss the merits of the issue at hand without resorting to irrational argument tactics. So, you just pwned yourself. Congrats for that one.
Edit: More self pwnage: You proved that you don't actually read the posts, which is exactly what you accused me of. Projection?
So I call you out for doing the same thing you do every time and you claim victory. Lol! Congrats on the big win. I think they're pretty evident, your motives and predjudices to everyone and Im not the first to make note of them. Wear them with pride like the Klan does, why dont you?
You would be the first to actually back up your claims, however. Simply because you and a couple other people make assertions doesn't make them true. You have to back them up, and every time I've asked anyone to back up that particular assertion, I've been met with silence and/or excuses. You are no different. You really have no clue how to discuss/debate something without resorting to irrationality, do you? You are a bully, just like some other people around here who shall remain nameless. You can't make your arguments work, so you try to intimidate others into just accepting what you say. Well, that will not work with me. You will have to back up your assertions if you want traction.
Further, more self pwnage by you:
If you post something like this:
You contradict yourself when you post a clarification of the "quite simple thing" in your very next post. If it is quite a simple thing, then why did you have to clarify? Further, why did your clarification contain an admitted error that would lead to the original sentence not being "quite simple"?
One last thing. Your reference to the Klan is wholly out of place. I have consistently stood up for the rights of minorities even in the face of rugged opposition on this board and elsewhere. You have really gone overboard on this one. Attacking an ideology (and not the people no less) is quite a separate thing from racial bigotry that leads to violence. Your comment is beneath the lowest standard and completely uncalled for and merits an invoking of Godwin's rule. Right now, you are beneath contempt.
....
dmn
how does it make you guys feel that the 'meat guy' is convinced that men can't control themselves around women (without a burka)?
dmn
how does it make you guys feel that the 'meat guy' is convinced that men can't control themselves around women (without a burka)?
LOL!!!....I just noticed that OMGF title was changed....awesomeness.
Enough about grammatical mistakes and retarded back and forth contradictoral posts.
I'm an equal opportunity leerer...I'll oogle all the scantily clad women I can. If they're naked, all the better. All covered up and no where to go? No thanks.
Would I like to see a bunch of yam bags (thank VB, this is my new phrase that I will be using in daily conversation from now on....!!) hangin' out all the time? Hell no. I like pants. Sometimes I like shorts. At least we have the "freedom" to wear whatever the hell we want. If some religion/societal requirement forces my wife to cover up everything but her eyes in public, f*ck that.
That is all.
Enough about grammatical mistakes and retarded back and forth contradictoral posts.
I'm an equal opportunity leerer...I'll oogle all the scantily clad women I can. If they're naked, all the better. All covered up and no where to go? No thanks.
Would I like to see a bunch of yam bags (thank VB, this is my new phrase that I will be using in daily conversation from now on....!!) hangin' out all the time? Hell no. I like pants. Sometimes I like shorts. At least we have the "freedom" to wear whatever the hell we want. If some religion/societal requirement forces my wife to cover up everything but her eyes in public, f*ck that.
That is all.
Guys can't be trusted no matter what women wear. If all we saw were women in burkas we'd get all hot and bothered by sexy nose bridges and tear ducts.
Attacking an ideology and not the people when talking about religion? That's rich.
You've become a broken record. I basically quit wasting my time reading what you post because it usually ends up at the exact same place. The only reason I read what was here was because of Burly and VB.
When you can back up your assertions, then you will be worth responding to in a meaningful way.
Edit: I'm going to contradict myself to point out that you tend to use ad hominems against me, so chiding me for attacking the people is what is really rich here. If your ego is so fragile that you can't stomach someone disagreeing with you without lashing out and holding a personal vendetta, then perhaps you shouldn't participate in online discussions, because it is not very likely that everyone you run into will agree with every single thing you say.
Like I said a broken record.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
So, as long as you assert something long enough it just becomes true, regardless of whether you've ever backed it up. But, if I continue to ask for you to back something up, then somehow I've done something wrong? I've told you this before, and I'll say it again. Grow up.
Yeah, I was thinking the meat guy should be preaching to men about keeping their dick meat in their pants and teaching compasion and respect towards women, rather than preaching to women about keeping covered up. Get to the root of the problem. (ha ha, I said root)
The pot is black, kettle.
Who are you Pee Wee Herman? Does everything I say bounce off of you and stick to me? You are right about one thing though. I feel like a broken record in having to tell you to grow up.
I notice that this thread has gone seriously off track. It is no longer about some idiot comparing women to rancid meat and men to cats. It seems that people like Burly and DRB would rather let their personal animosities get the better of them and find that attacking me is a better use of their time than discussing the issue at hand. So, I will bow out of this one.
No, you got it wrong. Cats are not only considered as female, there are male cats to, and by calling a man a cat, which is pretty common around the Mediteranean, they mean all the charachteristics cats have, like that they're smart and sneeky (and probably some more charachteristics I cant think of right now).
It was common among black men (US) to call each other cats in the 70s, look at a blackxploitation (spelling?) film and you'll see.
Then you would all be looking like Fujimoris...
I belive that in Egypt, Moroco and maybe other north African countries, Algeria and Tunisia, women can dress like westeners.
What's funny is that about a month ago al-Hilali said this in reference to the Pope's address at Regensburg University
But oddly enough this isn't the first time Australian Muslim leaders have made comments about rape and its causes:
Sheik Faiz Mohamad said in April
What's funny is that Faiz left the Lakemba Mosque because al-Hilali was too moderate. I guess al-Hilali needed to prove he wasn't.
He is now invoking the "misunderstanding" around Benedict's comments in defense of his own. Now interestingly enough I couldn't find where he believed that Benedict's words were misunderstood and forgave him.
But oddly enough this isn't the first time Australian Muslim leaders have made comments about rape and its causes:
Sheik Faiz Mohamad said in April
They really like their animal metaphors.
What's funny is that Faiz left the Lakemba Mosque because al-Hilali was too moderate. I guess al-Hilali needed to prove he wasn't.
In other newz, record numbers of velcro gloves were sold this week.
Personally I think you can make the case that almost any part of society is designed to control people. After all what is society? It's a framework of rules, conceptions and contracts for personal behavior. Lot's of people have definitions that mention cultures, groups, regions et. al. but in the end society is what you expect other people to do, and what they expect you to do. As such the very purpose of society is to control people, by defining acceptable behavior.
Let's all just walk around naked in protest!
Let's all just walk around naked in protest!
This thread and the return of stinkyboy to the lounge got me thinking about this wonderful, wonderful website: http://www.stinkymeat.net/
Exactly the point Ive been trying to make only I cant typ gud!
uppity malaysian whores at it again: Malaysian fundamentalist cleric complains of growing sexual temptations
they totally deserve what's coming to them
here's a google image search result of those trollops:
they totally deserve what's coming to them