Crucible just likes to cause controversy, negativity and, as much trouble as he can. He's that kind of guy.
Racism, Bigotry and Misogyny at TOL
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
Crucible just likes to cause controversy, negativity and, as much trouble as he can. He's that kind of guy.
Quetzal
New member
There is a few of those waddling around here these days.
:first:
Indeed ... it's what he is known for. The same tired declarations as well as a lack of self control when responding.
Yep
PureX
Well-known member
Yes, but your were accusing Rusha of bigotry for her comments in threads specifically about physical sexual abuse. And you were trying to use the woman's behavior to justify such an attack. And of course she was not going to accept that. Who would?
The justice system is not about enforcing anyone's idea of morality on anyone else. It's about protecting us from each other while maintaining an equal degree of liberty for all. We are free to dislike anyone we want to, and we are free to say so. Because we live in a society that values freedom. But our freedom ends when it tries to usurp the sovereignty of another human being's body. Which is why physical assault is taken more seriously by the legal system than verbal abuse, is.
The men, being physically stronger, have the ability to extricate themselves from physical abuse. Women, in most cases, do not. And both have the ability to extricate themselves from verbally abusive situations, so the law tends not to intervene in those until physical abuse ensues. Your belief that men are trapped between a "rock and a hard place" is an illusion. In almost every instance, they can walk away at any time.
Not so for women suffering physical abuse from men.
I have made it crystal clear to anyone with comprehensive reading skills that physical abuse is never okay.
IF someone is making a person angry to the point that they feel the urge to become physically violent, the person with the rage issue needs to walk away.
I would use the same advice for parents who are angry at their children. WAIT to speak to or discipline them when less angry.
They should also be seeking help from a mental health expert to find it why they see the urge to physically harm another person as their first choice.
A funny personal story: My dad was 6ft1in and my mom barely 5 ft. But she was a tyrant and relentless. She would follow my dad around the house giving him "What for!" until he couldn't stand it anymore. Then he would rush to the hall closet grab his hat and coat then rush out the door!
I give him gold stars!
:chuckle: Now that is wisdom. In the eyes of his daughter, dad will always be remembered for taking the high road.
When the subject is about abuse of women, the discussion goes the route of condemning men and calling anyone who has something to say contrary to their strict ideology 'misogynists'. They've made derogatory statements such as 'glad no woman is with you' and a myriad of other nonsense.
The same discussion, for three months- and then when it's reversed, all there is to say is "There shouldn't be physical abuse of either".
The bias bleeds right through, very plainly. I don't see them doing the same to women- if they were so co-equal about it, there would be equal outcry. There is not.
Point blank, her statement does not suffice.
Yeah, that's poetry. Only a moron actually believes there's no biases in courtrooms.
ClimateSanity
New member
It's easy to have control when everything you say is non controversial and you have a pack of hounds to harass anyone who dares challenge you. Being politically correct is the easiest way to go. It is the path of least resistance. The chances of getting your character assassinated on a daily basis are slim. Very easy to maintain control. Cruc has none of those advantages.
PureX
Well-known member
That's because you were trying to justify physical sexual abuse against women, and there is no justification for it because the man can nearly always walk away. While the woman usually cannot.
This "reversal" of yours is nearly non-existent, as it's very rare that a man would be physically overpowered by a woman. And when it does happen, those very rare instances do not mitigate the norm in any way. Yet you are trying to assert that somehow it does. And that's why you're catching so much flack.
Stop trying to justify men physically abusing women and you won't be called a misogynist … at least not for that.
That's because the instances of women beating and raping men are almost non-existent. It's simply not an issue of significance compared to the issue being discussed: men beating and raping women.
I find the fact that you just can't seem to understand this very puzzling.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I've brought up divorce, it goes back to abuse or rape. I talk about privileges, it goes to abuse or rape. I bring up biases, it goes to abuse or rape. I bring up general inequalities, it goes to abuse and rape.
It's the 'go to' whenever the only other course is to critique women. That is why it has gone on for so long, because once they veer off of that complaint, they will steadily start to lose the discussion.
There's nothing that 'justifies' assault if we're going to observe some steep moral highroad. But if a woman humiliates their man socially, or consistently puts their hands on them, emotionally abuses them, and so on- any of these things, who are you to judge if he gets up and puts a manly hand across her?
A man will have to deal with those things, and if he falls to the same lacking restraint as the woman, he's going to jail and the divorce is going to be in her favor.
That's not equality, that's lunacy. I've talked about this, and the result has been exactly the same- I'm a 'misogynist'.
Please!
I'm 'sanity'.
Neither you or anyone is about to sling that big wad of absurdity you are perpetuating. These discussions are fruitless and have only served the women. I think the men here should think about the apparent spell, or captivity, feminist ideology has them under. As for the women, they aren't able to comprehend their advantages and support in relevance to men because they were born into it- they don't know any difference and never will because men like yourself feed into a fantasy where they are victims.
Can't or won't .... or perhaps just doesn't care? Considering the fact that his argument has been the same over several years, I am going with the latter.
*bump*
(Because Rusha likes to talk about me in my presence, instead of directly)
(Because Rusha likes to talk about me in my presence, instead of directly)
I've brought up divorce, it goes back to abuse or rape. I talk about privileges, it goes to abuse or rape. I bring up biases, it goes to abuse or rape. I bring up general inequalities, it goes to abuse and rape.
It's the 'go to' whenever the only other course is to critique women. That is why it has gone on for so long, because once they veer off of that complaint, they will steadily start to lose the discussion.
There's nothing that 'justifies' assault if we're going to observe some steep moral highroad. But if a woman humiliates their man socially, or consistently puts their hands on them, emotionally abuses them, and so on- any of these things, who are you to judge if he gets up and puts a manly hand across her?
A man will have to deal with those things, and if he falls to the same lacking restraint as the woman, he's going to jail and the divorce is going to be in her favor.
That's not equality, that's lunacy. I've talked about this, and the result has been exactly the same- I'm a 'misogynist'.
Please!
I'm 'sanity'.
Neither you or anyone is about to sling that big wad of absurdity you are perpetuating. These discussions are fruitless and have only served the women. I think the men here should think about the apparent spell, or captivity, feminist ideology has them under. As for the women, they aren't able to comprehend their advantages and support in relevance to men because they were born into it- they don't know any difference and never will because men like yourself feed into a fantasy where they are victims.
