Ezekiel 23:20: There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Joking aside, please keep the religious discussion on here to a minimum. I'd prefer to not have to lock the thread, but I will if I have to.

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
I calmed down a lot after I realized you attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

Actually, flies love vinegar. For instance, an easy way to get rid of a fly infestation in your kitchen is to mix a drop of dish soap in a bowl of apple cider vinegar and leave it on the counter. After a day or two you end up with a bowl of dead flies.

Also poop attracts a lot of flies.

treos said:
oh man, i remember reading a news article about something like that once. poor kid, died from VERY easily prevented problems had he been taken to a hospital iirc.

Yuppity yup yups...

http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2010/03/jeffrey_and_marci_beagley_sent.html

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
Yuppity yup yups...

http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2010/03/jeffrey_and_marci_beagley_sent.html

yeah, that was probably. the case i was thinking of.

parasprite said:
Actually, flies love vinegar. For instance, an easy way to get rid of a fly infestation in your kitchen is to mix a drop of dish soap in a bowl of apple cider vinegar and leave it on the counter. After a day or two you end up with a bowl of dead flies.

Also poop attracts a lot of flies.

huh, might have to tell my aunt about that this summer if the fly invasion returns. thankfully this fall and i guess spring now, the ladybugs haven't been NEAR as bad as some years. had one year where i had ladybugs in all 4 corners of the ceiling and a lot around the ceiling light in my room as well as scattered throughout the house PLUS they tried taking over my uncles territory too (the shed).

if it's not flies, it's ladybugs or in uncommon cases like this past winter, little to none of either but summer probably isn't too far off...just a few more months

"Joking aside, please keep the religious discussion on here to a minimum. I'd prefer to not have to lock the thread, but I will if I have to."

Yes, ummm... si-...mis-... uh, admin person. Thank you for being so kind as to allow what was already posted, even though you didn't have to and could have been much much more restrictive. I will cease my ramblings on that particular subject and allow the thread to regain its original subject.

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
"Joking aside, please keep the religious discussion on here to a minimum. I'd prefer to not have to lock the thread, but I will if I have to."

Yes, ummm... si-...mis-... uh, admin person. Thank you for being so kind as to allow what was already posted, even though you didn't have to and could have been much much more restrictive. I will cease my ramblings on that particular subject and allow the thread to regain its original subject.

or at least keep it to PMs. that much is allowed i think.

I identify as a cushion if you don't use my pronouns of fluff/fluffies then i will report you.

Patchi said:
I identify as a cushion if you don't use my pronouns of fluff/fluffies then i will report you.

*tosses "cushion" into a closet full of unused/unneeded blankets/pillows/cushions/etc.*

i think that about sums up my opinion of that make believe stuff.

Patchi said:
I identify as a cushion if you don't use my pronouns of fluff/fluffies then i will report you.

peafowl pronouns, please. pea/pear/peaself

Knotty_Curls said:
peafowl pronouns, please. pea/pear/peaself

Do you prefer peaneutral (Peafowl) over peamale (Peacock) and peafemale (Peahen)?

I prefer to be called "The Best"

Knotty_Curls said:
peafowl pronouns, please. pea/pear/peaself

hmmm...what about rave turkey? iirc you once referred to them as that.

Generally, if you have to ask, then yes.

I know I'm late to the party but I'll make my input here.

I feel that the term 'social justice warrior' was bastardized by many SJWs to hide or justify their needs for authoritarianism. So I do not believe that the term 'social justice' was ever a bad term since it was invented. I just call authoritarians that hide behind social justice warriors "Social Injustice Warriors"
Or we can call radical SJW's the ISIS Brigade: Insecure, Spoiled, and Ignorantly Shameless
And to the OP: As long as you're not one-sided on subjects and topics, and not using hasty generalizations,unless there's like...less than half a dozen of a group and not being an authoritarian, I hold nothing against you.

Knotty_Curls said:
peafowl pronouns, please. pea/pear/peaself

peeself

treos said:
hmmm...what about rave turkey? iirc you once referred to them as that.

that is racist and i am triggered

Knotty_Curls said:
that is racist and i am triggered

lol well, you said it first.

edit: ah, heres where it was.

Munkelzahn said:
I hate "The Young Turks" even more than I hate feminism.
They treat their viewers like mentally retarded children.
Oh no, I've used the forbidden r-word
maybe I should've used the au-word or the g-word instead

the male host of the YT flatout denies the armenian genocide and claims it never happened.

basically everyone on that show and their viewers are fucking dumbshits. they appeal to the emotional brainwashed underage teen (aka typical bernie supporter)

Can I just say I love just about everyone on this site and in this thread <3
Anyways... what was the original topic?

Yeah, let's not talk about politics or bash other's views.

Jade_Angel said:
Anyways... what was the original topic?

zoophilia activism
animals marching down main street, carrying signs that say "I love my human"
"two hands are better than none"

Yes, I agree with Huskyk9...politics annoy the crap out of me. It really shows the bad side of people...

OP.... do you find shows like Minoriteam "offensive" ~ "funny" or "funsvensive."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYtnVH4geyY

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
OP.... do you find shows like Minoriteam "offensive" ~ "funny" or "funsvensive."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYtnVH4geyY

Holy necro Batman!

NotMeNotYou said:
No, feminism is and has been about equality, just because some radical misandrists are trying to hijack the movement doesn't mean they deserve being called feminists. They are feminazi misandrists and nothing else, they do not deserve the credibility to be able to change what a legitimate movement is about.

Actually no. That's called the true scotsman fallacy. Allng with that, feminism isn't advocacy for equality, it's advocacy for female rights, just like how masculism is advocacy of male rights. Egalitarianism or humanism is advocacy for equality.

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
Actually no. That's called the true scotsman fallacy. Allng with that, feminism isn't advocacy for equality, it's advocacy for female rights, just like how masculism is advocacy of male rights. Egalitarianism or humanism is advocacy for equality.

Is it also a no-true-Scotsmen-fallacy to point out that both first and second wave feminism wanted nothing more than equal rights as men have had during their respective time periods? They wanted to be equal to men, thus they were for equality. Just because this achieved bringing them up to the same level doesn't make it anything less than that they were for equality. This is also what most feminists want once you cut out the portion that gets whored out on media for higher viewer counts.

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
OP.... do you find shows like Minoriteam "offensive" ~ "funny" or "funsvensive."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYtnVH4geyY

There really wasn't a reason to necro this, but oh well, I suppose I'll answer the question.

None of the above. It was funny for a minute or two, but there really wasn't clever writing or a well thought out plot to go with it. All it had was a premise, and that's not enough to carry a show. I didn't find it offensive because generally, I give intentional offensiveness for the sake of humor quite a bit of leeway. The biggest problem is that there's not not all that much humor to be had.

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
Actually no. That's called the true scotsman fallacy. Allng with that, feminism isn't advocacy for equality, it's advocacy for female rights, just like how masculism is advocacy of male rights. Egalitarianism or humanism is advocacy for equality.

i thought the MRA was advocacy for male rights.

oh and speaking of humanism, i bear horrifying news: feminazis and SJWs have infiltrated the American Humanist Society!

i think i would go more with egalitarianism than anything else tbh. since, iirc, egalitarianism would be treaty all equal regardless of race or gender (or possibly species should anthros become real in the future. keep making progress, science!).

off-topic...where in the world is your avatar pic from and what the heck is wrong with that dog? looks like it's freaking out or something.

treos said:
i think i would go more with egalitarianism than anything else tbh. since, iirc, egalitarianism would be treaty all equal regardless of race or gender (or possibly species should anthros become real in the future. keep making progress, science!).

This is exactly why I dislike the term egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism is used, generally, by people who want to make the statement that "I support everyone's rights". But everyone has their own individual opinions on what that encompasses.

A feminist might call himself an egalitarian, and yet feel as though all social inequality disadvantages females over males. An MRA might call herself an egalitarian, but feel as though women are the privileged class. The feminist may support affirmative action to address racial inequalities, and the MRA might favor equality of opportunity, with each feeling the other's position is racist. Say, further, one supports homosexuality, but the other argues that homosexuality is a set of actions, and egalitarianism doesn't address those (whether she support it or not). Maybe only the feminist supports trans* rights, with the MRA feeling as though that's a mental disorder and would thus not fall under "egalitarianism". They probably both agree that pedophiles don't deserve special protection, but they, again, might argue about whether zoophiles do. And on that subject, what of actual animals? Do they fall under egalitarianism? Say the MRA is a vegetarian who believes that to be an egalitarian you must also get rid of species-based-prejudices, and treat animals with the respect accorded to them by their levels of intelligence and self-awareness.

So what do we have here? We have two people who call themselves egalitarians, and truly believe that they are, and yet they disagree on almost everything. They can justify their position in any number of ways: "This is immoral, this is an action, this is a disorder, this is a category-error, this falls outside the scope of egalitarianism."

In the end what we're left with is a term that is meaningless for actually explaining the positions you hold. An empty platitude that people use to make themselves feel more inclusive without changing their positions.

Who defines what rights legitimately fall under the banner of "everyone's rights"?

Clawdragons said:
pointless drama

not sure if that was an elaborate trolling attempt or if you know nothing about that which you speak of.

feminism and MRA are the advocacy of female and male GENDER rights respectively.

egalitarianism is the advocacy of equality for EVERYONE regardless of race, gender, or sex.

treos said:
not sure if that was an elaborate trolling attempt or if you know nothing about that which you speak of.

feminism and MRA are the advocacy of female and male GENDER rights respectively.

egalitarianism is the advocacy of equality for EVERYONE regardless of race, gender, or sex.

I think you entirely missed my point. I'll try to restate it.

You got a bit too tangled up in the feminist / MRA terminology there. I was just describing two hypothetical people who differ on many issues, yet would still consider themselves egalitarians.

You say that egalitarianism is the advocacy for everyone regardless of any characteristics. What I'm saying is that the term is thus so poorly defined as to be useless. It doesn't actually describe what positions someone holds, and I think very few people would claim that they are not egalitarians. Most people, if you asked, would say that they support everyone's rights, but they would all have different ideas about what that means. So what good is the term?

I think most people use it just to feel good about themselves without changing their opinions on anything.

Clawdragons said:
I think you entirely missed my point.

i guess i did. :/

NotMeNotYou said:
Is it also a no-true-Scotsmen-fallacy to point out that both first and second wave feminism wanted nothing more than equal rights as men have had during their respective time periods? They wanted to be equal to men, thus they were for equality. Just because this achieved bringing them up to the same level doesn't make it anything less than that they were for equality. This is also what most feminists want once you cut out the portion that gets whored out on media for higher viewer counts.

That's not the true scotsman fallacy. The true scotsman fallacy is saying, for instance, you're not a true christian if you follow Deuteronomy or you're not a true christian if you don't follow Leviticus. You said that feminazis aren't feminists because they hate men. This is a classic no true scotsman fallacy. Feminism is advocacy for more female rights until they equal that of men's. That is not true equality. If feminism were advocacy of equality (egalitarianism) then it would not only advocate for more female rights to equal that of men, but it would also be advocacy of less female rights until it equals that of men. For instance, men do not currently have the right to vote in the US. They have to sign up for the draft, technically making it no longer a right, since rights are given at birth. Women do not have to sign the draft. They have the true right to vote. Feminism doesn't address this. Egalitarianism does though.

treos said:
i thought the MRA was advocacy for male rights.

oh and speaking of humanism, i bear horrifying news: feminazis and SJWs have infiltrated the American Humanist Society!

i think i would go more with egalitarianism than anything else tbh. since, iirc, egalitarianism would be treaty all equal regardless of race or gender (or possibly species should anthros become real in the future. keep making progress, science!).

off-topic...where in the world is your avatar pic from and what the heck is wrong with that dog? looks like it's freaking out or something.

Oh dear god no. Why. Y u do dis t' me.
And MRA's are just masculists with a better name.
Oh and idk about the dog, I just kept it as an avatar because it's pretty damn funny.

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
Oh dear god no. Why. Y u do dis t' me.
And MRA's are just masculists with a better name.
Oh and idk about the dog, I just kept it as an avatar because it's pretty damn funny.

Dude, use the "Edit" button when you have something extra to add after a short period of time.

Furrin_Gok said:
Dude, use the "Edit" button when you have something extra to add after a short period of time.

Eh, I don't normally have the ability to respond to multiple people on most websites I use so I don't normally do that out of habit