NationStates Jolt Archive

i really agree with Dr. Laura on this. what do u think?

I can’t even guess how many times I’ve read about some so-called “mother” leaving her kids in cars to die in the heat, either because she “forgot” she had a child, or she was busy with partying, and then the sympathy goes to….the mother!

The same thing applies to women and their abusive “significant others” (choke). Recently, in North Carolina, a mother left her child in the care of a gang member. She knew he was a gang member when she made him her boyfriend-of-the- month. The self-declared Bloods gang member beat her 2-year-old son to death, with a combination of 41 blows, which ultimately burst his liver and caused his brain to bleed.

According to the report in The News & Observer, the murderer will spend the rest of his life in jail, and there’s no mention of the mother being held on any charges whatsoever: not negligence, not child endangerment….nothing.

When informing me of this story, one of my listeners wrote: “I am incensed that this woman was not fined or jailed as well. I guess our society no longer expects moms to protect their innocent, helpless children. No doubt, this is what the abortion mentality has done to us.”

I thought about her comment, and it holds water. Mothers farm out their kids to daycare, nannies, and baby-sitters. The “feminista” movement talks about women having power, yet treats women as helpless victims of sexual harassment when they get meaningless comments about their butts, and suggests that only men are responsible for domestic violence.

Power and responsibility are two sides of the same coin….or should be. To leave a child with a known, self-acknowledged gang member should be considered a criminal act, because it clearly puts a child in harm’s way.

As a woman and as a mother, I am shocked.



i think that feminsm has caused women to have a lot of rights but no responsibltys if they want all the rights of being like men then they should go to jail like them too!

i have a source but the forum wont let me link it becuase i dont have enuff posts

Women do go to jail.

/thread

i think that there have always been irresponsible parents and that the feminist movement has had no effect on its frequency.

Dr. Laura is a moron.

Women do go to jail.

/thread

not at the same rate as men, if men did this stuff then they would go to jail, but we r suppsed to feel bad for women when there babies die, which is sad but she is the mother she is supposed to keep that from happening

I thought about her comment, and it holds water. Mothers farm out their kids to daycare, nannies, and baby-sitters. The “feminista” movement talks about women having power, yet treats women as helpless victims of sexual harassment when they get meaningless comments about their butts, and suggests that only men are responsible for domestic violence.

Power and responsibility are two sides of the same coin….or should be. To leave a child with a known, self-acknowledged gang member should be considered a criminal act, because it clearly puts a child in harm’s way.
Most of the rest of the article was crap. This was the only part that was even partly true. However, the second paragraph already is, under child negligence, I believe, and the first part is only true for the real crazies, like the woman who wrote the Vagina Monologues.

Most feminists are rather sane and reasonable, and wouldn't say something like that. Maybe that the guy was rude, and the sort, and he would be, but the overall diagnosis of this article:

Dr. Laura is a nitwit.

I guess I missed the part of the feminist movement that said that they shouldn't be responsible for their actions in the care of their children. Could you show me where that happened?

Dr. Laura is a moron.
quit flaming

If a man left a baby with a woman, and the woman killed the baby...

...the man would go to jail?

Do you have a source for that one?

I guess I missed the part of the feminist movement that said that they shouldn't be responsible for their actions in the care of their children. Could you show me where that happened?

if u look back in history women would get in trouble if they let there kids die like this, eye for a eye and allt hat

I do not even know where to begin.

For starters, are you really so sure that a person should be criminally punished for leaving an abusive, violent "significant other"... even though in this case there is no (stated) evidence that she knew what he was going to do? Childbirth is not an absolute claim on your life and safety from then on. Motherhood is not slavery.

Furthermore, is there any evidence at all that this is the result of feminism--or, indeed, that it is an overall social trend at all? Somehow I doubt it.

if u look back in history women would get in trouble if they let there kids die like this, eye for a eye and allt hat

Then certainly you can show me this phenomenon and link any decline to the feminist movement and perhaps their direct involvement.

quit flaming
its OK to flame someone who doesnt post on NSG. its not like dr laura is going to go into a rant because heikoku was mean to her.

quit flamingCalling Dr. Laura is not flaming. Calling you a moron would be flaming.

if u look back in history women would get in trouble if they let there kids die like this, eye for a eye and allt hat

One case does not a trend make.

Then certainly you can show me this phenomenon and link any decline to the feminist movement and perhaps their direct involvement.

i already said the forum wont let me link anything

i already said the forum wont let me link anything

type in the website. if it won't let you link, you can still show your sources. IE google.com

quit flaming

Dr. Laura is a moron who should die an inglorious death by having her eyes gouged off while she is raped and eaten by a pack of hyenas.

Dr. Laura is a moron who should die an inglorious death by having her eyes gouged off while she is raped and eaten by a pack of hyenas.

i think thats against the tos i read them u cant wish death on people

i think thats against the tos i read them u cant wish death on people

Yeah? Well I wish death on BARNEY!:eek2:

http://viv.id.au/blog/20080505.1685/the-decline-of-parenting-skills/

i think thats against the tos i read them u cant wish death on people

Dr. Laura is a moron who should die an inglorious death by having her eyes gouged off while she is raped and eaten by a pack of hyenas and then go to Hell for all eternity, suffering in ever-increasing ways as she is unable to say or do anything that might alleviate it.

i already said the forum wont let me link anything
i thought they stopped that but all you have to do is paste the link. if you can post you can post a link. (if you get 10 posts you will be OK. its a spam preventer thing)

what are you trying to link?

i already said the forum wont let me link anything

First, are you posting from your cell phone? Do you not have a qwerty keyboard at your disposal? I mean, we're not discussing Gossip Girl, perhaps you could give some indication that you take the subject at least kind of serious?

Alright, school-marming aside-

You could copy paste links. You could give the names of studies you're citing and then give us the briefs. You could, in fact, make even the slightest of effort to give us any indication that what you are claiming is based on anything other then something that has been pulled from your ass, all without the actual link tool.

Dr. Laura is a moron

Undisputably.

who should die an inglorious death by having her eyes gouged off while she is raped and eaten by a pack of hyenas.

This is beyond the pale. Have you no decency?

Dr. Laura is a moron who should die an inglorious death by having her eyes gouged off while she is raped and eaten by a pack of hyenas and then go to Hell for all eternity, suffering in ever-increasing ways as she is unable to say or do anything that might alleviate it.

H2!!!!!

I thought you were an atheist.:D

quit flaming

That prior remark flaming; it's only flaming when the person is on this sight.

Dr. Laura is a moron who should die an inglorious death by having her eyes gouged off while she is raped and eaten by a pack of hyenas.

i think thats against the tos i read them u cant wish death on people

H2 remark remains, given the nature of the poster's reputation/posting style.

Undisputably.



This is beyond the pale. Have you no decency?

1- Good, we agree.

2- He asked for it when he said I was flaming. I'm posting this to make a point.

H2!!!!!

I thought you were an atheist.:D

Agnostic.

http://viv.id.au/blog/20080505.1685/the-decline-of-parenting-skills/

You didn't read this, did you? Go ahead, I'll give you a minute.

H2 remark remains, given the nature of the poster's reputation/posting style.
i dont understand do u mean that comment is aceptable here?

H2 remark remains, given the nature of the poster's reputation/posting style.

I'm doing this to make a point. I know fully well that Dr. Laura is unlikely to be a participant in this forum, so I figure that whatever I wish upon her or call her is kosher.

i dont understand do u mean that comment is aceptable here?

You're new, so I'll explain. He was being sarcastic because you took his first remark to be flaming when it wasn't. Though, I do wish he would use the smileys more.

I'm doing this to make a point. I know fully well that Dr. Laura is unlikely to be a participant in this forum, so I figure that whatever I wish upon her or call her is kosher.

I do realise that. You don't have to worry about me, I know that's what you're doing. I've read enough of your postings to be used to your style.

She has a point. I speak from personal experience. You don't know how many people who dare to say "equality" make a fuss when a woman gets beaten, but when a dude gets the same treatment they hardly even blink.

I mean seriously, if women want the same rights, and be the same as a man, then also take the responsibilities like a man and expect to be beaten as a man!

I cannot understand how people can call it otherwise "equal" -- I'm not even sure how the equal sign can even FIT there.

You're new, so I'll explain. He was being sarcastic because you took his first remark to be flaming when it wasn't. Though, I do wish he would use the smileys more.
so, if i said that obama should get ass raped by aids patients that would be okay too?

You didn't read this, did you?

I'm going to bet $20 on "no".

Dr. Laura is a moron who should die an inglorious death by having her eyes gouged off while she is raped and eaten by a pack of hyenas.

I just happened to be exploring this site and I find this!!!

That's it. I'm reporting you for flaming me.

so, if i said that obama should get ass raped by aids patients that would be okay too?

Pretty much, but I should warn you I have WAY more experience with wishing ill on people than you likely do, if you wanna play THAT game.

I just happened to be exploring this site and I find this!!!

That's it. I'm reporting you for flaming me.

*kicks*.

Whomever you may be.

Lol

I just happened to be exploring this site and I find this!!!

That's it. I'm reporting you for flaming me.

Don't forget the "eternity in Hell" part.

so, if i said that obama should get ass raped by aids patients that would be okay too?

No, that would not. It's AIDS, not aids. "Aids" is a group of helpers. AIDS is the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. Unless you do actually mean a group of helpers who happen to also be a group of patients.

*kicks*.

Whomever you may be.

That's harsh.

Poor Dr Laura. Flaming, and abuse? How mean!

That's harsh.

Poor Dr Laura. Flaming, and abuse? How mean!

Bitch had it coming. *nods slowly*

I just happened to be exploring this site and I find this!!!

That's it. I'm reporting you for flaming me.

Sorry, Dr. Laura. I hate to break it to you, but you're kinda dumb and sexist. ;)

She has a point. I speak from personal experience. You don't know how many people who dare to say "equality" make a fuss when a woman gets beaten, but when a dude gets the same treatment they hardly even blink.

I mean seriously, if women want the same rights, and be the same as a man, then also take the responsibilities like a man and expect to be beaten as a man!

I cannot understand how people can call it otherwise "equal" -- I'm not even sure how the equal sign can even FIT there.
and how many times have you seen a man who has been beaten by his wife/girlfriend get no sympathy when he comes forward?

Sorry, Dr. Laura. I hate to break it to you, but you're kinda dumb and sexist. ;)

Seconded.

That's harsh.

Poor Dr Laura. Flaming, and abuse? How mean!

Look, if men sometimes get kicked, it has to be okay to kick Dr. Laura, too.

*kicks*

can u all quit hijacking my thrad?

You don't know how many people who dare to say "equality" make a fuss when a woman gets beaten, but when a dude gets the same treatment they hardly even blink.

No, actually, I don't. Who are these people? Where can I find them?

I mean seriously, if women want the same rights, and be the same as a man, then also take the responsibilities like a man and expect to be beaten as a man!

That's stupid. No one should be beaten.

I cannot understand how people can call it otherwise "equal"

Well, good thing pretty much no feminists actually make the claim that domestic violence against men is acceptable, then....

Sorry, Dr. Laura. I hate to break it to you, but you're kinda dumb and sexist. ;)

AND she should die an inglorious death by having her eyes gouged off while she is raped and eaten by a pack of hyenas. ;)

Halfof these posts seem to belong in the Moderation thread

There's no way Dr. Laura is sexist. Women can't be sexist, just like minorities can't be racist. That's what conservatives always tell me I believe, so it must be true!

I totally agree there is a double standard right now that favors women. I believe someday it will violently self-correct, just as the double-standard which favored men was overthrown last century.

can u all quit hijacking my thrad?

Post something worth discussing that actually connects recent cases of child abuse to feminism, and we'll talk. It might help if you read them before you post them. That last one doesn't say what you think it does.

Ok, those of you who participated in the hijack...you've lot had your little thread derail session, now let's place nice and give our new friend our attention.

This is a pretty sad excuse for an anti-feminism thread. :(

No, actually, I don't. Who are these people? Where can I find them?It's a wonderful vast place called Internet shite.

That's stupid. No one should be beaten.But thinking that no one *is* beaten is naive. The question is: once someone is beaten, what are the charges? the accusations? do people care?

Well, good thing pretty much no feminists actually make the claim that domestic violence against men is acceptable, then....No they don't *say* that, they *act* like that, or rather do not *act* as quick or as severe as when they see a woman gets beaten. Maybe it's genetic trait, but seriously, how many times did you find "just a punch" so bad? Men are constantly told that they would be "pussies" if they would "cry" over one, but when a woman gets punched, *OMG* THAT BASTARD HOW COULD HE PUNCH HER!!!!111one!!1

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Second+thoughts+on+feminism-a083374706

I totally agree there is a double standard right now that favors women. I believe someday it will violently self-correct, just as the double-standard which favored men was overthrown last century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handmaids_tale

Men are constantly told that they would be "pussies" if they would "cry" over one1

Which is precisely the sort of silly, sexist attitude feminists oppose.

This is a pretty sad excuse for an anti-feminism thread. :(

im not antifemninsm i think its good when women can work and vote but i think the double standard isnt equal

Ok, those of you who participated in the hijack...you've lot had your little thread derail session, now let's place nice and give our new friend our attention.

*sits indian style with hands folded in lap*
*pulls Dr. Laura's pigtail.* *doesn't get caught*

It's a wonderful vast place called Internet shite.

But thinking that no one *is* beaten is naive. The question is: once someone is beaten, what are the charges? the accusations? do people care?

No they don't *say* that, they *act* like that, or rather do not *act* as quick or as severe as when they see a woman gets beaten. Maybe it's genetic trait, but seriously, how many times did you find "just a punch" so bad? Men are constantly told that they would be "pussies" if they would "cry" over one, but when a woman gets punched, *OMG* THAT BASTARD HOW COULD HE PUNCH HER!!!!111one!!1
when a man gets assaulted its the police's job to act. its not a random feminist's job to do something about it.

that many feminists place their efforts on stopping the abuse of women doesnt mean that they discount the abuse of men. its just where they put their efforts. kinda like if you give money to your local food bank it doesnt mean that you think there is no starvation in africa.

and i dont recall ever hearing a feminist call a man a pussy for objecting to being attacked by a woman.

*sits indian style with hands folded in lap*
*pulls Dr. Laura's pigtail.* *doesn't get caught*

Sarkhy-chama, demure? OMG! The end is upon us!!!:eek:

Which is precisely the sort of silly, sexist attitude feminists oppose.Dude wake up, I'm not talking about what they oppose, I'm talking about what said people (or majority) in REALITY do, even if they wrongly call themselves feminists. (because they DO call themselves "promoting equality", ironically) :p

of course there would be those who oppose -- like me for example, or I wouldn't be making a fuss.

im not antifemninsm i think its good when women can work and vote but i think the double standard isnt equal

Except you've yet to show evidence of any such double standard.

but back to my point do u guys think this woman should go to jail for leaving her baby with a gang member?

It's a wonderful vast place called Internet shite.

Lots of people have said very weird things on the Internet. As a source for the trends of opinion of political movements, it is hardly reliable.

But thinking that no one *is* beaten is naive.

I don't believe I suggested any such thing.

The question is: once someone is beaten, what are the charges? the accusations? do people care?

Suddenly you have moved from "people who dare to say 'equality'" (i.e., presumably, feminists) to people and society as such. That's a crucial shift.

Without doubt sex stereotypes harm men in a multitude of serious ways; the way it affects their capacity to report abuse, and their credibility when they do so, is one of them. But who is it who defends sex stereotypes and traditional gender roles? Feminists? I think not.

but back to my point do u guys think this woman should go to jail for leaving her baby with a gang member?
given that we know next to nothing about the case....

probably.

Dude wake up, I'm not talking about what they oppose, I'm talking about what said people in REALITY do. :p

of course there would be those who oppose -- like me for example, or I wouldn't be making a fuss.

Well, when we're speaking about abstract hypothetical people, I'm not really sure how we can know what they would or would not do. I know that I have never heard anyone who self-identifies as a feminist say or do anything to indicate that they are okay with men being abused or that any man who cries upon being punched is a "pussy." Given that the whole point of that insult is to suggest that the man in question is feminine, it doesn't seem like something that people who don't think being feminine is an inferior state - i.e. pretty much all feminists, by definition - would be terribly likely to say.

but back to my point do u guys think this woman should go to jail for leaving her baby with a gang member?

Is it illegal?

I mean - call me crazy - but, shouldn't people 'go to jail' for things that are 'illegal'?

given that we know next to nothing about the case....

probably.

u r 1 smart man

but back to my point do u guys think this woman should go to jail for leaving her baby with a gang member?

Yes. She should die an inglorious death by having her eyes gouged off while she is raped and eaten by a pack of hyenas and then go to Hell for all eternity, suffering in ever-increasing ways as she is unable to say or do anything that might alleviate it. ;)

Well, not really. She should be jailed for negligence, do her time and go back to society.

im not antifemninsm i think its good when women can work and vote but i think the double standard isnt equal

That sounds anti-feminism to me. *shrugs*

u r 1 smart man
i am not.

Lots of people have said very weird things on the Internet. As a source for the trends of opinion of political movements, it is hardly reliable.Well of course there's this psychological factor, you must admit. On the internet people are much more open than in RL, because they know they can pretty much get away with it. Although of course, it is virtually impossible to "measure" this, even in polls, especially if they're NOT anonymous (which is unlikely though).

I don't believe I suggested any such thing.My apologize, it's what I actually derived from your statements. My bad then. :)

Suddenly you have moved from "people who dare to say 'equality'" (e.g., presumably, feminists) to people and society as such. That's a crucial shift.

Without doubt sex stereotypes harm men in a multitude of serious ways; the way it affects their capacity to report abuse, and their credibility when they do so, is one of them. But who is it who defends sex stereotypes and traditional gender roles? Feminists? I think not.I have to point out two things:

1) What you are talking about are REAL feminists, in which case I would be one. However, in real life (well at least, my limited personal experience, not media) AND the internet I have seen probably 75% of who call themselves feminists and advocating "equality" that they do not respect the above norms (or whatever) I have outlined.

2) Yes when I said "people who dare to say equality" I was, obviously, talking about people in general, and thus society. Also I was talking about so-called self-proclaimed feminists or those who "promote equality". Obviously by your definition they wouldn't fit into it -- I'm only saying what they are calling themselves falls short of what they do. That's all.

i am not.

humble 2.

but back to my point do u guys think this woman should go to jail for leaving her baby with a gang member?


It would have to be proven that she was intently negligent. She may have known the man was in a gang, but she may not have known his other side. She may have believed in good faith otherwise.

but back to my point do u guys think this woman should go to jail for leaving her baby with a gang member?

Probably not, no. Knowing nothing more than that about the case, though, there's really no way to make such a call definitively.

That sounds anti-feminism to me. *shrugs*hmm

It would have to be proven that she was intently negligent. She may have known the man was in a gang, but she may not have known his other side. She may have believed in good faith otherwise.

I'd be willing to bet quite a lot of gangmembers actually have families.

There's no intrinsic link between 'gangmember' and 'beats children to death'.

There's no intrinsic link between 'gangmember' and 'beats children to death'.

Or negligence, for that matter.

humble 2.

*coughs* Ashmoria is female, I think that's what she was getting at.

I'd be willing to bet quite a lot of gangmembers actually have families.

There's no intrinsic link between 'gangmember' and 'beats children to death'.

so u sympathize with gang members

Or negligence, for that matter.

Exactly. To prove negligence, you'd have to show she was taking some sort of unreasonable risk.

I'd be willing to bet quite a lot of gangmembers actually have families.

There's no intrinsic link between 'gangmember' and 'beats children to death'.

Another valid point. One which I failed to mention, but yes, it is a good one. Just 'cause mommy or daddy's got badass tatts and drives a motorcycle, doesn't make him or her a bad parent. The cover is only the dust jacket on the novel.

Exactly. To prove negligence, you'd have to show she was taking some sort of unreasonable risk.

Which, by not knowing much about the case cited in the OP, we can't make any assumptions on the subject. *nod*

On the internet people are much more open than in RL, because they know they can pretty much get away with it.

Which means they can troll egregiously. And usually get all the attention when they do so.

However, in real life (well at least, my limited personal experience, not media) AND the internet I have seen probably 75% of who call themselves feminists and advocating "equality" that they do not respect the above norms (or whatever) I have outlined.

So your evidence is anecdotal and unverifiable?

How exactly do you know that "they do not respect the above norms"? Can you give examples?

I have feminist parents, have known plenty of feminist mothers, am friends and acquaintances with numerous feminists, read feminist blogs... I have never heard any of them say that the domestic violence against and the sexual abuse of men is irrelevant or should be ignored.

Call me weird but I think this isn't even a problem about "sexism" anymore, I think a guy would walk away just as easily from it. and actually I vote for jailing him too. :p

so u sympathize with gang members

Do I feel sympathy for them? Is that what you mean?

What's the point of the question?

Do I think that gangmembers are automatically to be assumed to be incapable of perfroming in family units?

Do I think 'gangmember' equates to 'child-abuser'?

Do I think gangs might not be entirely homogenous units, and that different people might behave... well, differently?



Or:

Do I think that the 'gangmember' reference in the original post is by way of deliberately trying to poison the well, so that it will be ASSUMED that the babysitter couldn't be trusted with a child, and ASSUMED that the mother SHOULD have known that, to force an emotion response that might not be supportable by strict analysis of the known FACTS? This one - yes.

this is obviously the wrong group to talk logic to

this is obviously the wrong group to talk logic to

That MUST be the problem. Logically.

this is obviously the wrong group to talk logic to

Your logic, perhaps.

u guys arent even asnwering the thread u r just flaimbaing me

this is obviously the wrong group to talk logic to

NSG is doing what NSG logically does best - question! It's the Spanish Inquisition 2.0!

u guys arent even asnwering the thread u r just flaimbaing me

I believe I answered your query. Most people have, but you did accuse them of not being the best group to 'talk logic to'. So, they aren't happy about it.

Grave_n_idle tried to answer you by asking more about the correlation between being a gang member and child abuse.

so u sympathize with gang members


Do I feel sympathy for them? Is that what you mean?

What's the point of the question?

Do I think that gangmembers are automatically to be assumed to be incapable of perfroming in family units?

Do I think 'gangmember' equates to 'child-abuser'?

Do I think gangs might not be entirely homogenous units, and that different people might behave... well, differently?



Or:

Do I think that the 'gangmember' reference in the original post is by way of deliberately trying to poison the well, so that it will be ASSUMED that the babysitter couldn't be trusted with a child, and ASSUMED that the mother SHOULD have known that, to force an emotion response that might not be supportable by strict analysis of the known FACTS? This one - yes.

Seems that someone does want to engage in debate... why not try answering it, Vanishing Shame?

NSG is doing what NSG logically does best - question! It's the Spanish Inquisition 2.0!

I want to lick you like a kitty!!:fluffle:

NSG is doing what NSG logically does best - question! It's the Spanish Inquisition 2.0!

Only we don't use torture and generally refrain from (literally) burning heretics at the stake.

Our methods are... subtler.

Only we don't use torture and generally refrain from (literally) burning heretics at the stake.

Our methods are... subtler.

But our best weapon is surprise!

u guys arent even asnwering the thread u r just flaimbaing me

Answer: Do I think that the 'gangmember' reference in the original post is by way of deliberately trying to poison the well, so that it will be ASSUMED that the babysitter couldn't be trusted with a child, and ASSUMED that the mother SHOULD have known that, to force an emotion response that might not be supportable by strict analysis of the known FACTS? This one - yes.

Thread answered. What more did you want?

Which means they can troll egregiously. And usually get all the attention when they do so.They aren't trolls per se, because they do argue with you and they are members of forums. They don't attack you in any way, they just argue in that way. Doesn't mean they are trolls.

So your evidence is anecdotal and unverifiable?Why evidence? I'm not going to bother you with "official" statistics, I'm just stating from my personal experience. Feel free to call it limited to naive, but case in question was a video of a cop beating a "girl" because she threw a shoe at him. Funny thing is that many equal-promoters actually emphasized the girl argument. Not the fact that she was "weak" or "a teenager" (I think 15 yrs old), or "fragile" or "unfair" (a shoe vs a beating? lol). No, they emphasized the girl aspect.

When I confronted these guys, like on any pointless section (I won't even go into YouTube comments), they said that "Dude, it's a girl!! oO" straight and then said that it's "not a stereotype". "Boys are supposed to be much stronger" -- as if beating a girl is like beating a handicapped person, compared to a boy.

I have feminist parents, have known plenty of feminist mothers, am friends and acquaintances with numerous feminists, read feminist blogs... I have never heard any of them say that the domestic violence against and the sexual abuse of men is irrelevant or should be ignored.You mean not even once in your life have you had that stereotype of "men are tough, they aren't supposed to cry"? Never ever has that gone through anyone's thoughts? Hmm... then yeah it's probably just my limited experience.

I have no doubt, however, that it's what they claim. I wouldn't be so sure it's what they would act. I mean sure, how many men actually cry over a punch compared to girls? How many "expect" to behave that way anyway?

You mean not even once in your life have you had that stereotype of "men are tough, they aren't supposed to cry"? Never ever has that gone through anyone's thoughts?

Not that. I just haven't heard it from self-proclaimed feminists. Ever.

I'd cry if I was punched by a girl. Then I would have to muster all my energy to turn the other cheek without exploding.

I have a friend of mine who says he IS promoting equality. Guess what he thinks? ;)

Sarkhy-chama, demure? OMG! The end is upon us!!!:eek:
It does happen every so often. I'm usually plotting.
but back to my point do u guys think this woman should go to jail for leaving her baby with a gang member?No. Being a gang member in no way implies that one will beat a child to death. It does not even imply that one will be a bad parent. She may have exercised poor judgement, but that is not inherently negligent, nor criminal.

u guys arent even asnwering the thread u r just flaimbaing me

Several people have answered.

I have a friend of mine who says he IS promoting equality.

Most people say they're promoting equality these days. Does he self-identify as a feminist?

[Women do not go to jail] at the same rate as men ... .
If men want to stop going to jail more frequently than women then I suggest that a good place to start might be committing less crime than women.

Most people say they're promoting equality these days.EXACTLY THAT WAS MY POINT!
*Most* identify them as promoting equality (maybe less call themselves feminists), but they fall short of what they claim. Not all of course, but not all who claim it. :)

but back to my point do u guys think this woman should go to jail for leaving her baby with a gang member?

No, I don't think it's a logical conclusion that leaving a baby with a gang member that you know/trust will result in its death.

If men want to stop going to jail more frequently than women then I suggest that a good place to start might be committing less crime than women.

i could say the same for blacks but then id be a racsist.

i could say the same for blacks but then id be a racsist.

Are men disproportionately likely to be born into such poverty that crime seems the only option?

EXACTLY THAT WAS MY POINT!

Then, in fact, you agree with the social critique of us feminists (and not just in abstract, but the ones actually existing too). For a major part of our point is that many of our society's pretenses of sexual equality are false, and that should be changed.

This, for the record, is why the term is "feminist", not "sexual egalitarian."

Are men disproportionately likely to be born into such poverty that crime seems the only option?

blacks are in jail more than whites because white men arent punished as harshly its fact it has nothing to do with poverty it has to do with double standards

im not antifemninsm i think its good when women can work and vote but i think the double standard isnt equal

You mean the double standard where it's good for men to be promiscuous, but bad for women? You mean the double standard where it's ok to pay a woman less for the same work? You mean the double standard where women are expected to do the majority of the housework and child rearing in addition to a full time job, but men are not? Yeah, you're right, double standards are ass... but I'm unaware of the sort of double standards you seem to think exist.

blacks are in jail more than whites because white men arent punished as harshly its fact it has nothing to do with poverty it has to do with double standards

Are you alluding to racism? And I'm not calling you a racist.

it has nothing to do with poverty

....What. Do you not agree that those born into poverty are more likely to engage in crime?

....What. Do you not agree that those born into poverty are more likely to engage in crime?

Generalization alert.

I totally agree there is a double standard right now that favors women. I believe someday it will violently self-correct, just as the double-standard which favored men was overthrown last century.Where ever you live, it isn’t the real world. What you’re describing just isn’t true, even for the most privileged elements of society.

Case Study: The Glass Ceiling (http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4197626)

Are you alluding to racism? And I'm not calling you a racist.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/Masked_Racism_ADavis.html

blacks are in jail more than whites because white men arent punished as harshly its fact it has nothing to do with poverty it has to do with double standards

lol.
Are you seriously suggesting that people born into poverty are not more likely to go to jail than those born into middle and upper class families?

Not that double standards don't exist, but to claim poverty doesn't influence it is ludicrous.

....What. Do you not agree that those born into poverty are more likely to engage in crime?

Those with little to lose have the most to gain from a risky situation.

Then, in fact, you agree with the social critique of us feminists (and not just in abstract, but the ones actually existing too). For a major part of our point is that many of our society's pretenses of sexual equality are false, and that should be changed.Yes well like I said I *am* a feminist by this definition, but I am not by the majority of people I know (or at least they call themselves such). No I haven't asked my friend about whether he considers himself a feminist (I was speaking, now, about the internet stuff), I never asked him. Though if I *give* the definition to him he would probably say "yes". I don't actually want to get into an argument with him, since I've had enough on the internet (lol not at this site trust me ;)).

I *do* say that your definition is the correct one. However what I also said is that many people plainly call themselves that way without practicing it at all.

....What. Do you not agree that those born into poverty are more likely to engage in crime?

lock up all the white trash then

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/Masked_Racism_ADavis.html

Racism is racism, simple as that. It's not a double standard.

lock up all the white trash then

So being poor and/or uncouth is now a crime? Of course, there is an easy way to fix it.


It's called 'socialism' - you know, that evil leftist liberal policy that will destroy the moral fabric of society and cause civilization to falls to its knee, hailing in an era of chaos and anarchy?

lock up all the white trash then

I fear you're not clear in what you're trying to present, Vanishing_shame.

lock up all the white trash then

Yes, because "Group X is more likely to do Y" is the same as "All members of Group X do Y"
:rolleyes:

blacks are in jail more than whites because white men arent punished as harshly its fact it has nothing to do with poverty it has to do with double standards

So, if feminists REALLY cared about equality, more women would be black?

It's called 'socialism' - you know, that evil leftist liberal policy that will destroy the moral fabric of society and cause civilization to falls to its knee, hailing in an era of chaos and anarchy?
HEY Don't you dare call me an evil bastard! :p

So being poor and/or uncouth is now a crime? Of course, there is an easy way to fix it.
i was being sarcastic. you all are pretty stupid.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/Masked_Racism_ADavis.html

I wonder if Ms. Davis would be inclined to agree with your view of feminism.

Yes, because "Group X is more likely to do Y" is the same as "All members of Group X do Y"
:rolleyes:

The double standard here stings.:rolleyes:

Not a slight on your comment, PC.

Racism is racism, simple as that. It's not a double standard.

Double standards can be racist...

So, if feminists REALLY cared about equality, more women would be black?

can u read? if it was equal then the prison populartion would be representitive of the general populartion.

Double standards can be racist...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Yes, because "Group X is more likely to do Y" is the same as "All members of Group X do Y"
:rolleyes:Ok now another one of my "experiences": I know personally a friend who used to be a Taxi driver. He said he was less likely to get "people of color" a ride. No, he wasn't racist, but given that here (back then) there were a lot of gypsies which ARE BLACK (in Romania btw), I guess you can draw conclusions.

I mean seriously if you were in his place, wouldn't this very thought even go through your head? I can understand him, and I do not say he was racist or a bastard or sexist or whatever you want to call him. Maybe afraid, but then again, racism is sometimes born out of fear too -- when you feel insecure about yourself (and want to project hatred towards others who happen to be different) OR when you truly are afraid.

i was being sarcastic. you all are pretty stupid.

Kindly explain your point to all us poor dimwitted fools.

can u read? if it was equal then the prison populartion would be representitive of the general populartion.

Not in all cases. For example blacks commit proportionally more murders than whites do. Though it is true way too many black people are put in jail for drug possession.

can u read? if it was equal then the prison populartion would be representitive of the general populartion.

Ah. So your complaint is that women don't commit enough crimes?

No, he wasn't racist, but given that here (back then) there were a lot of gypsies which ARE BLACK (in Romania btw), I guess you can draw conclusions.

...that he was a racist? Yes.

Ah. So your complaint is that women don't commit enough crimes?

they do but they arent punished as much as men are

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Yeah, that's what I said. Double standards can be racist, i.e. motivated by racism.

i was being sarcastic. you all are pretty stupid.

"You are all pretty stupid" would have been better.

HEY Don't you dare call me an evil bastard! :p

Don't deny it. I see those horns. Welcome to the club, dear comrade.

i was being sarcastic. you all are pretty stupid.

This is a good example of what NOT to do in NSG. You could have left your response at the first sentence, but instead you added in that remark. That's TROLLING. Bad idea calling everyone here "stupid" because you were unable to communicate sarcasm effectively.

Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs. Intent is difficult to prove over the internet, so mods will work under their best assumptions.

The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023) is your friend. Open 24/7. Get acquainted with it. This are the rules you should know. Since this is your first time, I'm giving you a copy of the rules and sending you on your way with no yellow card.

they do but they arent punished as much as men are

Ah.

This should be easy, then.

Is it okay if I just wait here while I wait for you to present a source that says women and men commit an equal volume of crimes?

Yeah, that's what I said. Double standards can be racist, i.e. motivated by racism.

I don't see that applying here, though.

they do but they arent punished as much as men are

So what crime did the woman who left her baby with a gang member boyfriend commit? You might argue that it was poor judgment, but that's not a crime.

Also: source? Try something other than a blog.

This is a good example of what NOT to do in NSG. You could have left your response at the first sentence, but instead you added in that remark. That's TROLLING. Bad idea calling everyone here "stupid" because you were unable to communicate sarcasm effectively.

Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs. Intent is difficult to prove over the internet, so mods will work under their best assumptions.

The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023) is your friend. Open 24/7. Get acquainted with it. This are the rules you should know. Since this is your first time, I'm giving you a copy of the rules and sending you on your way with no yellow card.
im sorry but i didnt think u enforced those rules earlier in the thread many people broke them and nothing happened, u just joined in with them, when the mods hijack and flambait i thought it meant the rules werent the rules i know how it goes now
Ah.

This should be easy, then.

Is it okay if I just wait here while I wait for you to present a source that says women and men commit an equal volume of crimes?
of course i cant because its part of the conspiracy

can u all quit hijacking my thrad?An obvious troll doesn't use capitalisation, punctuation, or anything that really resembles proper English. A smart troll does what you did, much, much better.

So what crime did the woman who left her baby with a gang member boyfriend commit? You might argue that it was poor judgment, but that's not a crime.

Also: source? Try something other than a blog.

neglegence.

I don't see that applying here, though.

It applies. You stated that racism in the legal system is "not a double standard."

im sorry but i didnt think u enforced those rules earlier in the thread many people broke them and nothing happened, u just joined in with them, when the mods hijack and flambait i thought it meant the rules werent the rules i know how it goes now

of course i cant because its part of the conspiracy

It's the Jews again, isn't it?

It applies. You stated that racism in the legal system is "not a double standard."

Racism into what VS was stating.

of course i cant because its part of the conspiracy

Ah, now if you were arguing that women were PROSECUTED less, that could be part of 'the conspiracy'.

If you were arguing that women were found GUILTY less, that could be part of 'the conspiracy'.

But, if women COMMIT less crime, that's not 'conspiracy'... that's what we like to call 'not committing as many crimes'. You're actually allowed to do that, in many cultures.

neglegence.

How is it negligence? He's her boyfriend. Did she have any reason to suspect that he would be an inadequate babysitter? Just because he's in a gang doesn't mean he'd beat up a kid. Leaving the kid at home alone while she went somewhere would be negligence.

Also, lovely how you addressed my point about real double standards.

...that he was a racist? Yes.How come he was racist? He didn't have any bone to pick with a black dude. If I were to introduce him to, let's say (hypothetically as I don't have), one of my friends who happens to be black, he would be very "ok" with him. Not racist at all.

It's easy to talk when you aren't in the situation. If you heard that 90% of blacks rob you without you even knowing (90% are gypsies here, or at least were then), you mean in the slightest this very thought wouldn't go through your head? Especially if you have been "robbed" before? I don't buy it, but then again, maybe there's different.

(Also most of this "robbery" or "pickpocketing" happens, of course, in the public transportation vehicles, but then people ALSO have "standards" to steer clear of black people (I mean gypsies of course); I seriously can't blame them; people are 'advised', especially teenagers, to steer clear of "black people" or "gypsies" or whatever -- does that make the parents and teachers racist for wanting to protect their children?).

im sorry but i didnt think u enforced those rules earlier in the thread many people broke them and nothing happened, u just joined in with them, when the mods hijack and flambait i thought it meant the rules werent the rules i know how it goes now

The rules weren't enforced earlier because of previous rulings that have been made. There was no breaking of rules. I would have been more than happy to hand out yellow cards (they taste just like lemon drops). I also figured because you were new, I should give you a break.

You should observe some threads. You'll see that there is a lot to learn about understanding tone. People do post stuff here that without voice is ambiguous. You need to learn to read tone; understand the intent of the words.

Your statement intended as sarcastic fell flat because there was no history or any indication of tone.

It's the Jews again, isn't it?

Oh hush. Everyone knows it's not the Jews; it's the Illuminati.

Racism into what VS was stating.

Wasn't he "stating" about racism in the legal system with that link about prison racial demographics?

Oh hush. Everyone knows it's not the Jews; it's the Illuminati.

The Jews control the Illuminati

it's the jews again, isn't it?rofl :d

Ah, now if you were arguing that women were PROSECUTED less, that could be part of 'the conspiracy'.

If you were arguing that women were found GUILTY less, that could be part of 'the conspiracy'.

But, if women COMMIT less crime, that's not 'conspiracy'... that's what we like to call 'not committing as many crimes'. You're actually allowed to do that, in many cultures.

there arent any stats on how many crimes women commit because they arent even arrested for them just like theres not stats on how much pot i smoke in my apartment because i never get caught

Oh hush. Everyone knows it's not the Jews; it's the Illuminati.

That's what you think...

*sits indian style with hands folded in lap*
*pulls Dr. Laura's pigtail.* *doesn't get caught*
Caught you.

Also, dot or feather?
but back to my point do u guys think this woman should go to jail for leaving her baby with a gang member?

Is it illegal?

I mean - call me crazy - but, shouldn't people 'go to jail' for things that are 'illegal'?

^ this.

Being a gang member does not automatically mean you are a child murderer. Just like being an upstanding citizen doesn't mean you aren't.



Yes.

Well, not really. She should be jailed for negligence, do her time and go back to society.
She would have had to have known, or ought ot have known that she was putting her child into danger.

Generalization alert.
Well... yes hence the "more likely", I'm hardly saying all or most do (although most everyone breaks a law at some point or another).

Those with little to lose have the most to gain from a risky situation.

Exactly.

lock up all the white trash then
I said: more likely to, the solution is less poverty, not lock everyone up.

Ah.

This should be easy, then.

Is it okay if I just wait here while I wait for you to present a source that says women and men commit an equal volume of crimes?

And they'd have to show they committed the same crimes.
neglegence.

As I believe Grave_n_idle mentioned earlier you would have to show that a rational person would equate a gang member and baby killing. Or that there was some other reason to believe he would kill the baby. Although a lawyer may come along and correct me on this (and please do if I'm wrong).

Also, is there actually any real information on this instance where a woman left her son with a gang member boyfriend who beat the kid to death? I ran a google search and nothing came up that seemed relevant.

edit: I found one instance where this was mentioned... an amazon.com page for one of Dr Laura's books. Is anyone sure she didn't make this up?

Caught you.:(

Also, dot or feather?Feather. I have bad knees...lotus is a little beyond my abilities.

there arent any stats on how many crimes women commit because they arent even arrested for them just like theres not stats on how much pot i smoke in my apartment because i never get caught
...and how do you know that women are committing these crimes more frequently than men without getting caught?

Also, is there actually any real information on this instance where a woman left her son with a gang member boyfriend who beat the kid to death? I ran a google search and nothing came up that seemed relevant.

It's the conspiracy, you can't find evidence for a conspiracy, 'they' hide it.

You'll just have to believe it, have faith.

...and how do you know that women are committing these crimes more frequently than men without getting caught?

because i know. i dont have a source but i know it. dont u know anything wihtout sources?

because i know. i dont have a source but i know it. dont u know anything wihtout sources?

Generally, no. I may believe or assume something, but without evidence, I don't know it.

Generally, no. I may believe or assume something, but without evidence, I don't know it.

oh. i believe it then i guess.

It's the conspiracy, you can't find evidence for a conspiracy, 'they' hide it.

You'll just have to believe it, have faith.

No, it's just that you would think something like this would make the news. Instead the only person who seems to mention this on the interwebs is Dr Laura and those who source her. There are no names, not even city names, no real details... I suspect she invented it.

because i know. i dont have a source but i know it. dont u know anything wihtout sources?

Many of us do, but in debate we choose to present evidence backing our claims, as the other side may not know what we know, thus the need to present external sources supporting your side.

oh. i believe it then i guess.

Now, do you acknowledge that reality may contradict your belief, and that you may just be wrong/naive? Or do you stand by it 100% despite a total lack of evidence?

So, if feminists REALLY cared about equality, more women would be black?
My favourite quote of the week!


:(

Feather. I have bad knees...lotus is a little beyond my abilities.Quite appropriating my culture!

So did we establish that this particular event didn't actually happen, or what?

How about this question? Should women who stay in abusive relationships, and whose children are abused as a result of that (by the abusive partner) be jailed?

Quite appropriating my culture!

I will appropriate whatever culture I want, bitch.

Yeah. What now.

No, it's just that you would think something like this would make the news. Instead the only person who seems to mention this on the interwebs is Dr Laura and those who source her. There are no names, not even city names, no real details... I suspect she invented it.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/story/1422539.html

way to make unsupported claims

Now, do you acknowledge that reality may contradict your belief, and that you may just be wrong/naive? Or do you stand by it 100% despite a total lack of evidence?

i stand behind nothing 100% only an idiot would

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/story/1422539.html

way to make unsupported claims

there's a sentence about a pot and a kettle and the absence of color within additive color mixing somewhere around here...

It seems to be a function of adolescence that you live your first decade mostly in ignorant bliss, assuming the world to break down into good and evil. You see the world from the cocoon of your own family and immediate surroundings.

It's a shock to wake up and realise that not everything is quite so simple, and the need to find something to blame for the world not being quite as you imagined results in these blanket statements about the cause of the world's ills.

Of course, some people never escape this phase.

It seems to be a function of adolescence that you live your first decade mostly in ignorant bliss, assuming the world to break down into good and evil. You see the world from the cocoon of your own family and immediate surroundings.

It's a shock to wake up and realise that not everything is quite so simple, and the need to find something to blame for the world not being quite as you imagined results in these blanket statements about the cause of the world's ills.

Of course, some people never escape this phase.

do u have anything to say about the topik or r u here to flamebait me more?

because i know. i dont have a source but i know it. dont u know anything wihtout sources?

No. I don't "just know" anything, and neither do you. You may think you know something, but unless you have good cause to think it's true (that is, evidence or a rational extrapolation from it), then your "knowledge" is merely a hunch.

Further, even if you could somehow "just know" such a fact, a good source is necessary to convince us-- because we have no reason to think that your claims of fact are worthwhile. There's a reason citation of sources is important in academia, you know. And just because this isn't an academic setting doesn't mean that we don't recognize the ideas behind sourcing claims.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/story/1422539.html

way to make unsupported claims

Had you provided this earlier I wouldn't have had to google "woman's boyfriend kills child North Carolina gang member" and come up with a string of stories about women getting killed by gang member boyfriends and all this... though I did come across an article which mentioned that deaf people tend to get shot by gang members more often than average innocent bystanders.

Also, I would hardly call "I suspect she might have made this up because I can't find an original source" an unsupported claim. I would call it a suspicion that I have stated aloud.

I will appropriate whatever culture I want, bitch.

Yeah. What now.Welcome to intellectual property law as applied to communal cultural practices. We may not win, but it's going to cost you at least 10 years of your time and effort, not to mention millions of dollars.

Booyah!

Had you provided this earlier I wouldn't have had to google "woman's boyfriend kills child North Carolina gang member" and come up with a string of stories about women getting killed by gang member boyfriends and all this... though I did come across an article which mentioned that deaf people tend to get shot by gang members more often than average innocent bystanders.

Also, I would hardly call "I suspect she might have made this up because I can't find an original source" an unsupported claim. I would call it a suspicion that I have stated aloud.

In fact, "I suspect" makes it automatically sourced-- as you are the ultimate source on your own thoughts.

I still haven't seen any answer to my question (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14617805&postcount=137). If your suggestion to imprison the poor was sarcastic, what point was it intended to make?

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/story/1422539.html

way to make unsupported claims

No, it's just that you would think something like this would make the news. Instead the only person who seems to mention this on the interwebs is Dr Laura and those who source her. There are no names, not even city names, no real details... I suspect she invented it.

See, this has qualifiers like 'seems' and 'I suspect'. Dakini freely admits the possibility of being wrong. The claims made are about the impression given by the available evidence, and are thus supported.

See this is, Londim, is the problem with trolls. They can't sustain a debate beyond the first few passes. :(

Had you provided this earlier I wouldn't have had to google "woman's boyfriend kills child North Carolina gang member" and come up with a string of stories about women getting killed by gang member boyfriends and all this... though I did come across an article which mentioned that deaf people tend to get shot by gang members more often than average innocent bystanders.

Also, I would hardly call "I suspect she might have made this up because I can't find an original source" an unsupported claim. I would call it a suspicion that I have stated aloud.

in case u cant read the fucking forum wouldnt let me link ANYTHING until i had a bunch of posts and then i forgot to go back and link it becuz everyone whent apeshit on me like for no reason

Also, I would hardly call "I suspect she might have made this up because I can't find an original source" an unsupported claim. I would call it a suspicion that I have stated aloud.You're right, should be called poor googling skillz :p

Welcome to intellectual property law as applied to communal cultural practices. We may not win, but it's going to cost you at least 10 years of your time and effort, not to mention millions of dollars.

Booyah!

And it won't cost you, collectively, millions of dollars as well as ten years of your time?

Also, perhaps you should be reading this story instead of Dr Laura's version.

So this woman is living with her boyfriend and leaves her children with him to go to work. Why exactly should she be charged with negligence?

in case u cant read the fucking forum wouldnt let me link ANYTHING until i had a bunch of posts and then i forgot to go back and link it becuz everyone whent apeshit on me like for no reason

*gasp*
He's onto us! Soon our vast conspiracy against some random guy on the internet will be undone!

And it won't cost you, collectively, millions of dollars as well as ten years of your time?

Silly you, we get federal funding for this sort of thing! Not only that, but it gives us a reason to push more of our people into the legal profession as well as providing them opportunities to cut their legal teeth on real cases!

in case u cant read the fucking forum wouldnt let me link ANYTHING until i had a bunch of posts and then i forgot to go back and link it becuz everyone whent apeshit on me like for no reason

There's no way the forum wouldn't let you link anything. Further, you have been linking things. The only reason you shouldn't have linked this is that it completely undermines your position because now we have access to actual details and can see that your position is essentially garbage.

well, i get off work in like 1 minute so ill come back tomorrow maybe if u guys can play nicer

And it won't cost you, collectively, millions of dollars as well as ten years of your time?

That's a lot less for a large group than for one person, though.

There's no way the forum wouldn't let you link anything. Further, you have been linking things. The only reason you shouldn't have linked this is that it completely undermines your position because now we have access to actual details and can see that your position is essentially garbage.

um... it didnt let me link things until i had a certain number of posts, quit lying or talk about things u understand k?

You're right, should be called poor googling skillz :p
It's hard googling when I have no information to start from. :S

Also, lots of women get killed by gang member boyfriends.

Welcome to intellectual property law as applied to communal cultural practices. We may not win, but it's going to cost you at least 10 years of your time and effort, not to mention millions of dollars.

Booyah!

...I've got 5 dollars (US), a pen, a wine key, some lint, and half a 40....

...I've got 5 dollars (US), a pen, a wine key, some lint, and half a 40....

As in liquor? Fuck it. *sits* Let's drink!

There's no way the forum wouldn't let you link anything. Further, you have been linking things. The only reason you shouldn't have linked this is that it completely undermines your position because now we have access to actual details and can see that your position is essentially garbage.

Actually, Jolt won't let you post a link until you have 4+ posts. I tried quite recently.

I have feminist parents, have known plenty of feminist mothers, am friends and acquaintances with numerous feminists, read feminist blogs... I have never heard any of them say that the domestic violence against and the sexual abuse of men is irrelevant or should be ignored.

I lived in Santa Cruz, one of the greatest feminist capitals of the Western world, and I've never heard anything like that, either. I've heard crazy radical feminists say all heterosexual sex is rape, but not that it's okay for men to be abused.

um... it didnt let me link things until i had a certain number of posts, quit lying or talk about things u understand k?

Ok. Explain how your position (that the woman should be charged with negligence) still stands when you read the news article you posted. You know, the one where this woman was living with her boyfriend and left him alone with her kids while she went to work. Presumably, this isn't the first time he had babysat her kids since they all lived together prior to the death of her son.

well, i get off work in like 1 minute so ill come back tomorrow maybe if u guys can play nicerSuper plus ungood troll is done :(

do u have anything to say about the topik or r u here to flamebait me more?

I'm not sure what to say about the topic, Dr. Laura seems to think that women should go back to minding the house and children while their upright, steadfast husband goes to work, the way it was in the good old days.

Except it wasn't quite like that in the good old days outside of 50's sitcoms.

This story is a problem of poverty and violence not feminism.

Silly you, we get federal funding for this sort of thing! Not only that, but it gives us a reason to push more of our people into the legal profession as well as providing them opportunities to cut their legal teeth on real cases!

*files for federal funding to stop the cultural imperialism of European culture by the brown folk, plus it pushes more of the white folk into the legal profession for which they are vastly underrepresented in as well as providing opportunities for them to sharpen their claws on the devil people's lawyers.*

It's hard googling when I have no information to start from. :S

Also, lots of women get killed by gang member boyfriends.I know I was half-jokingly though. :wink:
...I've got 5 dollars (US), a pen, a wine key, some lint, and half a 40....No shit! Do they allow people there to carry around such dangerous weapons? :eek:

Actually, Jolt won't let you post a link until you have 4+ posts. I tried quite recently.

He could have also said something like "google DonJuan Smith Jr" which turns up news articles discussing this case.

As in liquor? Fuck it. *sits* Let's drink!

Nastrovya!

Actually, it's a St. Ides...just four days late to conquor Brutus...

So, if feminists REALLY cared about equality, more women would be black?

That just made me almost lose my spit. Well played.

Super plus ungood troll is done :(really, no one may agree with him, but he is not a troll...

That's a lot less for a large group than for one person, though.

True, though the money probably could be used more productively elsewhere, and we are assuming that the opposite side can't get a group. I could see copylefters, free culture peeps, civil right groups could join in to fight overzealous copyright law. Plus there's all the commercial interests that exploit the natives. They'll pitch in if they think their interests are being jeapordized.

in case u cant read the fucking forum wouldnt let me link ANYTHING until i had a bunch of posts and then i forgot to go back and link it becuz everyone whent apeshit on me like for no reason

If you were having trouble posting, you should have made a request in technical or checked the stickies there.

Nobody went "apeshit"; they just called your arguments baseless because you didn't want to post links that substantiated them.

well, i get off work in like 1 minute so ill come back tomorrow maybe if u guys can play nicer

I believe this remark speaks for itself...

really, no one may agree with him, but he is not a troll...
You're not from around these parts, are you.

All he was missing were the gun smileys in the first post. Seriously. He laid it on too thick.

there's a sentence about a pot and a kettle and the absence of color within additive color mixing somewhere around here...

That was a long way to go to rephrase a familiar adage. I approve.

You're not from around these parts, are you.

All he was missing were the gun smileys in the first post. Seriously. He laid it on too thick.ok, you got me there, I'm certainly not from these parts (only used to post on NS2 forums, that's how I got this high a post count :p), and maybe I'm just trying to compare him to YouTube trolls. Fail on my part then :tongue:

He could have also said something like "google DonJuan Smith Jr" which turns up news articles discussing this case.

True. Or posted addresses that weren't links. Or posted on a couple of other threads first.

True. Or posted addresses that weren't links. Or posted on a couple of other threads first.

Or maybe not disappeared suspiciously when I pointed out that the actual news article (or other news articles that I found on the subject) make his case that the mother should be charged with negligence seem really silly.

That was a long way to go to rephrase a familiar adage. I approve.

Danke!

Well, our thread host left for the night, but I hope to leave this little gift for him, a kind of Harry & David welcome basket to NSG from me, Muravyets. I hope he likes it:

but back to my point do u guys think this woman should go to jail for leaving her baby with a gang member?
Since when was that your point?

Your thread title and your OP created a very strong impression that you were using this story as an indictment of feminism in general. Are you backpedaling from that now?

Also, to forestall you complaining that I have not answered you:

Unless she had prior knowledge that this individual posed a threat to the child, then no, she committed no crime.

so u sympathize with gang members
Attempting to demonize your opponent by implying that they support criminals just because they do not agree with you? That's bad form, and it makes for a poor argument.



I'd be willing to bet quite a lot of gangmembers actually have families.

There's no intrinsic link between 'gangmember' and 'beats children to death'.

Another valid point. One which I failed to mention, but yes, it is a good one. Just 'cause mommy or daddy's got badass tatts and drives a motorcycle, doesn't make him or her a bad parent. The cover is only the dust jacket on the novel.
These two.^^ Plus, let us not forget the enormous numbers of child abusers and murderers who appear to be blandly normal members of the law-abiding mainstream, while behind closed doors, they are committing horrible crimes. To suggest that just because the person is a gang member, we should assume from that fact that he is a danger to a child (as if someone else would not be a danger) shows a level of unthinking social prejudice.

this is obviously the wrong group to talk logic to
:D You made me laugh.

i was being sarcastic. you all are pretty stupid.
Ah, I see you are an expert on flaming, so we should take your accusations of it more seriously, eh? /sarcasm.

can u read? if it was equal then the prison populartion would be representitive of the general populartion.
Can you read? If it was equal, then the prison population would be representative of the general population.

Fixed. If you are going to call everyone in the thread stupid, you really should try to appear smart.


they do but they arent punished as much as men are
And of course, you can show us the information that causes you to think this.

there arent any stats on how many crimes women commit because they arent even arrested for them just like theres not stats on how much pot i smoke in my apartment because i never get caught
Oh, I see. You can't show us the information because it does not exist. Nice. I lol'd again.


Also, is there actually any real information on this instance where a woman left her son with a gang member boyfriend who beat the kid to death? I ran a google search and nothing came up that seemed relevant.

edit: I found one instance where this was mentioned... an amazon.com page for one of Dr Laura's books. Is anyone sure she didn't make this up?
Knowing Dr. Laura's career, it is entirely possible that she just made it up.


because i know. i dont have a source but i know it. dont u know anything wihtout sources?

oh. i believe it then i guess.
A more accurate word for claiming that something is true when you have absolutely no evidence to support the assertion is "bullshit."

So let's review your early performance in NSG:

1) You start out by using an unsupported anecdote by a known biased writer/radio host to attack feminism as a whole.

2) You quickly abandon that to claim that your point all along was just whether this one woman should go to jail for leaving her child with the wrong person.

3) You receive several answers to that question but claim that no one has answered it, and you also insult us all in general for it.

4) You then claim that there exists a conspiracy of some kind that allows women to commit crime willy-nilly without going to jail for it -- an assertion for which you admit you have zero evidence.

Impressive. You have demonstrated several significant troll-moves in just this one relatively short thread, and you're still a newbie. Oh, yeah, you'll go far here.

Or maybe not disappeared suspiciously when I pointed out that the actual news article (or other news articles that I found on the subject) make his case that the mother should be charged with negligence seem really silly.

*Laughs.* There is that, yes.

Can you read? If it was equal, then the prison population would be representative of the general population.

For the sake of general grammatical pedantry: since he's presenting a counterfactual, it should be "If it were equal."

For the sake of general grammatical pedantry: since he's presenting a counterfactual, it should be "If it were equal."
:hail: Good catch. As dumb as that makes me feel, though, I still feel smarter than the sentence I tried to correct.

*Laughs.* There is that, yes.

Actually, the fact that the mother in this case was off to work at a pizza joint, probably earning shit wages and likely unable to afford daycare (plus who puts children in daycare when a partner is available and staying home anyway?) makes Dr Laura's argument quoted in the opening post that much more ridiculous. Seriously, think about this woman's situation in life a little and then read Dr Laura's opinion of what happened. Also, this woman had been seeing her boyfriend for a couple of months, not a week as implied in the OP (or early on by the thread starter) and had no reason to believe that he would harm her children. In fact, she and her children had been living with her boyfriend... yet she should be put away for negligence?

See, this is why I went looking for an original news source.

And they'd have to show they committed the same crimes.


Even equal volume would be a start.


As I believe Grave_n_idle mentioned earlier you would have to show that a rational person would equate a gang member and baby killing. Or that there was some other reason to believe he would kill the baby. Although a lawyer may come along and correct me on this (and please do if I'm wrong).

Not a lawyer, but I tend to agree. Negligence probably requires more than just dropping your kids off at the sitter.

there arent any stats on how many crimes women commit because they arent even arrested for them...

Then how do you know they're committing them?

Then how do you know they're committing them?

He's magical?

He's magical?

Can't argue with that.





No, I mean, really. Just can't. It's like trying to pee through bulletproof glass.

*ping*

Ew.

Can't argue with that.





No, I mean, really. Just can't. It's like trying to pee through bulletproof glass.

*ping*

Ew.
Hm... Are you suggesting that you can pee through regular glass?

You might want to get checked by a urologist. I don't think you should be spurting that hard.

Hm... Are you suggesting that you can pee through regular glass?

You might want to get checked by a urologist. I don't think you should be spurting that hard.

A bulletproof urologist?

A bulletproof urologist?
Advisable. :D

Advisable. :D

I guess.

Better than having to explain the damp and partially decapitated urologist corpses.

Again.

so u sympathize with gang members

If by sympathize you mean "acknowledge them as fellow human beings with a fully fleshed out, three-dimensional character" then yes. Yes I do.

blacks are in jail more than whites because white men arent punished as harshly its fact it has nothing to do with poverty it has to do with double standards

Uh...really? I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that racism isn't a problem, but there are several factors that determine which group is more likely to commit a crime. Poverty happens to be a fairly large one.

lock up all the white trash then

If and when they break the law.

can u read? if it was equal then the prison populartion would be representitive of the general populartion.

Well, no. There are many more factors than that, including poverty.

Your statement intended as sarcastic fell flat because there was no history or any indication of tone.

"When in doubt, use the trout. Or the smileys. Yeah, just go with the smileys actually, they're a lot better. Seriously though, who uses the gun smiley? Oh hello there, ladies."

Being a gang member does not automatically mean you are a child murderer. Just like being an upstanding citizen doesn't mean you aren't.

Doesn't "upstanding citizen" imply by it's nature that there's no childkilling? Or are we talking about upstanding in the eyes of one's peers?

i stand behind nothing 100% only an idiot would

Cogito, ergo sum

:hail: Good catch. As dumb as that makes me feel, though, I still feel smarter than the sentence I tried to correct.

Nah, you couldn't be expected to have caught all of them

i think that feminsm has caused women to have a lot of rights but no responsibltys if they want all the rights of being like men then they should go to jail like them too!


At least in Italy, they do. Nor mothers who forget their children in cars to die of heath and asphyxia get any sympathy.

So, what's your point?

By the way: who's this Dr.Laura?

Oh, I was about to forget my usual attack on grammar: "I" must be capitalised; feminism, responsibilities; and some punctuation, PLEASE!

if u look back in history women would get in trouble if they let there kids die like this, eye for a eye and allt hat

So, I'm sure you advocate a return to pre-Christian times.
I remember something about a cheating woman, eye-for-an-eye laws, and a very innovative rabbi, about 2000 years ago, or so I was told.

I was going to reply to the OP, but decided that it's just not worth the time.
I'm convinced that article was meant to be a joke that somebody just didn't get.

if u look back in history women would get in trouble if they let there kids die like this, eye for a eye and allt hat

Right... and the fathers? How come nobody's screaming for them to live up to their responsibilities? How come nobody demands they go to prison if the mother is incapable of looking after the child? Surely they must have known and been aware?

You know what we really need?

More rich white heterosexuals telling women how to live.

Honestly, we are a nation of child abusers. Every time a couple is divorced, the kids are being sentenced to a much tougher life.

Honestly, we are a nation of child abusers. Every time a couple is divorced, the kids are being sentenced to a much tougher life.
"Peter, I want you to remember what you just said, because when we get home I'm going to explain to you everything that is wrong with it."

-Lois Griffin

You know what we really need?

More rich white heterosexuals telling women how to live.

OK. Go get me a beer! ;)

Feminism may have confused things a little. But that does not make the movement at fault. What is at fault is a lack of communication between Husband and wife on where they will divide the responsibilities up at.

You know what we really need?

More rich white heterosexuals telling women how to live.

Finally! A woman who understands reality!:tongue:

Edit: To the OP: For hells sake LEARN TO TYPE! And realize, that when I can dis your typing you are VERY low on the food chain.

Honestly, we are a nation of child abusers. Every time a couple is divorced, the kids are being sentenced to a much tougher life.

My life is tougher? Sure it was annoying going back and forth each week, but it was not tough. It made it easier for me when I wanted to discontinue contact with my mother. It was easy to cut her off when our relationship soured. It was much easier to run away because I moved in with my dad and I didn't have to go back. My life was easier this way. Plus, I wasn't sheltered as much as others were, and unlike my friends I had no bloody curfew. As a child of a divorced couple, I am forced to fundamentally disagree with your broad-sweeping generalisation that is not substantiated in any form.

"No doubt, this is what the abortion mentality has done to us.”

rofl

but back to my point do u guys think this woman should go to jail for leaving her baby with a gang member?

I think it falls under common sense which seems to be lacking in this case. However maybe she could not find another babysitter? It would seem the gang member was her boyfriend. Why not put the baby in front a rabid wolf? In fact a gorilla at the zoo could probably have done a better job caring for this child and they are not even the same species as us.

There should be some sort of punishment other than losing the child but life does not work that way.

And who holds men to their "responsibilities" today?

As an example, there seems to be a substantial increase in little bastards, where the father is never known. And if the father is known, many are not paying child support.

There hasn't been some magical period where women are "off the hook" while men are "on the hook".

Honestly, we are a nation of child abusers.

Speak for yourself, I was to NY in January and I saw no minor getting abused.

Speak for yourself, I was to NY in January and I saw no minor getting abused.

We have to go to the back streets of Rio to see that.

We have to go to the back streets of Rio to see that.

And people wonder why DK got perma-banned.