Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2hr ago
No, it's not. Poetic similes and literalness are both appropriate in their respective domains, and a bluesky-tier smarm-quote about someone who disingenuously conflates them does not mean every instance of one is a disingenuous conflation with the other. The problem with you and @gattsuru both is that you will ask me something like "Don't you agree that the left is creating Orwellian thought-police?" and I will say "No, I do not think the left is creating Orwellian thought-police," and then I will say "This leftist thing is pretty censorious" and then you will "AHA YOU HYPOCRITICAL LIAR!" me.
I'm open to debates about where on a sliding scale we are, whether I give too much credit here or too much blame there, and the degree of relativity (though this often tediously boils down to "who started it?"), but claiming "I think A is bad but not infinitely bad" means if I ever acknowledge A is bad I have contradicted myself when telling someone else that A is not infinitely bad is tiresome as hell.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4hr ago
I guess you could ask me directly, instead of asking @ArjinFerman, who's a bad-faith anklebiter trying to gotcha me with less skill than you. (For example, above he's quoting that one line to imply that essentially nothing realistic will convince me. Maybe it's not obvious to you, but I tend to be rather literal. When I say "literally Orwellian," I mean literally Orwellian.)
On this, you will have to clarify, since I am not sure what specifically "California Code Is Free Speech bans" refers to.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Okay, you know what? That's enough. Your record is long and terrible. Over and over the mod notes say "Escalate and/or permaban next time." Yet each new infraction comes just long enough from the last one and is just low-level enough to make us hesitate to press the permaban button. At this point, I think it's calculated and you're playing us for chumps.
Get lost.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
IANAL but most forms of fraud require intent to deceive. If you sell a stolen car, the prosecution will have to prove you knew it was stolen, or at least were willfully negligent (proven beyond a reasonable doubt).
A woman who cheats (or just doesn't tell the purported father he wasn't the only one) might or might not believe he is in fact the father. Did he ask? Did he know? If you really want to prosecute women for paternity fraud (by which I assume you mean "Put her in jail") I'm game, but not if the standard of evidence is "She slept with someone else and didn't disclose it."
Incidentally, I believe paternity tests should be automatic at all hospital births, which would solve a lot of these problems and probably also be even more satisfactory to the men who rub their hands gleefully at the thought of ho-punishing than paternity fraud laws. (There would probably have to be some complicated rules for waivers and disclosures to handle the variety of edge cases, but in general, just make this a norm and let the consequences unfold.)
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
How would you prove she didn't know the named father was actually the father? At best, you could say she had reason to believe he might not be the father. Prosecuting for intentional paternity fraud is a different proposition than prosecuting for being unfaithful and lying about it.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
It's trivially easy to prove whether or not someone is the father of a child. It's not trivially easy to prove intentional "paternity fraud" (which if you really want to prosecute or bring civil cases for, would have to be defined more narrowly than "She cheated on me").
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
In that five-year-old post, how many of the things I have said wouldn't happen have happened? (Noting that I gave a time frame of 20 years, so we still both have time to be wrong.)
I already told you that I am less confident in my assertions than I was. The reason I am less confident is that what I see is that we are locked in a game of tit-for-tat-only-harder. Trump is unquestionably ratcheting up the retaliation for past misdeeds by Democrats. Assuming that the Republic does not die with this administration, eventually the Democrats will come to power again. I fully expect them to escalate (they are already bragging about how they are going to prosecute anyone who collaborated with Trump and ICE). I think that's bad, in case you're unclear. At some point we really are going to wind up in a failed dystopia, whether or not you believe we are already there. We will probably disagree about whether the starting point was during a Republican or Democratic administration, but if it happens during a Democratic one you can say I was wrong for all the satisfaction that gives you. Yes, we're clearly on a slippery slope. We're farther than I thought we'd be five years ago- but right now, we're on a slippery slope that Red tribe is pushing us down. (Yes, I know the response is "They started it, tit for tat is the proper game theory response," and that is how we keep going down the slope. No, I don't know what the exit looks like.)
If you want to cite some specific thing for me to respond to or agree with or rebut, I will do my best, but I do not think it is reasonable for you to demand I revisit a five-year-old post and answer all the questions you don't think I answered satisfactorily five years ago.
But if we can't have that discussion, hell, I'd just take a serious engagement with the thing that brought you into this thread. You popped in to insist that it's a bad idea to make single bets, even at steeply favorable odds,
I was just being pedantic about poker, ffs. And also expressing my general dislike of the "Put money on it or you don't really believe this" form of argumentation.
no one's saying literally Hitler
I said "literally Hitler is absurd." That is my opinion. I did not say "no one's saying literally Hitler." Obviously there are people saying literally Hitler. I think they are wrong. Do you think you fairly characterized my position just now? Do you think the way you do things like that might contribute to my frustration and reluctance to engage with you point-by-point?
Well, MadMonzer's willing to bet often
I am not MadMonzer. Don't get indignant that I lump you with KulakRevolt and then try to associate me with whatever other left-leaning person is in the thread.
Does this say anything? Do you have some other reason to believe that MadMonzer actually believes that number, when you yourself are saying that it's clearly absurd?
I think there is a pedantic argument about whether "literally Hitler is absurd" and "a 10% chance of Trump suspending the Constitution is too high a probability" are the same statement, and I do not think they are, but if for the sake of argument I grant that they are (because I would stand by both statements), my reasons for believing MadMonzer believes that number is that I know that many, many leftists believe that number or a higher number, and they clearly sincerely believe it whether or not they are willing to put money on it. That their belief is often driven by hysteria and/or detached from actual facts does not mean they don't seriously believe it. How this applies to our five-year-old argument I think is pretty obvious, but that argument was never about whether I believed that you or @FCfromSSC really believed the things you were saying. Are you trying to debate me, now, about whether @MadMonzer (or liberals with TDS in general) really believe the things they are saying?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Depends on the level. The military gives out Secret clearances like candy. Getting a Top Secret or higher (which is what defense contractors usually need to work on the DoD projects) is a lot more selective. (And not reporting an arrest or conviction is pretty much an automatic loss of clearance if they find out. Your sailor friend may have just gotten lucky.)
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
I'm not demanding that you admit you're wrong. I'd like you to be right! But it's hard to come away from conversations like this thinking we're debating what the actual state of reality is, rather than trying to discuss what we're even talking about.
Well, yeah, that's the problem. I mean, I already told you I literally have trouble figuring out exactly what you are accusing me of, and here you are returning almost two weeks later to go at it again! (I'm not saying you have a time limit on responding, but come on, I thought we'd both walked away from this one, and now I have to reread the whole thread to remember where we even were.)
I get lumped in with Soros conspiracy theorists and KulakCatgirl fanboys.))
I think I already apologized for accusing you of being a Kulak fan, and I honestly don't remember calling you a Soros conspiracy theorist. I suppose you have a link where I implied it or something. You're not a Soros conspiracy theorist. Are you happy?
Look, as I once said to you in private: what do you want? Is it really that specific post you have been hounding me about for years, that argument I had with @FCfromSSC? I have said repeatedly that I regret that exchange and have reconsidered how I expressed myself, even if don't repudiate the core thesis. So if "Admit you're wrong" is not what you're after, what are you after? You really just want to replay that particular argument again? After five goddamn years? Really?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
Okay, but specifically asking a woman to let you drug her so you can fuck her unconscious body and her agreeing to cater to this very specific fetish is not the central example of "Guys who like fucking unconscious women."
If she's into it, okay, whatever. (Though, sorry, yes, I still think that's weird. But lots of people are into things I think are weird.)
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
Well, I believe there is a fetish for everything, but you know that fetishes by definition are outside the norm, right? And your girlfriend was willing - would you actually do it to a woman who hadn't consented?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
That sounds like a just-so story. How many hot women have you had sex with, to know so much about the calculations in their mind and their sexual performance? Do you base this on anything at all other than supposition?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
Yes. Though I think it would usually be pretty hard to prove.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
5 percent I believe. I don't think you'd find 80 percent in an Indian slum.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
I just looked at your comment history, and it's mostly just sneering and insults. I'm surprised you were never reported or warned before, but since this account was created a week ago, seemingly for the sole purpose of shitting on people, I'm gonna assume you're just another one of our alt-recycling trolls and bin this one.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
I'm not disputing that Christianity greatly improved the lot of women (and the poor, and many other marginalized groups). I'm disputing that improvements in women's rights are uniquely Christian and that only Christian societies ever treated them as more than property.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
Isn't it a stereotype that the hotter a woman is, the less effort she feels that she needs to put into sex?
Uh, I understood the stereotype is that the hotter she is, the less effort she needs to put into obtaining sex. Which is pretty obviously true. The stereotype that hot women neither enjoy nor actively participate in sex is a new one to me, unless you're just referring to the stereotype that women in general don't really enjoy sex and only perform it to the minimum degree necessary to secure a mate. Which, may be true for a lot of women, but (ahem) I have it on good authority, not all of them.
I cannot say I am a connoisseur of prostitutes but my understanding also is that men generally prefer hookers to at least pretend to be into it and are not going to enjoy the experience much if she just lies there with an "Are you done yet?" expression on her face.
The difference between sex with a lazy "starfish" woman and sex with an unconscious woman seems negligible.
Can't say I've done either, but damn, who are these guys finding? And obviously, the difference would still be pretty significant in terms of at least implied consent (which, evidently and depressingly, a lot of guys still seem to think is a quaint modern notion that we shouldn't care about that much).
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
How are "people who push back against those who view women as instrumental goods/property" and never push back against those who view men as instrumental goods/property while smearing any who do as "women-hater" not deserving of the title "Women Are Wonderful" simps?
I suppose such people exist, but I see people being accused of that with much greater frequency than the actual occurrence.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
There are precious few (though admittedly not zero) women-haters here who "argue that the natural (and implied: correct) state of man is to treat women as property".
If I had a nickel...
It wouldn't be a lot of nickels, but it would be more than one.
That the non-women-haters seem to only be concerned about the former and sometimes the latter--when women are being viewed instrumentally by society--demonstrates they don't view men as humans deserving rights and view women as inherently superior to men.
The concise response to this is "balderdash."
The less concise response is basically the same with more words: people (like me) who push back against those who view women as instrumental goods/property are not the "Women Are Wonderful" simps the latter like to characterize the former as, but merely arguing that we are all human beings and part of rising above our monkey natures (which should be our goal as a species with starfaring ambitions) requires not viewing every relationship as transactional and every other human being as an instrumental good. This includes treating women as Sex, and whatever bad thing you think women treat men as.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
Really, the notion that rape is wrong is fairly peculiar historically.
I would argue that women have always thought it's wrong, so it seems more like the notion that women's feelings should be considered is peculiar historically. And I don't think it's that peculiar, or that Christians have been particularly better about not raping and treating lower class women as public goods. It is definitely not a uniquely Christian innovation that women have some say in who they marry; Christians are not the first people ever who recognized female agency and gave women rights.
Your reference to Jewish legal codes and Islam makes me think we're going to go down the same road we've gone before, where the worst and most uncharitable readings of what other religious books say should be taken literally, without context, and as exactly what all those people really believe and those with a more humanitarian reading aren't really following their religion, whereas Christianity (and the Old Testament in particular) should be not subjected to similar treatment.
I weary of the women-haters (I don't mean you, though you seem to be giving them too much credit) who argue that the natural (and implied: correct) state of man is to treat women as property and before our modern age, no man in any civilization ever gave a shit how females felt about their treatment.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
I'm skeptical that Christianity (or Western civilization) is the sole difference, though I know this is a popular theory (with Christians). Yes, large parts of the third world are rapacious hellholes, but there are ancient and contemporary non-Christian societies that do not seem to have been such.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
I think it's simpler to just say that some large fraction of men would jump at the opportunity to have sex with an unconscious woman if there were no consequences. This is the nature of men. We have known this since the beginning of time. Most adults understand this already. The vast majority of men know this, because some part of them has the same urge, or if not, they are familiar with the corrupting force of male sexuality in general, and this particular manifestation is hardly a surprise. Women largely know this force, too, because they have been told of it, or because they have been targeted by it, though they sometimes pretend not to know.
Have we really known this? What large fraction?
It would be uncharitable to say you are typical-minding here, and I am not trying to establish myself as some kind of saint by saying "What the fuck?" but really... what the fuck? To me, having sex with an unconscious woman would have pretty much zero appeal no matter how hot she is, and I have a hard time believing I'm some weird undersexed outlier. It's not even just about it being rape (which it obviously is), but it would also be like fucking a RealDoll, which I know some men do also but I have always thought has to be the absolute last refuge of the desperate and pathetic.
Obviously there are men who get off on it (I know there are men who will stick their dicks in anything warm), but I'm unconvinced, even if this guy found 72 of them, that they aren't akin to rapists and pedophiles... sure, we all know these urges exist in the male population, and they aren't super-rare, but neither are they... normal.
It's harder for me to say why women aren't eager to bring this up as ammunition in the gender wars. Doesn't this vindicate the radical feminists?
It only vindicates them if you agree with them that this is in fact the natural state of men and we'd all do it if given the chance and that every husband secretly hates his wife. That's certainly a view unironically held in parallel, horseshoe-like, by a certain strain of radical feminists and ultra-misogynists, but the problem is that they are largely wrong about men being amoral rapacious monsters barely(unfairly) held in check by society.
And perhaps it's simply that there is nothing to fight about. There is no toxoplasma, no scissor statement
Well, yeah. I doubt even our he-man woman-haters will be able to muster much of a "This wasn't actually bad" argument. How do you defend it? She was unconscious so she didn't really suffer? She's female and therefore should be available for any use to which her husband sees fit? You have to go pretty far out there to defend the indefensible. Some things don't engender disagreement even between liberals and conservatives.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
7d ago
And the other half is wanting a weak, pliable and easily manipulated barely-not-a-child. Which is why I think men who do it are disreputable if not contemptible, and I feel not a lot of sympathy for the poor guy who thinks it's unjust that it's illegal to fuck a 15-year-old.
Plus, while our alt-friend claims to have married the one teenager he ever fucked, most dudes carrying this flag are not looking to do that. They just want to bang teenagers.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
7d ago
Fuck you, friend
You know this is not acceptable. No matter how provoked, we are never going to let that slide.
and I say that with all compassion and love
Nice try.
1 day ban because you really have been minding yourself since coming back, but you need to know that your previous record does not get erased just because you started a new account. Do not make us start escalating again because you can't control your temper when someone pushes your very well known and obvious buttons.
I am calm. And no, there was no humor or goodwill there. It wasn't a joke.
More options
Context Copy link