Louise O'Neill on manned mission to Mars: "Why not go to Venus?" (MOD Warning post 1)

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes sexual harrassment. Not rape.

That's a high number. 1 in 5 harassers you reckon? :rolleyes:
And what actually defines sexual harassment? Its a fairly broad term getting even broader. Could a clumsy misunderstanding be considered a case of harassment ? Does it have to be repetitive instances? And then you have awkward teenagers thrown into the equation.

I just find it absolutely astounding that you honestly believe that 1 in 5 men would put their careers at risk in order to repeatedly harass women in the year 2018?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's a high number. 1 in 5 harassers you reckon? :rolleyes:
And what actually defines sexual harassment? Its a fairly broad term getting even broader. Could a clumsy misunderstanding be considered a case of harassment ? Does it have to be repetitive instances? And then you have awkward teenagers thrown into the equation.

I just find it absolutely astounding that you honestly believe that 1 in 5 men would put their careers at risk in order to repeatedly harass women in the year 2018?

I don't believe 1 in 5 are constant harassers. I believe that at least that number have a few incidents in their lifetime.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

You do realise that just because you didn't quote me doesn't mean you're not engaging with me? I was going to ignore the posts you made that didn't reference my ideas but since you keep coming back I'd like to address your recent post about female audiences in the theatre.

If i was addressing my post to you, I would have quoted you. The fact I didn't means that I was speaking to the others on this thread.

I have zero desire to debate anything with you because you cannot show any respect for a poster after a certain period of time elapses, and love to twist/rewrite posts to suit your own objections.

Your credibility as a poster is down there with the common trolls, and no, I'm not wasting any time with you from now on.

Grayson

Owryan wrote: »

No matter how you articulate it, that's how she/her supporters will see your post.

it's just like how she sees all men as rapists. The message gets lost when the blinkers are on and their view is the only one that matters.

I've never actually seen anyone say that all men are rapists but the phrase crops up a lot here. Has LON ever said that all men are rapists?

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

The agenda she promotes is dangerous. She, as a person, isn't dangerous.

(I won't write it in a longer paragraph because you might miss it and get confused by the other words )

So by promoting a dangerous agenda she's not dangerous.

Is that like saying that promoting racial hatred isn't dangerous although racial hatred is dangerous. I'm trying to understanding your distinction.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

So by promoting a dangerous agenda she's not dangerous.

Is that like saying that promoting racial hatred isn't dangerous although racial hatred is dangerous. I'm trying to understanding your distinction.

What i said is obvious enough. The message she promotes is dangerous.

And you're just playing games rather than actually considering what it means.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If i was addressing my to you, I would have quoted you. The fact I didn't means that I was speaking to the others on this thread.

I have zero desire to debate anything with you because you cannot show any respect for a poster after a certain period of time elapses, and love to twist/rewrite posts to suit your own objections.

Your credibility as a poster is down there with the common trolls, and no, I'm not wasting any time with you from now on.

Sure you debate the idea that only one poster (me) has raised but you're not debating me. Makes sense. I will continue to address all the posts you make that are addressed to me, regardless of whether you pretend they're not by failing to quote me.

Fair enough. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't believe 1 in 5 are constant harassers. I believe that at least that number have a few incidents in their lifetime.

I see and what would be the women ratio?

boylecm

Deleted User wrote: »

I have zero desire to debate anything with you because you cannot show any respect for a poster after a certain period of time elapses,

Isn't this the guy that called O'Neill a bitch?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I see and what would be the women ratio?

Much much lower.

LLMMLL

boylecm wrote: »

Isn't this the guy that called O'Neill a bitch?

Yup but apparently me saying he has a paternal attitude to women makes me a troll.

boylecm

boylecm wrote: »

Isn't this the guy that called O'Neill a bitch?

I did indeed. Is LON a poster here?

Care to find any post of mine calling a poster on boards a bitch or anything similar? (hint: you won't find it)

Grayson

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What hope has someone who has been accused of rape got of clearing their name with a society ever more focused on assuming them as guilty no matter what, even including them being found not guilty. Louise though seems capable of only having empathy for women. I suspect she might feel sorry for this lad's mother more than she actually does for him but that wouldn't do her much good now.

How can you make a claim like that? Or are you just making crap up in your head? It's like me saying that you don't give a crap about women who are raped because you're always parroting on about mens rights. Would that be a correct assumption or would I just be making crap up.

I don't get how you strip them of all agency. In your head they become a caricature. They turn into your image of a feminist harpy who hates everyone with a penis and wants to either jail or castrate them.

SSr0

I wonder is Grayson secretly hoping to get a PM fron LLMMLL, to tell him how woke he is...

boylecm

Deleted User wrote: »

I did indeed. Is LON a poster here?

Care to find any post of mine calling a poster on boards a bitch or anything similar? (hint: you won't find it)

Honestly, I'd respect you more if she was a poster here. At least she would have the option of replying. Seems cowardly to use such a pejorative term for a woman where she can't see it and then brand a poster a troll for saying something far less insulting to you directly.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

What i said is obvious enough. The message she promotes is dangerous.

And you're just playing games rather than actually considering what it means.

No I'm not. I would consider those islamic preachers who promote violence dangerous because their ideas are dangerous to people.

I don't get how someone who promotes a dangerous idea is not dangerous.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yup but apparently me saying he has a paternal attitude to women makes me a troll.

Oh no... I considered you like a troll because of your habit of rewriting my statements and then objecting based on that rewritten sentence.

I considered that you had lack of respect for a me because in this thread you said:

It's more like debating with a dystopian AI that has been programmed with a set of principles, some rudimentary logic, and zero empathy. I find it kinda fun to see what horrible cruel conclusion your cold principles will lead to next.

In the other thread, you refined it to be:

"Yeah mine is based on reality. I could speculate as to what yours is based on. A paternal attitude to women, or a prudishness about casual sex. There must be something that makes you think an activity that generally does not result in a negative outcome is actually high risk."

Not once prior to this, had I commented on you, your posting style or your attitudes on the thread.

All because I didn't agree with your "observations". So, I do think I'm warranted in not engaging in a debate with you.

Grayson

SSr0 wrote: »

I wonder is Grayson secretly hoping to get a PM fron LLMMLL, to tell him how woke he is...

Yes you got me. I'm only calling out bull**** here like natural law dethics because I'm secretly virtue signaling.

Or it could be that I have a low tolerance for stupid bull****.

givyjoe

Grayson wrote: »

Or it could be that I have a low tolerance for stupid bull****.

Irony alert.

boylecm

boylecm wrote: »

Honestly, I'd respect you more if she was a poster here. At least she would have the option of replying. Seems cowardly to use such a pejorative term for a woman where she can't see it and then brand a poster a troll for saying something far less insulting to you directly.

Actually, I do regret calling her a bitch. TBH Afterwards, I was thinking about the post and considering that I'd gone too far with it.

As for your 'respect'... that'll be more important to me when you've got more posts and I've seen your contributions as opposed to judging me on your first 3-4 posts.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh no... I considered you like a troll because of your habit of rewriting my statements and then objecting based on that rewritten sentence.

I considered that you had lack of respect for a me because in this thread you said:

It's more like debating with a dystopian AI that has been programmed with a set of principles, some rudimentary logic, and zero empathy. I find it kinda fun to see what horrible cruel conclusion your cold principles will lead to next.

In the other thread, you refined it to be:

"Yeah mine is based on reality. I could speculate as to what yours is based on. A paternal attitude to women, or a prudishness about casual sex. There must be something that makes you think an activity that generally does not result in a negative outcome is actually high risk."

Not once prior to this, had I commented on you, your posting style or your attitudes on the thread.

All because I didn't agree with your "observations". So, I do think I'm warranted in not engaging in a debate with you.

When you claimed i rewrote what you said I reposted with an exact quotation from you.

The AI comment was slightly over the line but the others are just speculative.

To be ok with people taking non sexual risks but to have a major problem with sexual risks does indicate that your issue is with sex and not risk.

And don't pretend you don't make negative comments about other people's posts. You're fond of the roll eyes smiley which I never use to dismiss someone. It seems you believe that as long as you use a smiley face rather than words it's not insulting.

Yer Da sells Avon

SSr0 wrote: »

I wonder is Grayson secretly hoping to get a PM fron LLMMLL, to tell him how woke he is...

I wonder do half the lads on here secretly hope that they'll all get to meet up some day, so they can form a circle and whack each other off while telling each other how 'Rational' and un-PC they are.

I don't wonder that at all. But anyone can play at this sort of shitty game.

Sam Quentin

Did God purposely make women's feet smaller so they could get closer to the kitchen sink?
Like I know God is a MAN and stuff.
But that goes beyond clever :P

Yer Da sells Avon

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Did God purposely make women's feet smaller so they could get closer to the kitchen sink?
Like I know God is a MAN and stuff.
But that goes beyond clever :P

A school playground, circa 1993, just called. They want their joke back.

boylecm

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, I do regret calling her a bitch. TBH Afterwards, I was thinking about the post and considering that I'd gone too far with it.

As for your 'respect'... that'll be more important to me when you've got more posts and I've seen your contributions as opposed to judging me on your first 3-4 posts.

I'm glad you realize it was a nasty thing to say

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

Are you actually trying to say that studies etc are pointless because you went to 4 pubs in Limerick and it's representative of the whole world? You do realise how silly that argument is. A few hours in a pub in Limerick cannot demonstrate anymore than a what happened during those few hours in those pubs in limerick. Actually it can't even represent that since you can't have witnesses everything that happened in those pubs.

It's a dumb argument. It makes you look bad and it hurts your overall argument.

I used Limerick last night as a case in point. I go out most weekends to various pubs, Waterford, Cork, Kilkenny, Limerick. Most girls and most fellas i bump into are decent harmless people just out for a good time. Yes I witness a creep here or there but overall the vast majority of people are decent to encounter even with the level of drink involved. To assume the majority of the 1m men of the going out age in Ireland want to disrespect and sexually harass women is akin to suggesting that the majority of these men want to join the Kinahan cartel. Its ludicrous

Your calling my argument dumb irregardless of the fact your cronies on this thread are picking figures out of their hole?

So do you go out much in Ireland? Do you see harassment and rapes everywhere you go??

My point is that 'rape culture' is in no way as big an issue that feminazi's claim it to be in Ireland because otherwise if it was you would see a serious drop off in the amount of women who go out every weekend. Why would flocks of women actually go out to experience such treatment?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

When you claimed i rewrote what you said I reposted with an exact quotation from you.

The AI comment was slightly over the line but the others are just speculative.

To be ok with people taking non sexual risks but to have a major problem with sexual risks does indicate that your issue is with sex and not risk.

And don't pretend you don't make negative comments about other people's posts. You're fond of the roll eyes smiley which I never use to dismiss someone. It seems you believe that as long as you use a smiley face rather than words it's not insulting.

Attack the post not the poster. Rule 101. I have no issue with sarcasm or issues raised on what someone writes. You chose multiple times to pass observations about me personally without cause. Simply because I didn't agree with your pov.

And the other thread is littered with me pointing out where you've rewritten my statements and then commented on it. Not going through that again.

And yes... I LOVE the :rolleyes:

boylecm

boylecm wrote: »

I'm glad you realize it was a nasty thing to say

I do indeed. I'm just not a big fan of going back and changing past posts.

Any contributions to the thread itself, perhaps? Get the ball rolling from your court.

Sam Quentin

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

A school playground, circa 1993, just called. They want their joke back.

Frig sake,. You saying it's a joke.
It was my boss, he told me.
I checked with one of the managers and he said it was true..
But the cleaning lady didn't believe us