Thursday, December 20, 2012
The Gun Debate is Useless
As we all know, the recent shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School has grabbed the attention of people all over the world. It has also grabbed the attention of politicians and activists who argue that there needs to be some form of strict gun control put in place to make sure nothing like this event happens again.
I have seen this same argument repeated ad nauseum here in Canada after the Ecole Polytechnique shooting, otherwise known as the Montreal Massacre, in which Marc Lepine shot and killed 14 women in 1989.
The whole firearms debate, and the proposed ‘solutions’ for gun related crimes, does nothing to prevent criminals from committing crimes. It serves only to punish those who are law abiding firearms owners. Gun owners are generally respectable and responsible citizens. They own firearms for various reasons, whether it be for hunting, sport, jobs that require the use of a firearm, or for personal protection. But what they do not own firearms for is to commit a crime.
If someone wants to commit a crime, or kill another person, they will do it regardless of there being any so-called gun control policy put in place, or long-gun registry programs. Criminals do not register their firearms, nor do they have problems getting hold of illegal firearms. The whole idea that having policies and registries in place will somehow prevent a crazy person from killing people is preposterous. The resources, time, and money spent on creating such policies and registries are a waste, and useless. It was already proven that having gun registries was a massive failure in Sweden, which, by the way, the Canadian gun registry was modeled around, and then deemed a huge steaming failure several years later by all those who had advocated so adamantly for it.
"Several studies have examined the correlations between rates of gun ownership and gun-related as well as overall homicide and suicide rates within various jurisdictions around the world. Martin Killias, in a 1993 study covering 21 countries, found that there were substantial correlations between gun ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates. There was also a substantial though lesser correlation between gun ownership and total homicide rates. A later 2001 Killias study however, reported that while there was a strong correlation between gun-related homicide of women and gun-related assaults against women; however, this was not the case for similar crimes against men and that " Interestingly, no significant correlations with total suicide or homicide rates were found, leaving open the question of possible substitution effects." This study indicates correlation, but no causality. That is to say it could mean that the easier access to guns lead to more violence, or it could mean that larger amounts of violence lead to a higher level of gun ownership for self-defense, or any other independent cause".
"A study by Rich et al. on suicide rates in Toronto and Ontario and psychiatric patients from San Diego reached the conclusion that increased gun restrictions, while reducing suicide-by-gun, resulted in no net decline in suicides, because of substitution of another method — namely leaping. Killias argues against the theory of complete substitution, citing a number of studies that have indicated, in his view "rather convincingly", that suicidal candidates far from always turn to another means of suicide if their preferred means is not at hand".
"The efficacy of gun control legislation at reducing the availability of guns has been challenged by, among others, the testimony of criminals that they do not obey gun control laws, and by the lack of evidence of any efficacy of such laws in reducing violent crime. The most thorough analysis of the impact of gun control laws, by Kleck, covered 18 major types of gun control and every major type of violent crime or violence (including suicide), and found that gun laws generally had no significant effect on violent crime rates or suicide rates".
Gun control is not going to prevent events like the Sandy Hook shootings or the Ecole Polytechnique massacre from happening. Those were crimes committed by mentally disturbed individuals who would have carried out their murderous plans regardless of any regulations or laws restricting guns. They were not concerned with the law. If they were they would not have murdered people would they?
What people need to realize is that when people want to commit a crime, they will find any way to do so. Trying to regulate firearms is not going to deter them, but it will punish law abiding citizens and waste taxpayers money for nothing other than creating an illusion of safety to those who do not understand the reality of the situation.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Australia to launch false accusation app
A more complete description, provided by theage.com.au, puts it in crystal clear language:
The new app will allow users to use their mobile phone to anonymously post details about threatening sexual behaviour, including the time and place it occurred and a description of alleged offenders. The data collected will then be given to police.
There now, all comfy?
What this amounts to is an accusation app, placed in the hands of anonymous women, who have no responsibility whatsoever for the accuracy of the information they report. Its potential for abuse is overwhelming, a concern acknowledged, and shamefully dismissed by ACASA branch head Carolyn Worth.
”We’ll only refer incidents that have similar times, locations and descriptions,” she said. ”Police still need evidence.”
Right. So someone would have to use the app against a person two or three times to put an innocent man in the hot seat. Of course, that would never happen. Right, Carolyn?
Right?
I will not dwell on the obvious unfairness of efforts that only concern themselves with crimes against one sex, regardless of what is happening to the other. Given the pernicious nature of this initiative I think we are past a civil debate on the basics of sexism.
The only thing I have to say is that I think if there ever were something that deserved to be undermined, FTSU style, this is it.
I encourage all Australians to download this app, as soon as it becomes available, and to literally flood it with erroneous information. In fact, make abuse of the app a daily ritual in your life.
Remember, there are no controls over this information. You can profile anyone you want. I suggest starting with Carolyn Worth. Profile your dog. If his name happens to be Michael Flood, all the better. Hell, I don’t care, profile me. Just hammer them with false reports till it completely pollutes all the data they are gathering.
Don’t fall for the lie that this is about protecting women, or any other Australian citizen. It is about creating license for state functionaries, on the say so of anyone, whether a victim or just someone with a vendetta, to undermine the rights of male citizens in Oz and to create more propaganda to be used in fundraising efforts for outfits like ACASA.
But you do not have to let them enjoy the use of this irresponsible technology without serious problems. Just 10 people making 5 false reports a week, one a day on week days, will very likely screw their already screwed up data.
It is up to you. Make abusing this app in different ways a part of your daily routine as an MRA. Just a couple of thousand concocted reports (much like many of the “legit” ones surely coming in) per year and we can effectively make this program more hassle than it is worth.
For those of you concerned about the false accusation flavor of this, just take them at their word that this is only about trends and not individuals. If they are lying about that, it is not your problem.
This program is Orwellian in the most literal understanding of the word. It is up to you to do something about it.
As far as we have been able to ascertain, there is nothing illegal in our actions, and no way to stop it from happening. AVfM will be tracking developments in this case and doing everything we possible can to undermine the use of this app to target innocent men. That means the app has to GO.
This article was originally published on A Voice For Men by Paul Elam.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
The A+ Guide to Good Faith - My Comments
Today I was directed to a thread on the Atheism Plus Forums. I decided to copy and paste the whole damned thing because I wanted to comment on each point individually.
My comments are in red.
Enjoy!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The A+ Guide to Good Faith
Post by piegasm » Tue Oct 16, 2012 7:01 pm
The following are some guidelines for how to avoid giving the appearance of arguing in bad faith based on suggestions made in this thread. These are not rules per se; just a list of things that are likely to set off troll alarm bells. Arguing in bad faith is grounds for moderator action so these items should be regarded as strong suggestions.
So, by this logic, appearing to argue in bad faith is ok?
DO:
1. Ask questions rather than spout opinions.
Irony Alert!
2. Lurk Moar. Learn the standards and conventions of our community before getting involved in conversations, especially ones that are already contentious.
In other words, see how others got banned in the thread and don't do the same.
3. a) Explicitly state what you would deem acceptable evidence.
b) When your criteria have been met, accept that you are likely wrong and try to reformulate your opinion based on this new information.
So, if I state what criteria I would deem acceptable as evidence, and then, once that critera has been met, I am wrong? How exactly does that work?
4. Cite your sources, especially if that evidence is core to an argument. "I thought someone with a name like this said something along the lines of that," does not a good argument make. "Project Implicit at Harvard studies implicit associations, and they say [statement with link to paper or article in which they say it]," on the other hand, does.
Irony Alert #2
5. a) Be wary of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. If you haven't studied something much, chances are you actually don't have a good understanding of it.
Irony Alert #3
b) Assume that those with more personal experience in an area know more than you do about it.
So according to this, any personal experience trumps someone who has studied something? A personal bias could not possibly be unreliable could it?
This is especially true in areas of gender, race, and other axes of oppression where you are privileged. If you've lived an upper-middle-class lifestyle all your life, you don't know what it's like to live below the poverty line. If you're a cis man, you don't know what it's like to be a cis woman, a trans woman, a trans man, or genderqueer. If you're white in North America, you don't know what it's like to face racism. And so on.
So we have to state what our life experiences are in order to have an opinion that would be considered valid? In other words, submit your memoirs before posting?
DO NOT:
1. a) Assert with certainty things that are open to question.
Irony Alert #4
b) Respond to objections to the aforementioned assertions by repeating or restating said assertions.
Irony Alert #5
2. a) Dismiss evidence because it doesn't fit the set of arbitrary, magical conditions you've formulated.
Irony Alert #6
b) Refuse to explicitly state what you would deem acceptable evidence.
Irony Alert #7
c) Reformulate your question so as to invalidate the evidence you've been given.
Irony Alert #8 - (Fuck, I am running out of Irony Alerts here!)
3. Demand that others educate you when your questions would be just as easily answered with a Wikipedia search.
But if personal experience trumps studying something, then how is someone supposed to research it on Wikipedia? Are all members of A+ required to submit a Wiki entry so it can be searched and used as educational purposes?
4. Insist that others are wrong because you're right. "You're wrong because [reasons]" is fine.
So no to 'you are wrong but I am right', but yes to 'you are wrong because you are an MRA, Troll, Misogynist... um, ok...
5. Refuse to even consider the possibility that another's take on the situation may be valid.
So again, personal opinions are valid and can trump research and facts... ok.
6. Assume that everyone else is wrong or not understanding you when faced with multiple objections to your claims.
Just assume you are wrong because 10 people on A+ don't either understand you, or choose to ignore a rational argument.
7. Declare your arguments to be rational and objective and/or declare all counterarguments to be irrational and biased.
Even if they are... Just don't do this. It makes the A+ crowd cranky.
8. Use claims of "logic" and "reason" to deflect criticism. You are human and your assessment of the situation is not necessarily correct.
Again, this can trigger crankiness because of the heavy irony here.
9. a) Begin a post or topic with predictions that you will be flamed for disagreeing with the intent to execute a gotcha when people disagree with you.
Ah, so psychics are not allowed. Got it.
b) Enter this space knowing you hold opinions which many here disagree with and then come over all affronted when people disagree with you.
In other words, don't go on the forums with any logic or actual facts. It confuses them.
10. "Helicopter" into a multi-page thread just to drop off your opinion on the OP. This is a discussion forum; not a pontification forum.
No opinions allowed!... But... Oh fucking irony!
11. Use loaded language.
Translation: Don't say anything that they don't like. Or just avoid the damned place all together.
These guidelines are open to modification as need arises.
In other words, when we don't like you, or the things you say, we will ignore this list entirely and do what ever we feel like. Basically we'll just keep acting the way we always have, so fuck you!
My comments are in red.
Enjoy!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The A+ Guide to Good Faith
Post by piegasm » Tue Oct 16, 2012 7:01 pm
The following are some guidelines for how to avoid giving the appearance of arguing in bad faith based on suggestions made in this thread. These are not rules per se; just a list of things that are likely to set off troll alarm bells. Arguing in bad faith is grounds for moderator action so these items should be regarded as strong suggestions.
So, by this logic, appearing to argue in bad faith is ok?
DO:
1. Ask questions rather than spout opinions.
Irony Alert!
2. Lurk Moar. Learn the standards and conventions of our community before getting involved in conversations, especially ones that are already contentious.
In other words, see how others got banned in the thread and don't do the same.
3. a) Explicitly state what you would deem acceptable evidence.
b) When your criteria have been met, accept that you are likely wrong and try to reformulate your opinion based on this new information.
So, if I state what criteria I would deem acceptable as evidence, and then, once that critera has been met, I am wrong? How exactly does that work?
4. Cite your sources, especially if that evidence is core to an argument. "I thought someone with a name like this said something along the lines of that," does not a good argument make. "Project Implicit at Harvard studies implicit associations, and they say [statement with link to paper or article in which they say it]," on the other hand, does.
Irony Alert #2
5. a) Be wary of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. If you haven't studied something much, chances are you actually don't have a good understanding of it.
Irony Alert #3
b) Assume that those with more personal experience in an area know more than you do about it.
So according to this, any personal experience trumps someone who has studied something? A personal bias could not possibly be unreliable could it?
This is especially true in areas of gender, race, and other axes of oppression where you are privileged. If you've lived an upper-middle-class lifestyle all your life, you don't know what it's like to live below the poverty line. If you're a cis man, you don't know what it's like to be a cis woman, a trans woman, a trans man, or genderqueer. If you're white in North America, you don't know what it's like to face racism. And so on.
So we have to state what our life experiences are in order to have an opinion that would be considered valid? In other words, submit your memoirs before posting?
DO NOT:
1. a) Assert with certainty things that are open to question.
Irony Alert #4
b) Respond to objections to the aforementioned assertions by repeating or restating said assertions.
Irony Alert #5
2. a) Dismiss evidence because it doesn't fit the set of arbitrary, magical conditions you've formulated.
Irony Alert #6
b) Refuse to explicitly state what you would deem acceptable evidence.
Irony Alert #7
c) Reformulate your question so as to invalidate the evidence you've been given.
Irony Alert #8 - (Fuck, I am running out of Irony Alerts here!)
3. Demand that others educate you when your questions would be just as easily answered with a Wikipedia search.
But if personal experience trumps studying something, then how is someone supposed to research it on Wikipedia? Are all members of A+ required to submit a Wiki entry so it can be searched and used as educational purposes?
4. Insist that others are wrong because you're right. "You're wrong because [reasons]" is fine.
So no to 'you are wrong but I am right', but yes to 'you are wrong because you are an MRA, Troll, Misogynist... um, ok...
5. Refuse to even consider the possibility that another's take on the situation may be valid.
So again, personal opinions are valid and can trump research and facts... ok.
6. Assume that everyone else is wrong or not understanding you when faced with multiple objections to your claims.
Just assume you are wrong because 10 people on A+ don't either understand you, or choose to ignore a rational argument.
7. Declare your arguments to be rational and objective and/or declare all counterarguments to be irrational and biased.
Even if they are... Just don't do this. It makes the A+ crowd cranky.
8. Use claims of "logic" and "reason" to deflect criticism. You are human and your assessment of the situation is not necessarily correct.
Again, this can trigger crankiness because of the heavy irony here.
9. a) Begin a post or topic with predictions that you will be flamed for disagreeing with the intent to execute a gotcha when people disagree with you.
Ah, so psychics are not allowed. Got it.
b) Enter this space knowing you hold opinions which many here disagree with and then come over all affronted when people disagree with you.
In other words, don't go on the forums with any logic or actual facts. It confuses them.
10. "Helicopter" into a multi-page thread just to drop off your opinion on the OP. This is a discussion forum; not a pontification forum.
No opinions allowed!... But... Oh fucking irony!
11. Use loaded language.
Translation: Don't say anything that they don't like. Or just avoid the damned place all together.
These guidelines are open to modification as need arises.
In other words, when we don't like you, or the things you say, we will ignore this list entirely and do what ever we feel like. Basically we'll just keep acting the way we always have, so fuck you!
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Why I am not a Victim
A little over a year ago I was sexually assaulted. I won’t go into
details, but I will say it was someone I knew and someone who I had
explicitly said no to prior to the assault. It was not pleasant and I
felt betrayed by the person who assaulted me. I felt icky for a few days
and then moved on.
So how did I manage to move on so quickly without feeling victimized or violated? How is it that I am able to sit here and write about this without it evoking horrible memories or making me feel like less of a person?
Well, it’s easy. I chose not to let one small incident affect me for the rest of my life. I chose to look at it from a different perspective than most and that perspective is what has allowed me to move on and not obsess about a single moment that literally was not one of the worst moments I have experienced in my life.
First of all, I don’t see my vagina as anything sacred. It’s an organ made of tissue, muscle, etc… To me it is not any more sacred than my nostrils. I have had 4 kids pass through it, it irritates the fuck out of me once a month, and it is a general pain in the ass. There is nothing wonderful about it. Sure it can give great pleasure when having consensual sex, but that’s pretty much where anything positive about it begins and ends. Just because society has taught us women that it is supposed to be something ‘special’ or ‘sacred’ doesn’t make it so. So when I was sexually assaulted I did not perceive it as much of a violation of my vagina. I actually didn’t care about that.
What made me feel the most betrayed was the fact that the person who did it was someone I knew, and someone who ignored me when I said ‘no’. And that feeling of betrayal only lasted a few days because I am not one who wastes much time on things that one cannot change. It happened, and there is nothing I can do to change that. What I can change is my outlook on the situation and decide to either let it ruin my life, or I can just chalk it up to a momentary negative moment in my life and move on. I chose the latter.
In my mind, the only one who can victimize you over a long period of time is yourself. You can let that one moment ruin you, or you can move on. These are ultimately your choices to make. Sadly many choose to let those negative moments ruin their lives. Yes, they were victimized for the duration of the assault, but after that it is their choice as to how long it will continue to victimize them. To remain a perpetual victim was not appealing to me, so I chose to move on and leave it behind me. It’s not that hard to do, yet many who have been sexually assaulted will claim it is. That it’s almost impossible. I however disagree and will tell you without hesitation that it is you who refuses to make the healthy choice to move on.
Look, there are things that are so much worse in this world than sexual assault. Personally I would rather be sexually assaulted once a week than have had to watch my father suffer in absolute agony for months while he was dying from stage 4 lung cancer. To watch him cry and writhe in pain every single fucking day. To watch him be tortured with indescribable pain daily for months. Yes, I would rather be sexually assaulted than carry those memories with me every day. And don’t tell me that sexual assault is worse, because it just fucking isn’t.
No one promised us that, from the day we were born, our lives would be easy. Shit happens. It’s what you do after that shit happens that defines you. Lay down and let it destroy you, or get up and keep moving forward to better days and happier moments. That is what I chose to do. I chose life and happiness. I chose to get up and keep moving. I chose to enjoy every moment I possibly can while I am here. And no one is ever going to define me but myself.
So how did I manage to move on so quickly without feeling victimized or violated? How is it that I am able to sit here and write about this without it evoking horrible memories or making me feel like less of a person?
Well, it’s easy. I chose not to let one small incident affect me for the rest of my life. I chose to look at it from a different perspective than most and that perspective is what has allowed me to move on and not obsess about a single moment that literally was not one of the worst moments I have experienced in my life.
First of all, I don’t see my vagina as anything sacred. It’s an organ made of tissue, muscle, etc… To me it is not any more sacred than my nostrils. I have had 4 kids pass through it, it irritates the fuck out of me once a month, and it is a general pain in the ass. There is nothing wonderful about it. Sure it can give great pleasure when having consensual sex, but that’s pretty much where anything positive about it begins and ends. Just because society has taught us women that it is supposed to be something ‘special’ or ‘sacred’ doesn’t make it so. So when I was sexually assaulted I did not perceive it as much of a violation of my vagina. I actually didn’t care about that.
What made me feel the most betrayed was the fact that the person who did it was someone I knew, and someone who ignored me when I said ‘no’. And that feeling of betrayal only lasted a few days because I am not one who wastes much time on things that one cannot change. It happened, and there is nothing I can do to change that. What I can change is my outlook on the situation and decide to either let it ruin my life, or I can just chalk it up to a momentary negative moment in my life and move on. I chose the latter.
In my mind, the only one who can victimize you over a long period of time is yourself. You can let that one moment ruin you, or you can move on. These are ultimately your choices to make. Sadly many choose to let those negative moments ruin their lives. Yes, they were victimized for the duration of the assault, but after that it is their choice as to how long it will continue to victimize them. To remain a perpetual victim was not appealing to me, so I chose to move on and leave it behind me. It’s not that hard to do, yet many who have been sexually assaulted will claim it is. That it’s almost impossible. I however disagree and will tell you without hesitation that it is you who refuses to make the healthy choice to move on.
Look, there are things that are so much worse in this world than sexual assault. Personally I would rather be sexually assaulted once a week than have had to watch my father suffer in absolute agony for months while he was dying from stage 4 lung cancer. To watch him cry and writhe in pain every single fucking day. To watch him be tortured with indescribable pain daily for months. Yes, I would rather be sexually assaulted than carry those memories with me every day. And don’t tell me that sexual assault is worse, because it just fucking isn’t.
No one promised us that, from the day we were born, our lives would be easy. Shit happens. It’s what you do after that shit happens that defines you. Lay down and let it destroy you, or get up and keep moving forward to better days and happier moments. That is what I chose to do. I chose life and happiness. I chose to get up and keep moving. I chose to enjoy every moment I possibly can while I am here. And no one is ever going to define me but myself.
Convenient Compassion
PZ Myerzs has put a blog post out today that condemns the Amazing Atheist for this picture he posted of himself on his Tumblr feed:
What TJ (The Amazing Atheist) is basically trying to say is that people die because of tragic situations every day, and that focusing only on Amanda Todd diminishes the suffering of others. I agree that focusing on this one tragedy does diminish and ignores all the other children out there that die in similar or worse situations, but I also think that TJ probably could have done a better job of getting his message across. Regardless of my feelings on this subject, TJ has a right to express how he feels and I am not going to make this into a post about TJ and his unconventional methods.
Now PZ has his lady bloomers in a wad over what TJ has done and is trashing the shit out of him for not being 'near tears' about the Amanda Todd tragedy. Because according to PZ, 'Normal human beings will read about her and be near tears'. So if you are not near tears about Amanda Todd, you are not a normal human being.
I guess you can count the majority of the world population as being abnormal then, because most people do not cry for people they never knew. Sure we may feel bad and have some sort of minor emotional response, but most will not breakdown into floods of tears upon hearing something like the Amanda Todd story. Does that mean people are callous fucks? No, it just means they didn't have any personal connection to her and are not emotionally attached to the situation. That is actually pretty normal, and not what PZ has declared to be normal.
But wait, it gets better... PZ is tearing into TJ for not having any compassion and states the following in his post:
So let me get this straight PZ... You have compassion for a white middle class teen who committed suicide, but not a Korean Woman who was murdered by her boyfriend in a horrific way by being choked to death with an octopus? You have more compassion for the fucking octopus than this poor woman?
Wow... And TJ is the sociopath...
What TJ (The Amazing Atheist) is basically trying to say is that people die because of tragic situations every day, and that focusing only on Amanda Todd diminishes the suffering of others. I agree that focusing on this one tragedy does diminish and ignores all the other children out there that die in similar or worse situations, but I also think that TJ probably could have done a better job of getting his message across. Regardless of my feelings on this subject, TJ has a right to express how he feels and I am not going to make this into a post about TJ and his unconventional methods.
Now PZ has his lady bloomers in a wad over what TJ has done and is trashing the shit out of him for not being 'near tears' about the Amanda Todd tragedy. Because according to PZ, 'Normal human beings will read about her and be near tears'. So if you are not near tears about Amanda Todd, you are not a normal human being.
I guess you can count the majority of the world population as being abnormal then, because most people do not cry for people they never knew. Sure we may feel bad and have some sort of minor emotional response, but most will not breakdown into floods of tears upon hearing something like the Amanda Todd story. Does that mean people are callous fucks? No, it just means they didn't have any personal connection to her and are not emotionally attached to the situation. That is actually pretty normal, and not what PZ has declared to be normal.
But wait, it gets better... PZ is tearing into TJ for not having any compassion and states the following in his post:
'All you have to do is look at people like the Amazing Atheist to see that some atheists, people who are convinced that there is nothing beyond ourselves, that we are dependent entirely on our fellow human beings and nothing more, lack that humanity that is our only source of unity and our only true reason for living.
Don’t be surprised that some of us want nothing to do with such sociopaths'.Really PZ? Well then I suggest that no one have anything to do with you because of what you wrote about the octopus and the Korean woman who was murdered by her boyfriend with it:
So let me get this straight PZ... You have compassion for a white middle class teen who committed suicide, but not a Korean Woman who was murdered by her boyfriend in a horrific way by being choked to death with an octopus? You have more compassion for the fucking octopus than this poor woman?
Wow... And TJ is the sociopath...
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Jen McCreight (Rhymes with Wrong) the Voyeur?
Yesterday I was directed to some tweets by Jen McCreight:
So apparently Jen has her undies in a wad because a homeless man was masturbating in public. Sure, this is not acceptable public behavior, but lets not miss the main issue here... The man is HOMELESS! And many homeless people suffer from some form of severe mental illness. I highly doubt that any sane person would be wanking off in public... Just saying.
The homeless man she allegedly saw most likely suffers from a severe mental illness and would explain his public masturbation. I say allegedly because no where does she mention that she called the cops to report him for indecent exposure. If she were that concerned one would think that she would have immediately called the police just in case this guy were to become dangerous, or if a child were exposed to him in the act.
But all that aside, and assuming this truly did occur, we should not forget that he is homeless and is not afforded such luxuries as Jen who had to endure such a horrific event while walking to work to make money to afford all those upper white middle-class luxuries. You know, things this guy could probably only dream about having.
So, as she passed by she was forced to watch this homeless man masturbate! Oh the humanity!! Someone get the gun off her temple so she can look away.
Oh, and FYI homeless men on a computer reading my blog... If you ever want to masturbate in public to Jen McCreight, be sure to ask for her consent first. Apparently it is very important to her that you do so.
This whole situation does beg the question though... Who is the bigger pervert? The homeless man wanking off, or Jen for looking for as long as she did? Of course she says he was watching her, but how would she know if she were not watching him? Ah!
Then today Jen the voyeur wrote:
+on+Twitter.png)
So let me get this straight, because I want to be sure I understand little miss privilege here.
She has depression, yet is also capable of holding a job, one she is able to walk to in public despite her depression, and then sees this homeless man wanking off, gets all pissy about it, thinks it is all about her, and blogs about it to make her feel better? All the while claiming that she somehow has compassion for those with a mental illnesses because she has depression. And obviously it is not a crippling form of depression, as she is still able to function in the real world as was proven by her own admission of being able to walk to work.
Jen, you have again shown how disgusting you are by invoking your own illness, such as it is, as an excuse to treat others like shit. It must be nice to look down your nose at this homeless guy, go off to your job and then back to your comfortable home. Luxuries this guy does not have.
If you really did have any fucking brains you'd have realized that this was not about you. This guy was not wanking off because of YOU. How fucking narcissistic can you possibly be? He was watching you? Or was it because you were staring at him? It's pretty obvious it was more of the latter.
So apparently Jen has her undies in a wad because a homeless man was masturbating in public. Sure, this is not acceptable public behavior, but lets not miss the main issue here... The man is HOMELESS! And many homeless people suffer from some form of severe mental illness. I highly doubt that any sane person would be wanking off in public... Just saying.
The homeless man she allegedly saw most likely suffers from a severe mental illness and would explain his public masturbation. I say allegedly because no where does she mention that she called the cops to report him for indecent exposure. If she were that concerned one would think that she would have immediately called the police just in case this guy were to become dangerous, or if a child were exposed to him in the act.
But all that aside, and assuming this truly did occur, we should not forget that he is homeless and is not afforded such luxuries as Jen who had to endure such a horrific event while walking to work to make money to afford all those upper white middle-class luxuries. You know, things this guy could probably only dream about having.
So, as she passed by she was forced to watch this homeless man masturbate! Oh the humanity!! Someone get the gun off her temple so she can look away.
Oh, and FYI homeless men on a computer reading my blog... If you ever want to masturbate in public to Jen McCreight, be sure to ask for her consent first. Apparently it is very important to her that you do so.
This whole situation does beg the question though... Who is the bigger pervert? The homeless man wanking off, or Jen for looking for as long as she did? Of course she says he was watching her, but how would she know if she were not watching him? Ah!
Then today Jen the voyeur wrote:
She has depression, yet is also capable of holding a job, one she is able to walk to in public despite her depression, and then sees this homeless man wanking off, gets all pissy about it, thinks it is all about her, and blogs about it to make her feel better? All the while claiming that she somehow has compassion for those with a mental illnesses because she has depression. And obviously it is not a crippling form of depression, as she is still able to function in the real world as was proven by her own admission of being able to walk to work.
Jen, you have again shown how disgusting you are by invoking your own illness, such as it is, as an excuse to treat others like shit. It must be nice to look down your nose at this homeless guy, go off to your job and then back to your comfortable home. Luxuries this guy does not have.
If you really did have any fucking brains you'd have realized that this was not about you. This guy was not wanking off because of YOU. How fucking narcissistic can you possibly be? He was watching you? Or was it because you were staring at him? It's pretty obvious it was more of the latter.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Vacula Resigns - The Bullies Win this Round
You know, the people over at FTB and Atheism Plus are always whining
about how they get bullied by those of us who don’t buy into their
irrational bullshit. They constantly moan and complain about being
victims, blah blah… It’s truly pathetic.
I must say that these people are good at convincing themselves, and those incapable of any rational thought, that these things are true. That they are the poor little victims of constant bullying and nasty behavior. Yet it was they that pounced on Justin Vacula the minute they heard he was appointed to the position of co-chair for the SCA. They were relentless with their campaign of hate in which they demonstrated their complete lack of any kind of empathy, honesty, or morality. But then again, we know that they lack these things because they still pal around with Greg Laden who threatened and stalked Abbie Smith (in real life). But who cares that Laden is an unhinged and potentially dangerous crack pot right? As long as he drinks the kool-aid he’s alright with them. Apparently anything goes over there if you buy into their crap, and that is truly scary. That they will readily attack anyone on the opposing side, but that anyone on their side is completely innocent of any wrong doing. It’s amazing to see the mental gymnastics these people are capable of in justifying their own bad behavior. It’s like watching the clergy defend and support their fellow clergymen after having been exposed as pedophiles. Who cares about the real victims or the disgusting behavior of the perpetrators? As long as you are on the same side of the fence we’ll protect and defend you, right? The cognitive dissonance is disgusting.
So now these immoral pieces of crap have succeeded in getting Justin Vacula to resign from his position at SCA. He resigned this morning and explains his reasons why on his blog.
The thing that bothers me most about the FTB and Atheism Plus bullies is that they will not only attack you in their blogs, or on Twitter, but that they will actively seek out ways to destroy you at home and your place of employment. They will spend all of their time and effort digging for any dirt they can find on you, and if they can’t find any, they’ll make dirt up by twisting things to suit their personal agendas. They have no qualms about crossing the line by publicly tarring you with lies and unproven allegations. They don’t see others as human beings or have any concept of what being empathetic, honest, or moral means. They’ll stop at nothing to destroy those they do not like. These are not the actions of sane, rational people. That is why they are so dangerous.
While I understand Justin’s reasons for doing what he did, it also saddens me to see him give up so easily. If one wants to be a leader in the community, then they have to be willing to take the hits. And some of those hits will be hard and fast. It comes with the territory. Justin did not stand firm, and I personally feel disappointed because, by him resigning, it sends the bullies the message that they can get away with this kind of shit. And trust me, they’ll do it again because his resignation now serves as fuel for their fire. They will not hesitate to employ the same tactics to bully others they do not like out of the community. This is why I feel that Justin’s resignation was a bad move, and that by him having done what he did, he has now sent the message that it’s OK for these assholes to bully people because, it works.
But let me be clear to the bullies, because I want them to be aware of what they’ll be getting into if they ever try this shit on me. I guarantee that they will have to put on their best armor, because I do not go down without a serious fight. I don’t back down, and I don’t take shit from the likes of these immoral, irrational assholes. If they ever challenge me, they better be ready to fight hard because I can promise that I’ll return every one of their punches harder and faster than they could imagine. If you engage me in a fight, it will be a real fight, and you’d better come correct.
I hope those at FTB and Atheism Plus enjoy their momentary victory. It won’t last.
I must say that these people are good at convincing themselves, and those incapable of any rational thought, that these things are true. That they are the poor little victims of constant bullying and nasty behavior. Yet it was they that pounced on Justin Vacula the minute they heard he was appointed to the position of co-chair for the SCA. They were relentless with their campaign of hate in which they demonstrated their complete lack of any kind of empathy, honesty, or morality. But then again, we know that they lack these things because they still pal around with Greg Laden who threatened and stalked Abbie Smith (in real life). But who cares that Laden is an unhinged and potentially dangerous crack pot right? As long as he drinks the kool-aid he’s alright with them. Apparently anything goes over there if you buy into their crap, and that is truly scary. That they will readily attack anyone on the opposing side, but that anyone on their side is completely innocent of any wrong doing. It’s amazing to see the mental gymnastics these people are capable of in justifying their own bad behavior. It’s like watching the clergy defend and support their fellow clergymen after having been exposed as pedophiles. Who cares about the real victims or the disgusting behavior of the perpetrators? As long as you are on the same side of the fence we’ll protect and defend you, right? The cognitive dissonance is disgusting.
So now these immoral pieces of crap have succeeded in getting Justin Vacula to resign from his position at SCA. He resigned this morning and explains his reasons why on his blog.
The thing that bothers me most about the FTB and Atheism Plus bullies is that they will not only attack you in their blogs, or on Twitter, but that they will actively seek out ways to destroy you at home and your place of employment. They will spend all of their time and effort digging for any dirt they can find on you, and if they can’t find any, they’ll make dirt up by twisting things to suit their personal agendas. They have no qualms about crossing the line by publicly tarring you with lies and unproven allegations. They don’t see others as human beings or have any concept of what being empathetic, honest, or moral means. They’ll stop at nothing to destroy those they do not like. These are not the actions of sane, rational people. That is why they are so dangerous.
While I understand Justin’s reasons for doing what he did, it also saddens me to see him give up so easily. If one wants to be a leader in the community, then they have to be willing to take the hits. And some of those hits will be hard and fast. It comes with the territory. Justin did not stand firm, and I personally feel disappointed because, by him resigning, it sends the bullies the message that they can get away with this kind of shit. And trust me, they’ll do it again because his resignation now serves as fuel for their fire. They will not hesitate to employ the same tactics to bully others they do not like out of the community. This is why I feel that Justin’s resignation was a bad move, and that by him having done what he did, he has now sent the message that it’s OK for these assholes to bully people because, it works.
But let me be clear to the bullies, because I want them to be aware of what they’ll be getting into if they ever try this shit on me. I guarantee that they will have to put on their best armor, because I do not go down without a serious fight. I don’t back down, and I don’t take shit from the likes of these immoral, irrational assholes. If they ever challenge me, they better be ready to fight hard because I can promise that I’ll return every one of their punches harder and faster than they could imagine. If you engage me in a fight, it will be a real fight, and you’d better come correct.
I hope those at FTB and Atheism Plus enjoy their momentary victory. It won’t last.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)