Jian Ghomeshi trial

[Forty Two]

You do this all the time rEv. He's fucking with you, because that's your M.O.

[pErvinalia]

One, that is true, depending on the jurisdiction. But, then the premise of his comment is undermined, because there is no singling out in that scenario. Nobody is permitted to call people racist names (as long as the law is enforced equally).

That being said, that is NOT feminist theory, and remember, you are big on standing by feminist theory.

Am I? Where did you learn logic? I have said that the concept of patriarchy makes sense to me. I have said zero about the totality or even the majority of feminist theory. In fact, I know very little about anything else that could be called feminist theory. Perhaps the idea that members can't be effectively a bigot from the position of the less powerful towards the more powerful group. What are some examples of feminist theory that I am supposedly big on standing by?

[pErvinalia]

You do this all the time rEv. He's fucking with you, because that's your M.O.

This literally makes no sense. I'm doing something but he's fucking with me because my M.O. is fucking with myself??

[pErvinalia]

it should be ok for whites to call blacks 'nigger' to toughen them up.

If you can't quote me saying that, then it is just you saying it.

Here's what you said: I think singling out any group, be they a racial group, rape victims or politicians, by making it unacceptable to joke about them, would be like saying they were too weak or frail to be treated like anyone else.
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1650033

So assuming even you agree (not a given, knowing the views you hold) that blacks are a racial group, and joking about blacks can involve calling them niggers, then you are directly inferring that blacks who don't want to be called a nigger are too weak or frail.

Cunt is correct on this, and you're wrong. He did not say it's "ok" for whites to call blacks 'nigger" to toughen them up.

What he was referring to was singling out any group -- in other words, saying, it's lawful or permissible to call white people racist names is permissible while prohibiting racist namecalling of blacks. Arguably, that is a suggestion that blacks need protection that whites don't. Now, you may actually believe that to be true -- a lot of SJWs do believe that to be true - they say that blacks, due to their historical issues are actually more vulnerable than whites, and so indeed they need that kind of protection whereas whites don't. And, since blacks can't be racist against whites, then it's o.k. for blacks to namecall whites but not vice versa.

So, if you accept the premise -- that historical issues can render a racial group more deserving of protection from insult, then you will accept the conclusion that certain groups can be singled out for special protection (or that such protection would not be "special" -- it would be what is required to equal things out -- ie unequal treatment is needed for equality). However, if you reject that premise, and view such things as a function of individuals, not classes or races, then the notion that a black guy can call white guys white cracker while white guy can't call a black guy a spearchucker doesn't make sense.

If a word is okay for one group to use, then it's okay for all. Niggers can't resreve the use of the term for themselves only.

This only makes sense (in a caring society, at least) if you think that words can't cause psychological harm. I doubt you think that. Words can cause psychological harm. So there's going to be a clear difference between a black person calling another black person a "nigger" and a white person calling a black person a "nigger". The black person has grown up in a white society that still socially discriminates against blacks, and indeed legally did not all that long ago. So when a white person says the 'n' word, it exists in a totally different social context to if a black person uses it.

[Cunt]

Go look it up.

Or, if you are lazy AND fucking stupid, don't. You could instead express your ignorance a bunch of times in the thread.

Once again, you were referring to plural cases. What are these cases? I don't have a window into you mind (thank fuck for that). You have to tell me what they are before I look them up.

Gotcha - lazy or stupid, it doesn't matter to me because you are confirming BOTH every time you express your continued ignorance on this modest fact.

I certainly WON'T tell you. Seeing you DEMAND that I educate you is just too fucking funny to put an end to.

[Cunt]

Oh, wait - I won't tell you because PATRIARCHY!!!

[pErvinalia]

Go look it up.

Or, if you are lazy AND fucking stupid, don't. You could instead express your ignorance a bunch of times in the thread.

Once again, you were referring to plural cases. What are these cases? I don't have a window into you mind (thank fuck for that). You have to tell me what they are before I look them up.

Gotcha - lazy or stupid, it doesn't matter to me because you are confirming BOTH every time you express your continued ignorance on this modest fact.

I certainly WON'T tell you. Seeing you DEMAND that I educate you is just too fucking funny to put an end to.

You seem to be struggling with logic. You referred to plural cases. There is only one case referred to in this thread. To look up whatever it is you are talking about, I need to know what other cases you are talking about. This is so fucking simple, I can't believe I have had to explain this multiple times already. To clarify, do you know the difference between singular and plural?

[Cunt]

I certainly WON'T tell you. Seeing you DEMAND that I educate you is just too fucking funny to put an end to.

You seem to be struggling with logic.

Not at all. What you are seeing is me jiggling with mirth.

You referred to plural cases. There is only one case referred to in this thread. To look up whatever it is you are talking about, I need to know what other cases you are talking about.

Only if you insist on clinging to your ignorance.

You have to REALLY want to keep it.

This is so fucking simple, I can't believe I have had to explain this multiple times already. To clarify, do you know the difference between singular and plural?

Sometimes, the difference is negligable.

But seeing you revel in your ignorance is quite rewarding. Instead of looking ANYTHING up, you just bray and bray about what you wish you knew.


Fucking awesome!

[Cunt]

Oh, and EDUCATE yourself lol

[pErvinalia]

trolololol

[Cunt]

I'm not trolling, if you look carefully, not one other person has a problem understanding. That means either it doesn't matter to them, or they took a minute to look it up.

But keep gushing your ignorance everywhere...it's fucking great to see.

It shows how much thought you are willing to put into your posts.

[pErvinalia]

It's because everyone other than 42 ignores your bollocks. The clue is that virtually no one else has responded to anything much you've written in the past few weeks that you've been back. That should be telling you something.

[Cunt]

It's because everyone other than 42 ignores your bollocks. The clue is that virtually no one else has responded to anything much you've written in the past few weeks that you've been back. That should be telling you something.

What should it tell me that you follow me from thread to thread, calling me a troll?

What should it tell me that you can't be bothered to look up a simple fact about this thread.

Who is the victim in the case discussed in this thread?

If you don't know, then maybe there is something important you are missing there.

Of course, you could just cry that I am trolling because I won't educate you lol

[pErvinalia]

I'm not particularly interested in who you think is or isn't the victim in this case. I thought I made that clear. What i'm interested in is your assertion that in numerous un-named cases there are victims (in air quotes) and that it seems (although, it's impossible to tell as you won't back up anything you say) that providing services to help victims through any trauma is an insult to them.

[Cunt]

I'm not particularly interested in who you think is or isn't the victim in this case. I thought I made that clear. What i'm interested in is your assertion that in numerous un-named cases there are victims (in air quotes) and that it seems (although, it's impossible to tell as you won't back up anything you say) that providing services to help victims through any trauma is an insult to them.

All you have to do is look up one fact. One plain, public fact, and it would be clear.


But you won't. I won't tease you for being stubborn, because of your identified challenges. I will keep laughing though.

It's like you would rather keep braying 'I am willfully ignorant' rather than looking up one teeny tiny fact.

Fuck are you ever funny!