Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
@Frazzled
So what you're saying is...you're the ultimate psychotic over protective dad from hell? Pros and Cons I guess. Personal attack dog vs scaring off all guys.

I think you're finally beginning to see the light.

Frazzled, just nature's way of saying "yep he's gak crazy."

 Frazzled wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
@Frazzled
So what you're saying is...you're the ultimate psychotic over protective dad from hell? Pros and Cons I guess. Personal attack dog vs scaring off all guys.

I think you're finally beginning to see the light.

Frazzled, just nature's way of saying "yep he's gak crazy."

Gary larsons wayyyy ahead of you frazz

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats good. Maybe you were spared a bitch slap when she didn't feel like you had any right to judge her looks in the first place.

What kind of world do you live in where violence is the responce to a simple fething compliment?

Jesus Christ...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats good. Maybe you were spared a bitch slap when she didn't feel like you had any right to judge her looks in the first place.

What kind of world do you live in where violence is the responce to a simple fething compliment?

Jesus Christ...

he lives in texas...

face slaps are the texas handshake

Prestor Jon wrote:
It doesn't violate a law of feminism. However, he did culturally appropriate an African-American hip hop term and fail to check his imperialist white cismale gender normative privilege.

Bahahahaha!

 easysauce wrote:
he lives in texas...

face slaps are the texas handshake

I thought it was pistols at dawn? Or is that just standard argument resolution?

 easysauce wrote:
no one called women crazy fascists... so if your intent is to point out that irony, then your intent is unrelated to anything actually said.

I was referring to the feminazi comments that come up all the time on youtube and tumbler. I certainly wasn't talking to you, and I'd like to not be again.

in terms of violence, between men and woman specifically

I honestly couldn't care less what you have to say about that. It was never a thing I was talking about. Tell it to someone else.

You keep using man on man criminal violence as a stat, and an admitted stereotype, in an argument about domestic violence between men and women.

No you started an argument saying women are more violent, and then YOU started arguing about domestic violence. As I have said, I don't care what your opinion is on domestic violence against men, and I think it is off topic. Stop trying to derail a topic about women by making it about men. Make a new topic if you want to discuss injustice towards men.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats good. Maybe you were spared a bitch slap when she didn't feel like you had any right to judge her looks in the first place.

What kind of world do you live in where violence is the responce to a simple fething compliment?

Jesus Christ...

Texas.

Our new motto: "Hey at least we don't have killer drop bears"

 Smacks wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
no one called women crazy fascists... so if your intent is to point out that irony, then your intent is unrelated to anything actually said.

I was referring to the feminazi comments that come up all the time on youtube and tumbler. I certainly wasn't talking to you, and I like to not be again.

in terms of violence, between men and woman specifically

I honestly couldn't care less what you have to say about that. It was never a thing I was talking about. Tell it to someone else.

You keep using man on man criminal violence as a stat, and an admitted stereotype, in an argument about domestic violence between men and women.

No you started an argument saying women are more violent, and then YOU started arguing about domestic violence. As I have said, I don't care what your opinion is on domestic violence against men, and I think it is off topic. Stop trying to derail a topic about women by making it about men. Make a new topic if you want to discuss injustice towards men.

I claimed women were just as violent as men, a claim that is true, women are people and subject to the same character flaws.

You keep trivializing it when men are complemented on the street, vs sensationalizing it as harassment when women are, which is very much ON TOPIC in a thread that trivializes actual harassment by lumping in "talking to women" as harassment when it is not.

You keep trivializing it when men are assaulted by women, vs treating man on woman violence as serious.

Pointing out that the double standards apply to more then just talking to people on the street, is important to the topic of "is it ok to talk to women in the street, or is it harassment?"

because the answer to
"is it ok to talk to women in the street, or is it harassment?"

should be the same answer as
"is it ok to talk to men in the street, or is it harassment?"

and should be the same as the answer to
"is it ok to talk to people in the street, or is it harassment?"


We see a double standard in that you and others claim talking to women is harassment, but not talking to men. Not only is it a double standard, its an extremely sexist one, as its only men talking to women that is "harassment" a woman can talk to a woman, or a man, and you wont call that harassment.

 easysauce wrote:
I claimed women were just as violent as men, a claim that is true

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/docs/ncvrw2013/2013ncvrw_stats_homicide.pdf?sfvrsn=0

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/Lauritsen_CRIM_09.pdf

While it is true that women are not perfect nonviolent angels, saying that the violence is equal is simply false.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
I claimed women were just as violent as men, a claim that is true

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/docs/ncvrw2013/2013ncvrw_stats_homicide.pdf?sfvrsn=0

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/Lauritsen_CRIM_09.pdf

While it is true that women are not perfect nonviolent angels, saying that the violence is equal is simply false.

and i never disputed that....

You are correct if you are taking about, criminal man on man violence, in a thread specifically about how men treat woman, the fact that men treat men violently, does not mean they also treat women the same.

so men assault men more often, women assault men more often, yet women are the ones who should be most afraid of being assaulted? despite men being the majority of victims?

"There is little dispute that men commit far more violent acts than women. According to FBI data on crime in the U.S., they account for some 90% of known murderers. And a study published in American Society of Criminology finds that men account for nearly 80% of all violent offenders reported in crime surveys, despite a substantial narrowing of the gap since the 1970s. But, whatever explains the higher levels of male violence—biology, culture or both—the indisputable fact is that it’s directed primarily at other males: in 2010, men were the victims in almost four out of five homicides and almost two-thirds of robberies and non-domestic aggravated assaults.

Family and intimate relationships—the one area feminists often identify as a key battleground in the war on women—are also an area in which women are most likely to be violent, and not just in response to male aggression but toward children, elders, female relatives or partners, and non-violent men, according to a study published in the Journal of Family Violence."

from http://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/


so yes, men are more likely to be violent against other men, claiming this makes them more violent in general is not true, especially since the subset of men who murder ect is a very small % of the over all male population, compared to the over all % of the male/female population in domestic relationships.

men are more likely to be the victims of male AND female instigated violence,

if you are going to contend that because men, in general, are convicted of violent crime more often, meaning that fears of random strange men being violent are reasonable,

then you should have no problem with the fact that women, in general, are hookers more often, meaning that random strange women are open to propositioning sex on the street more often.


see how inapplicable crime stats are to the general population now?

if violent criminals get to represent men at large, and how we deal with men at large, then hookers get to define women at large too.

again, double standard, one shouldnt judge men on the acts of a few criminals any more then one should judge women based on hookers.

 easysauce wrote:
...which is very much ON TOPIC in a thread that trivializes actual harassment by lumping in "talking to women" as harassment when it is not.

I'm quoting this 'cause it can't be restated enough.

 easysauce wrote:


and i never disputed that....

You are correct if you are taking about, criminal man on man violence, in a thread specifically about how men treat woman, the fact that men treat men violently, does not mean they also treat women the same.

so men assault men more often, women assault men more often, yet women are the ones who should be most afraid of being assaulted? despite men being the majority of victims?

"There is little dispute that men commit far more violent acts than women. According to FBI data on crime in the U.S., they account for some 90% of known murderers. And a study published in American Society of Criminology finds that men account for nearly 80% of all violent offenders reported in crime surveys, despite a substantial narrowing of the gap since the 1970s. But, whatever explains the higher levels of male violence—biology, culture or both—the indisputable fact is that it’s directed primarily at other males: in 2010, men were the victims in almost four out of five homicides and almost two-thirds of robberies and non-domestic aggravated assaults.

Family and intimate relationships—the one area feminists often identify as a key battleground in the war on women—are also an area in which women are most likely to be violent, and not just in response to male aggression but toward children, elders, female relatives or partners, and non-violent men, according to a study published in the Journal of Family Violence."

from http://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/


so yes, men are more likely to be violent against other men, claiming this makes them more violent in general is not true, especially since the subset of men who murder ect is a very small % of the over all male population, compared to the over all % of the male/female population in domestic relationships.

men are more likely to be the victims of male AND female instigated violence,

if you are going to contend that because men, in general, are convicted of violent crime more often, meaning that fears of random strange men being violent are reasonable,

then you should have no problem with the fact that women, in general, are hookers more often, meaning that random strange women are open to propositioning sex on the street.

if violent criminals get to represent men at large, and how we deal with men at large, then hookers get to define women at large too.

again, double standard, one shouldnt judge men on the acts of a few criminals any more then one should judge women based on hookers.

 Chongara wrote:

lol, oh krusty,

chongara, I dispute what the numbers mean, not the #'s themselves. If thats not clear, my apoligies.

 easysauce wrote:
claiming this makes [men] more violent in general is not true

The very article easysauce linked wrote:There is little dispute that men commit far more violent acts than women.

????

But those aren't the same things Ash.

"Men commit more violent acts" =/= "men are more violent"

 Smacks wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
no one called women crazy fascists... so if your intent is to point out that irony, then your intent is unrelated to anything actually said.

I was referring to the feminazi comments that come up all the time on youtube and tumbler. I certainly wasn't talking to you, and I'd like to not be again.

This is one of the sickest burns I've read on Dakka.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
claiming this makes [men] more violent in general is not true

The very article easysauce linked wrote:There is little dispute that men commit far more violent acts than women.

????

if you can only tell the difference when someone defines feminists by the extremists but not when you define all men by extremists (violent criminals) I cant really help you.... here is the exact same two sentences, but with feminine stereotypes,



there is little dispute that women sell sex on the street more then men,
this does not mean women in general are selling sex on the street.


again, double standard.

 easysauce wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
claiming this makes [men] more violent in general is not true

The very article easysauce linked wrote:There is little dispute that men commit far more violent acts than women.

????

if you can only tell the difference when someone defines feminists by the extremists but not when you define all men by extremists (violent criminals) I cant really help you.... here is the exact same two sentences, but with feminine stereotypes,



there is little dispute that women sell sex on the street more then men,
this does not mean women in general are selling sex on the street.


again, double standard.

No, there is no double standard here. Here is the correct conclusion from your example:

There is little dispute that women sell sex on the street more then men,
So this does mean that women in general are more likely to sell sex on the street than men are.

Conversely, men are more violent in general, but that does not mean that all men are dangerous barbarians. It only means it is statistically more likely for a given person to be the victim of violence from men than from women.

Or, in your format:

There is little dispute that men commit violent crimes more often than women,
which means there is a higher % risk to be beaten by a man than a woman.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But those aren't the same things Ash.

"Men commit more violent acts" =/= "men are more violent"

At this point it is mostly a difference of semantics rather than intent, I suspect. If I write it like this 'A higher percentage of men than women commit violent crimes, ergo, any given violent crime is significantly more likely to be committed by a man', would that make more sense to you?

I am not of the belief that men in general are very violent people. That certain men commit violent crimes is not the responsibility of men in general, but the sheer disparity in violent crime gender categories should not be underestimated.

 Ouze wrote:

This is one of the sickest burns I've read on Dakka.

says more about smacks if she wants to go into "burns" and leaving the conversation as debate tactics.

I also continue to dispute the claim that women in general are as violent as men.

 Ashiraya wrote:

easysauce wrote:
if you can only tell the difference when someone defines feminists by the extremists but not when you define all men by extremists (violent criminals) I cant really help you.... here is the exact same two sentences, but with feminine stereotypes

there is little dispute that women sell sex on the street more then men,
this does not mean women in general are selling sex on the street.

No, there is no double standard here. Here is the correct conclusion from your example:

There is little dispute that women sell sex on the street more then men,
So this does mean that women in general are more likely to sell sex on the street than men are. (so in general a woman on the street is ok for having sex with you

Or, in your format:

There is little dispute that men commit violent crimes more often than women,
which means there is a higher % risk to be beaten by a man than a woman. (there is a better chance a man on the street is ok with beating you then a woman would be)

Replacing words like "this does not" with "this does" changes a whole lot.

claiming its my words or argument when you make such changes, says a lot.


What is truly mind boggling though, is what you are saying is that if people should be worried about men in general being more likely to beat them, then people should also feel free to ask women in general as they are more likely to be a prostitute (by your logic not mine)





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I also continue to dispute the claim that women in general are as violent as men.

again, it should already be clear IM talking about male vs female violence, domestic violence, where women are actually ending up the victim, its ok to be talking about female victimization here right?

in situations where the potential exists for both a man and woman to be violent, men and women are violent in roughly equal proportions.



if you want to generalize all of men based on violent criminals actions, be prepared to generalize all women based on hookers actions.

 easysauce wrote:
What is truly mind boggling though, is what you are saying is that if people should be worried about men in general being more likely to beat them, then people should also feel free to ask women in general as they are more likely to be a prostitute (by your logic not mine)

That's like saying:

People should be more worried about lung cancer if they smoke.
So people should also feel free to ask women if they're prostitutes.

How does acknowledging a legitimate risk give you carte blanche to ask tactless questions? Being concerned about someone being a prostitute is not the same as "feeling free" to ask.

I...can't even follow this thread anymore.

Sometimes its like

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I...can't even follow this thread anymore.

I'm right there with you.

How you manage to get 'A woman is more likely to be a prostitute than a man' to become 'Women in general are likely to be prostitutes' is beyond me.

Also, you're saying men and women only have potential to be violent in different situations? Lolwut?

The 'correct' conclusion was one I had changed to become correct - it was not a strawman as it was a correction, not a quote.

What is truly mind boggling though, is what you are saying is that if people should be worried about men in general being more likely to beat them, then people should also feel free to ask women in general as they are more likely to be a prostitute (by your logic not mine)

How you managed to conclude this is beyond my ability to comprehend.

All I have said is that the average man is more likely to hit you than the average woman is.

If he is 50% more likely or 0,000005% more likely, that I never said, only that he is at all.

So... Please explain how that means you can generally assume that women are prostitutes?

 Ashiraya wrote:


Also, you're saying men and women only have potential to be violent in different situations? Lolwut?

Not what I'm getting... It really isn't difficult.



-In a DOMESTIC situation, women are more likely to be violent against men

-In GENERAL, more violent crimes are committed by men.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I also continue to dispute the claim that women in general are as violent as men.

Why would you oppress women so? Anything men can do, women can do as well

Totally disappointed in Ashirayas sexist notion. And from a swede too -_-

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
-In a DOMESTIC situation, women are more likely to be violent against men

-In GENERAL, more violent crimes are committed by men.

Exactly. So, in general, a man is more likely to take violent actions.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
-In a DOMESTIC situation, women are more likely to be violent against men

But, only if you count pretty much any physical contact as violence. Men are still way more likely to injure someone.