Streamline Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Any man who dedicates his blog to demonising women, portraying victims of rape as manupilative bitches described thus: is clearly unhinged. Why not it's simple retaliation for the spiteful and nasty feminist blogs that are out there, seems to me that feminists can dish it out but can't take it. Imagine Angry Harry's apoplectic response if a woman posted something like this about her husband: And there is more: Sorry but have you just made that up, surely you can find something on the blog to back up your opinions? No? The above fallacious claim itself illustrates how ill informed this hateful man is. Justifiable homicide of a woman being compared to women who kill out of self-preservation and survival rather than a blind rage? In what way is it fallacious? As he said if you take the story at face value the guy was being abused including being accused of rape. He also gives an opinion on sentencing differences and I also know that Harriet Harman was or did managed to change the law so that effectively women can commit premeditated murder and use prior abuse in their defence. He clearly has an axe to grind on the whole rape issue, I wonder if he has ever been accused of rape himself? He covers gender specific issues and probably comes across a lot of people who have gone to him for help because there is nowhere else for them to go. There is one thing I do know about him, he wouldn't have started that site if there wasn't a need for it. My advice, if you don't want to be called a lunatic, then don't act like one. ETA: I am not so much offended by women being referred to as 'sluts' although it is an inappropriate and sexist term, I am more offended by the notion that by virtue of a woman's clothing, she is 'victimising' herself. I personally hold it as a badge of honour if a self proclaimed feminist insults me or my friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 He doesn't speak any kind of sense at all. I pointed out several pages back that citing him in this discussion doesn't do your position any good at all. You were chirping on about how the site looked and the layout, you haven't said anything specific about the contents of the post I made and just went off on one. Doing that completely wrecks your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I wonder whether contributors to the thread think that children should avoid dressing provocatively as to avoid paedophiles? And people should avoid owning nice things so as to avoid thieves. I wonder if they've ever been the victim of crime and decided it was their own fault really for provoking it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Why not it's simple retaliation for the spiteful and nasty feminist blogs that are out there, seems to me that feminists can dish it out but can't take it. How mature. I have never ranted like that as a feminist, in such a hateful manner towards men, nor rejoiced in the suffering or killing of a man at the hands of a woman. Nor do I support 'nasty feminist blogs' or nastiness of any kind for that matter. Sorry but have you just made that up, surely you can find something on the blog to back up your opinions? No? Huh? Check out the blog. In what way is it fallacious? As he said if you take the story at face value the guy was being abused including being accused of rape. He also gives an opinion on sentencing differences and I also know that Harriet Harman was or did managed to change the law so that effectively women can commit premeditated murder and use prior abuse in their defence. I have researched the different sentencing patterns between men and women and it is in no way what you describe; men have been getting away with murder for years under the guise of manslaughter or rather man's laughter. You also seem to have misunderstand why Harman was proposing. He covers gender specific issues and probably comes across a lot of people who have gone to him for help because there is nowhere else for them to go. There is one thing I do know about him, he wouldn't have started that site if there wasn't a need for it. Well, he clearly has issues. I personally hold it as a badge of honour if a self proclaimed feminist insults me or my friends. You must have lots of experience of it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 You have written it down in a manner that is so obvious, that I'm surprised you fail to grasp it. If he had worded things differently to mean "attention" then he wouldn't have been doing his job of crime prevention because "attention" is not a crime. The fact that he was supposedly there to prevent crime informs us of the types of serious assaults he was referring to when he said "victimised". The students knew perfectly well what he was referring to, and the officer himself knew, he didn't say he was misinterpreted, and he apologised. One also has to read the first few pages of this thread to realise that everybody here knew what sort of crimes he was referring to. The conclusion that, after 40 pages of debate, it is now being suggested that the officer really meant some watered down definition of "victimised", basically means the debate is settled in favour of the majority vote. I'm just quoting what he said, when I get the chance I shall look at the beginning of the thread and see who it was who started to sensationalise the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 And people should avoid owning nice things so as to avoid thieves. I wonder if they've ever been the victim of crime and decided it was their own fault really for provoking it... No one has ever suggested that in the whole thread, we all know that the Police advise on the prevention of crime and I'm aware of what numbskulls they think we are at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 You were chirping on about how the site looked and the layout, you haven't said anything specific about the contents of the post I made and just went off on one. Doing that completely wrecks your position. I responded to the initial post you made about rape statistics by offering the far more measured Guardian article on the same thing. I'm not going to respond to the Angry Harry stuff because, as I said in my post where I 'went off on one', it's nonsense. Nothing that he writes has any credibility whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I responded to the initial post you made about rape statistics by offering the far more measured Guardian article on the same thing. I'm not going to respond to the Angry Harry stuff because, as I said in my post where I 'went off on one', it's nonsense. Nothing that he writes has any credibility whatsoever. Guardian? Measured? Don't make me laugh. Full of feminist inspired claptrap. It's that well regarded it posted a loss of £33,000,000 this year and it won't be long before it's out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Guardian? Measured? Don't make me laugh. Full of feminist inspired claptrap. It's that well regarded it posted a loss of £33,000,000 this year and it won't be long before it's out of business. Compared to the Daily Mail and Angry Harry the Guardian is indeed a bastion of sane rationality. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that, regardless of their politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Compared to the Daily Mail and Angry Harry the Guardian is indeed a bastion of sane rationality. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that, regardless of their politics. Oh dear now she hates the Daily Mail, the most popular British newspaper on the internet. By the way you can read about the losses here and the Guardian's tax fiddles. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=guardian+lose+site%3Aorder-order.com%2F&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.