welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Bacon Porn
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18, 19  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10898
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

crayven wrote:
Dogen wrote:
Plus, there's voluntary and there's "you come from a country/area/city/family with no money and few prospects for a better life, and I'm offering you a few dollars a day to let me bang you on film and sell it to Americans." Which is totally voluntary, of course, but also coercive. For the record, I have no idea how many porn performers fall into this category, but preying on the economically disadvantaged is a common tactic of sex traffickers from what I understand.

How is this different in terms of coercion than telling a guy "you come from a country/area/city/family with no money and few prospects for a better life, and I'm offering you a few dollars a day to let me EXPLOIT you non-sexually for near slave wage for products to Americans." ?
It's not, it's the same thing. This isn't discrimination by sex, it's by wealth and it's called CAPITALISM.

You should pay better attention. That bit of mine you quoted was specifically about whether or not all porn stars choose to be in porn of their own free will.

Quote:
Dogen wrote:

According to this site women in the Netherlands earn less than men when doing the same job. This paper found that, while a majority of Dutch women worked part time (by choice), those that worked full time earned less than their male counterparts, and that the gap was greatest at the top - a Dutch glass ceiling.

Let's just stop posting link to "studies" - even Adyon agreed that each study HAS an agenda behind it and it's not objective about their research...if they even bother with one.
Europeans are much more firely than their american counterparts, in other words we are more likely to protest - actively if things don't run how we want them. The recent bills that have been boycotted are proof enough of that.
So i find it safe to assume that if there would be such a huge discrimination based on sex we would see a 1960's style demonstration.
We don't.

Umm... no. That's a ridiculous position. If you can't even be bothered to evaluate peer-reviewed research for legitimacy then heaven knows what you'll believe - because I haven't the foggiest idea what constitutes evidence in your mind. It boggles my mind. Seriously, if you can't trust research, what is there, other than any idiots opinion? Is the opinion of everyone equally valid? How do you tell whether something is true unless you can consult experts who spend time and energy researching the problem? Am I just supposed to accept that you somehow know the truth, the whole truth, based on your anecdotal experience? Because that's equally ridiculous, and all anyone has to do is say, "Nope, you're wrong," and now you're fucked - no one gets to cite any evidence. Is everyone right about everything always? I mean, shit, if you can't cite research how do you know when you're wrong about big, important things?

I understand a lot of people are anti-science, and most of them prop their positions on the same type of logic that scientists all have agendas and are just out to get famous/make money. But those of us who enjoy science, who understand science, and who perform research, think those people are crazy or pursuing an agenda of their own that's hampered by science. Which is pretty much what I think of your position. So, are you crazy, or is your position simply hampered by reality, and thus science is inconvenient?
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
crayven



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 267

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
crayven wrote:
Dogen wrote:
Plus, there's voluntary and there's "you come from a country/area/city/family with no money and few prospects for a better life, and I'm offering you a few dollars a day to let me bang you on film and sell it to Americans." Which is totally voluntary, of course, but also coercive. For the record, I have no idea how many porn performers fall into this category, but preying on the economically disadvantaged is a common tactic of sex traffickers from what I understand.

How is this different in terms of coercion than telling a guy "you come from a country/area/city/family with no money and few prospects for a better life, and I'm offering you a few dollars a day to let me EXPLOIT you non-sexually for near slave wage for products to Americans." ?
It's not, it's the same thing. This isn't discrimination by sex, it's by wealth and it's called CAPITALISM.

You should pay better attention. That bit of mine you quoted was specifically about whether or not all porn stars choose to be in porn of their own free will.

Doesn't the word offer imply freedom to refuse? The FREE WILL to refuse that is?
Oh, yes...it actually does.


Quote:
Dogen wrote:

According to this site women in the Netherlands earn less than men when doing the same job. This paper found that, while a majority of Dutch women worked part time (by choice), those that worked full time earned less than their male counterparts, and that the gap was greatest at the top - a Dutch glass ceiling.

Let's just stop posting link to "studies" - even Adyon agreed that each study HAS an agenda behind it and it's not objective about their research...if they even bother with one.
Europeans are much more firely than their american counterparts, in other words we are more likely to protest - actively if things don't run how we want them. The recent bills that have been boycotted are proof enough of that.
So i find it safe to assume that if there would be such a huge discrimination based on sex we would see a 1960's style demonstration.
We don't.
Dogen wrote:

Umm... no. That's a ridiculous position. If you can't even be bothered to evaluate peer-reviewed research for legitimacy then heaven knows what you'll believe - because I haven't the foggiest idea what constitutes evidence in your mind. It boggles my mind. Seriously, if you can't trust research, what is there, other than any idiots opinion? Is the opinion of everyone equally valid? How do you tell whether something is true unless you can consult experts who spend time and energy researching the problem? Am I just supposed to accept that you somehow know the truth, the whole truth, based on your anecdotal experience? Because that's equally ridiculous, and all anyone has to do is say, "Nope, you're wrong," and now you're fucked - no one gets to cite any evidence. Is everyone right about everything always? I mean, shit, if you can't cite research how do you know when you're wrong about big, important things?

I understand a lot of people are anti-science, and most of them prop their positions on the same type of logic that scientists all have agendas and are just out to get famous/make money. But those of us who enjoy science, who understand science, and who perform research, think those people are crazy or pursuing an agenda of their own that's hampered by science. Which is pretty much what I think of your position. So, are you crazy, or is your position simply hampered by reality, and thus science is inconvenient?

Whenever i give out link i am told "those are made by MRA studies - they don't count they have a vial agenda" "oh you mean those MEN's studies, hah, they don't count" even though they are valid as these "peer reviewed" ones.
So i am to assume i am not allowed to use links becuase my sources are biased but yours are not simply based on the fact they contradict your pre-conceptions?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10898
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

crayven wrote:
Dogen wrote:
crayven wrote:
Dogen wrote:
Plus, there's voluntary and there's "you come from a country/area/city/family with no money and few prospects for a better life, and I'm offering you a few dollars a day to let me bang you on film and sell it to Americans." Which is totally voluntary, of course, but also coercive. For the record, I have no idea how many porn performers fall into this category, but preying on the economically disadvantaged is a common tactic of sex traffickers from what I understand.

How is this different in terms of coercion than telling a guy "you come from a country/area/city/family with no money and few prospects for a better life, and I'm offering you a few dollars a day to let me EXPLOIT you non-sexually for near slave wage for products to Americans." ?
It's not, it's the same thing. This isn't discrimination by sex, it's by wealth and it's called CAPITALISM.

You should pay better attention. That bit of mine you quoted was specifically about whether or not all porn stars choose to be in porn of their own free will.

Doesn't the word offer imply freedom to refuse? The FREE WILL to refuse that is?
Oh, yes...it actually does.

Have you ever seen the Godfather? You know the scene where he says, "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse"? There is such a thing as coercion that impacts the ability of the person on the other end of an offer's ability to act freely. Offering a starving person a sandwich but demanding sex first, for instance, is using coercion to exploit someone for your benefit - a starving person could turn down the sandwich, but they have to decide whether surviving is more important than not doing something they don't want to do. That's a little extreme, but the principle is the same. If you find women who are extremely poor and you offer them enough money to support their families, it becomes incredibly difficult for them to refuse to do something they consider wrong, because the consequences of that refusal are huge.

Quote:
Quote:
Dogen wrote:

According to this site women in the Netherlands earn less than men when doing the same job. This paper found that, while a majority of Dutch women worked part time (by choice), those that worked full time earned less than their male counterparts, and that the gap was greatest at the top - a Dutch glass ceiling.

Let's just stop posting link to "studies" - even Adyon agreed that each study HAS an agenda behind it and it's not objective about their research...if they even bother with one.
Europeans are much more firely than their american counterparts, in other words we are more likely to protest - actively if things don't run how we want them. The recent bills that have been boycotted are proof enough of that.
So i find it safe to assume that if there would be such a huge discrimination based on sex we would see a 1960's style demonstration.
We don't.
Dogen wrote:

Umm... no. That's a ridiculous position. If you can't even be bothered to evaluate peer-reviewed research for legitimacy then heaven knows what you'll believe - because I haven't the foggiest idea what constitutes evidence in your mind. It boggles my mind. Seriously, if you can't trust research, what is there, other than any idiots opinion? Is the opinion of everyone equally valid? How do you tell whether something is true unless you can consult experts who spend time and energy researching the problem? Am I just supposed to accept that you somehow know the truth, the whole truth, based on your anecdotal experience? Because that's equally ridiculous, and all anyone has to do is say, "Nope, you're wrong," and now you're fucked - no one gets to cite any evidence. Is everyone right about everything always? I mean, shit, if you can't cite research how do you know when you're wrong about big, important things?

I understand a lot of people are anti-science, and most of them prop their positions on the same type of logic that scientists all have agendas and are just out to get famous/make money. But those of us who enjoy science, who understand science, and who perform research, think those people are crazy or pursuing an agenda of their own that's hampered by science. Which is pretty much what I think of your position. So, are you crazy, or is your position simply hampered by reality, and thus science is inconvenient?

Whenever i give out link i am told "those are made by MRA studies - they don't count they have a vial agenda" "oh you mean those MEN's studies, hah, they don't count" even though they are valid as these "peer reviewed" ones.
So i am to assume i am not allowed to use links becuase my sources are biased but yours are not simply based on the fact they contradict your pre-conceptions?

No, peer review is a special class of studies, which means that other experts have evaluated it for consistency and quality. Peer review is the gold standard for quality research. Feel free to post all the peer-reviewed studies you like. Of course, they're harder to get your hands on (because they're published by professional journals that make you pay to read them), but I'm not opposed to research that isn't peer-reviewed either. It just requires that you know enough about research to know when something is coming from a biased source. If you find it on a website devoted to an agenda - such as an MRA website - it's a good bet it's biased. If you find it on a website that has no identifiable agenda - such as a government website, a university website, etc. - then it's less likely to have an agenda. For instance, one of my links came from the EU, so you'd have to explain why anyone should believe the EU has an agenda on this subject. The other was from an economics research institute called IZA. If you can identify a specific bias of theirs, I'd hear it out.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adyon



Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 1168
Location: Behind my Cintiq

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
well, a lot of little businesses can be excluded by setting a minimum size for the regulations to take effect - so businesses with fewer than 25 or 50 or whatever employees don't have to comply.

speaking as an employee, what matters to me is overall fairness. i have worked for a small business, and when it was struggling, i was willing to take less to ensure the whole thing kept going - with the expectation that when it did well, i would also share in the rewards. (sometimes i did, sometimes i didn't). working for a big organization, i see a lot of money going through - and a lot of excuses and paperwork that keep staff from sharing in the rewards.

i actually don't know what this all has with wage unity. what i know is that i want to see some reward for my experience and hard work - not a lot of weaseling about why they can't give me one.

Yeah, I think we got a bit off track from the wage unity thing. I knew after I mentioned politics it'd end in going off topic. I shouldn't do that, as I'm pretty neutral to both sides, so why strike up reason for debate! Sorry. =P

But otherwise, your idea for a set size that if you have fewer than that employees meaning being exempt from the laws...Yeah. Exactly. This is the kind of thing government could pass if they wanted to. I wish politicians were the simple and easy. Maybe big government would actually do more good with all the resources it gathers. Instead of two political "parties" circling around some giant money pot waiting for there to be more in charge from their field to pass some laws that supposedly fit more with their parties ideals. I mean, half of the stuff they pass, no one feels strongly about. It's more, well we decided to pass this law. Now to the media for talking heads to debate about it! Who cares about real issues! We're the media, and you'll conform to what WE find important! And on and on. Politics is the one thing I'm kind of jaded on, I'll admit. I've known my fair share of politicians, a couple on a more personal level, and most of them care more about getting elected than actually changing things.

crayven wrote:
How is this different in terms of coercion than telling a guy "you come from a country/area/city/family with no money and few prospects for a better life, and I'm offering you a few dollars a day to let me EXPLOIT you non-sexually for near slave wage for products to Americans." ?
It's not, it's the same thing. This isn't discrimination by sex, it's by wealth and it's called CAPITALISM.

I think the general consensus is that exploitation of someone because they have no other prospects is bad in any way. Of course, it's not that it's bad the person GETS a job like that. It's simply bad that we have systems in place ready to take advantage of people in bad places, because they know they HAVE no other prospects, so they'll settle for less. Dogen already covered this though. It's not the end result that's the problem. It's the greed driving it.[/quote]
crayven wrote:
Let's just stop posting link to "studies" - even Adyon agreed that each study HAS an agenda behind it and it's not objective about their research...if they even bother with one.

I think I'm being a little mis-understood here. My point is not that all studies are crap, but rather that you should take everything with a grain of salt. Take studies from both sides of the argument and compare them. Both sides are right, but there's the ability to "spin" information in your favor if you try. That's all.
Quote:
Whenever i give out link i am told "those are made by MRA studies - they don't count they have a vial agenda" "oh you mean those MEN's studies, hah, they don't count" even though they are valid as these "peer reviewed" ones.
So i am to assume i am not allowed to use links becuase my sources are biased but yours are not simply based on the fact they contradict your pre-conceptions?

MRA studies aren't "men's studies". MRA is more of the exactly opposite of feminists, where they believe women are the root of men's problems, even though men are in power. MRA just has a bad name to start, as it's like forming the KKK. It's more of a "We're in power, and people are trying to take that power" type of argument.

Sorry, I'm going off I know, but other than that, I think Dogen already said more than I could in my intoxicated state, and he said it well. So yeah. Especially his Godfather reference. That's exactly why that type of coercion is bad.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
crayven



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 267

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Godfather comparisson doesn't hold true just for sex work ( yeah people actually have JOBS in that field, it's not just run by evil trafficking MEN ) but for our whole "get a job" culture.
When you are unemployed the employer pretty much makes yo "an offer that you can't refuse - when i got out of my 2nd college and after finishing my PhD i worked as an electrician which is a very low-end job. Not because there was sexism but because i needed the money to LIVE.
Capitalism at work.

And it is exactly that: exploiting people ho have no other way to gain money.
You tell me if you had money falling out of your nostrils you would go and do some boring job? Fuck no !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
crayven



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 267

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Adyon wrote:

MRA studies aren't "men's studies". MRA is more of the exactly opposite of feminists, where they believe women are the root of men's problems, even though men are in power. MRA just has a bad name to start, as it's like forming the KKK. It's more of a "We're in power, and people are trying to take that power" type of argument.

Wait so just because they focus on men their studies are incorect?
And do you realize the same can be said about you guys and feminism from the other side of the fence?
"the evil feminazis are just like the KKK"
As for the "men being in power" this is fallacious at best. People -are-not-FORCED- to - not- go- into- positions-of-power!
They're not, just look around you.
Female CEOs, female politicians, etc
"oh but they are so few...SEXISM !!!1111"
No it's not fucking sexism, it's just men and women have DIFFERENT choices ( from the age of 6 even ) regarding the world. What is this so hard to understand?

There isn't so conspiracy or matrix-like code that tells women "be a doll" like a post here claimed so. It's not, this is a gross misinterpretation of people's CHOICE.

I wanted to be a fucking teacher but half way through the studies i realized i would NOT cope, so i moved to something else.
My wife did not become a fucking nurse ( she hates blood and cleaning old people ), she didn't become a fucking strip dancer ( she thinks it's pathetic men resort to such activities ), she picked her own career.
I didn't pick it, the society didn't pick it, no one bloody told her "hey you can't be this or that because you're a woman".
No one even IMPLIED that, or even thought that from her entourage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10898
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh for fuck's sake man. This is the moment when I should ask if there's a special reason you can't follow a conversation, other than english not being your first language. Because the conversation you're attempting to argue with me about was not about whether some people went into porn voluntarily. Everyone agrees that some people do porn of their own free will, and those people are fine by me. This is what I was replying to:
LarsenSan wrote:
Working at porn is not impossed, you have the freedom of choice it and leaving it.

Michael wrote:
always?

LarsenSan wrote:
Always.

Mizike wrote:
Um, no. There's quite a bit of porn that's the result of sex trafficking. Not from "The Porn Industry" but still -- a lot.

Dogen wrote:
Plus, there's voluntary and there's "you come from a country/area/city/family with no money and few prospects for a better life, and I'm offering you a few dollars a day to let me bang you on film and sell it to Americans." Which is totally voluntary, of course, but also coercive. For the record, I have no idea how many porn performers fall into this category, but preying on the economically disadvantaged is a common tactic of sex traffickers from what I understand.


So, the whole point of the quote of mine you're trying to argue with is that it's not always true that being in porn is "not imposed" (because women are coerced into doing it, which is an imposition). That's it. That was my whole point: some people who make porn are not their of their free will alone. Anything else you got out of it you invented.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
crayven



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 267

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
Oh for fuck's sake man. This is the moment when I should ask if there's a special reason you can't follow a conversation, other than english not being your first language. Because the conversation you're attempting to argue with me about was not about whether some people went into porn voluntarily. Everyone agrees that some people do porn of their own free will, and those people are fine by me. This is what I was replying to:
LarsenSan wrote:
Working at porn is not impossed, you have the freedom of choice it and leaving it.

Michael wrote:
always?

LarsenSan wrote:
Always.

Mizike wrote:
Um, no. There's quite a bit of porn that's the result of sex trafficking. Not from "The Porn Industry" but still -- a lot.

Dogen wrote:
Plus, there's voluntary and there's "you come from a country/area/city/family with no money and few prospects for a better life, and I'm offering you a few dollars a day to let me bang you on film and sell it to Americans." Which is totally voluntary, of course, but also coercive. For the record, I have no idea how many porn performers fall into this category, but preying on the economically disadvantaged is a common tactic of sex traffickers from what I understand.


So, the whole point of the quote of mine you're trying to argue with is that it's not always true that being in porn is "not imposed" (because women are coerced into doing it, which is an imposition). That's it. That was my whole point: some people who make porn are not their of their free will alone. Anything else you got out of it you invented.

Got it.
Must have missed those - post pop-up at a very fast rate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adyon



Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 1168
Location: Behind my Cintiq

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

crayven wrote:
Adyon wrote:

MRA studies aren't "men's studies". MRA is more of the exactly opposite of feminists, where they believe women are the root of men's problems, even though men are in power. MRA just has a bad name to start, as it's like forming the KKK. It's more of a "We're in power, and people are trying to take that power" type of argument.

Wait so just because they focus on men their studies are incorect?
And do you realize the same can be said about you guys and feminism from the other side of the fence?
"the evil feminazis are just like the KKK"
As for the "men being in power" this is fallacious at best. People -are-not-FORCED- to - not- go- into- positions-of-power!
They're not, just look around you.
Female CEOs, female politicians, etc
"oh but they are so few...SEXISM !!!1111"


First off the difference is not that it's a men's group, but that they're complaining about discrimination towards themselves, while still holding the position of power. They OFTEN pervert information to make men look like victims, and anyone who has even looked around the real world knows that men hold most of the power. It's just how the world currently works. Even if you argue women have gained equality, only in those people's mind would they argue that men are being denied their base desires of power and control by not being allowed to dominate others freely. If you think it's laughable women find themselves victims, shouldn't it be even more so that men find themselves helpless and powerless at the control women exude in their lives and that they need more rights given to them in order to not feel oppressed?

crayven wrote:
No it's not fucking sexism, it's just men and women have DIFFERENT choices ( from the age of 6 even ) regarding the world. What is this so hard to understand?

There isn't so conspiracy or matrix-like code that tells women "be a doll" like a post here claimed so. It's not, this is a gross misinterpretation of people's CHOICE.

I wanted to be a fucking teacher but half way through the studies i realized i would NOT cope, so i moved to something else.
My wife did not become a fucking nurse ( she hates blood and cleaning old people ), she didn't become a fucking strip dancer ( she thinks it's pathetic men resort to such activities ), she picked her own career.
I didn't pick it, the society didn't pick it, no one bloody told her "hey you can't be this or that because you're a woman".
No one even IMPLIED that, or even thought that from her entourage.

I understand that men and women sometimes make different choices. It's you who didn't seem to get that we're saying we influence those choices by the way we treat them differently and put our own expectations on them. This isn't even some universe-shattering thing. It's just the idea of trying to have people encourage little girls in similar ways as they do boys without thinking they'll fail. You compared it to people of less economic background not being encouraged, and that's part of the problem. It's the idea that we choose to decide for kids who can and can't do something based on their status. We treat them differently, especially in schools and encourage the ones that fit into that background that makes them capable of success with the attitude that they'll be successful. We are becoming trained to tell everyone "You can be whatever you want to be", but it's only those who fit into that small group that we actually tell, "Oh you can definitely do it." Because we're afraid to encourage others to succeed.

But as to your part about nobody picked it for her, my wife went into med school to be a Doctor, and it doesn't change the fact that few encouraged her to do so. Many on the other hand encouraged her brother to, because he was from "a line of doctors" and because he was male in that same line, obviously he'd be good at it. He's been in his basics 8 years finalizing a random degree because he's too lazy to settle on one. And he's honestly not smart enough/too lazy to become a doctor. But he did try and be one for awhile, because everyone told him he could. It's just the truth. The point is, my wife had the gumption to do it herself, but if it hadn't been for that, she'd have been like all the other people that never got any support, settling for something less substantial. Even now, the family acts surprised she's doing it, and tries to play it down and talk up whatever her brother chooses to do, to make him feel better for not doing as well as his sister. They've all but said as much when he's not there to hear it.

Society doesn't "pick" things for us, it just fails to give us any motivation to follow them, especially for people not willing to fight on their own without other people's support.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
LarsenSan



Joined: 11 May 2012
Posts: 63

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
LarsenSan wrote:
Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
Except of course for all those people who make a video with their SO who later sells it to some website without their knowledge. I mean it isn't as though there are entire websites dedicated to that.

Not all porn is produced by some hollywood porn studio.
And that, my dear, is a crime, something we are neither defending nor approving. Nice straw man.


STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO BACK THIS UP CHIEF! BEEN AT WORK ALL DAY, KIND OF EXPECTED SOME SORT OF RESPONSE BY NOW!


I mean you're not going to be able to back it up but i was hoping you'd at least make a feeble attempt.
I got bored of this threat, but it seems you are obssesed.

Now tell me: what kind of country do you live in where exploitation of one person's image without their permission or consent is not a crime? Because here, it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
crayven



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 267

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

First off the difference is not that it's a men's group, but that they're complaining about discrimination towards themselves, while still holding the position of power. They OFTEN pervert information to make men look like victims, and anyone who has even looked around the real world knows that men hold most of the power. It's just how the world currently works. Even if you argue women have gained equality, only in those people's mind would they argue that men are being denied their base desires of power and control by not being allowed to dominate others freely. If you think it's laughable women find themselves victims, shouldn't it be even more so that men find themselves helpless and powerless at the control women exude in their lives and that they need more rights given to them in order to not feel oppressed?

I took the liberty of highlighting plain bullshit in your post. You're welcome.
Check college statistics, school drop-outs and such, and see who is being "not encouraged" ( we seem to have camouflaged the word discrimination into "not encourage" now...laughable really ) to pursuit education?
College curriculum is also more multi-task, theory oriented not practical.

Men hold most of the power - this one is -AGAIN - dependent on...say it with me..CHOICE.
Women are not denied access to politics, they just HATE in a large overwhelmingly large majority !
Say it with me...they..hate...politics. ok? Ok.


"men are being denied their base desires of power and control by not being allowed to dominate others freely" - wha-..what...i don't even....i have no words really.
The amount of SELF-LOATHING and denigrating claim that somehow all men are some sort of monkeys who "oh dear cannot control themselves their basic instinct to dominates others" and OF COURSE they need women to tell them how to act is amazing.
What is more amazing is you have the audacity to say it with a straight face.
Say it with me:
I AM A SELF-LOATHING SEXIST LIAR!
you are a LIAR because - there is no such "domination instinct.
you are SELF-LOATHING because you're a man and bashing yourself.
you are SEXIST because you dare to assume men are creatures who would only act on instinct if it weren't for your sick ideology.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3333

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LarsenSan wrote:
Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
LarsenSan wrote:
Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
Except of course for all those people who make a video with their SO who later sells it to some website without their knowledge. I mean it isn't as though there are entire websites dedicated to that.

Not all porn is produced by some hollywood porn studio.
And that, my dear, is a crime, something we are neither defending nor approving. Nice straw man.


STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO BACK THIS UP CHIEF! BEEN AT WORK ALL DAY, KIND OF EXPECTED SOME SORT OF RESPONSE BY NOW!


I mean you're not going to be able to back it up but i was hoping you'd at least make a feeble attempt.
I got bored of this threat, but it seems you are obssesed.

Now tell me: what kind of country do you live in where exploitation of one person's image without their permission or consent is not a crime? Because here, it is.


It certainly isn't in the U.S.

Edit: I note you didn't back up your statement though. Kindly quote the statute that makes it illegal, cause I'm currently cataloguing all the assorted sex tape scandals and the legal disputes that failed to get them removed from the sites that bought rights to them from the single party that sold them.

Edit Edit: And I'm sure all the people who were involved in losing these lawsuits would love to have your legal expertise helping them out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LarsenSan



Joined: 11 May 2012
Posts: 63

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
LarsenSan wrote:
Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
LarsenSan wrote:
Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
Except of course for all those people who make a video with their SO who later sells it to some website without their knowledge. I mean it isn't as though there are entire websites dedicated to that.

Not all porn is produced by some hollywood porn studio.
And that, my dear, is a crime, something we are neither defending nor approving. Nice straw man.


STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO BACK THIS UP CHIEF! BEEN AT WORK ALL DAY, KIND OF EXPECTED SOME SORT OF RESPONSE BY NOW!


I mean you're not going to be able to back it up but i was hoping you'd at least make a feeble attempt.
I got bored of this threat, but it seems you are obssesed.

Now tell me: what kind of country do you live in where exploitation of one person's image without their permission or consent is not a crime? Because here, it is.


It certainly isn't in the U.S.

Then, there's no point in going on. If that's true, then is really sad. I thought that every "first world" country would have similar laws regarding privacy, but I think I was wrong. If it's not clear: I'm not from the U.S. In my country that is a crime.
Dogen wrote:
Plus, there's voluntary and there's "you come from a country/area/city/family with no money and few prospects for a better life, and I'm offering you a few dollars a day to let me bang you on film and sell it to Americans." Which is totally voluntary, of course, but also coercive. For the record, I have no idea how many porn performers fall into this category, but preying on the economically disadvantaged is a common tactic of sex traffickers from what I understand.
And still, it's a choice. And, you see that as an attempt of exploiting people; I see it as an offer of money in exchange of something to someone who needs money.

Last edited by LarsenSan on Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bart



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1572

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crayven wrote:
Bart wrote:
mouse wrote:
yeah, i keep hoping some of our other european types will pop in and give us some ground truth. because crayven seems a bit given to sweeping generalizations that are only loosely connected to reality.


Sorry for being late (saw crayven's post this morning but was on a cell, so didn't feel like reserching/typing a lot).

Some student numbers from my university for the years 2011-2012:
Economics : 39 % Women
Engineering : 33 %
Sciences : 33 %

Though on the other hand
Total : 54 %
Law : 61 %
Medicine : 64 %

Gender roles are pretty obvious in the numbers, and the overall result is a that women tend to end up in the low paying fields (sociology, psychology, literature) at a higher rate than men.

Are you serious?
Since when LAW and MEDICAL considered "low paying" ?!


Maybe you should reread my post. You might even find out what I wrote. Here is a hint, I was talking to mouse. This means that the "on the other hand" meant I was giving evidence that ran contrary to her position that women are kept away from high-paying fields. Nowhere did I mention that these were low paying jobs. When I did mention low paying fields, I detailed those which I meant. Note that Law an Medicine are absent from that list.

Damn man, my post partially supported a position that the problem in Europe is less severe, but you seem to be too busy raging against everyone to even note it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wasn't this thread about porn?



_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18, 19  Next
Page 17 of 19

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group