Acceptable behaviour favours woman?

MorningStar

Wicknight wrote:

Men don't shout instead of crying, women don't cry instead of shouting ... where the hell did you get this from??

Well that is your opinion and I have know idea what you base that on. When I was studying psychology I learnt differently they are acknowledged as differnet but have the same causes of just different ways to epxress them. THEY ARE FORMS OF EXPRESSION NOTHING MORE OR LESS. You don't agree argue that point not that they are acceptable becasue a woman is thinking differntly to the extent she can't control herself.

Wicknight wrote:

The reasons people shout and get aggressive are different than the reasons people cry. You seem to have this ridiculous stereotype about men and women, that in exactly the same situation men shout and women cry. That is nonsense.

How do you know that? ASk a person who is upset and they will say I don't know whether to scream or cry. A very common expression did you never hear it.

Wicknight wrote:

I am saying that when someone is shouted at in an aggresive fashion they percieve that person as threatening. That is why shouting at someone is generally unacceptable. It is irrelivent if a man or woman is doing the shouting.

Well then you are talking about the wrong thing. I am talking about crying compared directly to shouting. I find it uncomfortable to be cried at and rate that emotional response the same as feeling threatened are you going to deny my emotional response?

Wicknight wrote:

Yeah you are overwhelming me with your indepth knowledge of psychology .. men shout, women cry ... you should write a book...

Becasue I studied something might mean I know something in the subject that you don't. What are you basing your opinions on then? THe school of life is it?

Wicknight wrote:

Like i said all along, you think people should only cry if they have a very good reason, and you don't think getting upset on a train is a very good reason. Thats your opinion, and its your issues, and it ignores the fact that people don't choose to get upset and cry.

It is my opinion which doesn't make it an issue as you try to suggest. Experts see crying as being overwhelmed. If you get over whelemed easily you have a lack of control on your emotions. People don't choose to breath but they can control it!

Wicknight wrote:

Well first you have to be of the impression that all women will get upset over silly small things. This opinion seems to be more a reflection of your issues towards women than reality.

Well glad you could avoid the question. Where is your limit of allowing this behaviour? It is obvious some people over reat where do you draw the line for men or woman to respond with their more natural responses? THere has to be a point where their genuine emotional responses is considered unreasonable. Do you have a limit for womens' responses or do you only do that for men.

Wicknight wrote:

Crying in general? Or crying when you don't think the person has a right to be upset?

Wel if you just want to be stupid go ahead but it is clear what I mean

Wicknight wrote:

What are you basing that on?

I am basing it on the reports from the courts and account of men in abusive relationships. The prisions geared towards woman in this state. The bias nature of custody cases. What are you basing your beliefs on?

Wicknight wrote:

This thread seems to have been all along (as I suspected from the start) a thinly vailed rant against women in general ("woman have it so good, blah blah blah"). Seriously this thread is ridiculous.

Well you are wrong it is about fair treatment and I guess the Suffijet (sp) had people say they were doing woman harm. I never said woman have it good just that they are allowed act differntly to men and that the truth is they are allowed demonstrate a lack of emotional control and men aren't.
If it is so riddiculous you don't have to keep coming back.
To be honest I put in humanities because I thought people would reaonably debate the issue not have peole assum points not made.

Wicknight wrote:

Held responsible?? What are you talking about. What should a woman (or man) crying because they are upset be responsible for exactly? They are not doing anything to anyone by crying.

Responsible for their lack of emotional control the same way a m man shouting can be called threatening and/or abusive and be thrown out of a store.

Wicknight wrote:

You got it, it is equally unacceptable for a woman to shout and get aggressive as it is for a man to shout and get aggressive.

It is socially unnaceptable for a man to cry in public too so why should we allow woman?

Wicknight wrote:

What?? Physical harm from who? Was this ticket inspector attacked by passangers on the train? Did I miss that part?

Well as many people assumed the worst of this man and suggested he have an official complain put in becasue of his bully boy tactics. That is a danger to his job. I have seen people hit people becasue of a crying girl many many time but that was mostly due to alchol and inexperienced drinkers. Well possible that the assumption of fault is on the person not crying

Wicknight wrote:

I am male, I have never been attacked because someone thought I had done something a crying girl. I imagine you have and this is where this rather silly rant is coming from, your own issues towards women (or a woman in particular) rather than actual reality.

Explain my "issues" with woman, as you have mentioned it a few times you must have been able to figure me out so well.

MorningStar

savoyard wrote:

Where are you getting this from?

Stated in other reply

savoyard wrote:

Crying is not agressive behaviour

It can be used in a passive aggressive way and most importantly notbody has claimed it is other than those saying it is not aggressive.

savoyard

MorningStar wrote:

I am basing it on the reports from the courts and account of men in abusive relationships. The prisions geared towards woman in this state. The bias nature of custody cases. What are you basing your beliefs on?
.

Actually you haven't remotely answered the question.

What court reports? The ones reported in the paper? A comprehensive review of women committing the exact same crime as a man in the same circumstances and getting lesser sentences? Can you give me some examples please because I have never heard this one before.

Male and female prisons are different because women cry more? (I assume that is what you mean by 'geared'). There are more male prisons than women's prisons because men commit more crimes, and more dangerous crimes. There is a totally different type of criminal dominant in male and female prisons. In the UK, women make up 6% of the prison population. I haven't got Irish figures, but I doubt they're much different.

Custody cases are biased because society and the courts still think a woman is the better at looking after children. Not because she cries or isn't in control of her emotions.

Again, where are all these crying women? We have somebody's mum who cried because she felt humiliated / fare dodged and a few people who have seen women crying to get their own way on a helpline. They don't get respect from crying, no more than had they shouted. Where are all these women who are wailing around the place getting special treatment?

lazydaisy

I find TCs comments offensive and vile. It says a lot about someone who can equate rape with crying in public. I find TCs attitude anti-social, anti-woman, and quite frankly sick. You accuse other people of not using logic and reason, but your posts display more irrational nonsense than anyone else's. ANd they are more than passive aggressive- they are straight out aggressive and mysogynistic.

MS you need a counsellor. You have issues. Stop wasting people's time with your irrational hang ups and get over yourself. Shouting and yelling express very different things than crying does. And WTF, you say women are out of control and are also using it to be manipulative. You make no sense, but why would I expect reason from someone who clearly has anger toward women issues. Take it up with a shrink. This is just control anxiety on your part. You want women to have more repressing agents in place so you dont have to feel uncomfortable. I hope no woman cries in front of you or TC because neither of you are not worth one of her tears.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote:

big difference between that and crying; the upset of watching some one cry is not comparible to the upset of being assualted sexually or otherwise.

Does that suddenly make that socially acceptable? Just because it’s not illegal are you suggesting that there’s nothing wrong with it?

Anyone who gets that upset at the sight and sound of a person crying needs
professinal help and should talk to thier dr about it.

You’ll actually find that quite a few people would need such professional help. Unless you hadn’t realised, people instinctively become upset of anxious when observing others in pain or discomfort.

Of course, if you’re a psychopath, I’d understand how it doesn’t apply to you.

lazydaisy wrote:

I find TCs comments offensive and vile. It says a lot about someone who can equate rape with crying in public. I find TCs attitude anti-social, anti-woman, and quite frankly sick. You accuse other people of not using logic and reason, but your posts display more irrational nonsense than anyone else's. ANd they are more than passive aggressive- they are straight out aggressive and mysogynistic.

When you get over your ranting how I’m a penis-wielding oppressor and actually come back with a rational argument that explains why you’re so upset, feel free to reply.

Until then I’m just going to consider that a personally directed foam-at-mouth rant and little more.

Earthhorse

savoyard wrote:

And lets get one thing straight: the fact is that women do not cause as much violent crime as men do. That is why people are more afraid of a man shouting that a woman. Statistically, he is more likely to turn violent than a women, nevermind a shouting or crying woman.

Is that fair though? Statisically speaking I have never committed a crime in my life. Nor have any of my friends.

More importantly is a person shouting more likely to turn violent? If anything, wouldn't the venting of the emotion mean that the person was less likely to turn violent than bottling it up?

If a person isn't shouting at someone is their behaviour so bad as to make it totally unacceptable?

MorningStar

lazydaisy wrote:

I find TCs comments offensive and vile. It says a lot about someone who can equate rape with crying in public. I find TCs attitude anti-social, anti-woman, and quite frankly sick. You accuse other people of not using logic and reason, but your posts display more irrational nonsense than anyone else's. ANd they are more than passive aggressive- they are straight out aggressive and mysogynistic.

MS you need a counsellor. You have issues. Stop wasting people's time with your irrational hang ups and get over yourself. Shouting and yelling express very different things than crying does. And WTF, you say women are out of control and are also using it to be manipulative. You make no sense, but why would I expect reason from someone who clearly has anger toward women issues. Take it up with a shrink. This is just control anxiety on your part. You want women to have more repressing agents in place so you dont have to feel uncomfortable. I hope no woman cries in front of you or TC because neither of you are not worth one of her tears.

Name one issue you think I have
If I dislike a particular social aspect which is what I have complained and dislike to decide that becasue that issue involves some woman behaviour I must therfore hate woman is a jump.
I think it is silly that woman use crying and do not control their emotions becasue it is socially acceptable. That is what it all boils down to. I don't think anybody should accept it. You have been unable to suggest any reason that defends this behaviour other than inability to control their emotions. That is not a areason why it should be acceptable but an excuse for why it happens. If you have nothing else to add and you find the mear suggestion of it being wrong stupid then you are unable to discuss the subject and may stop contributing. I have been accused of a few views I have not stated so if you are going to give example make sure they are what I said. Woman do use crying to manipulate and my wife has problems with it in her job as do my friends especially with new Irish residents where there society accept it more a long with high male aggression.

TC uses extreme example when talking about a subject doesn't mean he means things litterally. Like the "if you could kill Hitler examples" of moral murder get over it. Wide brush strokes to paint a picture

savoyard

Earthhorse wrote:

Is that fair though? Statisically speaking I have never committed a crime in my life. Nor have any of my friends.

More importantly is a person shouting more likely to turn violent? If anything, wouldn't the venting of the emotion mean that the person was less likely to turn violent than bottling it up?

If a person isn't shouting at someone is their behaviour so bad as to make it totally unacceptable?

Of course it's not fair to assume that a man shouting will turn violent. And I have no idea what percentage of shouters turn violent - I would imagine it's tiny. But we're also talking about perceptions and shouting is perceived as agressive behaviour. And agressive behaviour can turn violent. Men are statistically more violent that women so the logic is that a shouting man has a greater potential to turn violent than a women, whether she is crying or shouting. The perception of people crying is not that it is agressive. Manipulative maybe, but it's not generally perceived as agressive. Apart from by MS of course;)

Megatron

OK I've managed to read most of the thread.

I think the biggest problem is that the proper point wasn't made clear .
well IMO at any rate, here is what i think it is.


Why does it appear that Women get more leway when using anti-scoial behavior than men ?


The majority of posts so far don't deal with this, they instead go off on a related tangent , and then off to name calling.

Please try and stay on the topic.

I'll respond properly to this topic tomorrow ( as someone just handed me a LOAD of work to do )

simu

This thread makes baby Jesus cry tbh.

Leaving the whole gender thing aside, whilst both crying and losing one's temper are anti-social, losing one's temper is considered to be somewhat worse by many people because it could lead to violence (that said, it usually doesn't) which leads to pain, whereas the cringe-inducing effect of seeing someone cry in public just isn't as bad.

Freelancer

The Corinthian wrote:

Well thank goodness for small mercies.

Petty childish and off the point.

Not at all, I was quite serious and I make no apologies for it.


The point was that you cannot excuse something on the basis that it is simply, as Simu described it, a characteristic feature of a specific gender. Raising the point of another such predisposition, which is blatantly anti-social, was designed to debunk that simplistic approach.

I notice you haven't bothered to lower yourself to acknowledge my point that your use of language was the issue and not the point. The violent imagary the throwaway use of it, and the indifference to acknowledge that that is the issue. At a time when a majority of woman have suffered some kind of sexual assault and rape convictions are at modern low, to gleefully ignore the hand grenade you lobbed into the conversation, and my objection to it. The fact is that I'm outraged by your description, and language something you pointedly ignore.

Get off the pulpit. You lack the balance to stand atop it.

Thats a meaningless glib defence, your entire rebuttal ignored the jist of my point and instead kept to staunch point about your argument rather than your tone attitude and language.

I say again would you tolerate someone using that kind of language

bending you over a car

in a debate with your female friends or family members?

simu

^^^Geez, report the thread and let the mods deal with it if you're that upset. It has nothing to do with the topic.

Earthhorse

simu wrote:

This thread makes baby Jesus cry tbh.

Do you think it was acceptable for baby Jesus to cr...

Aw, forget it!

simu

Earthhorse wrote:

Do you think it was acceptable for baby Jesus to cr...

Absolutely!

Freelancer

simu wrote:

Absolutely!

Actually I have and got squat in response, further corinthians reponse featured glib empty retorts, and intentially ignoring the specific charges I directed at him. I'd make the same tired mod back stratching charges put it'd be a tedious dance that you see on any other message board. Cornithina read my response choice to ignore the specific charge I raised and intentially directed his reponse at something I didn't raise.

I get it, he can't defend his language, he's a troll his only defence etc.....

The Corinthian

Freelancer wrote:

Actually I have and got squat in response, further corinthians reponse featured glib empty retorts, and intentially ignoring the specific charges I directed at him. I'd make the same tired mod back stratching charges put it'd be a tedious dance that you see on any other message board. Cornithina read my response choice to ignore the specific charge I raised and intentially directed his reponse at something I didn't raise.

No, I was out and have only read it now. Oddly I do get away from my PC from time to time.

Looking through your post you don’t actually say anything. Most of it is a rant masquerading as a meaningless attempt at criticism (e.g. “bothered to lower yourself to acknowledge my point”, etc.). The rest consisted in you being indignant. That’s about it.

If you can calm yourself down and have a discussion, feel free to engage me.

Try to use facts.

Sleepy

Freelancer wrote:

Actually I have and got squat in response, further corinthians reponse featured glib empty retorts, and intentially ignoring the specific charges I directed at him. I'd make the same tired mod back stratching charges put it'd be a tedious dance that you see on any other message board. Cornithina read my response choice to ignore the specific charge I raised and intentially directed his reponse at something I didn't raise.

I get it, he can't defend his language, he's a troll his only defence etc.....

Freelancer, what you're missing in your indignation is that while The Corinthian often uses emotive examples to make his point, his logic is (almost always) flawless.

The humanities board is often a debating forum and in having a go at someone's style of debating rather than trying to engage their point you add more credence to that point and make yourself look foolish.

Or, in other words, attack the point rather than the speaker.

lazydaisy

Corinthian,

If you think you can silence me you can think again. I'm not upset. Im revolted. Consider my comments however you want. It doesn't change how sick the nature of your comments are or how little credibility you have after displaying such nonsense. And you can drop the condescending tones of how emotional and irrational I am. When you drop your total lack of respect for people's inner realities than you can talk about socially acceptable behavior.

MS- You can also forget about thinking you can silence me.

First of all, not everyone agrees that crying is anti-social or unacceptable in the first place. Most people do not get anxious when they seem someone in emotional distress. Where do you get that idea from? They usually feel sorry for them but are aware that it is a private emotion and don't want to disturb them. People cry for a variety of reasons. Just because you think its manipulative doesnt make it so.

How can it be both intentional and out of control MS? You make so sense whatsoever.

There are plenty of things that men get away with that women don't also. So stop with your sexist BS.

Freelancer

The Corinthian wrote:

No, I was out and have only read it now. Oddly I do get away from my PC from time to time.

Looking through your post you don’t actually say anything. Most of it is a rant masquerading as a meaningless attempt at criticism (e.g. “bothered to lower yourself to acknowledge my point”, etc.). The rest consisted in you being indignant. That’s about it.

If you can calm yourself down and have a discussion, feel free to engage me.

Try to use facts.

No it's not you're trying to suggest that the use of emotive or dramatic language is acceptable.

Theres a world of difference between.

"I have issues with free immirgration policy"

and

"I'm sick and tried of the nig nogs coming over here and talking our jobs"

You used some profoundly graphic and distasteful imagery and language in your post when challenged on it, you ignored my point and then started a dimissive indignate rebuttal which ignored my charges.

Which hilariously you still are.

Again would you freely use such graphic descriptions in a face to face debate on this issue with a female friend?

sleepy wrote:

Freelancer, what you're missing in your indignation is that while The Corinthian often uses emotive examples to make his point, his logic is (almost always) flawless.

"please ignore rascist uncle albert he's harmless really"
:rolleyes:

MorningStar

If you want to complain about language go to the mods other wise you are off topic and I will complain to the mods on those grounds. A few personal insults have been cast at me and I haven't so far.

MorningStar

lazydaisy wrote:

MS- You can also forget about thinking you can silence me.

First of all, not everyone agrees that crying is anti-social or unacceptable in the first place. Most people do not get anxious when they seem someone in emotional distress. Where do you get that idea from? They usually feel sorry for them but are aware that it is a private emotion and don't want to disturb them. People cry for a variety of reasons. Just because you think its manipulative doesnt make it so.

I don't want to silence you but if you can't stay on topic and listen to people you should go.
The desire not to disturb somebody cry doesn't turn into any anxiety if it is your words or deeds that has led them to cry? Feeling pity for somebody when they are in the wrong doesn't cause anxiety?

lazydaisy wrote:

How can it be both intentional and out of control MS? You make so sense whatsoever.

They are two seperate possible events. Can you fall on purpose or by mistake?I can shout and also raise my voice uncontrolably. SOme people cry due to lack of control other people do it intentionally and some do both. Not a very hard concept to grasp really. People do it intentionally becasue of the effect it has on people and they realise that they can get their own way. I didn't say all crying is manipulation some is and other is lack of emotional control. Crying is a reasonable act for certain things and unreasonable for others and in our culture i believe such loss of control is accepted from woman whether reasonable or not. I also think some new imigrant cultures apper (from friends and wife's experience) are prone to using cry to manipulate. I think that might cause a problem where the culture mix more as it is for people dealing with them now.

lazydaisy wrote:

There are plenty of things that men get away with that women don't also. So stop with your sexist BS.

What do mean get away with based on their sex? Either way we are talking specifically about crying! What have I said that is sexist? Considering you can't get my other views right I can see how you jump to the wrong conclusions.Try not to even allude to cursing and maybe I would respect your views a bit more

Gordon

Freelancer wrote:

Again would you freely use such graphic descriptions in a face to face debate on this issue with a female friend?

To be honest I'm sure TC would. However this point, that has been made a couple of times, is quite pointless surely. We're discussing it here so lets discuss it here.

The Corinthian

lazydaisy wrote:

If you think you can silence me you can think again. I'm not upset. Im revolted. Consider my comments however you want. It doesn't change how sick the nature of your comments are or how little credibility you have after displaying such nonsense. And you can drop the condescending tones of how emotional and irrational I am. When you drop your total lack of respect for people's inner realities than you can talk about socially acceptable behavior.

I’ve no interest in silencing you, quite the opposite. However, all you and some others are doing is coming out with indignant rants and frankly they would be simply tiresome if they didn’t also waste everyone’s bandwidth.

I mean, seriously, you’re disgusted, horrified, yadda-yadda - whatever.

Great; you got that off your chest. Hope you feel better now. Do I really care? No. Has it contributed at all to the discussion? No.

So given this, your indignation simply serves to indulge yourself and adds or achieves nothing more.

There are plenty of things that men get away with that women don't also. So stop with your sexist BS.

Who’s denied this? I’d absolutely accept that. But does it justify the reverse?

Freelancer wrote:

No it's not you're trying to suggest that the use of emotive or dramatic language is acceptable.

Theres a world of difference between.

"I have issues with free immirgration policy"

and

"I'm sick and tried of the nig nogs coming over here and talking our jobs"

Sure there’s a difference between them, in that the latter condones or even encourages anti-social behaviour. And if I’d actually done that you might have a point. But I didn’t, so you don’t.

You used some profoundly graphic and distasteful imagery and language in your post when challenged on it, you ignored my point and then started a dimissive indignate rebuttal which ignored my charges.

You made no point, you ranted. You indignantly accused me of a number of things without explaining why and expect me to bother responding? Do you really think I’m interested in indulging you need to vent mindlessly?

Now of course you are attempting to make a ham-fisted case, but given that you made a parallel that wasn’t even close to relevant, it wasn’t terribly difficult to shoot down.

I would certainly regret the original comment now, but only because rather than highlight a point its seemingly flushed all the nut-jobs out of the woodwork and meant that the debate is now no longer going forward. But then again, perhaps you prefer that.

Again would you freely use such graphic descriptions in a face to face debate on this issue with a female friend?

Sure I would.

Freelancer

The Corinthian wrote:

Sure there’s a difference between them, in that the latter condones or even encourages anti-social behaviour. And if I’d actually done that you might have a point. But I didn’t, so you don’t.

And your use of glib language by you in this case doesn't condone it? Using a lurid description of a social group or politcal argument does condone it? But using a lurid description of a violent act doesn't condone or encourage it? Nifty double standard.

You made no point, you ranted. You indignantly accused me of a number of things without explaining why and expect me to bother responding? Do you really think I’m interested in indulging you need to vent mindlessly?

No I clearly said and explained my point. You're making a vase pose with your fingers in your ears going LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

Now of course you are attempting to make a ham-fisted case, but given that you made a parallel that wasn’t even close to relevant, it wasn’t terribly difficult to shoot down.

Flatter yourself much? The use of such a throw away description of rape, "bending you over a car" downloads the level of violence in such an assault and is the kind of description rapists use to make it slightly more acceptable to themselves.

I would certainly regret the original comment now, but only because rather than highlight a point its seemingly flushed all the nut-jobs out of the woodwork and meant that the debate is now no longer going forward. But then again, perhaps you prefer that.

Leaving aside your insult, your debate is nothing more than an attempt to, well frankly, get knickers in the twist.

Sure I would.

Oh right! you're an amoral insentitive p***k. (hey you called me a nutjob if you want to reduce the debate to namecalling....) Tell me would you feel in the slightest bit contrite if you discovered that the person you are addressing had actually been "bent over a car" to use your charming euphemism.......

savoyard

MorningStar wrote:

I also think some new imigrant cultures apper (from friends and wife's experience) are prone to using cry to manipulate. I think that might cause a problem where the culture mix more as it is for people dealing with them now.

Or maybe they're prone to crying because they're in a strange country, they're having language difficulties, money worries or they feel like they're in a hostile environment. What specific culture are you talking about and in what circumstances?

I've dealt with the public and people use a variety of methods to get what they want. Some shout, some use abusive language, some use sarcasm and (very rarely in my experience) some cry. It's anti-social to use an emotion to deliberately manipulate others and I haven't seen anyone disagree with that. But not everybody crying is doing that, whereas people shouting are obviously angry. Angry people are scary, crying people are pitiful. That's why one is considered more "socially acceptable" that the other.

Sleepy

Freelancer wrote:

Sleepy wrote:

Freelancer, what you're missing in your indignation is that while The Corinthian often uses emotive examples to make his point, his logic is (almost always) flawless.

"please ignore rascist uncle albert he's harmless really"
:rolleyes:

If that's how you misinterpreted my post, it's not difficult to see why you're losing this debate so impressively...

A question for some of those vilifying TC, would his comments have been more acceptable coming from a woman?

I don't think there'd be anyone outraged if they had

zenith

Moderator note: Calm it down.

Freelancer: personal abuse is not tolerated. Attack the argument, not the person.

The Corinthian: It's suprising that you should be so sensitive to invective when many of your remarks are insensitive. Which nobody can deny.

MorningStar

savoyard wrote:

Or maybe they're prone to crying because they're in a strange country, they're having language difficulties, money worries or they feel like they're in a hostile environment. What specific culture are you talking about and in what circumstances?

THey could be crying for a number of reasons but the point is that the mood changes when they realise they aren't getting there way. They then change to anger. I'll take this at its face value that is an attempt to manipulate. If you don't think it is. THe specific culture doesn't matter as people will claim racisim I decided not to mention it. As a result my friends and wife think crying is really anti-social as acceptable behaviour because it allows manipulation increase along with it's own show lack of control.

savoyard wrote:

I've dealt with the public and people use a variety of methods to get what they want. Some shout, some use abusive language, some use sarcasm and (very rarely in my experience) some cry. It's anti-social to use an emotion to deliberately manipulate others and I haven't seen anyone disagree with that. But not everybody crying is doing that, whereas people shouting are obviously angry. Angry people are scary, crying people are pitiful. That's why one is considered more "socially acceptable" that the other.

Read the whole thread! I have repeatedly explianed that lack of control is anti-social how it is expressed means little to me it is equally anti-social. I don't think everybody crying is manipulative and I find inability to control yourself is a problem no matter how it is expressed. If you are being unreasonable and have lack of control it should be socially unacceptable

The Corinthian

Freelancer wrote:

And your use of glib language by you in this case doesn't condone it? Using a lurid description of a social group or politcal argument does condone it? But using a lurid description of a violent act doesn't condone or encourage it? Nifty double standard.

Of course it doesn’t condone it. You’ve not been shy in the use of glib language either, but I’d hardly jump to the conclusion that you’d condone it either. Ultimately you’ve taken what I said and extended it to imply that I was encouraging or condoning rape. How you make this jump in your logic is unclear as if lurid or extreme descriptions alone encouraged anti-social behaviour, most satire would be banned.

No I clearly said and explained my point. You're making a vase pose with your fingers in your ears going LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

Err, no you didn’t. Feel free to make it again if you’re so certain.

Flatter yourself much? The use of such a throw away description of rape, "bending you over a car" downloads the level of violence in such an assault and is the kind of description rapists use to make it slightly more acceptable to themselves.

In what imaginary world is this? Seriously can you point to any reasoned study or argument that supports that what I said actually even condones, let alone encourages it, rape or are you actually just inventing things to rant against?

Leaving aside your insult, your debate is nothing more than an attempt to, well frankly, get knickers in the twist.

For someone who’s not bothered engaging it you’re in no position to comment. Indeed, you don’t appear to consider the debate worthy of having and have only used it as a means to blow off some indignant steam.

Oh right! you're an amoral insentitive p***k. (hey you called me a nutjob if you want to reduce the debate to namecalling....) Tell me would you feel in the slightest bit contrite if you discovered that the person you are addressing had actually been "bent over a car" to use your charming euphemism.......

I did not specifically call you anything and your insults are uncalled for, if predictable.

As for your second point, it’s a valid one, but no, on balance I would not.

The Corinthian

zenith wrote:

The Corinthian: It's suprising that you should be so sensitive to invective when many of your remarks are insensitive. Which nobody can deny.

I’m not sensitive (apparently), however I know if name-calling goes unchecked what little debate remains in this thread will sink into a verbal abyss.