Re: Men are raped more often than women.

From	Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics, comp.os.linux.advocacy, talk.politics.guns
Subject	Re: Men are raped more often than women.
Date	2019-03-03 14:45 -0700
Message-ID	<ge308bFe6j5U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <am0o7e1b0rac2qf99sp4t353v15pool4cj@4ax.com> <ge2g95Fam8qU3@mid.individual.net> <ho3o7ep04fldrf275p1rtbtbrq2rarphpp@4ax.com> <ge2ip2Fb9asU1@mid.individual.net> <4tco7edki57dkuc1qbiv0hemb22l3v4ven@4ax.com>
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
Show all headers | View raw
On 3/3/19 1:17 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 10:55:45 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 3/3/19 10:34 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2019, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/19, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2019, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/19, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2019, Jeff-Relf.Me  @. wrote:
>>>>>>>> Kensi to me:
>>>>>>>>>> Men are raped more often than women.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BullFUCKINGshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Google it, if you can.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> " prison rape accounted for the majority of all rapes committed in the US in 2008 ",
>>>>>>>> according to The Justice Department.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If Greg is right about rape, his libido just went up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is completely natural and evolutionary-driven for
>>>>>>> men to engage in rape. It's an expression of power
>>>>>>> and dominance when it's man-on-man and, when it's
>>>>>>> man-on-woman, it's an expression of power and
>>>>>>> alpha male reproductive superiority.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Humans are animals first and foremost so trying to
>>>>>>> say/claim animals won't be animals is ludicrous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disagree, but at least you are honest about the conservative special
>>>>>> entitlement world view. I give you credit for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Special entitlement is a fact and is nothing to
>>>>> be ashamed of, denied or swept under the rug
>>>>> as is the typical liberal wont.
>>>>
>>>> You back special entitlements.
>>>>
>>>> I back equal rights.
>>>
>>> Of course you would. You're a liberal and *equal rights*
>>> include things that are not rights at all.
>>
>> Such as? Having productivity be better tied to financial gain?
> 
> No, having you liberals just butt the fuck out of where you
> don't belong. 

You mean like when liberals tried to prevent gays from having equal 
rights to marriage? Or when they tried to control what a woman can do 
with her own body? Or when they worked to give corporations huge 
unfunded tax breaks the poor and middle class had to pay for? Or when 
they tried to push their religion onto others, even having "God" on the 
money and in the pledge. Oh, how about when liberals wanted to defy 
culture and scientific evidence and insist that they (or the government) 
should decide YOUR gender. Do you mean when they worked to limit US 
citizens from voting? Or when they worked to give special entitlements 
to those living in less populated states.... at the extreme a 20:1 
voting entitlement? Maybe you mean when liberals worked to make sure 
religious businesses got the special entitlements to not pay taxes and 
get things actual charities do not get?

Wait. Those are all things conservatives have done.

So where do liberals want to "butt in"? Oh. They do not want people to 
harm each other or the environment. They want people to have access to 
safe air and water and food. They even want people -- even the poor -- 
to have access to reasonable health care, as they do in so many other 
areas of the world. And they want to make it so even the poor can get 
educated so we can see more upward mobility and compete better with 
other countries. They want us to have roads and access to data

These seem MUCH easier to defend to me.

When right wingers see this they scream "SOCIALISM", not realizing that 
Democratic Socialism is not the same thing as socialism, and that the 
corporate socialism backed by the right is less defensible.

“Socialism” 101

SOCIALISM: The government owns most major industries and there is little 
if any private property. This system allows for little personal freedom 
and is closely aligned with Authoritarianism (rule by authority).

CORPORATE SOCIALISM: The government works largely for the benefit of 
wealthy corporations and the rich. Most major industries are privately 
owned (Capitalism), but their costs and risks are heavily subsidized 
through lower taxes, direct government subsidies, leniency by the 
justice system, and more. With Corporate Socialism the wealthy become 
even wealthier at the expense of the lower classes, and the split 
between productivity and financial gain is weakened.  This system is 
closely aligned with Plutocracy (rule by the wealthy).

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM: This government works largely for the citizens as 
a whole, investing in infrastructure and the people. Most major 
industries are privately owned (Capitalism), but they get few government 
handouts and are generally held accountable for their own risks and 
costs. With this system the middle class does better, poverty decreases, 
and the environment suffers less harm. This system is closely aligned 
with Democracy (rule of the people).

> If you slackers put as much effort into working
> hard and improving your sorry lot as you do minding everybody
> else's business, you all be rich and powerful. But, you don't
> because you're too busy trying to drag everybody else down to
> your abysmal level.
> 
>>> FYI, the Constitution
>>> delineates certain God-Given human rights and having a job
>>> or money is not listed among them.
>>
>> The word "god" does not appear in the Constitution....
> 
> The word Creator does appear and it is synonymous with God.

I just created an art project. I am the creator of it. To you am I a god?

No. Of course not.

You are assuming your mythology should be accepted by others. Nope. Are 
you not familiar with the First Amendment?

>> And wanting a
>> stronger tie between productivity and financial gain is not the same
>> thing as a guarantee of a job or money. You are arguing against a straw man.
> 
> No,

Yes. Remember, YOU do not get to define the views of others. That is 
their job.

> you are arguing against capitalism

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM: This government works largely for the citizens as 
a whole, investing in infrastructure and the people. Most major 
industries are privately owned (Capitalism), but they get few government 
handouts and are generally held accountable for their own risks and 
costs. With this system the middle class does better, poverty decreases, 
and the environment suffers less harm. This system is closely aligned 
with Democracy (rule of the people).

You do not see where Capitalism is mentioned there. Really? How can you 
miss it?

> and for socialism. There
> are plenty of socialist countries around the world. Why not get
> out of the USA which you find so objectionable and go live in
> a socialist country that suits your need for forced equality where
> everybody but the rulers are equally enslaved?

You can leave just as easily. What is stopping you?

>>> What you liberals call
>>> equal rights are actually equal entitlements for all.
>>
>> People are entitled to be treated like humans. All. Is that what you mean?
> 
> No, nobody is entitled to tell somebody else to act only in
> ways that you liberals happen to approve of.

You have an obligation to not abuse or otherwise harm others. If you 
cannot follow that then you should face consequences.

>>> Take
>>> from the rich and give to you poor. Yah, that's the ticket.
>>
>> This is not a position I support -- other than helping those in need
>> such as vets and others who are disabled or otherwise cannot take care
>> of themselves. Is that what you mean?
> 
> Nope, as G. Gordon Liddy once said, "A liberal is someone who feels a
> great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with
> your money.'

Once again you seek to speak FOR others. You are not listening and you 
are showing no understanding.

That is your right, of course, but it is a weakness in YOU, not in those 
you attack with unsupported claims. This is true EVEN IF you believe 
your unsupported claims.

> So, there is a place for charitable giving which conservatives engage in
> to a MUCH greater extent than you stingy liberals but you liberals are
> not entitled to reach into our pockets and redistribute our wealth to
> your favorite charity - your own indolent selves.
> 
>>> How droll!
>>>
>>> <snippage of repeat and Snit incoherency>
>>>
>>>>> Forced sharing of your inadequacy and misery is
>>>>> the driving force behind you liberals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read Ayn Rand's, "We the Living" and become
>>>>> aware of the dreadful reality of liberalism.
>>>
>>> Read it or STFU because the more you post the
>>> more you display your ignorant socialism.
>>>
> 


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
Thread

csiph-web