Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: no u

Topic: Thread for self righteous men (Read 6831 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • RickB
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #700
Yeah, I know, just thought it might be relevant and interesting as a side-topic.

Well, Dave tried to make it such.  It was discussed in the thread after Dave tried to deflect from the child marriage aspect. 

Sure it's an important topic, but is really quite separate from child marriage.  But Dave even now only plays lip service to FGM, but still adamantly supports and defends child marriage.  Though he does offer in his defense, only if also supported in the general society.


  • RickB
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #701
"But, as to child marriage, his argument was that one bride (15 years old) was claimed to be happy about it by a South African white woman that didn't speak their language.  And another (12 years old) was claimed to be getting a great deal because she married a rich guy and could get fucked by all the other adults that she desired."

Good case study in the art of spin.

AKA lying.


But as always you can't specify the lie, only accuse someone of lying.

That was a summary Dave, where was the lie?


ETA: Or is it in fact yourself that is lying as usual.


  • uncool
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #702
Sure it's an important topic, but is really quite separate from child marriage. 
The article isn't just about FGM. It talks about the tribal structure, and women and girls who oppose that structure, and what happens to them. That is relevant to Dave's defense that the girls "wanted it"; girls who refuse to participate in the cultural rituals are socially excluded (entirely) unless they are hardheaded enough to continue and lucky enough to be well-connected.

  • RickB
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #703
Sure it's an important topic, but is really quite separate from child marriage. 
The article isn't just about FGM. It talks about the tribal structure, and women and girls who oppose that structure, and what happens to them. That is relevant to Dave's defense that the girls "wanted it"; girls who refuse to participate in the cultural rituals are socially excluded (entirely) unless they are hardheaded enough to continue and lucky enough to be well-connected.

It was mostly about FGM and the social changes required to change that custom.  I get that and do applaud the article for presenting the struggle to get that societal change implemented.  I can only hope that the other injustices committed against girls in that society (and mentioned in that article) are soon rectified.  And yes, that is a culturally biased opinion, but I do think that a culture that devalues its women devalues itself.


Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #704
"But, as to child marriage, his argument was that one bride (15 years old) was claimed to be happy about it by a South African white woman that didn't speak their language.  And another (12 years old) was claimed to be getting a great deal because she married a rich guy and could get fucked by all the other adults that she desired."

Good case study in the art of spin.

AKA lying.


But as always you can't specify the lie, only accuse someone of lying.

That was a summary Dave, where was the lie?


ETA: Or is it in fact yourself that is lying as usual.


First lie: "child marriage" - you are giving readers the impression that we were discussing "child marriage."  But I was not discussing child marriage.  I was discussing longevity of indigenous people groups.  In my search for long lived indigenous people, I ran across that article so I posted it with the "woo hoo" comment which echoed the sentiment of the on site white woman living in the village.  That was just a passing comment intended to communicate "wow, that 70 year old guy is plenty healthy enough to attract a hot young bride!"

Second lie:  Misrepresenting the article I posted which included an admission that yes, sometimes brides are as young as 12.  The purpose of that article was to respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."  People would not understand that from what you wrote.

A commitment to truth - 100% truth - requires the hard work of actually trying to understand what people are saying and not misrepresenting them.

  • Sea Star
  • Not an octohatter
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #705
"But, as to child marriage, his argument was that one bride (15 years old) was claimed to be happy about it by a South African white woman that didn't speak their language.  And another (12 years old) was claimed to be getting a great deal because she married a rich guy and could get fucked by all the other adults that she desired."

Good case study in the art of spin.

AKA lying.


But as always you can't specify the lie, only accuse someone of lying.

That was a summary Dave, where was the lie?


ETA: Or is it in fact yourself that is lying as usual.


First lie: "child marriage" - you are giving readers the impression that we were discussing "child marriage."  But I was not discussing child marriage.  I was discussing longevity of indigenous people groups.  In my search for long lived indigenous people, I ran across that article so I posted it with the "woo hoo" comment which echoed the sentiment of the on site white woman living in the village.  That was just a passing comment intended to communicate "wow, that 70 year old guy is plenty healthy enough to attract a hot young bride!"

Second lie:  Misrepresenting the article I posted which included an admission that yes, sometimes brides are as young as 12.  The purpose of that article was to respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."  People would not understand that from what you wrote.

A commitment to truth - 100% truth - requires the hard work of actually trying to understand what people are saying and not misrepresenting them.
Dave, when you write things down, like here for example, you can't effectively reword it later to mean something else. That's not a strong defense of the idea. If you can't defend it, maybe rethink your view and become less wrong than you were before.
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Today at 07:50:40 AM
Lol
Sea Star has been trolling me this whole time.

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #706
This IS the original meaning.  I take it you have been so propagandized by spin that you don't realize this.

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #707
"But, as to child marriage, his argument was that one bride (15 years old) was claimed to be happy about it by a South African white woman that didn't speak their language.  And another (12 years old) was claimed to be getting a great deal because she married a rich guy and could get fucked by all the other adults that she desired."

Good case study in the art of spin.

AKA lying.


But as always you can't specify the lie, only accuse someone of lying.

That was a summary Dave, where was the lie?


ETA: Or is it in fact yourself that is lying as usual.


First lie: "child marriage" - you are giving readers the impression that we were discussing "child marriage."  But I was not discussing child marriage.  I was discussing longevity of indigenous people groups.  In my search for long lived indigenous people, I ran across that article so I posted it with the "woo hoo" comment which echoed the sentiment of the on site white woman living in the village.  That was just a passing comment intended to communicate "wow, that 70 year old guy is plenty healthy enough to attract a hot young bride!"

Second lie:  Misrepresenting the article I posted which included an admission that yes, sometimes brides are as young as 12.  The purpose of that article was to respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."  People would not understand that from what you wrote.

A commitment to truth - 100% truth - requires the hard work of actually trying to understand what people are saying and not misrepresenting them.
Wow, what a pathetic stretch. Neither of those are lies, Dave.

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #708
In fact, you haven't even pointed out any misrepresentations. Your first one is you reading something into the text that isn't remotely there, and your second one is...what, exactly? You haven't even said what it is.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #709
"But, as to child marriage, his argument was that one bride (15 years old) was claimed to be happy about it by a South African white woman that didn't speak their language.  And another (12 years old) was claimed to be getting a great deal because she married a rich guy and could get fucked by all the other adults that she desired."

Good case study in the art of spin.

AKA lying.


But as always you can't specify the lie, only accuse someone of lying.

That was a summary Dave, where was the lie?


ETA: Or is it in fact yourself that is lying as usual.


First lie: "child marriage" - you are giving readers the impression that we were discussing "child marriage."  But I was not discussing child marriage.  I was discussing longevity of indigenous people groups.  In my search for long lived indigenous people, I ran across that article so I posted it with the "woo hoo" comment which echoed the sentiment of the on site white woman living in the village.  That was just a passing comment intended to communicate "wow, that 70 year old guy is plenty healthy enough to attract a hot young bride!"

Second lie:  Misrepresenting the article I posted which included an admission that yes, sometimes brides are as young as 12.  The purpose of that article was to respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."  People would not understand that from what you wrote.

A commitment to truth - 100% truth - requires the hard work of actually trying to understand what people are saying and not misrepresenting them.
Wow, what a pathetic stretch. Neither of those are lies, Dave.
Ben is right, dave.  :sadyes:

Rather than admit that you cannot, in fact, identify any lies*, you are now lying to yourself.

* as defined by the rest of the world.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #710
The purpose of that article was to respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."
Wow. This is utter BS.

And you have the nerve to call others liars.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #711
Yeah, who other than Dave ever said anything close to that?

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #712
"But, as to child marriage, his argument was that one bride (15 years old) was claimed to be happy about it by a South African white woman that didn't speak their language.  And another (12 years old) was claimed to be getting a great deal because she married a rich guy and could get fucked by all the other adults that she desired."

Good case study in the art of spin.

AKA lying.


But as always you can't specify the lie, only accuse someone of lying.

That was a summary Dave, where was the lie?


ETA: Or is it in fact yourself that is lying as usual.


First lie: "child marriage" - you are giving readers the impression that we were discussing "child marriage."  But I was not discussing child marriage.  I was discussing longevity of indigenous people groups.  In my search for long lived indigenous people, I ran across that article so I posted it with the "woo hoo" comment which echoed the sentiment of the on site white woman living in the village.  That was just a passing comment intended to communicate "wow, that 70 year old guy is plenty healthy enough to attract a hot young bride!"

And people immediately pointed out that that's not how child marriages work Dave. They were immediately horrified by your use of the "Woo hoo!" If you had said pretty much anything else Or just nothing at all, and simply quoted the facts- this man was 70, and married a 15 year old, people would not have called you out on it. The discussion might have veered off into the ethics of it, but most likely the immediate reaction would have been to point out that you don't understand the difference between some, all, and none, and that the person you quoted seemed pretty oblivious to an awful lot of things that actual Maasai women report happening.

In fact the initial reaction was precisely that. Its only after you doubled down on trying to defend it by comparing a report of a 74 year old man marrying a 15 year old woman to the physiological reaction upo seeing boobs that you got it with both barrels.

Quote
Second lie:  Misrepresenting the article I posted which included an admission that yes, sometimes brides are as young as 12.  The purpose of that article was to respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."  People would not understand that from what you wrote.
Nobody was thinking about the 15 year old bride being disappointed that her 74 year old husband was impotent Dave. They were thinking about the fact that she was likely forced into an arranged marriage (likely making the best of a bad situation), had probably been a victim of FGM, and so on. Citing an article that notes that this happens to 12 year olds, who can then get passed around "boyfriends" wasn't going to go down well Dave.
Quote
A commitment to truth - 100% truth - requires the hard work of actually trying to understand what people are saying and not misrepresenting them.
What if what you are saying is horrible and you just don't realise, because you're not very bright? Or worse, an actually horrible person who doesn't think there's anything wrong with it. What then?
Why do I bother?

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #713
First lie: "child marriage" - you are giving readers the impression that we were discussing "child marriage."  But I was not discussing child marriage.  I was discussing longevity of indigenous people groups.  In my search for long lived indigenous people, I ran across that article so I posted it with the "woo hoo" comment which echoed the sentiment of the on site white woman living in the village.  That was just a passing comment intended to communicate "wow, that 70 year old guy is plenty healthy enough to attract a hot young bride!"

Dave, everyone else reads

"yech, that 70 year old guy is plenty wealthy enough to buy a hot young bride!"

Looks more like her parents sold their daughter into slavery. Well, it's allowed in the OT if its cultural rules are followed, so I somewhat understand that you're all right with the transaction.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #714
"But, as to child marriage, his argument was that one bride (15 years old) was claimed to be happy about it by a South African white woman that didn't speak their language.  And another (12 years old) was claimed to be getting a great deal because she married a rich guy and could get fucked by all the other adults that she desired."

Good case study in the art of spin.

AKA lying.


But as always you can't specify the lie, only accuse someone of lying.

That was a summary Dave, where was the lie?


ETA: Or is it in fact yourself that is lying as usual.


First lie: "child marriage" - you are giving readers the impression that we were discussing "child marriage."  But I was not discussing child marriage.  I was discussing longevity of indigenous people groups.  In my search for long lived indigenous people, I ran across that article so I posted it with the "woo hoo" comment which echoed the sentiment of the on site white woman living in the village.  That was just a passing comment intended to communicate "wow, that 70 year old guy is plenty healthy enough to attract a hot young bride!"

Second lie:  Misrepresenting the article I posted which included an admission that yes, sometimes brides are as young as 12.  The purpose of that article was to respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."  People would not understand that from what you wrote.

A commitment to truth - 100% truth - requires the hard work of actually trying to understand what people are saying and not misrepresenting them.
Bluffy, who originally posted "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."

I ask because my memories of that line of discussion did not include any such comment being expressed other than by you claiming others had.

Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #715
"But, as to child marriage, his argument was that one bride (15 years old) was claimed to be happy about it by a South African white woman that didn't speak their language.  And another (12 years old) was claimed to be getting a great deal because she married a rich guy and could get fucked by all the other adults that she desired."

Good case study in the art of spin.

AKA lying.


But as always you can't specify the lie, only accuse someone of lying.

That was a summary Dave, where was the lie?


ETA: Or is it in fact yourself that is lying as usual.


First lie: "child marriage" - you are giving readers the impression that we were discussing "child marriage."  But I was not discussing child marriage.  I was discussing longevity of indigenous people groups.  In my search for long lived indigenous people, I ran across that article so I posted it with the "woo hoo" comment which echoed the sentiment of the on site white woman living in the village.  That was just a passing comment intended to communicate "wow, that 70 year old guy is plenty healthy enough to attract a hot young bride!"

And people immediately pointed out that that's not how child marriages work Dave. They were immediately horrified by your use of the "Woo hoo!" If you had said pretty much anything else Or just nothing at all, and simply quoted the facts- this man was 70, and married a 15 year old, people would not have called you out on it. The discussion might have veered off into the ethics of it, but most likely the immediate reaction would have been to point out that you don't understand the difference between some, all, and none, and that the person you quoted seemed pretty oblivious to an awful lot of things that actual Maasai women report happening.

In fact the initial reaction was precisely that. Its only after you doubled down on trying to defend it by comparing a report of a 74 year old man marrying a 15 year old woman to the physiological reaction upo seeing boobs that you got it with both barrels.

Quote
Second lie:  Misrepresenting the article I posted which included an admission that yes, sometimes brides are as young as 12.  The purpose of that article was to respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."  People would not understand that from what you wrote.
Nobody was thinking about the 15 year old bride being disappointed that her 74 year old husband was impotent Dave. They were thinking about the fact that she was likely forced into an arranged marriage (likely making the best of a bad situation), had probably been a victim of FGM, and so on. Citing an article that notes that this happens to 12 year olds, who can then get passed around "boyfriends" wasn't going to go down well Dave.
Quote
A commitment to truth - 100% truth - requires the hard work of actually trying to understand what people are saying and not misrepresenting them.
What if what you are saying is horrible and you just don't realise, because you're not very bright? Or worse, an actually horrible person who doesn't think there's anything wrong with it. What then?
Good old Bluffy, you can always count on him to faceplant every single cow pattie (100% grass fed) in the meadow.

What's really amazing is he can do the same thing blindfolded.
Are we there yet?

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #716
"But, as to child marriage, his argument was that one bride (15 years old) was claimed to be happy about it by a South African white woman that didn't speak their language.  And another (12 years old) was claimed to be getting a great deal because she married a rich guy and could get fucked by all the other adults that she desired."

Good case study in the art of spin.

AKA lying.


But as always you can't specify the lie, only accuse someone of lying.

That was a summary Dave, where was the lie?


ETA: Or is it in fact yourself that is lying as usual.


First lie: "child marriage" - you are giving readers the impression that we were discussing "child marriage."  But I was not discussing child marriage.  I was discussing longevity of indigenous people groups.  In my search for long lived indigenous people, I ran across that article so I posted it with the "woo hoo" comment which echoed the sentiment of the on site white woman living in the village.  That was just a passing comment intended to communicate "wow, that 70 year old guy is plenty healthy enough to attract a hot young bride!"

Second lie:  Misrepresenting the article I posted which included an admission that yes, sometimes brides are as young as 12.  The purpose of that article was to respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."  People would not understand that from what you wrote.

A commitment to truth - 100% truth - requires the hard work of actually trying to understand what people are saying and not misrepresenting them.
attract? You mean, she was asked and was excited and happy to consent? and:
Quote
respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."
jesus christ man. That is NOT the issue.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #717
The purpose of that article was to respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."
Wow. This is utter BS.

And you have the nerve to call others liars.
I see I was multiply ninja'd. Not surprising. But not only is it not what anyone else said, it is exactly the abhorrent perspective that people piled on him for.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #718
The purpose of that article was to respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."
Wow. This is utter BS.

And you have the nerve to call others liars.
I see I was multiply ninja'd. Not surprising. But not only is it not what anyone else said, it is exactly the abhorrent perspective that people piled on him for.

The truly cringe inducing thing here is that I find it hard to believe Dave himself really felt that 'woohoo!' moment, and it is for that reason he's retrofitting it to other 'self righteous men'.  I think Dave believes it is natural for 'worldly' men to applaud the idea of fulfilling fantasies of perpetual access to young beautiful women/girls, and so didn't anticipate that people (TR men) would instead be appalled. In effect, he was expecting that Trumpian locker room moment even if he normally would feel like an outsider in such an atmosphere.

Or perhaps I'm giving him too much moral credit. But one has to take into consideration that he relates to women as a separate, alien, and possibly hostile species.

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #719
No I didn't expect a Trump locker room. I actually never know what to expect with this crowd...well actually I always expect dishonesty, Spin, and slander, but I never know exactly what form it will take.

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #720
I never had the thought "Ah this bunch are heathens... they will high five me for woo hooing."

The only thought I had was ...

"Bingo. Borealis is full of s*** about Maasai not living very long. Here's an old geezer that is sprightly enough to marry a young hottie ... Woohoo!"

That's honestly the only thought I had.

  • uncool
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #721

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #722
I never had the thought "Ah this bunch are heathens... they will high five me for woo hooing."

The only thought I had was ...

"Bingo. Borealis is full of s*** about Maasai not living very long. Here's an old geezer that is sprightly enough to marry a young hottie ... Woohoo!"

That's honestly the only thought I had.
I believe you.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #723
I never had the thought "Ah this bunch are heathens... they will high five me for woo hooing."

The only thought I had was ...

"Bingo. Borealis is full of s*** about Maasai not living very long. Here's an old geezer that is sprightly enough to marry a young hottie ... Woohoo!"

That's honestly the only thought I had.
Which is so very very wrong. On so many levels.

Maybe you really are completely beyond any hope of redemption.
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #724
I never had the thought "Ah this bunch are heathens... they will high five me for woo hooing."

The only thought I had was ...

"Bingo. Borealis is full of s*** about Maasai not living very long. Here's an old geezer that is sprightly enough to marry a young hottie ... Woohoo!"

That's honestly the only thought I had.

And you were promptly schooled on what the word 'average' means, so it was a dumb response to begin with. You're so desperate to 'prove borealis is full of shit' that you put yourself in these really awkward situations.

Besides which, most 'old geezers', provided they haven't got a serious medical condition that interferes with their plumbing, are 'sprightly enough' to have sexual intercourse. Have you not heard about the unfortunate prevalence of STDs in senior housing? They aren't catching gonorrhea from toilet seats.

Also the whole concept is disgusting. 'Young hotties' - Jesus Christ Dave, why the hell would you use that term to describe a 15 year old girl?