Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is this your clever way of saying Bardock rapes you? detective

Originally posted by Thoren
Is this your clever way of saying Bardock rapes you? detective
you didn't even give me the chance to do my follow up thread uhuh
"Can You Tell The Difference Between Bardock42 And A Rapist?"

I can tell the difference, Bardock will ask you if you want a piece of candy, while a rapist will get right to the nitty gritty. haermm

Is that how Bardock got you, with a piece of candy? ermmnone

Originally posted by Thoren
I can tell the difference, Bardock will ask you if you want a piece of candy, while a rapist will get right to the nitty gritty. haermm

Is that how Bardock got you, with a piece of candy? ermmnone
Yeah, it was tied to a stick with a piece of string, he just bounced it up and down in front of me, slowly luring me away from the schoolyard


...What has my thread become!

Originally posted by Sancty
Which did you get wrong? slide


I gave it an honest go.


1. Rapist c
2. Rapist c
3. Mag c
4. Mag c
5. Rapist c
6. Mag c
7. Rapist c
8. Rapist w
9. Rapist c
10. Mag c
11. Mag w
12. Rapist w
13. Rapist c
14. Mag w
15. Mag c
16. Rapist w

So I got 8, 11, 12, 14, and 16 wrong. I conveniently got a 69% on this test. That is just coincidental but a pleasant outcome.


Looking back, I was just getting tired of thinking about it and I would have said 16 was definitely mag material. 14 is obvious, as well. 11 seems correct in real life, actually: it doesn't matter who said that because it is true (I would add "it's yours if you want to play my stupid games..or I could just be ovulating and I'm trying to mate with someone (that last statement is backed up by science ...suck people that think it's a rapey statement)). The context of 12 would be required to get that statement correct: it's a misleading statement. Eight was easily a rapist because it was in the first person and had nothing offensive in it. However, a common MO of rapists IS using prostitutes so it is easier to see that as a rapey statement rather than the musings of a sick article writer.



Also, this study does not indicate whether or not the sexual fantasies of both the article writers and the rapists are mutually exclusive. They would appear to some overlap. So what did they prove in their study? That the more colorful male oriented writers have "rape" sexual fantasies in obviously sexist magazines (part of sexism is the dominance over women which includes sexuality...so we are only proving obvious points about sexism, not anything new)? What's next: are they going to tell us that the KKK are prejudice against blacks and jews?

I know it's not really anything to do with the quiz, I'd just like to point out that I feel the mags included are a bit off. To be honest I dont really think there's anything remotely rapey about Nuts.

I do buy it somewhat regularly, and I do actually read it, and most of the articles/interviews pertaining to sex are actually answered/written/have some input from women, which is why I enjoy reading it.
As opposed to say, Zoo, which I have bought in the past and saw almost nothing but sexist jokes/comments in articles. I even remember a comment about a larger woman, where all they were doing was berating her.

I just think it's a bit unfair that one decent magazine should be brought down by others of the same type.

shrug

They both think the same.

The context of a sentence is pretty dang important. This study is very misleading.

I got almost every question right though. I can tell when something sounds rapey, lol

Scored 100%, what do I win?

Originally posted by Sancty

dadudemon: 11 seems correct in real life, actually: it doesn't matter who said that because it is true (I would add "it's yours if you want to play my stupid games..or I could just be ovulating and I'm trying to mate with someone

'or I'm just an attention whore looking for attention *flicks hair*.'

There's always that; not that there's anything inherently wrong with that.

This thread sucks.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
This thread sucks.

Indeed. The study is crappy "pop psy" at best.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Cry harder about it, if you want, but your crying won't change the fact that both men and women try to attract mates because we are animals. It is similar to a cat meowing for a mate when in heat. It is similar to the pheromones insects emit when they are ready to mate. Humans dressing up in a way to attract a mate is hardly new to sexology. AKA: Women dressing up, provocatively, should not shock you. Just because a rapist says that a woman is wanting to mate by dressing like that, doesn't make him wrong.

Now reply with "zomg! Liek, not all womenz dat dress proactively are looking to mate with someone! RAWR!" Go ahead, I'm ready.

He may not be right for every single case, but he's also not wrong for every single case.


I know it took you about 15 minutes to come up with this reply. You added nothing new besides re-quoting what I had said, already, in this thread (a second time). I also noticed that you cut off the part that talks about the science of women dressing more provocatively when they ovulate. How convenient?
I don't think you actually agree with what the rapist said, I think certain things he said overlapped with things you think in not such an absolute form, but you were the one saying "it seems correct in real life" (with only one, non consequential addage), not all the other qualifiers you have tried to bring up since then.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Cry harder about it, if you want, but your crying won't change the fact that both men and women try to attract mates because we are animals. It is similar to a cat meowing for a mate when in heat. It is similar to the pheromones insects emit when they are ready to mate. Humans dressing up in a way to attract a mate is hardly new to sexology. AKA: Women dressing up, provocatively, should not shock you. Just because a rapist says that a woman is wanting to mate by dressing like that, doesn't make him wrong.

Now reply with "zomg! Liek, not all womenz dat dress proactively are looking to mate with someone! RAWR!" Go ahead, I'm ready.

He may not be right for every single case, but he's also not wrong for every single case.


I know it took you about 15 minutes to come up with this reply. You added nothing new besides re-quoting what I had said, already, in this thread (a second time). I also noticed that you cut off the part that talks about the science of women dressing more provocatively when they ovulate. How convenient?
What exactly do you think I am saying?

I asked you 2 questions & requoted your post.

What are you arguing against?


also:

Originally posted by Sancty
What exactly do you think I am saying?

I asked you 2 questions & requoted your post.

What are you arguing against?


also:

What do you think I think you're saying?

Additionally, what are you saying?


Look, I can quote the actual study...look at me go:















Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think you actually agree with what the rapist said, I think certain things he said overlapped with things you think in not such an absolute form, but you were the one saying "it seems correct in real life" (with only one, non consequential addage), not all the other qualifiers you have tried to bring up since then.

Actually, I do agree with what he said and I quantified how I do. I do not think it is universal, obviously. But it does apply. Just because he's a rapist, doesn't mean he's wrong about reproductive cues that have existed for tens of thousand of years. His quote is also out of context. Do you think he would say the following: "Yes, if you dress sexy, you're looking for s*x 100% of the time."? I don't believe he would conclude that unless he's an idiot. Just the same as the study itself, those quotes are out of context. If you or others are concluding that from his single statement, then I also think that's idiotic.

So wait...we are supposed to interpret what the rapist might have meant, instead of what he actually said...there, for us to read? Even though what he said is sort of in line with him...you know...raping people.

That seems convoluted, and prone to error. I understand though, like I said, you didn't really agree with what he said there, but something that you made up in your mind, and only needed a couple extra posts to clarify, it's all good.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So wait...we are supposed to interpret what the rapist might have meant, instead of what he actually said...there, for us to read? Even though what he said is sort of in line with him...you know...raping people.

That seems convoluted, and prone to error. I understand though, like I said, you didn't really agree with what he said there, but something that you made up in your mind, and only needed a couple extra posts to clarify, it's all good.


So wait, we're supposed to interpret a single statement to be absolutely universal even though we don't know the context and we can easily think of exceptions to such statements?

That seems convaluted and obviously prone to error. I understand, though, that because he's a rapist, all of his opinions will be interpretted with the maximum rapey fashion and not amount of intelligence will be granted to rapists making statements because all rapists are dumb, to be sure. I have no problem with you clarifying a natural bias towards rapists because, hey, no one likes rapists, right?

Originally posted by dadudemon
So wait, we're supposed to interpret a single statement to be absolutely universal even though we don't know the context and we can easily think of exceptions to such statements?

Yes...yes we should. Obviously.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes...yes we should. Obviously.

That's the wrong answer, obviously.

Person 1: "Man, birds are so annoying. Wish they'd go away."

P2: "ZOMG! You hate every single bird that has lived, is living, and will live? U R DUMB!"


Context: Person 1 is complaining about the birds outside of his window in a casual conversation. He obviously does not intend to mean every single bird.

That would be nice if we were having a conversation with the rapist.

As it is we don't and the issue is "do you agree with the statement?", not "do you agree with a different statement that sort of uses the same words, but a couple other things added and maybe some meanings removed, which the person originally saying it may or may not have meant?". There was a removed statement, no other context for you to base any sort of implications on.

So, we come back to "I understand you didn't mean it, but you agreed with a specific statement, we can't know what you were thinking at the time of writing, we only know what you actually said".

Originally posted by Bardock42
That would be nice if we were having a conversation with the rapist.

As it is we don't and the issue is "do you agree with the statement?", not "do you agree with a different statement that sort of uses the same words, but a couple other things added and maybe some meanings removed, which the person originally saying it may or may not have meant?". There was a removed statement, no other context for you to base any sort of implications on.

So, we come back to "I understand you didn't mean it, but you agreed with a specific statement, we can't know what you were thinking at the time of writing, we only know what you actually said".

You should not think of exceptions to a brief statement that was obviously made casually. That's dishonest. Instead, you should understand that any time you see a brief snippit of a casual conversation, make sure you don't do idiotic things like assume the statements are intended to be truly universal.


Almost any statement anyone makes ever has an exception. (Maybe things like truisms are the exception to the exception?)


Go ahead, make a statement that is not a truism: I'll show you an exception.



Instead of focusing on the exceptions of things people state, you should focus on why what they state is correct. Generally, it is *ssholish to always look for exceptions in statements. It is along the same lines as correcting someone's spelling or grammar when the thoughts are still being conveyed properly.


"I claim A".


"A has exception #3."

"Cool. How cares about the exceptions because I wasn't talking about the exceptions, obviously."


Additionally, why did Sancty ask you to argue for her? (That does not mean she directly asked you).

Nonsense

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nonsense

K.

So you'll have to explain what you mean by that because I can think of about 4 ways it can apply.

But I'll continue to take statements like those at face value, never assume they mean them universally when there are easy exceptions (like, do you really think he had a model in mind for a clothing shoot...you know... a job? Obviously, it would not apply to the model because they did not choose the clothes. It's their job. Or how about a person dressing for the beach? It's tough to dress for the beach without wearing something revealing. Sure, you can wear things more revealing than others, but it is quite difficult to avoid revealing a lot. There's tons and tons of obvious exceptions just like that. Do you think he thought of all the exceptions and still concluded in a universal manner? If so, on what grounds (other than the biased conclusion that all rapists are dumb and cannot think very well (not true. Some are very smart...like you)).

THis is my rape face
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/12/15/80ff7c61-03af-4d83-95cc-7910e9f1e463.jpg
http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k532/jason_a_2006/SOULESS.jpg
There's nothing quite like a woman standing in the dock accused of murder in a sex game gone wrong . . . The possibility of murder does bring a certain frisson to the bedroom..SEXUAL RAPIST

http://uploads.shadowdiablo.com/10224-LOLZROFLZ.JPG

The magazine was obviously written by rapists.