while it would be ideal to live in a society that teaches people not to rape, the sad fact is that sociopaths will do whatever they feel like doing because they just don't care, no matter what you teach them.

It is analogous to police. they cannot stop people from breaking into your home. the only thing they can do is try and teach ways to keep yourself from being broken into, and then after it happens, to try and catch (ha!) the person that broke in.

If it was simply a matter of education it could be fixed for good.

"A sociopath is simply a human who combines a total absence of empathy with a profound sense of entitlement. They feel no pain but their own." - Andrew Vachss

Those people cannot be taught. They learn how to respond in the manner that will gain them approval, regardless of how far that response is from what they truly feel.

Our current society seems to create more sociopaths than ever. Many people argue that the pop culture breeds and ingrains these thoughts into people who are susceptible to becoming sociopaths.

the thing is, when you don't say "i'm a feminist", it makes us weaker.
it makes it sound like it's a bad word or something that you wouldn't want to identify yourself as one.

men/people will tell you that like it's some sort of insult when they are annoyed you're not being as submissive as they would like you to.

but there's nothing wrong with being a feminist or a LGBTT supporter, I'm very proud of those things myself.

I hope you understand what I mean.

Are you seriously trying to argue that every rapist is a sociopath?
Doesn't even make sense IN NUMBERS.
But if you most know, all rapists think all men do the same thing as they do.
http://dbzer0.com/blog/feminists-don...sts-rapists-do

It's like I accidentaly got myself in a time machine and went back in the 1950s or something.

you really read a lot into things knox.

I was just making a comment about the inability to teach people NOT to do evil things.

And their ability to teach them to go ahead and do evil things and still exempt themselves of any responsability over the message they convey or what it represents.

Oh, and by the way, people don't become sociopaths, they just are, and they are a minority. And we don't have any more sociopaths than ever, we have more powerful weapons that enable them to do more crazy shit.

Now, can we teach people to operate in a sociopath-like logic when we tell them it's acceptable to forget empathy, self-assessment and responsibility over certain things? Of course. We can even teach them that there's nothing wrong with it or that it's only natural and that they're still "good people".

That's how sexism, racism and discrimination operate.

you are wrong knox. people can and do become sociopaths.

read up on it.

Most serial rapists, killers, abusers who can be classified as sociopaths come themselves from backgrounds of terrible abuse, terrible trauma. Not every abuse victim becomes sociopathic, but many do as a response to the world which they have experienced, full of fear and endless terror. It creates a disconnect in the brain, a willful detachment from shared "reality."

No. People do not become sociopaths.
Sociopaths that have been exposed to violent environments can become VIOLENT sociopaths. Most sociopaths aren't violent.

No one knows the cause of the neurological abnormalities that have been recently observed that can cause someone to be unable to feel empathy, but people are born that way. Society can shape HOW violent/dangerous someone with antissocial disorder can become.

And it's in that sense that a violent environment enhances violent leanings.

Most people who have been abused or witnessed violence as children do not grow up to be violent and cannot "become" sociopaths.

The great majority of "sociopaths" never kill or rape anyone.
The vast majority of rapists are not sociopaths.

It's kind of funny that you tell me to read up on it when I've been reading about it for 5 years now.

So, no, YOU read up on it.
Start with Dr. Hare.
And stop talking about things you don't know, please.

It should be in name of the principle of fairness and not penis or vagina. I feel the same way about it.

your absolutism is pathetic knox

If I may (once more) interject, between the ooglings of knoxy's juicy badunkadunk, please, please, rise above this behavior.

"read up on it" & "study up on it" are the hallmarks of a failed argument, typically reserved for creationists, pro-lifers, gun-nuts and flat-worlders.

It brings nothing to the table except for a veiled jab that (often wrongly) suggests that the user of this phrase is more well-versed in whatever given subject is at hand, but is simply a lazy cop-out.

You are better than this....don't do it!

Feminism (from the Latin "Of women")
+
attacking women who disagree with you
=
DOES NOT COMPUTE

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Nefeli again.

nefeliiiiiiii! clear yr pms for a subject totally unrelated to this ( i thought you'd read this thread, see)

thanks! back later...

are you people seriously trying to imply that feminism is not humanism and equality? because thats like the biggest joke among serious humanists that so many people are so blind with entlitlement (and possibly mysoginy, in this case) that they cant stand proper terminology for certain aspects and groups. its a well accepted fact that one cannot be a humanist without being a feminist.

and rob theres no need to act like a baby because you said something innacurate and i reccommended you to read the biggest expert on the subject, dr. robert hare. now you can practice what you preach and read up on it.

Maryland Man Sues Firing Range for 'Reverse Sexism'




By ABBY ELLIN
Aug. 24, 2012



One Monday last October, Derrick Hunter decided to go shooting at the Maryland Small Arms Range in Upper Marlboro, his local firing range. He paid the $15 entry fee, and went inside.
And that's when the metaphorical bullets started to fly.
According to Hunter, 34, a special police officer, two women walked in behind him. Since it was "Ladies' Day," a longtime staple at the club, a manager told them they didn't have to pay.
Hunter heard the exchange, and asked if he could use the range for free too. "He said, 'It's Ladies' Day and you don't meet that criteria,'" he told ABC News. He accuses the firing range of "reverse sexism."
"Any time you get any kind of discrimination it does hit home to a certain extent," he said. "I have children. If don't stand for something you'll fall for anything. Sooner or later you have to stand up for your rights."
Hunter complained to the Human Relations Commission of Prince George's County, which reviews cases of discrimination. In August, it concluded that the case had merit. Last week, Hunter filed a $200,000 lawsuit against the firing range.
Carl Roy, president of the gun range, said he doesn't think he is doing anything illegal by letting in women for free.
"It's a governmental micro-managing society," he said. "If you read the county ordinance, they are narrowly construing discrimination to mean if you give a discount to somebody, then you got to give it to everyone. But no one is saying anything about age discrimination. They're not saying anything about occupational discrimination, or JC Penney giving free haircuts to children for the month of August."
Hunter's lawyer, Jimmy A. Bell, sees it differently. "If someone said because you were Jewish you'd have to pay more money, what would you think about that?" he said. "People don't look at it like that. People think a man should have to take it. And that's now how the law works."
As it happens, attorney Bell is no stranger to discrimination suits. In 2010 he sued a nail salon after he shelled out $4 more for a manicure/pedicure than women were charged.
He eventually settled with the salon for an undisclosed amount. But last year, he sued another nail salon, Nail First, on Hunter's behalf. Hunter didn't win any money, but the court issued a permanent injunction against the salon.
This time that would not be enough, said Bell.
"It's obvious that an injunction doesn't work," he said. "You've got to look at a person's dignity. When someone tells you that based on who you are, your physical characteristics, that you have less value to them than someone else, that stings a lot of people. It's illegal in our state. And it's been illegal since 1986."
"The special court of appeals outlawed gender discrimination and ladies' night activities in 1986," he said. "You can't offer one benefit to one group and not to the other group based on sex."
Brian Heller, a partner at Schwartz and Perry, an employment discrimination law firm in New York City, said the case is an interesting one. "On the one hand, the question is, are they treating men worse? Or are they treating women preferably?" said Heller. "And if they are treating women preferably, is there a legitimate business reason to do so?
"It's ultimately going to have to come down to a jury looking at the facts and making a decision as to what the intent was," he said. "The range could argue that there's a good reason to attract women members, and that they're not treating men badly but that they're encouraging women to sign up."

Not at all, its just that your interpretation of feminism lacks humanism.

I got all your posts completely and agree 100%. The fact that there is an issue with how genders relate to each other is no excuse to be a boring activist in areas of life that should exalt the human, rather than the gender. There are plenty of other venues where to fight for gender equality in a more effective way. Hence, for me, more Cosey Fanni Tutti and less Kathleen Hanna.

I think it's pretty sick when someone says something like "reverse sexism" or "reverse racism", It's like implying that one kind of sexism/racism is the 'right' one, the other is 'reverse'. They'll be digging for whatever kind of exception they can find to justify this sick point.

Oh yeah, my feminism is for non-humans.
Since I'm part of the women rights board of a large human rights organization, I'm going to take your complaint up to the directors, thanks.
We're going to store it in a big folder of emails we get from humanists that complain "there's too much being done about women and LGBTT, too much talk about racism" and not enough "about straight white men" who are terribly, terrible oppressed.
It's such an offensive thing we can't talk about human rights in general terms and they are specific issues to tackle - it offends the sensibility of cis-men who think they're being excluded. boo hoo.
Unless you're a pro-lifer. We don't take comments from pro-lifers.
They're not real people.

I'm in the library now. Haven't spotted any yet.

Have you checked under you seat?

wrong library!

Its nice to see that you feel that you and your affiliated "organizations" have the lock on defining who is and who isn't exactly human. Y'all must have a lot in common with other societal groups such as this or these..

The shame to me is you seem to think that "womens' issues" are exclusively the realm and domain of women. Humanism is to accept that humans come in two genders, but human issues are relevant for ALL humans regardless of gender.

Further, knox, you do realize that many women actually enjoy having men in their lives, you know, like in their families, at their jobs, in their circle of friends, and you might just need to sit down a moment before I tell you this, in their bedrooms ;)

The laddy doth protest too much.

ITT2: IN DEFENSE OF THE INDEFENSIBLE

How old are you? This is a serious question.

I didn't think anyone over 12 and under 75 would be idiotic enough to vomit out the old cliche that "feminists are all lesbians who hate men". Do you not get embarrassed?

I really hope you're over 75.

And no, to be fair organizations don't say that. It's just me: pro-lifers aren't people, they're nasty monsters.
I actually hate to call them pro-life because they obviously hate life.

Have a nice day.

I wanna sit down for a bit, someone has some repressed, conservative, hysterical comment to make with a hint of homophobia... Someone tries to cover up what we perceives as a insult with a ;). Someone has absorbed the discourse of conservative Republicans and won't admit to it.

Maybe I can make it look like I'm only saying it in jest and I'm a really good person if I add an icon... let's see... :fuckyou:

knox, this was cute, I got a great laugh ;)



How old are you? If you can't embrace the reality that feminism is much more complex than your simplistic, short-sighted, vindictive interpretation then you my dear are the one who should get embarrassed. As for me? I am perfectly comfortable with my relationships with all the women in my life and my community, even if some folks ideologies, philosophies, or feelings are contrary to my own. I don't use dehumanizing terms to negate their realities, like you have. To say some humans "aren't people" and that they're "nasty monsters" is the kind of garbage that the assholes in Rwanda propagated. Good luck with all that hatred, you may just find over the course of your life that it will only consume you, it won't change the world for the better ;)

I never explained to you what feminism is and you never asked the first thing about my interpretation of it.
You just had to spit out the #1 conservative cliche about it in order to attack me.
Congratulations, at least you're quite open about your willingness to be ignorant.

Why are you getting all annoyed? I didn't know you consider to be yourself to be "pro-life". If that's the case, just come out already.

And then it'll be clear why feminism bothers you so much.

And to be clear: I love men. I just hate hypocritical bigots and idiots in general.

So do you project your fantasies on ALL people or just me? Feminism doesn't bother me in the slightest. Conservative? Bigot? That is funny, I am flattered truly. You're such a radical ;)

And just to be clear: a "pro-lifer" isn't someone who has a "different outlook" in life. It's someone who is intolerant, hates women and wants to control other people's lives, taking away their rights, imposing their beliefs. Simple.

The more you try to hide it, the more the conservative cliches are coming out. It's an interesting show.

Why don't we talk about how much I hate men and can't stand cock?
Can you explain to me, how did you find that out? Amazing.

What ever supports your deranged fantasies to reinforce your delusional misinterpretations and exaggerations of feminism ;)

Are you usually this dishonest when you're arguing or is it only when it envolves gender issues and sex?

Because we both know for a fact you haven't got the slighest clue about feminism or even how I interpret it.

And just a tip: adding a smiley face or something doesn't make your words any less atrocious.

Dude, the smiley is meant to let you know that it is sarcasm, are you familiar? Been on the interwebs long?

As to feminism, you've made yourself quite clear over the past few weeks, and quite frankly, whatever. If you think I am bigoted, or Conservative, or homophobic, or ignorant, or any of the nonsense you've accused me of, I completely scoff your opinions because you are living in delusional fantasy to make yourself the perpetual victim, even here on SYG, you have to make me the villain in your imagination to support your delusions. Again, good luck with all that negativity, it won't change the world for the better like you are hoping, it will only consume yourself in the long arc.

women rule.

even Freddy Mercury sang so...

Thanks for the tip and the moral preaching.
Now let's talk about why you assume I'm not into cock.
Shall we?

first:: QUEEN SUCKS (especially BOTH of those stupid fucking songs).

Second: although I'm sure that in "real life" you're all (mostly) well-behaved towards women, I side 110% with Knox (who deserves a crusader's medal), but I have absolutley no interest in improving any of your prickish net-personas. Doing so would be counter-productive to the joy I experience at calling you pricks (repeatedly).

Pricks.