Progressive media trying to normalize pedophilia

[djs7685]

(10-02-2015, 02:32 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I will try to explain, however, probably a waste of time, but anyway.

You quote, is calling people who generalize idiots.  Thus it is also a generalization.  Hence the irony that was lost on you.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, back it up.

How in the hell is that picture generalizing? Are you aware of what "generalizing" means?? Apparently not.

Generalizing is saying something like "all liberals think that guns should be banned!" just because 1 liberal you spoke with feels that way. That's generalizing. Not every liberal feels that way, yet you're labeling an entire group of people by the opinion of very few.

Saying that "people who generalize are idiots" isn't generalizing, because it's flat out saying that IF you generalize, then you're an idiot. It's not making a claim about anybody that doesn't fall into that category.

Does that help you comprehend what that word means, or do you need me to try it a bit slower?

(10-02-2015, 02:33 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Oh, extremism, another tactic of the liberal mind.

I was just asking a question based on your post. I was curious if women should just expect to be raped if they walk down a street where a prior rape occurred since you insinuated that the rich people were "asking for it" by driving their nice car in a neighborhood with an increased crime rate.

Should I just assume all conservatives are too dumb to intelligently respond to a question and actually comprehend what's being asked? I won't, because I'm not going to generalize everyone due to a handful of dingleberries.

[*Nately120*]

(10-02-2015, 02:41 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: exclusion.  You guys are the textbook. 

Ok, you're right.  We are all a bunch of idiotic liberal d-bags who worship Obama and want to take your gun and all that other crap you are saying.  You're right.  So don't you have something better to do than argue with idiotic liberals on the other side of the earth?  Beat it and let us get back to doing our own stupid liberal thing.

Go somewhere where your genius viewpoint is lauded, rather than detail our discussions.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-02-2015, 02:40 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Irrelevant, but yes, that is me with the camo hat and the AK, I climbed the mountain that was close to my compound that day.  Talk about an exhilarating experience.  I saw all of Kabul that day.

Trust me when I say it's completely relevant and makes perfect sense. I'm sure the view of Kabul was pretty neat though.  I spent my 21st birthday in Aksaz Karaagac Turkey...good times.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-02-2015, 02:44 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: If I get banned, then I will know why.  This assumption that I am someone else.  That and the fact that I don't share the groups beliefs. 

You're awfully paranoid, I was genuinely asking about Jake.  There are plenty of conservatives on this board who don't need to worry about getting banned. Trust me "liberals" don't have the market cornered.

[Belsnickel]

(10-02-2015, 02:36 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: That's hilarious, I didn't even realize jake was gone. Did he get banned or something?

No, he just hasn't posted since 11 September it seems.

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-02-2015, 12:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is a breakdown in logic here, and it is definitely not on my end. I have to say, your argumentative style and preferred logical fallacies seem oddly familiar.

This is the dude that had an picture of him doing a pushup with his girlfriend sitting on his back when he used to post on the mother ship.  I can't remember his name there.

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2015, 02:32 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: You quote, is calling people who generalize idiots.  Thus it is also a generalization.  Hence the irony that was lost on you.

Actually this is not a generalization.  It is stating a direct correlation.  

A generalization is when you try to apply a characteristic to an entire group that is not related to the group definition.  However in this case I think every agrees that it is stupid to make generalizations.

Now here is a little test to see if you understand.  can you pick out the generalization......

1.  "All people who punch babies in the face are mean."

2.  "All conservatives are mean."  




Now that you understand the correct definition of "generalization" do you agree that it is stupid to make generalizations, or do you think it is perfectly okay?

[Belsnickel]

(10-02-2015, 02:55 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: This is the dude that had an picture of him doing a pushup with his girlfriend sitting on his back when he used to post on the mother ship.  I can't remember his name there.

That would explain it. Was that jasonew6 or whatever?

[djs7685]

(10-02-2015, 02:55 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: This is the dude that had an picture of him doing a pushup with his girlfriend sitting on his back when he used to post on the mother ship.  I can't remember his name there.

"Cincy's Best"

That fool used to get thrashed in JN by quite a few people

I'm not surprised to see that he posts in PnR in this manner, not surprised one bit. I am, however, surprised that there's an adult that argues politics and doesn't understand what the term "generalization" means. That's mind boggling.

[Belsnickel]

(10-02-2015, 02:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually this is not a generalization.  It is stating a direct correlation.  

A generalization is when you try to apply a characteristic to an entire group that is not related to the group definition.  However in this case I think every agrees that it is stupid to make generalizations.

Now here is a little test to see if you understand.  can you pick out the generalization......

1.  "All people who punch babies in the face are mean."

2.  "All conservatives are mean."  

Now that you understand the correct definition of "generalization" do you agree that it is stupid to make generalizations, or do you think it is perfectly okay?

Aren't they the same thing?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-02-2015, 02:59 PM)djs7685 Wrote: "Cincy's Best"

That fool used to get thrashed in JN by quite a few people

I'm not surprised to see that he posts in PnR in this manner, not surprised one bit. I am, however, surprised that there's an adult that argues politics and doesn't understand what the term "generalization" means. That's mind boggling.

Ding ding...That's the one.

Had all the same rhetoric using the same vernacular and sentence structures.

[Belsnickel]

(10-02-2015, 02:59 PM)djs7685 Wrote: "Cincy's Best"

That fool used to get thrashed in JN by quite a few people

I'm not surprised to see that he posts in PnR in this manner, not surprised one bit. I am, however, surprised that there's an adult that argues politics and doesn't understand what the term "generalization" means. That's mind boggling.

That's it! I don't know why I thought it was Jason. It's bad that my memory is that bad. I just turned thirty for crying out loud.

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-02-2015, 03:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Aren't they the same thing?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Not really...I mean, punching a baby in the face would be a clear indication of meanness. 

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2015, 02:23 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: You do realize men are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than women?  Not just rape, but assaults, armed robbery and yes even death.

Men and women are allowed to go out at night.  However, there is no guaranteeing that they will be safe when they do so. 

If the rich person decided to drive their car in a crime infested neighborhood, do you think that rich person did everything they could to not be carjacked?

Okay, this is kind of a good start to a serious grown-up conversation, but you didn't exactly say what women should be required to do to avoid being raped.  That was the question I was asking.  Where specifically do we draw the line?

i don't think anyone here would disagree with the idea that a college girl should go out and get passing out drunk by herself.  Not that she should be blamed if she gets raped, but she should still be required to take some reasonable precautions.  For example I don't blame a person who gets killed when another driver strikes his car, but I still think it is a good idea for every driver to wear seatbelts to protect them from the acts of others.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-02-2015, 02:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, he just hasn't posted since 11 September it seems.

Interesting, I do hope Jake's OK

(10-02-2015, 02:55 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: This is the dude that had an picture of him doing a pushup with his girlfriend sitting on his back when he used to post on the mother ship.  I can't remember his name there.

Shit I forgot about that guy, and forget his name too.

[Sovereign Nation]

(10-02-2015, 02:44 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Whoa, whoa, whoa, back it up.

How in the hell is that picture generalizing? Are you aware of what "generalizing" means?? Apparently not.

Generalizing is saying something like "all liberals think that guns should be banned!" just because 1 liberal you spoke with feels that way. That's generalizing. Not every liberal feels that way, yet you're labeling an entire group of people by the opinion of very few.

Saying that "people who generalize are idiots" isn't generalizing, because it's flat out saying that IF you generalize, then you're an idiot. It's not making a claim about anybody that doesn't fall into that category.

Does that help you comprehend what that word means, or do you need me to try it a bit slower?


I was just asking a question based on your post. I was curious if women should just expect to be raped if they walk down a street where a prior rape occurred since you insinuated that the rich people were "asking for it" by driving their nice car in a neighborhood with an increased crime rate.

Should I just assume all conservatives are too dumb to intelligently respond to a question and actually comprehend what's being asked? I won't, because I'm not going to generalize everyone due to a handful of dingleberries.

lol.  Your ability to grasp irony is about as good as your ability to understand football. 

You were using extremism to try and prove a point that a woman shouldn't be held responsible for her actions.

A rich person who is driving through a crime infested neighborhood and is carjacked wouldn't be given any sympathy.  So why should anyone feel sympathy for some woman that decided to walk home in a crime infested neighborhood?

Let me ask you, do you think Bergdahl was blameless for his capture?

[Sovereign Nation]

(10-02-2015, 02:59 PM)djs7685 Wrote: "Cincy's Best"

That fool used to get thrashed in JN by quite a few people

I'm not surprised to see that he posts in PnR in this manner, not surprised one bit. I am, however, surprised that there's an adult that argues politics and doesn't understand what the term "generalization" means. That's mind boggling.

You are the fool that didn't understand football. 

[djs7685]

(10-02-2015, 03:06 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: lol.  Your ability to grasp irony is about as good as your ability to understand football. 

You were using extremism to try and prove a point that a woman shouldn't be held responsible for her actions.

A rich person who is driving through a crime infested neighborhood and is carjacked wouldn't be given any sympathy.  So why should anyone feel sympathy for some woman that decided to walk home in a crime infested neighborhood?

Let me ask you, do you think Bergdahl was blameless for his capture?

Ummm...no. I was making a point that women shouldn't be held responsible when they get sexually assaulted. Holy shit, "their actions", are you serious right now???

I was asking a real question. Fred brought up some good points and I was elaborating, I wanted to know how exactly you want to walk the line of what a woman should/shouldn't do to avoid being raped, so I asked a simple question that should have been able to have a simple answer.

Should a woman avoid walking on streets where rape has previously occurred in the last year? What about 3 years? Where's the line?

This is an honest question, no need to go full douche mode, bub.

Also, do you still not know what a generalization is? Or are you still completely lost on that one? You keep saying that I have no idea about irony, but there's absolutely nothing ironic about any of this on my end. Are you completely not understanding yet another word?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-02-2015, 02:59 PM)djs7685 Wrote: "Cincy's Best"

That fool used to get thrashed in JN by quite a few people

I'm not surprised to see that he posts in PnR in this manner, not surprised one bit. I am, however, surprised that there's an adult that argues politics and doesn't understand what the term "generalization" means. That's mind boggling.

(10-02-2015, 03:01 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Ding ding...That's the one.

Had all the same rhetoric using the same vernacular and sentence structures.

(10-02-2015, 03:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's it! I don't know why I thought it was Jason. It's bad that my memory is that bad. I just turned thirty for crying out loud.

Ahhhhhh...Yes Cincy's Best.  Dude was a tool.

Edit: "is"

[djs7685]

(10-02-2015, 03:10 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Ahhhhhh...Yes Cincy's Best.  Dude was is a tool.

FIFY