# Scary...



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

https://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201503/mens-rights-activism-the-red-pill?currentPage=1

Don't get me wrong, I think there are indeed some unfair double standards against men. But these kind of guys have always scared me.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

A legitimate topic for discussion, but I agree, it needs to be approached very delicately, carefully and thoughtfully. 

There is indeed a double standard. Fair? Nope! But few things in life ever are.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Jovan said:


> https://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201503/mens-rights-activism-the-red-pill?currentPage=1
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think there are indeed some unfair double standards against men. But these kind of guys have always scared me.


A bit radical but I agree with the idea....

Men are quite often given the short end of the stick when it comes to divorce, alimony, child custody,child support, domestic violence issues, etc... Especially in the u.s.a.

As women are equal to men by law , we can also accept that their actions are just as criminal as those of men... Cops giving crying women a break on traffic violations is nothing less than sexism...

And there is no need to approach it delicately...Abuse is abuse....Discrimination is discrimination... Sexism goes both ways... and prejudice is not exclusive to white male christiians

Accepting double standards is nothing but sexist cr*p.

Saying things aren't fair is a favorite of those that have never experienced being discriminated against.... And life isn't fair thanks to such idiots. doing things "thoughfully" is nothing but an excuse for not doing anthing at all.

And the whole topic just reeks of....Certain groups of people getting an advantage over others.... I call it discrimination.... the righties call it reverse discrimination.... and the lefties wrongly call it reverse revers discrimination... geesh..."American standards" wil be the death of us all.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> A legitimate topic for discussion, but I agree, it needs to be approached very delicately, carefully and thoughtfully.
> 
> There is indeed a double standard. Fair? Nope! But few things in life ever are.


You agree with what? Nobody here actually said anything as to approaching the topic "delicately, carefully, or thoughtfully".... Nor does the article... So....You agreee with yourself ?

And here you are advocating that a double standard, while not fair, is acceptable due to other unfairnesses? cough. cough. bs. Do you take the same point of view as to giving advantages in university admissions and hiring to those of other special interests?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I'm not going to take the time to find out for sure, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is a made-up article with made-up people and a made-up movement. Just doesn't sound real to me, and the photos also look staged and phony. And if it is real, I think it's ridiculous.

Do men get screwed over at times? You bet. So do women. It's called life, and life isn't always fair. If this is, in fact, real, it only shows that the depths of human silliness are even deeper than I had imagined.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> I'm not going to take the time to find out for sure, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is a made-up article with made-up people and a made-up movement. Just doesn't sound real to me, and the photos also look staged and phony. And if it is real, I think it's ridiculous.
> 
> Do men get screwed over at times? You bet. So do women. It's called life, and life isn't always fair. If this is, in fact, real, it only shows that the depths of human silliness are even deeper than I had imagined.


so life is life and I can use the "N"* word as much as I like in the most racist manner I like without issue? Because life isn't fair?

And yes... Men's movements are quite real... Men are tired of having their children given to women over non-realistic sexist crap such as "women know naturally how to raise kids". Men are tired of paying mooching women half their salaries for doing nothing more than being there for looks. Equal is equal.... right?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> *so life is life and I can use the "N"* word as much as I like in the most racist manner I like without issue?* Because life isn't fair?
> 
> And yes... Men's movements are quite real... Men are tired of having their children given to women over non-realistic sexist crap such as "women know naturally how to raise kids". Men are tired of paying mooching women half their salaries for doing nothing more than being there for looks.


Actually, you can. It's called the First Amendment. Whether someone chooses to do so and suffer the consequences of telling the world that they are a racist ass is their business and no one else's. It isn't illegal.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Actually, you can. It's called the First Amendment. Whether someone chooses to do so and suffer the consequences of telling the world that they are a racist ass is their business and no one else's. It isn't illegal.


But in the end their is no real excuse as to racism... or sexism... from either side of the debate....

That you allow women to get away with bs becaue they are women is no more right than allowing men to do the same. or whites to do the same. or blacks to do the same. or chinese to do the same. or straights to do the same...or gays to do the same. or...or... or...

equal is equal.... "life's not fair" isn't an excuse for most communities so why allow it to be an excuse to be prejudiced against any community (even men)?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Men love their children too.

Men are often better at parenting than women..

Men are often discriminated against in u.s. courts due to old school reasoning ...

Men rarely get custody...Why? We're all equal nowadays aren't we?

While women experience the brunt of physical abuse.. Men are much more the subject to verbal and psychologial abuse (leading often to physical abuse)...

I don't claim that all men are perfect...But let's not claim all women are either...

But "life's not fair" is a valid excuse?

As for me... I don't care if you're male, female, transgender, christian, jew, muslim, hindu, black, white, yellow, green, asian, american, european, african, green eyed, blue eyed, Brown eyed, hazel eyed, straight, gay, bi, tri, American indian, actual Indian, ...Just shut the F*** up and get in line... You are no different and deserve no further rights than anyone else in the same line...

Bias based on religion, race, sex, sexual preference, etc. is bias no matter what side of the coin....


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Actually, my wife, a Social worker, says that most domestic abuse, physical, mental, or emotional, of children or of partners, is carried out by women. Yet the popular assumption is that men are responsible for most physical abuse, even though they're not.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Men love their children too.
> 
> Men are often better at parenting than women..
> 
> ...


I'm not sure that I agree with this entirely.

People who come from different backgrounds than me are inherently different than me and, because of this, tend to have had different life experiences than me. Not surprisingly, they view the world differently than I view the world. Without using the dreaded "d" word, which I hate, it is good, at least in my line of endeavor, to work alongside people who are different than myself. They bring something to the table that I cannot, no matter how hard I try. They think of things that I would not. So, _all other things being equal_, I would hire a person of color before I would hire a white person. I would also hire a Muslim before hiring a Christian for the same reason. I wouldn't do it to help them, I'd do it because it would benefit me.

The key here is "all other things being equal." I have seen, more than once, people hired for the sake of the "d" word who were not qualified, and that's disastrous, really, for everyone. It helps perpetuate stereotypes, and their lack of ability means that others have to take up the slack and work harder than they otherwise would have to work. Meanwhile, the person in question gets stalled/delayed in their work life. Instead of finding a new line of work that they're good at, they stay for the paycheck in a field where they have no chance of being successful. I recall one case where someone who had absolutely no chance of succeeding kept his job for nearly five years before he was finally let go. He was a nice fellow, but his colleagues had to re-do most everything he did because it simply wasn't up to snuff. I also recall a woman hired about the same time who was extremely talented. A gifted writer, smart, articulate, not afraid to speak forcefully and a hair-do that wasn't like what most people in the office had. And she paid for that hair-do and forthrightness. She was the only person who was given a spelling and grammar test previous to being hired (of course, she passed with flying colors). While the guy who was destined for failure was promoted (it was a case of managers trying to make him someone else's problem, I suspect), she stayed in the same low-totem-pole job for years before she finally got a job elsewhere and went on to great success. I learned a lot from her in terms of considering the perspective of others and questioning stereotypes (most everyone has them, whether they admit/realize it or not) when writing and researching stuff that I would never have learned from a white person.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

I don't know if we as men need a "movement" for equal rights, but things do need to be equal across the board. One thing that bugs me the most is that women fight to do everything that men do, but won't give up advantages they are given in order to do so. (I am going to talior this to myself here for a moment) So women in the military want to be able to join the infantry and have been given that opportunity recently. I have no issue with this. What I have an issue with is that women are given a different standard when it comes to physical fitness tests. They run at a slower pace, do less push ups, and do less sit-ups for their physical fitness test. They want to be treated equal? Same pt tests all around. The excuse is that women don't grow muscle the same way as men so they have a standard that is equal to their body. I don't care! When the bullets are flying and a fellow military member is injured, a women is expected to be able to pick up or drag the other soldier to safety while having 50+ pounds of gear on. That is what the physical fitness test is supposed to gauge. Give women what they want. They want to be treated equal so they should be treated equal across the board. Sorry for the tangent but i felt it was somewhat relevant.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm glad to see that we are having a decent discussion of this topic so far.

This is a controversial topic and could generate some emotions. Please, if someone posts something inappropriate, report it. Please do not start a fight and/or escalate the situation. If there is truly a problem, if you report it, we will analyze it and handle it.

Thank you for your help and your understanding.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Good points. Firefighting might be another example. Not sure about cops. I've known a few cops in my time, and more than one has told me that the best tool a cop has is his/her brain and mouth, which is to say, people skills are crucial. I suspect that female cops might be able to deal more effectively with people in some situations than male cops. Women, I think, can have a certain knack (that's the best word I can think of) that men lack that might be helpful when dealing with victims or witnesses or even certain crooks.



immanuelrx said:


> I don't know if we as men need a "movement" for equal rights, but things do need to be equal across the board. One thing that bugs me the most is that women fight to do everything that men do, but won't give up advantages they are given in order to do so. (I am going to talior this to myself here for a moment) So women in the military want to be able to join the infantry and have been given that opportunity recently. I have no issue with this. What I have an issue with is that women are given a different standard when it comes to physical fitness tests. They run at a slower pace, do less push ups, and do less sit-ups for their physical fitness test. They want to be treated equal? Same pt tests all around. The excuse is that women don't grow muscle the same way as men so they have a standard that is equal to their body. I don't care! When the bullets are flying and a fellow military member is injured, a women is expected to be able to pick up or drag the other soldier to safety while having 50+ pounds of gear on. That is what the physical fitness test is supposed to gauge. Give women what they want. They want to be treated equal so they should be treated equal across the board. Sorry for the tangent but i felt it was somewhat relevant.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Agreed.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> I'm glad to see that we are having a decent discussion of this topic so far.
> 
> This is a controversial topic and could generate some emotions. Please, if someone posts something inappropriate, report it. Please do not start a fight and/or escalate the situation. If there is truly a problem, if you report it, we will analyze it and handle it.
> 
> Thank you for your help and your understanding.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

32rollandrock said:


> I'm not going to take the time to find out for sure, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is a made-up article with made-up people and a made-up movement. Just doesn't sound real to me, and the photos also look staged and phony. And if it is real, I think it's ridiculous.
> 
> Do men get screwed over at times? You bet. So do women. It's called life, and life isn't always fair. If this is, in fact, real, it only shows that the depths of human silliness are even deeper than I had imagined.


It is, in fact, real. I've talked to and dealt with these people before. They are beyond reason.

As for "not going to take the time to find out for sure", why?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Jovan said:


> It is, in fact, real. I've talked to and dealth with these people before. *They are beyond reason*.
> 
> As for "not going to take the time to find out for sure", why?


This seemed the case from the article you posted. I waste enough time as it is without taking the time to research kooks. Unless and until they move from the fringe, I don't see that they are relevant to anything. I'll take you on your word that they exist. You've always been straight up.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Fair enough. Though you will see a number of these "MRAs" popping up online, actually asserting that men have it worse than women in every way. :-/


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Jovan said:


> Fair enough. Though you will see a number of these "MRAs" popping up online, actually asserting that men have it worse than women in every way. :-/


They should try childbirth.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> They should try childbirth.


32 rnr my friend, you _always_ take the female side. :rolleyes2:


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

immanuelrx said:


> I don't know if we as men need a "movement" for equal rights, but things do need to be equal across the board. One thing that bugs me the most is that women fight to do everything that men do, but won't give up advantages they are given in order to do so. (I am going to talior this to myself here for a moment) So women in the military want to be able to join the infantry and have been given that opportunity recently. I have no issue with this. What I have an issue with is that women are given a different standard when it comes to physical fitness tests. They run at a slower pace, do less push ups, and do less sit-ups for their physical fitness test. They want to be treated equal? Same pt tests all around. The excuse is that women don't grow muscle the same way as men so they have a standard that is equal to their body. I don't care! When the bullets are flying and a fellow military member is injured, a women is expected to be able to pick up or drag the other soldier to safety while having 50+ pounds of gear on. That is what the physical fitness test is supposed to gauge. Give women what they want. They want to be treated equal so they should be treated equal across the board. Sorry for the tangent but i felt it was somewhat relevant.


Excellent example.... And for light infantry 50 lbs of gear is nothing. A gunnner carries a 25 lb M60. An asst gunner carries 25 lbs of gear (tripod, pintle, t&e, etc). Thats without the boxes of belted ammo and the personal gear need for a field problem. A SAW gunner carries close to the same given the required ammo load... And the Mortar platoon? I'm not sure what the tubes and bases weigh, but I was happy enough to be a gunner and asst gunner over mortars any day...

Riflemen & Grenadiers were usually those that had more seniority and more responsibilities as to leading the platoon-.

Now for a woman joing the infantry..... not only are there less demands as to being physically prepared....but... Will we also see bias as to the positions they play? Will they have to be gunners and asst gunners just like the rest of the newbie`s? Can they carry their Ruck over 12 miles as an AG (in all conditions such a tangled woods during night missions, etc) or will someone else have to pick up the slack? For certain miltary schools (i.e. air asault)we needed to do a 12 mile march with fully loaded packs within a certain time limit....Will the same standards apply to females? Or can they pass a military class with a lesser standard?

I am curious as to how many women will actually join a MOS such as 11B and I am quite cautious as to how fast they'll advance due to being "a minority" (promoting women over men because they are females in a majority male MOS)


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Fair enough. Though you will see a number of these "MRAs" popping up online, actually asserting that men have it worse than women in every way. :-/


And most feminst groups claim what? While both sides are guilty of exaggeration, I don't see the same level of exaggerations when it comes to most men's movements. Most men's movement come from asking for equal rights in divorce and custody cases....We often hear the false claims that 60% of campus girls are assaulted...rarely do we hear of the straight forward governement statistics showing that more than 80% of custody cases are pretty much automatically tossed to women.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

All's fair...

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...istics-dont-back-up-claims-about-rape-culture


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> This seemed the case from the article you posted. I waste enough time as it is without taking the time to research kooks. Unless and until they move from the fringe, I don't see that they are relevant to anything. I'll take you on your word that they exist. You've always been straight up.


One line made the article worth the read...

"You can't fight titty hall,"


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> They should try childbirth.


I have. My wife has had two children, and I found the experience to not be as traumatic as people told me it would be.......


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Women who dole out the "childbirth" card in arguments should try kidney stones, then they would stop bleating about how painful childbirth is!


Ah, but childbirth is, really, the man's fault. After all, women would not find themselves in that situation absent men. I'm just sayin'.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Shaver said:


> 32 rnr my friend, you _always_ take the female side. :rolleyes2:


Not always. But, really, sometimes I think certain men need to grow a pair. Listening to men whine about being victimized gets real old real fast, at least to me.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Ah, but childbirth is, really, the man's fault. After all, women would not find themselves in that situation absent men. I'm just sayin'.


BS. There is no such thing as immaculate conception. And contrary to any fairy tales, there never has been. It takes 2 to tango.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> Ah, but childbirth is, really, the man's fault. After all, women would not find themselves in that situation absent men. I'm just sayin'.


You're at it *again!!!*


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Nonsense! What about all the lesbian couples and single women who go the artififical insemination route? Theres was no man involved there dipping his lolly in the honeypot!


Well, how do lesbian couples and single women gather the product? It does not fall from the sky. Somewhere along the way, a man gave it up. Whether he did it for money or did it because he was asked, at the end of the day, he did it nonetheless, which makes him culpable. Now, I suppose that it is possible that he could have been coerced at gunpoint, that it was a matter of theft, even rape. They do this sort of thing with deer and bulls and other animals that are incapacitated and then, well, it is an ugly, terrible thing that happens next. I make it a habit to avoid lesbian couples and single women with certain gleams in their eye. You can spot them a mile away, and I do not want what has happened to so many others to happen to me.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Not always. But, really, sometimes I think certain men need to grow a pair. Listening to men whine about being victimized gets real old real fast, at least to me.





32rollandrock said:


> Ah, but childbirth is, really, the man's fault. After all, women would not find themselves in that situation absent men. I'm just sayin'.


And listening to men whine about women being victimized gets real old real fast, at least to me.

That you wrote those 2 within a a minute of each other without understanding their connection is simply amazing....


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

^^

I'm not whining about anything.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> BS. There is no such thing as* immaculate conception*. And contrary to any fairy tales, there never has been. It takes 2 to tango.


I'm just wondering if you understand what the immaculate conception was?

The immaculate conception refers to the conception of Mary, Mother of God, free from original sin. In this way, she was able to conceive within her womb the Son of God.

The immaculate conception does not, as you've erroneously assumed, refer to the conception of Jesus. But then, you don't believe in original sin so I suppose you really have no business referencing the immaculate conception.

I'd suggest the next time you try to reference religious thought, you should perhaps do your homework and at the very least, get your facts straight.

My work here is done.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> Actually, you can. It's called the First Amendment. Whether someone chooses to do so and suffer the consequences of telling the world that they are a racist ass is their business and no one else's. It isn't illegal.


Just a minor digression, but the First Amendment isn't applicable here, as it isn't in so many cases that somehow become labeled as "First Amendment issues"...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Huh? Are you suggesting that people don't have the legal right to use racial slurs? If not, what are you suggesting? I am not suggesting that I would use a racial slur, just for the record, but I am unaware of anyone being prosecuted for doing same. Again, I am confused by what you are trying to say here.



Tiger said:


> Just a minor digression, but the First Amendment isn't applicable here, as it isn't in so many cases that somehow become labeled as "First Amendment issues"...


----------



## sbdivemaster (Nov 13, 2011)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Women who dole out the "childbirth" card in arguments should try kidney stones, then they would stop bleating about how painful childbirth is!


Ever had a pilonidal abscess?

https://pilonidal.org

Friend of my wife, with three kids, said she'd give birth every year, if she was guaranteed to never have another pilonidal abscess.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

justonemore said:


> And listening to men whine about women being victimized gets real old real fast, at least to me.
> 
> That you wrote those 2 within a a minute of each other without understanding their connection is simply amazing....


+1....
There's nothing I detest more than male feminists. The fact that female masculinists don't exist validates on its own the worth of the article.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> ^^
> 
> I'm not whining about anything.


eeer...yes you are...you've taken what was a lighthearted thread and turned it into a feminist rant. Thank you Susan!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> THANK YOU.....I can't tell you the number of times I've had to educate atheists and protestants on this!


I've known plenty of Catholics who got it wrong as well so I'm not sure you're finger pointing is quite spot on.....



SG_67 said:


> I'm just wondering if you understand what the immaculate conception was?
> 
> The immaculate conception refers to the conception of Mary, Mother of God, free from original sin. In this way, she was able to conceive within her womb the Son of God.
> 
> ...


So being hokus pokused into existence without original or personal sin has nothing to do with the topic? According to you? What I referenced was valid...It was you that assumed I was referencing it incorrectly....

I don't believe in any hocus pocus yet demand my birthright as an American to be critical of it all. Welcome to the U.S. my friend... We have no set religion and we have a right to be critical of what we want (be it right or wrong from your personal point of view). You telling me that I can't do so is no different from the muslims trying to tell me not to do so...

If either of you could show me the modern day version of this, I would be more than happy to agree with 32rnr that women are in no way responsible when it comes to pregnancy... ANything at all as to any modern women being born without *original or personal sin"? Anything? Anything at all? Just one example?

And following that... Yes... The virginal conception just falls in line as to more hocus pokus allowing that only a man is at fault... The woman did nothing...so pure... so innocent...born of the immaculate conception as a preface to the vigin conception....In mythology gods disguised as swans mated with human females.....Which I find more believeable compared to such hocus pokus as stated here....

>Either way.... Only when a god (or other violator) is involved is a woman not at least somewhat at fault with her becoming pregnant.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

sbdivemaster said:


> Ever had a pilonidal abscess?
> 
> https://pilonidal.org
> 
> ...


No, but it sounds painful.

I was in the staff room once when a woman started going on about childbirth to a few men and another woman had much the same response when she said, "I'd rather give birth every day than have kidney stones again"

I have never experienced such pain before in my life, I've been stabbed and shot, had broken bones and knocked out and run over by a car but none of those come even remotely close to the pain of a a kidney stone.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> How can that be possibly true, if you have only just found out yourself that you were wrong, when SG67 pointed it out to you, then you can't possibly in the past have even spared a moment's reflection on what Catholics were saying about the subject, other than to note that you were wrong...but you didn't which your proved here earlier when you wrote incorrect theology. BUT anyway, I don't for one second believe you have ever even discussed it with any Catholics, because if you had, one of them would have corrected you long ago. I am a Catholic and I have never met a Catholic who doesn't know this.


Because SG points out something he thinks I got wrong doesn't mean that I got it wrong....

As the 2nd "miracle" is hardly beliveable without the first... Why bother to reference the second? Perhaps you and SG are confused as to the order of things?

. and to think that my ex wife was a devoted catholic that even went so far as to attend a catholic university(the old fashion ones where the priests and nuns ran the place) and still got it wrong... lolololololol


----------



## dr.butcher (May 28, 2014)

The thread that keeps on giving! First, the male chauvinists of the manosphere, and now, Catholicism. Thank you Jovan.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

dr.butcher said:


> The thread that keeps on giving! First, the male chauvinists of the manosphere, and now, Catholicism. Thank you Jovan.


Shall we assume by your statement that you have nothing to add to the debate but critism?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> No, but it sounds painful.
> 
> I was in the staff room once when a woman started going on about childbirth to a few men and another woman had much the same response when she said, "I'd rather give birth every day than have have kidney stones again"
> 
> I have never experienced such pain before in my life, I've been stabbed and shot, had broken bones and knocked out and run over by a car but none of those come even remotely close to the pain of a a kidney stone.


All interesting points....I would also point out that my wife went through 2 c-sections. While I wouldn't call surgery pleasant in any case, it is not exclusive to females giving birth....


----------



## dr.butcher (May 28, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Shall we assume by your statement that you have nothing to add to the debate but critism?


We shall not.

(a) My comment was not a criticism. I'm not even sure how it can be construed as such.

(b) I have lots to add actually, I even typed-up a few long comments before deciding that I'm here (i.e. AAAC) to talk about clothes, not to discuss politics or religion, and therefore didn't post them. If for no other reason than because when talking about those topics people get all hot under the collar (as your response to my enjoyment of the thread proves) and I've no interest in that.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

dr.butcher said:


> We shall not.
> 
> (a) My comment was not a criticism. I'm not even sure how it can be construed as such.
> 
> (b) I have lots to add actually, I even typed-up a few long comments before deciding that I'm here (i.e. AAAC) to talk about clothes, not to discuss politics or religion, and therefore didn't post them. If for no other reason than because when talking about those topics people get all hot under the collar (as your response to my enjoyment of the thread proves) and I've no interest in that.


Just to let you know.....This is the Interchange and not the clothing forums....We try to avoid politics on the clothing forums and as such, politics are covered here on the interchange. Please go to the clothing forums for clothing related discussions, and the interchange for "society" related discusssions...


----------



## dr.butcher (May 28, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Just to let you know.....This is the Interchange and not the clothing forums....We try to avoid politics on the clothing forums and as such, politics are covered here on the interchange


Yes I am aware of that! I come to the interchange to read about politics and non-clothing topics. Just because I don't want to discuss politics doesn't mean I'm not aware the interchange is for politics. With logic like that no wonder you fellas go in circles. I really really regret expressing my enjoyment at this thread, I'm going to go back to lurking on the interchange and leave you fellas to it.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

dr.butcher said:


> Yes I am aware of that! I come to the interchange to read about politics and non-clothing topics. Just because I don't want to discuss politics doesn't mean I'm not aware the interchange is for politics. With logic like that no wonder you fellas go in circles. I really really regret expressing my enjoyment at this thread, I'm going to go back to lurking on the interchange and leave you fellas to it.


As a globe trotting American Expat living in a country where there are 4 official languages (and many unoffical ones), I am usually quite forgiving of thoughts " lost in translation".... but.... A statement such as.....

" the male chauvinists of the manosphere,"

is a bit beyond what I will accept without questioning the person saying/writing such....

Keep in mind that you also posted this political tidbit on the clothing forum....



dr.butcher said:


> You know what people without ties are? Hippies. Back in the 60s they took their shoes off, but even the shower-hating hippies have sense enough not to do that in a modern city, so instead they loose the ties. Shoe-less hippies had poetry, peyote and a sexual revolution. Tie-less hippies are no different to 'squares' except for the lack of a tie. There's a semblance of philosophy behind their open-collared madness, mostly backed-up by a global degradation of dress standards. A ditto suit is still more formal than a SC and trousers, it's just missing a piece (i.e. a tie). Is a shoe-less suit-wearing executive (with a tie) less formal than a shoe-wearing tie-less man in a SC and trousers? I don't even think it's a question of "formal" or not. The OP's questions is invalid.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> That's exactly what it means. Because you did get it wrong. The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's birth not to the birth of Jesus. And your "it takes two to tango" clearly indicates that you are referring to Mary and Joseph, rather than the miraculous conception of Mary without her mother having had sex! i.e. NO MAN INVOLVED i.e. no tango!
> 
> Also, I'm assuming WAS is the operative word there, for how could she be a devoted Catholic is she is now your ex-wife?


Oddly enough... the definition of catholism seems to change with the times...But again... As all big money business do so.-... it's no shock as to a religion doing so. Gay nuns...married priests...female priests.... divorces... annulements...bread being bread versus the body. Wine being wine versus the blood....etc. etc... They'll all become acceptable as long as the cash flows in....

My example of immaculate conception and women bein g born without sin is much better than the Virgin conception. I used the expample correctly yet you can't seem to admit it. Is god (or his angels or the holy spirit) not to be considered here? Alll usually seen as masculine... right? "god and "woman equals 1+1...which equals 2... 2 to tango...

And yes... being married to a catholic was my idea of hell. after a single year I relaeased her to her god... af ew years later the catholic Church of america agreed with her annulment (change of times hey?).. I can't speak for her or her god, but I am beyond pleased.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> No, you didn't. And you can't admit that you got it wrong.


without the first miracle would the second be acceptable? take it in order... Not as you like.... You and Sg got it wrong.... You assumed something based on your own incorrect order of things.... That has nothing to do with me... Even a basic wikipedia search would show you as tring to divert the order and importance.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Excellent example.... And for light infantry 50 lbs of gear is nothing. A gunnner carries a 25 lb M60. An asst gunner carries 25 lbs of gear (tripod, pintle, t&e, etc). Thats without the boxes of belted ammo and the personal gear need for a field problem. A SAW gunner carries close to the same given the required ammo load... And the Mortar platoon? I'm not sure what the tubes and bases weigh, but I was happy enough to be a gunner and asst gunner over mortars any day...
> 
> Riflemen & Grenadiers were usually those that had more seniority and more responsibilities as to leading the platoon-.


Exactly.
That said, the mortar rounds and ammo belts were divided amongst the Platoon (or Flight in my case - RAF Regiment) they weren't all carried by the 2 man Gun Group. 
Also, in the RAF Regiment each Gunner (infantryman) usually carried up to three 66mm LAW as well. And the Mortar Flight also carried an 84mm Charlie G as well as the 2" & 5" mortars.

Please start a thread on infantry on some forum here.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> None of what you say has anything to do with the Immaculate Conception. You are the one who is getting things mixed up.


Ok.... then please explain how the " Immaculate conception" was not directly related to the "Virgin Conception" ......Could the secondary (Virgin conception) have happened without the primary (immaculate conception)? Honestly? I admit to not being caholic but from my reading..... The Immaculate conception is the primary event which allows further events....The absolvement of all sins allows a virginal conception


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Exactly.
> That said, the mortar rounds and ammo belts were divided amongst the Platoon (or Flight in my case - RAF Regiment) they weren't all carried by the 2 man Gun Group.
> Also, in the RAF Regiment each Gunner (infantryman) usually carried up to three 66mm LAW as well. And the Mortar Flight also carried an 84mm Charlie G as well as the 2" & 5" mortars.
> 
> Please start a thread on infantry on some forum here.


I'll lthink about starting a thread...but you could do so as well. lol.

I always felt sorry for the dragon gunners in Hawaii. These guys were running through guava fields with a 2 metre tubes attached to their backs. As an AG, I felt a bit more comfortable as to my position not being the worst...:eek2:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

But didn't your AG's carry a BAR as well as or rather than an M16? 
Our AG's carried a Bren 7.62 LMG instead of the SLR, which had interchangeable mags with the SLR anyway. Many a RAF Regt Gunner put a curved 30 round Bren mag on his SLR in place of the straight 20 mag.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Exactly.
> That said, the mortar rounds and ammo belts were divided amongst the Platoon (or Flight in my case - RAF Regiment) they weren't all carried by the 2 man Gun Group.
> Also, in the RAF Regiment each Gunner (infantryman) usually carried up to three 66mm LAW as well. And the Mortar Flight also carried an 84mm Charlie G as well as the 2" & 5" mortars.
> 
> Please start a thread on infantry on some forum here.


In my unit, it was seen as being a bit dishonorable to give up your gear and ammo. At one point, I despised my asst gunner (and the feeling was mutual) but we would no less allow gear to be spread out than we would allow actual hrm to come to each other. As a team however, I would give up the gun and carry his ruck if it became too burdensome (and as a team effort, sometimes I would take both..... depending on the newbie assigned to me...)


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> But didn't your AG's carry a BAR as well as or rather than an M16?
> Our AG's carried a Bren 7.62 LMG instead of the SLR, which had interchangeable mags with the SLR anyway. Many a RAF Regt Gunner put a curved 30 round Bren mag on his SLR in place of the straight 20 mag.


It changed right when I joined... The Gunner was issued a sidearm as SOP. We started with colts and then went to Berreta. . AG's carried m16a2s (m16a1s when I first joined). They are 5.56 over 7.62. (we used 30 round mags... 20 rounds were available but never used for some strange reason. lol) AGs also had a choice as to carry a sidearm as well. The problem with carrying a sidearm for an AG was always the extra ammo load/place on the field belt, etc. Pretty much no one decided to carry the extra for field problems. I myself qualified on the Colt and Beretta but never used them in the field. Why bother? In a time of war I'd sure as hell carry one.... but not a peacetime field problem...

In the end...I was a rifleman and squad leader. While I misssed the challenge of carrying the gun and gear,,,The campus and map were a bit friendlier to the shoulders. lol


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Well I had it tough. Sometimes, when I was at stations aft, I had to have my steward bring me my tea/coffee and toast/biscuits on a tray (with a napkin), rather than have them in my cabin or the wardroom. Often I had to carry my sextant out to the bridge wing myself, use it, *and have to put it away again!*


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Well I had it tough. Sometimes, when I was at stations aft, I had to have my steward bring me my tea/coffee and toast/biscuits on a tray (with a napkin), rather than have them in my cabin or the wardroom. Often I had to carry my sextant out to the bridge wing myself, use it, *and have to put it away again!*


Bloody officers, don't you just hate them!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> I've known plenty of Catholics who got it wrong as well so I'm not sure you're finger pointing is quite spot on.....
> 
> So being hokus pokused into existence without original or personal sin has nothing to do with the topic? According to you? What I referenced was valid...It was you that assumed I was referencing it incorrectly....
> 
> ...


My point is not to convince you to change or otherwise alter your views on anything or to justify anything.

I'm merely pointing out your error when you reference the "Immaculate Conception" the way you did. Most people simply accept the correction and move on. Failure to do so betrays a certain density of thought. You're welcome to believe what you believe but you're not welcome to change tenets of Catholic faith and descriptive terms.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> My point is not to convince you to change or otherwise alter your views on anything or to justify anything.
> 
> I'm merely pointing out your error when you reference the "Immaculate Conception" the way you did. Most people simply accept the correction and move on. Failure to do so betrays a certain density of thought. You're welcome to believe what you believe but you're not welcome to change tenets of Catholic faith and descriptive terms.


Indeed. Only the Catholic Church itself can invent and subsequently change basic tenets of faith and doctrine.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Indeed. Only the Catholic Church itself can invent and subsequently change basic tenets of faith and doctrine.


Speaking very narrowly of Immaculate Conception, this has always been the case. I'm simply pointing out that when referencing the Immaculate Conception, one really should at least get the facts straight.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> My point is not to convince you to change or otherwise alter your views on anything or to justify anything.
> 
> I'm merely pointing out your error when you reference the "Immaculate Conception" the way you did. Most people simply accept the correction and move on. Failure to do so betrays a certain density of thought. You're welcome to believe what you believe but you're not welcome to change tenets of Catholic faith and descriptive terms.


One last time... What came first? Underf the whole catholic thing? If the immaculateconception was the first miracle....What order should i have put it in? Why start with the Virgin conception? You thoughts make no sense as a catholic... Are you trying to put the miracles in a different order to suit your arguement?

Oh....Calling other "dense of thought" is a good reason to get censored here... I do hope the Mods will hit you on such....


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> One last time... What came first? Underf the whole catholic thing? If the immaculateconception was the first miracle....What order should i have put it in? Why start with the Virgin conception? You thoughts make no sense as a catholic... Are you trying to put the miracles in a different order to suit your arguement?
> 
> Oh....Calling other "dense of thought" is a good reason to get censored here... I do hope the Mods will hit you on such....


Look, you mischaracterized the concept of the immaculate conception. You can argue until you're blue in the face about the relative merits of it, the catholic faith or all faith for that matter.

What you don't get to do is to attach your own explanation to something when it strays from the accepted and canonical description of an event.

You misrepresented the immaculate conception and you were called out on it. You didn't do your homework and now you're upset that you were caught. No one likes to be caught and embarrassed so I'll chalk up your responses to pride and ego.

You won't get any arguments from me about religion though. Believe what you want and I'll do the same.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I've removed my posts on the Immaculate Conception because I now see that we were arguing about two different things & it just got silly. I've also removed one post in which I used some unnecessarily hard language towards 32rnr....on what should have remained a lighthearted thread.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I've removed my posts on the Immaculate Conception because I now see that we were arguing about two different things & it just got silly. I've also removed one post in which I used some unnecessarily hard language towards 32rnr....on what should have remained a lighthearted thread.


Thank you. We should all be thinking in this same vein. It gets to be a drag. So many times, threads get ruined by folks, and I won't mention any names, who seem more intent on arguing and provoking and saying mean-spirited things than they do in having a serious or humorous discussion. That's the way this thread is headed, and it really is disappointing. We've had some great discussions about all kinds of things. We've had at least as many discussions that get shut down because we can't seem to treat each other with the respect and consideration that everyone deserves. To the extent that I have done this, I apologize.

Now, about kidney stones...

Local case here involved a man who began having a kidney stone attack while dining at a restaurant, or something like that. He managed to call his physician, who had treated him recently (IIRC, it was for stones before they became a problem, but I confess I've forgotten the details) who told him to get to the hospital, where he would be waiting. The guy gets in his car and starts the journey--it wasn't far. He fails to signal a lane change in a traffic ticket mill disguised as a small town and, you guessed it, gets pulled over. He explains the situation to the cop who just doesn't get it. Instead of helping the guy, he takes his license, registration, proof of insurance and heads back to his patrol car to write the citation. In agony, the guy takes off. Cop calls for backup, and here comes a deputy, who blocks the guy's path with his patrol car, forcing him to stop, approaches at gunpoint and handcuffs the guy to his steering wheel, where he remains for something like a half-hour before the fire department finally shows up and takes him to the hospital.

I can only imagine what that must have been like.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

When I had mine, I wasnt even able to drive, I could hardy talk, my wife drove me to the hospital, where instead of waiting for an hour to register and then waiting another hour to be seen by a nurse, amongst about 30 calm, seated, seemingly unsick people, I used my hospital knowledge to my advantage, staggered straight through the registration and waiting rooms, banged loudly on the door into the A & E ward, and said "walking ambulance case" to the male nurse who opened the door, which I staggered through bent double and finally collapsed on the floor and nearly passed out....given morphine through the night...peed out the stone the next day.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

The above case here led to a landmark lawsuit. The guy didn't sue for excessive force--he probably would have lost if he had. Rather, he filed an internal affairs complaint, which resulted in no finding against the deputy, then sued the department when it refused to give him a copy of the IA file showing how the complaint had been handled. He won, and it set a precedent establishing that IA files are public records. Turned out the deputy who detained him at gunpoint had a zillion or so IA complaints against him. He ended up resigning when the files became public.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I'm sorry I even started this thread. It has confirmed my worst fears about The Interchange.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> I'm sorry I even started this thread. It has confirmed my worst fears about The Interchange.


Fears??

Scary??

Buck up Boy!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Jovan said:


> I'm sorry I even started this thread. It has confirmed my worst fears about The Interchange.


My worst fear about the Interchange is that it records what I am thinking about the people who write here!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My worst fear about the Interchange is that it records what I am thinking about the people who write here!


And you know it will eventually end up in the hands of the NSA!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> And you know it will eventually end up in the hands of the NSA!


NSA??? Wimps  It's the NCS and GCHQ I'm worried about


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

32rollandrock said:


> Huh? Are you suggesting that people don't have the legal right to use racial slurs? If not, what are you suggesting? I am not suggesting that I would use a racial slur, just for the record, but I am unaware of anyone being prosecuted for doing same. Again, I am confused by what you are trying to say here.


There are a number of exceptions to the first amendment that date back to the framer's times. "Fighting words" is one of them. I think most judges would consider a majority of the uses of racial slurs to be "fighting words" that lack constitutional protection. Allowing for variations based on local laws, it is probably more or less illegal for you to sit in public and lob racial epithets, or any other insults, at random passerbys. And were you arrested for doing such a thing, you would have no constitutionally based defense.

The first amendment was intended to apply to political speech. It's been interpreted over the years to apply, to lesser extents, to speech with moral, artistic, or otherwise socially beneficial value. But most other speech is essentially unprotected by the first amendment.

I can't believe I'm backing up Tiger on a matter of constitutional law. Maybe there is hope for the world. Even the MRA's.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Fears??
> 
> Scary??
> 
> Buck up Boy!!


Feminism is feminising, clearly. :devil:


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> NSA??? Wimps  It's the NCS and *GCHQ* I'm worried about


I should think, given the purpose of the Ask Andy site and forums, that *GQ* is the entity whose oversight and opprobrium we all ought most to worry about.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

L-feld said:


> There are a number of exceptions to the first amendment that date back to the framer's times. "Fighting words" is one of them. I think most judges would consider a majority of the uses of racial slurs to be "fighting words" that lack constitutional protection. Allowing for variations based on local laws, it is probably more or less illegal for you to sit in public and lob racial epithets, or any other insults, at random passerbys. And were you arrested for doing such a thing, you would have no constitutionally based defense.
> 
> The first amendment was intended to apply to political speech. It's been interpreted over the years to apply, to lesser extents, to speech with moral, artistic, or otherwise socially beneficial value. But most other speech is essentially unprotected by the first amendment.
> 
> ...


Of course there are exceptions, yelling fire in a crowded theater being one. But are you sure it's illegal to use a racial slur in the presence of folks who would be offended? I thought the "fighting words" principle meant that if you do it and get your ass beat, the law won't be there to help you. But could a cop legally arrest you?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> I should think, given the purpose of the Ask Andy site and forums, that *GQ* is the entity whose oversight and opprobrium we all ought most to worry about.


ha ha..very good!


----------

