| Welcome to Coffeetalk. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Dispensing with Falsities | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 13 2007, 08:50 AM (645 Views) | |
| Eral | Feb 13 2007, 08:50 AM Post #1 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
1. No, the boy is happy now. 2. He'll be mangled later, after surgery. And still happy. Not what all of us would want, but there you go. 3. Your use of the term "freak" indicates you have a deep problem with the idea of a male deciding he wants to remove his dick. Seek professional help. 4. Psychiatrists tend to be concerned with their patient's well-being and health. PC doesn't enter into it. 5. Telling people what they are feeling is not healthy is particularly unhelpful to those suffering from mental disturbance. "Well dur," they say. Coming up with ways in which to live with the unhealthy belief and to manage the disturbance tends to prolong life more effectively. 6. Is there any reason you are still going with this? You have already said you don't know how to solve the problem, because you don't have expertise in the area. Let it go. |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Feb 14 2007, 05:15 AM Post #2 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
There's 5 other points you failed to address. I numbered them to make it easy for you to nest-quote. |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Feb 14 2007, 05:42 AM Post #3 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
1. Nit-picking. I forgot to mention that as one of your faults. It occurs to me, I really should find you funnier, given how fond you are of rash generalisations as well. 2. 3. You have already admitted to having a complete lack of taste and no wit. Are you sure you want to confess to inability to discriminate? Did you miss out on kindergarten? It could explain your difficulty sorting and categorising. 4. That's sweet. But I can never be yours. |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Feb 19 2007, 12:48 AM Post #4 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Objections: 1. a whore? Got any stronger offensive term you could employ? 2. The "thinking" (it's a loose term, what can I say?) behind the "women who display their sexuality are whores" is that women must fear men and sexual attack. Any woman who is not modest deserves punishment. 3. A woman displaying her sexuality overtly may be confronting, and you may disapprove. However, it might be more appropos to criticise the environment in which such displays are expected and accepted, indeed, required; rather than personally abusing the woman. 4. Women have had to choose between being "Good" and intellectually stifled and domestically imprisoned, and "Bad" and economically independent for centuries. Funny, so many choose bad and free. 5. We all have hang-ups. Yours are just regular Catholic morality ones. However, some people like looking at pretty young women with nice boobies and bottoms. And some girls like being looked at. You might want to try to sound less like the Taliban. |
![]() |
|
| Joe | Feb 19 2007, 02:16 AM Post #5 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
Why would I choose a more offensive term? My point is not to be offensive; "whore" fits the purposes of this discussion.
1. Define what it means to "display" sexuality. 2. That is not the reasoning I use to say that "whore" is often mistaken for "talent".
Of course the environment is to be criticized; Shakira, however, perpetuates the problem, and is not without blame.
You haven't made a connection here. If "Good"=intellectually stifled and "domestically imprisoned", "Bad" should equal the opposite. It is quite possible for a woman to be intellectually stifled and economically independent. I don't know what period you're trying to identify here, but in the West, women do not typically have to choose between "domestic imprisonment" and economic independence.
The feeling that women are being increasingly objectified is hardly a hang-up. Also, my feelings on this issue are not "just regular Catholic morals", because I'm sure a number of secular "progressives" agree with me on this.
That's what Playboy is for.
So do plenty of guys. Should we really celebrate this kind of egotism?
You might try to sound less ignorant. |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Feb 19 2007, 06:06 AM Post #6 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Joe, when you break it all down into tiny little sentences with replies that are tiny little sentences that don't clarify your point or answer the question, you look very much like a person who is arguing for the sake of it. 1. "Whoring her talent" may be appropriate. "Whore" is abuse. 2. Display sexuality: wear revealing clothes, adopt sultry facial expressions, move in ways that draw attention to the shape of the body. I await your cry of "AHA! Gotcha!" eagerly, because I have no idea why this needs clarification. 3. You are fond of saying "that's not what I meant." Why on earth you don't ever say it, is beyond me. If you don't clarify what you mean, don't bother complaining if we have to assume your meaning. 4. Are we going to use this argument against soldiers? By choosing to fight in wars, they perpetuate wars. The Shak has a choice: play the game their way, or don't play. 'Hmm', says the Shak. 'I wonder what to do. Guess I'll take the fame and money and wiggle my bottom.' Models are not to blame for the unhealthy thinness demanded by the fashion industry. Once music producers and record companies stop demanding bottom wiggling, The Shak won't have to. 5. "The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and "A Room of One's Own" by Virginia Woolf both give very interesting insights into the position of women re. economic independence and domestic imprisonment if you are unclear on the connection I make between "good" and "bad" women. Since women still have to choose between career and motherhood (lara and Regullus can testify to the challenges faced in managing those) I contend that things haven't changed all that much. 6. Were you talking about the objectification of women? I thought you were talking about Shakira being a slut. Two different things. If the Shak is an object of male desire, isn't she then blameless? You called her a whore - which means she is offering herself to male desire, and therefore naughty. Oh, and isn't Playboy about the objectification of women? 7. Mary Wollstonecraft famously wrote that women are taught that their purpose in life is to amuse and entertain men with their looks and charm. Then, men turn around and blame them for vacuity and obsession with their looks. Dale Spender called it "Women are always wrong." 8. I think I'm sounding quite educated. Look at all those big words and quotes from obscure sources. Morality and sexuality are not mutually exclusive: unless you are really religious. |
![]() |
|
| Joe | Feb 19 2007, 07:03 AM Post #7 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
Different points require their own responses.
If she was whoring her talent, she'd be working for much less than she deserves. I'm quite sure this isn't the case. To whore one's talent has nothing to do with sexuality. Why is it abusive to call her whorish? I can't identify her by the way she *chooses* to present herself?
These things are appropriate to push on children?
You told me what my reasoning was for my argument, and you find it worth noting that I said that is not, in fact, the reasoning I used to arrive at the conclusion that I have? What the fuck is wrong with you?
What a bullshit analogy. No logical comparison can be made between military employment and the music industry.
And she should be commended for this? She ought to let her singing stand by itself. And by the way, she does much more than wiggle her bottom.
They could choose not to be models, but I agree that most of the burden is on the industry. However, the unfortunate thinness of those models is a different problem than the one that Shakira makes obvious.
I don't see how she's doing anything she wouldn't do on her own.
Society today is nothing like it was when those two women were alive. Nothing. What is wrong with having to choose between a career and motherhood? Will you only be satisfied when we have robots capable of raising our children for us?
I don't know if she's a slut, but she sure looks like one. Believe it or not, the two are connected. Young girls should see that her singing is her talent. Shakira is just one of many people who go on TV dressed as strumpets or write songs wit sexual themes inappropriate for young listeners. Sexuality is cheapened by these displays when it should be held to have the most priceless quality.
How does offering one's self to male desire equal blamelessness?
Yes, it is very much so, but for now it's hardly the problem that Shakira represents. And it's a slightly different problem: Playboy is for men, Shakira really is not. I guarantee you she sells more CDs to females than she does to males.
The problem is that not all men are the same, not all are so schizophrenic. But I have already agreed that men are a large part of this problem.
Well you're not. |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Feb 20 2007, 12:25 AM Post #8 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Joe, you are doing tiny little sentences again, and still not answering questions or explaining yourself. You are arguing for the sake of it. Trolling. You feel clever, and enjoy your grandiose commentary, but it's not discussion. It's a pointless sound bite.
This is meaningless. Do you mean "I use different responses to different points"? I wish you would. All we get is empty posturing. Trolling. Why is it abusive to call someone a whore? You're asking me to explain? Get over yourself. You know exactly why the term is abusive. Instead of using dramatic turns of phrase that you know are unacceptable, describe your real concern. Open for discussion, not pontification. Stop trolling. Excuse me? Where do I say display of sexuality is appropriate viewing for children? Again, you shift ground when you can't answer a point, or have to concede. If your concern is the inappropriateness of such images for young children (and I'm so pleased to find you being rational) then say so. Don't bother with the offensive remarks like "whore." Stop trolling. Again, you're swearing. Why get so cross? Why do you enter into discussion, only to lose it ? It's a bullying tactic, and particularly ineffective against anyone who has seen it more than twice. You didn't say what your belief was. You left it to be interpreted. Then you say, "That's not what I meant." Why aren't you saying what you do mean? What is wrong with you? I realise you expect me to ask you, but why I don't know. Stop trolling. Why is it a bullshit analogy? (I knew I'd get you with that.) If nobody went to war, there be no war. If nobody agreed to wiggle their bottom, there'd be no bottom wiggling. To blame soldiers for having to shoot people is wrong. To blame Shakira for wiggling her bottom is also wrong. You see, it's an argument. You're supposed to show there is no logical comparison. But you don't. You just dismiss it. Trolling. Am I commending The Shak? No. Again, you fail to address the question of what choices she has. Trolling. If the thinness of models is different to the image Shakira presents, explain how. See how unsatisfactory your response is? You're this close to a real discussion, and you bail. Why? The question we were discussing was economic independence vs domestic imprisonment. I even gave you an obvious start by using the word "imprisonment", which is so inflammatory and open to a clear win from the opposing side. Again, you make a statement, which you leave to stand alone with no evidence to support it. What are you doing? Trolling. Now we finally come to some discussion. If you don't mind, I'm going to start a thread for this, because I don't want it to have to wade through your trolling to get to it.
You really can do better than this. Trolling. |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Mar 2 2007, 07:51 AM Post #9 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
1. "Egotism is wrong" is straight from the "How to Hate Yourself" handbook every Catholic is given at birth. To have self-esteem and a sense of individuality is not wrong. 2. The woman displaying herself may NOT be doing so out of selfishness or extreme conceit, and therefore NOT doing anything wrong. 3. Women working in the pornography industry are not there because of their huge egos. They are working and earning a living. Men don't have to masturbate over their pictures. But they want to, and that's why there is a porn industry. 4. Displaying yourself is only egotism if you do it out of selfishness or extreme conceit. (See Paris Hilton. Though it's just as likely she has a lot of problems with sense of identity and self-esteem, and her displays are desperate attempts to find herself, which is very very sad.) 5. Women have been put on display for centuries. The purpose of Renaissance nudes was so men could look at nudie girls. Your suggestion that the purpose to which the nudie picture is put is somehow the responsibility of the woman who poses is ridiculous. “I’m sorry, I won’t be able to pose for this calendar if anyone is going to drop their daks and have a tug on seeing it.” See 3. |
![]() |
|
| Eral | May 14 2007, 07:44 AM Post #10 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
A piece of shit? Oh no! I am much more interesting and funny than that. Would that the same could be said for you. You should really do some anger management: I've been really quite lovely to you in that thread, and yet here you are descending to abuse. Unimaginative abuse, too. Am I meant to be intimidated? Well I'm not. Is it just you expressing your wounded feelings? Can't you do that more amusingly? I believe we have spoken about your use of bad language. I believe we have established that you should fuck off somewhere else if you can't keep a civil tongue in your keyboard. If you already know that you must be on your guard to prevent any pain or mess, why bother asking the question in the first place? And why are you continuing to answer questions with questions? You're a terrible conversationalist. You know zip. Nada. The Big Zero. Same as anyone else. 20 years from now you won't know either, but if you have acquired any sense it won't bother you. Jumping is dangerous because you might get hurt: but standing behind barricades means you don't feel anything. You can't plan for every eventuality. You cannot organise your life to avoid pain or emotion. You are not strong when you try to: you are crippling yourself. |
![]() |
|
| Drew | May 17 2007, 05:29 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Apparently not Cybersquirt's favorite person
|
I think what Joe meant to say is that you are a hilarious piece of shit that smells like Roses and tastes like that crappy stuff you Australians put on your sandwiches that everyone else in the world thinks tastes like shit but you Australians think tastes like something from Mount Olympus. |
| Poor baby. Couldn't find a fight anywhere else so you had to come here, huh. -Cyber. | |
![]() |
|
| Joe | May 17 2007, 10:35 PM Post #12 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
I assure you there was no such nuance. |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | May 18 2007, 07:20 AM Post #13 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
No, Joe: of course not. That would have been funny. Aren't you due at PPG to bully some unsuspecting woman? Shouldn't you go practice your single sentence replies and question formats? Make sure you're not saying anything original. Thank you Drew. :lol: Vegiemite. It's not so much we think it tastes great, it's more we've all been conditioned to eat it. And it has so much salt, we are addicted to it quickly. I actually wonder why Australians have never taken out a class action over it. |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | May 18 2007, 09:17 AM Post #14 |
|
I haz powah!
|
We have the equally disgusting Marmite here - yeast extract. The advertising slogan is "You either love it or you hate it". I am in the latter category, because it is vile.
|
![]() |
|
| Eral | May 18 2007, 11:03 AM Post #15 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Marmite tastes even worse: hardened Vegiemite eaters turn pale at the thought of Marmite. I think it is beef extract. Vegemite is yeast extract. My brother is a Marmite fan. :o |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | May 18 2007, 11:13 AM Post #16 |
|
I haz powah!
|
No, marmite is yeast extract, maybe you were thinking of bovril |
![]() |
|
| Blood_Raven | May 18 2007, 12:52 PM Post #17 |
![]()
Come burn with me.
|
Not many women, or people in general hang out at PPGs "chat" forum. |
|
TheFrozen North forums. Where it's at. Mood for today: Perfection | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | May 18 2007, 11:24 PM Post #18 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Yes, that's because of the tendency for interesting subjects to end up with a lock on them. And because Joe has a frightfully bad habit of jumping all over anyone who disagrees with him with tired putdowns and boring bad language. My last few months at EFCB live in my memory as marred by his pissy argumentativeness and a thread about his dick. At least here I can say what I think of that. Krazy: you are definitely right about Bovril. Another foul substance I am familiar with - thanks Dad. :rolleyes: But when I was trying to figure out what is in Marmite that my brother likes, I found that according to the jar it has some beef extract in it too. It is my belief that Vegiemite is all yeast extract and salt, and that is the difference. I think. Hmm. New research. :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | May 19 2007, 07:30 AM Post #19 |
|
I haz powah!
|
The Marmite here is suitable for vegetarians, so it must be a different recipe to the Australian one. |
![]() |
|
| Bex | May 19 2007, 05:23 PM Post #20 |
|
puppet dictator
|
Yeah, the imported Marmite here is vegan-friendly. My friend Clayton bought a jar once, but thought it was actually pretty gross. Justin kinda liked it though. Maybe it depends how much you like salt. |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | May 19 2007, 11:52 PM Post #21 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
from Wiki:
There you go. |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | May 20 2007, 01:50 PM Post #22 |
|
Reliant
|
EFCB.
:'( Well, at least we can say we knew it when. Everybody else gets to say things like, "Remember when Ken invited jc out to lunch?" and we can say, "Remember when EFCB had that rollicking pedophillia thread started by ice?" To think we drove St. Jo away. Not Bex, of course, the rest of us.I still miss EFCB.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | May 21 2007, 07:37 AM Post #23 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Ah, the paedophilia thread. That was a goodie. Those days of starting a thread and never knowing how it would turn out. The hijackings, the in-jokes, the promotion of blather. Yes, it was good. Neither you or Bex were responsible for St. :'( Jo washing her hands of us. Let those of us who deserve blame accept responsibility. You and Bex can stand around looking righteous. :lol: I miss jester. |
![]() |
|
| Blood_Raven | May 31 2007, 12:30 AM Post #24 |
![]()
Come burn with me.
|
EFCB good times, good times. Now that place is dead. RIP :'( |
|
TheFrozen North forums. Where it's at. Mood for today: Perfection | |
![]() |
|
| Bex | Jun 2 2007, 09:40 PM Post #25 |
|
puppet dictator
|
I do so enjoy thread hijackings. For example, this thread has taken an enjoyable detour into marmite. Bex-obsession Patrick Wolf on marmite (and other stuff): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xk10THS02g |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Table 32 · Next Topic » |








Not Bex, of course, the rest of us.
That was a goodie.
The hijackings, the in-jokes, the promotion of blather. Yes, it was good.

8:54 AM Jul 11