09 February 2010

For Your Amusement indeed

Lady Raine has a blog post entitled "For Your Amusement" which is basically a misandrist dig at The Spearhead (which I now write for). I didn't read the entire comment thread because I couldn't be bothered, but I picked up on one of her most recent comments and tried to engage her in intelligent discussion. She demonstrated her true colors immediately. Therefore, I submit my comment (and all the comments that follow, obviously) "for your amusement."

Here's a fun game to play while following the thread - keep track of all the logical fallacies LR commits, with special attention paid to ad hominems! Aren't we all so glad we decided to let women run the nation?

30 comments:

Ferdinand Bardamu said...

Dude, Lady Raine is a White Ghetto Queen. Picking logical fallacies out of her arguments is like trying to pick the white out of rice.

J. Durden said...

You and I realize that, surely. But the internet has many eyes and many readers and many people who won't comment, but who will observe and remember. It is them I am "challenging," in one of those friendly sort of ways.

Lady Raine said...

Ferdinand,

You continue to stalk and write about me and I have no idea who you are....mostly because you're nobody.

I have never lived in a "White Ghetto" in my life and my parents come from far more Upper-Class Wealth than you'd ever be allowed close to.

Stay in your own league, pumpkin. You're just embarrassing yourself.

And Durden, you had nothing to add at my blog and as usual failed to engage the conversation, make any truthful points about me or my beliefs, and weren't even a very interesting troll.

If coming here to your pathetic blog and trying to squeeze some extra blog hits out of using my name floats your boat that's fine, but you being a part of the spearhead is just embarrassing for you.

They post about women hatefully and then when those hated women (like me) answer....they ban!!

It's obvious that they know if I were allowed on equal ground that I'd crush them like I did Roissy and anyone else who ever dares think a nasty thing about me.

The truth is....you co author for Rapists and Pedophiles and Woman-Beaters. The Spearhead is a bunch of sick-fuck age 50+ Darwinian Failures and you're just joining them at an earlier age.

You have no intellectual capacity to argue with me at my blog or anywhere else, so I'm glad you're doing it here where no one will read it.

The poor little nerds and rejects of the Game world will soon have to find a new way to assault and rape women. I'll be the FIRST to buy you losers sexbots and lock you up somewhere to play with them.

There I stopped by your pathetic blog and commented. *Pat Durden on head* there do ya feel better now, sweetie? You got a little attention?

Ugh, that's enough charitable donations from me. I feel low-class just BEING here.

:)
LR

J. Durden said...

Lady Raine,

You have strange definitions of "truthful," "intellectual," "rapists," "pedophiles" and "woman-beaters." Care to substantiate your claims, or are you just going to continue to make wild accusations like any other good little feminist?

I could care less about traffic or public attention, but you seem pretty desperate for that sort of thing. Glad to help you out however I can.

Hopefully one day you'll mature to the point where you can have an independent thought of your own, LR, but until that day, I suppose you'll just have to continue towing the party line.

J. Durden said...

Just to recap, this is all a part of your response to a simple question - why should you expect to not receive unwanted male attention when you dress in a way that is appealing to most males?

Ferdinand Bardamu said...

Ferdinand,

You continue to stalk and write about me and I have no idea who you are....mostly because you're nobody.

I have never lived in a "White Ghetto" in my life and my parents come from far more Upper-Class Wealth than you'd ever be allowed close to.

Stay in your own league, pumpkin. You're just embarrassing yourself.


See what I mean, J? Total delusion, self-absorption, lack of reading comprehension - the hallmarks of a White Ghetto Queen.

Well Dressed Woman said...

"Just to recap, this is all a part of your response to a simple question - why should you expect to not receive unwanted male attention when you dress in a way that is appealing to most males?"




J. Durden,

If good hygeine, grooming and wearing attractive clothing is considered to be "dressing for men" or "even dressing in a way attractive to men"... I don't know what to say.

Is it my fault if some men are attracted to me when I am just going about my business and dressing in a way that I like to dress? And I'm not talking mini-skirts or booty-shorts here.

I see quite a number of attractively dressed men out and about who yes, get a second glance from me, but I don't try to disturb them or interrupt whatever it is they are doing to talk to them.

I simply mentally appreciate their appearance and move on.

I don't see what the problem is and why men can't do the same.

J. Durden said...

Well Dressed Woman -

First off, your description of being well groomed is significantly different from Lady Raine's. Here's how she described it:

"Men: we as women have a right to dress in a way we deem attractive to the type of men we want to attract. If we are not smiling at you, or glancing at you, or saying “hi”, chances are you are NOT that man, so leave us alone."

This description implies substantially more than "good hygeine, grooming and wearing attractive clothing."

Regardless, this is not a discussion about "fault" or "blame." It is a discussion about consequences. If you, to use your own words, wear "attractive clothing," then a likely consequence of this freely chosen decision is that men will be attracted to you. "Fault" for this is irrelevant - the consequence is basically inevitable.

You may prefer that men who find you attractive behave in what you feel as a more "appropriate" manner, but such feelings tend to ignore different biological realities - men are much more visually stimulated than are women and as such are much more prone to react in a different way. Thankfully, in a free society like ours (which I have enlisted in the Marine Corps to defend), it is not yet a crime to approach a woman I find attractive and attempt to start a conversation with her. She may not like my advance, but I also may not like the fact that I am rejected; these are consequences of choices we make (her choice to dress attractively, my choice to approach her).

Does this help you see "what the problem" is? It's not really a "problem" at all, just a matter of perspective and empathy.

Well Dressed Woman said...

J. Durden, so your solution would be what - ? That women NOT dress attractively? In order to get and stay employed, as well as in order to just get a basic amount of respect in this society - both men and women are expected to dress attractively.

I have no problem with men being attracted to me, but it is rude to just come up to a stranger who is sitting alone in a cafe reading a book and try to talk to her or him.

Why on earth would somebody invade someone's personal space like that?

There's an easier way to meet women now, it's called the internet.

There is no dearth of websites for anything from dating to same night lays, and a man can simply log on and within 24 hours he can be sitting in front of a woman who's photo he has already seen and been attracted to.

In fact, the very same night he can be having sex in his very own zip code.

There simply is no excuse to disturb people sitting alone and reading books anymore.

J. Durden said...

"There simply is no excuse to disturb people sitting alone and reading books anymore."

Because you cannot see a reason does not mean that a reason does not exist. We live in a supposedly free society where we are allowed to make free choices. If I do not approach an attractive woman sitting by herself in a bookstore, what other chance will I have to get to know her? That could be my only chance. She has made the choice to present herself attractively which has the consequence of soliciting my attraction; my response to this attraction is to choose to approach her, with the consequence of either being successful (which would be a mutual benefit to both of us, as the purpose of her dressing attractively was to attract men she in turn would be attracted to) or being a failure (which is a risk I accept when I make the choice to approach her).

There is no "problem" to solve here. There are merely consequences to deal with resulting from freely chosen actions. The consequence of eating fat food, generally, is one becomes fat. The consequence of dressing attractively, generally, is one attracts. There are good things about both (fatty food is tasty, releases endorphins, whatever else; dressing attractively raises your odds of meeting someone you like), and there are bad things about both (fatty foods generally make you fat; dressing attractively raises your odds of meeting someone you don't like). There are also ways to MITIGATE the bad effects of both (exercise properly to reduce impact of fatty foods; dress more or less attractively to adjust the numbers of undesirable takers).

It's all about personal choice and personal accountability.

WELL DRESSED WOMAN said...

"the purpose of her dressing attractively was to attract men she in turn would be attracted to"

OK, so I see you are one of those whom think women dress for men.

They don't, except for perhaps in clubs and bars, and even then, many of them are dressing to impress other women.

I don't dress attractively to attract men. I dress attractively because this society expects it's adult men and women to dress attractively, and to stay employed.

And also for self esteem. I feel good when I look good. And I look good when I feel good. The days I wear my pajamas to the grocery store are when I have PMS or I'm depressed, or both.

All the old married women in my family dress attractively as well.

I guess my grandma is out trying to attract a new man, by your belief system.

Anyway, I'm respectfully bowing out because there is no convincing a man who thinks women dress for him that in fact - WE DON'T.

J. Durden said...

Bow out if you like, but you've committed the Straw Man fallacy - taking a piece of my argument, blowing it out of proportion, attempting to defeat that piece, and declaring yourself the victor.

My argument is that when a woman dresses attractively, a consequence of that choice is that men will have heightened attraction to that women. My argument doesn't state that it is men's fault or women's fault, it doesn't matter what reasons the women chooses this action - all of that is irrelevant, because the consequence will happen regardless of those variables.

You have not rejected this analysis and therefore have no reason to conclude either that A) you are correct or B) I am asserting that women dress attractively specifically for men.

I wish you the best and I appreciate your relative level of civility in this discourse.

MarkyMark said...

JDurden,

It's women like Well Dressed Woman that have caused me to forsake women. That's how the MAJORITY of women think these days-sheesh!

I wonder how she'll react when she passes her 'expiration date', and guys no longer come up to her? I'll lay money on it that she'll bitch and moan about that too! As an old, Arab proverb says, women want toasted ice...

MarkyMark

Lady Raine said...

It's a matter of NOT WANTING TO BE APPROACHED.

What do you NOT understand? Most women do NOT want to be approached by strange men in public places and ESPECIALLY while going about our day at the gym, the coffee shop, the laundromat, etc.

Men can go to bars, lounges, clubs, dating groups, single's events, whorehouses, strip clubs, and escort services if they want to "get a woman" or have sex with one.

There are ALL those places where men and women go to meet/date/hook up with each other and go to MEET and approach other men and women. Those are the ONLY places you should be bothering women.

I should EXPECT to have the RIGHT to NOT be bothered, approached, catcalled, whistled, leered at, stared at, and chit-chatted going about my day. I should have the SAME RIGHT to privacy and a sense of safety that everyone else does.

Men who approach women anywhere OTHER than obvious "pick up spots" are disrespectful, disgusting, rude, and would NEVER qualify as a man I'd date.

Any man who was raised properly would never EVER put a woman on the spot, make her stop her day, and FORCE her to talk to/answer a total stranger and either accept his advances or reject them.

It's not fair that women should have to "stay inside the house" to avoid male approach, but men don't HAVE to do anything similar to that to avoid being bothered or possibly attacked.

If I'm interested in a man I approach HIM. I tell HIM. There is NO REASON why a man should be approaching women in grocery stores and malls.

It's predatory and is a total violation of a woman's right to go out and go about her business to NOT be fucking bothered by every random pervert and loser that wants a date.

Men don't realize how FEW women "like" or "want" this attention. We mostly want it to stop.

And yes, I do feel that men who are catcalling, whistling, or "approaching" women on the streets or in public places should be cited/warned/fined for soliciting and then if they do it again, the "pattern has formed" for Solicitation AND Harassment charges to be filed (which I think is totally fair).

Women should feel the same amount of freedom and privacy that men feel when they leave their houses and right now....women DON'T have that right. Only men do. Therefore, there needs to be a law that inequality and unfairness now just.

J. Durden said...

Do we or do we not live in a free society?

If you answer yes to the former, do you think that living in a free society is good?

If you answer yes to both of the former, then you are advocating a worldview which restricts the freedom of men while paying lip service to the concept of a free society. This is known as a "paradox."

If however you do not advocate free societies, you at least are logically consistent if not slightly amoral.

Furthermore, can you answer a science question for me? I forgot whether the earth rotated around the Sun or if it rotated around Lady Raine. Can you clear this up for me?

As always, thanks for dropping by and I hope you enjoyed the attention.

Well Dressed Woman said...

Do we or do we not live in a free society?

NO.

Do you think that living in a free society is good?

NO.

J. Durden said...

At least Well Dressed Woman is honest enough to state the obvious truth. One of the more common gaps between men and women is that men prefer free societies and women don't. Both sexes assume the other sex has the same preference and therefore each sex has a difficult time understanding why the other sex can't understand their 'perfect' ideas.

Neither sex understands that absolute truth is an absolute myth.

Well Dressed Woman said...

J.Durden, I wouldn't know what a "free society" looks like, I've never lived in one.

I've been to India though and that's a lot freer than the United States, but still not completely "free".

J. Durden said...

In an absolute sense, no society will ever be "free." In general, one gives up X amount of "freedoms" in order to gain Y amount of "security." Men generally prefer more freedoms and less security; women prefer more security and less freedom.

crella said...

What the hell?

"What do you NOT understand? Most women do NOT want to be approached by strange men in public places and ESPECIALLY while going about our day at the gym, the coffee shop, the laundromat, etc.

Men can go to bars, lounges, clubs, dating groups, single's events, whorehouses, strip clubs, and escort services if they want to "get a woman" or have sex with one.

There are ALL those places where men and women go to meet/date/hook up with each other and go to MEET and approach other men and women. Those are the ONLY places you should be bothering women."


This is really strange. Don't talk to me, don't look at me, go to a bar or a strip club if you want to meet women? Find one on the internet?

Calling being talked to 'predatory' is ridiculous. I wonder how her parents and grandparents met. My son met the woman he's seeing while they were at a job interview. They were sitting next to each other and exchanged pleasantries while waiting. He saw her at the next interview in a different place and they talked. Fast forward a couple of months and he sees her in the hall at work (different departments, but they both got hired), he asked her out on the spot. They'll probably be engaged by summer.

This is how people met each other before the internet. Unless LRs father met her mother in a 'bar, lounge, club, dating group, single's event, whorehouse, strip clubs, or escort service' where she recommends you all look for a woman, chances are he saw her or met her somewhere and talked to her. He was taking a class she was in, she went to his church, something like that.

That's how people meet.

WELL DRESSED WOMAN said...

J. Durden, that's all fine, just as long as people don't nurse the illusion that the United States is the "most free nation" in the world.

It is not. By a long shot.

J. Durden said...

Well Dressed Woman -

I agree whole-heartedly on your last point.

ladyraine said...

I have no idea what Biblical Nonsense you're spewing, but I don't believe in "Fictional Works" like the Bible and "The Game" like you and your friends do.

I also would like you to stop referring to me as a Feminist since I cannot name even ONE major "voice" in the feminist community....one blog site....or even ONE radical idea.

I don't fraternize with women at all and I certainly have no desire to defend them as a gender.

I don't know why you came to my blog or are blogging about me (or who the fuck Ferdinand is and what a "white ghetto queen" is) but clearly you have some sort of weird delusion about Feminists and Jesus????

I can't figure out what your issue is and how I come into play into it, but I don't debate with people who use the BIBLE as a basis of fact, lmao....and I don't even know WHAT your position is other than "Waaah I hate girls!"

If you were attempting to make some big revolution out of me or whatever you think I represent...you're really barking up the wrong tree. Maybe some idiot like Poetry of Flesh or that Crella woman with no brains in their heads can help you out....you and I just aren't...um...on the same intellectual level.

Please direct your imaginary revolution and advertisements for it elsewhere (meaning NOT linking posts on my blog that lead to Error Links and YOUR blog).

Basically what I'm saying is that I have no need or cause to protect/attack any woman or man other than me and the only people I give a fuck about are my family.

The rest is silly politics and societal standards and morals which I don't even take into consideration.

You should consider doing the same. But believing that the Bible has any more answers than the common idiots that make up humans society is even worse.

Learn some Science, ditch the Bible, go to college, and THEN come back and blog.

Guys like Ferdinand and Roissy and especially The Spearhead just make you look bad, ridiculous, delusional, and insane (and then ignored like people do to those guys in real life every day).

I don't know what it is you are after (in life and in blogging) but choosing ME as your "example of Feminism" is the WORST mistake you could ever make.

I don't DO things most women do, I don't have a "female" job, I don't even have female friends. If you're looking for someone who wishes to "unite the genders" OR defend one loyally....you're still barking up the wrong tree.

I'm a Wendyist. Nothing more. And your religious antics make you MUCH less credible.

J. Durden said...

Lady Raine -

I feel that you are very angry, but I am not sure who or what you are angry at. Are you angry at me? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to make you angry.

What I did mean to do was try to talk to you, because everyone at The Spearhead said you were awful, but I like to make decisions for myself.

You have treated me very poorly and you haven't understood me very well, but we can work through that - if you want to.

If you don't, then there's no point.

Potentially your friend,

John

crella said...

"Maybe some idiot like Poetry of Flesh or that Crella woman with no brains in their heads"

Intelligence is not an asset when paired with overweening pride and rudeness. You may be gifted, but your attitude is such that you come across as a completely repugnant person.

I have enough brains in my head to recognize ridiculous arguments, which your argument that men can meet women in bars, strip clubs etc certainly was. How arch of you, to declare that talking to someone is predatory, that men have no right to talk to women.

You sound so irrationally angry, that I feel quite sorry for you.

You can call yourself 'upper class' when you behave as one from that class. Without the behavior to go with it, it's just an accumulation of money and possessions. Having money alone does not make one upper class. The fact that you use it as a point to humiliate another as in-

"my parents come from far more Upper-Class Wealth than you'd ever be allowed close to."

is not something the true, genteel rich would ever do. It's improper, quite poor form.


My other point in this discussion, besides the issue of your trying to dictate the terms of how men and women should be allowed to speak to each other, was your lies and accusations, calling anyone who writes for the Spearhead a rapist and abuser. That's a lie, and as long as you insist on saying it, I will continue to call you on it. It's called 'consequences for one's actions', a part of being an adult, dear. You don't get to just run around slandering people like the National Enquirer.

You obviously have little tolerance for men, and you state in these posts that you don't associate with women either, but it's all of US that have the problem?

I think not.

J. Durden said...

Crella,

I thank you for your defense - it is evidence of something that could spark a true friendship.

However, I would caution that we cannot be too hard on Lady Raine. She may not yet "understand," that's really the simplest way of stating the problem.

I can forgive her. Can you?

- John

crella said...

It's very difficult to forgive the unrepentant, people who don't care how much they hurt others.

I think perhaps I've just become fed up with people feeling they can say whatever they want, even if it involves lying, to 'prove' a point.

My personal pet peeve, I have to admit.

T said...

jesus - what an absurd thread this is. its unfathomable to me that a woman would think that its her RIGHT to be able to walk out of her front door and have the rest of the world part like the Red Sea. LR - are you really that absurd?! do you really think its a "right" to be able to go out in PUBLIC and NOT be approached?! i've been approached by homeless people asking for money, by women wanting to chat, friendly neighbors who want to discuss a beautiful day, a mentally challenged fellow who just wants to yammer, etc. not once has it ever occurred to me that these encounters were infringing on my "right" to be left alone. probably because there IS no "right" to be left alone - its why we call the area outside of our house "public." if you're so awkward and terrified of the world outside, then do us all a favor and STAY INSIDE with your cozy little blog.

this really does take the cake - and is a perfect illustration of the solipsism of the female mind. "right" to be left alone, hahahahaha. good lord...

Anonymous said...

yeahh, those kerazzzy women! imagine wanting to go about thier daily business in peace. and they say it like it's a human right or something! bless.

from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status...

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement...

Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly...

Article 27
1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community...


oops. looks like chicks got rights after all. who'd have thought it?

by the way, this is a damn good idea:

"And yes, I do feel that men who are catcalling, whistling, or "approaching" women on the streets or in public places should be cited/warned/fined for soliciting and then if they do it again, the "pattern has formed" for Solicitation AND Harassment charges to be filed (which I think is totally fair)."

and I'm going to steal it, if Lady Raine doesn't mind. :)

J. Durden said...

Anonymous -

I fail to see how any of those articles grants Lady Raine the "right" to be free from men "approaching" her on the street. Also, bringing up the UN is always a joke - they sure did protect them there Rwandans and them there people in Darfur now didn't they?