The Great BrownDuck wrote:
I knew full well you'd be the first to respond with a lengthy condemnation of my opinion and those like it.
It should have been condemned. It was extremely offensive and sexist, not to mention moronic.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Buawhahahaha! The Hellbeast goes postal!
Buawhahahaha! The Hellbeast goes postal!Follow
It should have been condemned. It was extremely offensive and sexist, not to mention moronic.
Now, now, Belki. Don't go getting all *angry* or they'll accuse you of having your period.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Now, now, Belki. Don't go getting all *angry* or they'll accuse you of having your period.
"Which is still ninety times the success you'll ever see in your lifetime." --zepoodle
Depends on how you define success, Z. Will I ever be a Secretary of State? No, but then if I were I'd be a whole lot less diplomatic than the Hellbeast was, is, or ever would be. On the other hand, I pee out more flying skills on an average night of drinking than she has logged time in the cabin of every airplane she has ever had the misfortune to ride in. And that goes for the lot of you combined as well.
Let's compare marriages then. She lacks the ability to make good judgements of character or emotional and mental wherewithall to separate flowery words from actual behavior in a mate, so I have her there as well. And a 26 year track record as of today to back me up on that call.
My children are at a minimum ninety times better looking than Chelsea, her three toed sloth-like spawn, so my genes are more successful than hers.
Oh. Let's throw in a gratuitous gaming reference since this is a MMORPG board too. I am infinitely superior to Hillary in gaming and could pwn her using only my toes.
All of which amounts to a "So what?" It comes down to this: The thing she is supposed to be good at she fails miserably at-- being diplomatic. That is her job! If she can't maintain her temper against a dumb misinterpreted question from a student, then how can we expect her to keep her temper, fragile ego, and, if you will, her female emotionality in check during a real antagonist, someone trained to make her lose focus and ultimately face as the premier representative of the United States? She is to be the mouthpiece of her boss, Obama. Unless he expressly wishes her to demonstrate anger or a short temper in public or during a meeting with her counterparts, her responsibility is to be calm, cool, collected, and diplomatic. If the long hours of being the SoS are too much, the strain of containing her temper or insecurities too difficult, then she should promptly resign. She simply isn't up to the task of being our nation's head diplomat.
Totem
Depends on how you define success, Z. Will I ever be a Secretary of State? No, but then if I were I'd be a whole lot less diplomatic than the Hellbeast was, is, or ever would be. On the other hand, I pee out more flying skills on an average night of drinking than she has logged time in the cabin of every airplane she has ever had the misfortune to ride in. And that goes for the lot of you combined as well.
Let's compare marriages then. She lacks the ability to make good judgements of character or emotional and mental wherewithall to separate flowery words from actual behavior in a mate, so I have her there as well. And a 26 year track record as of today to back me up on that call.
My children are at a minimum ninety times better looking than Chelsea, her three toed sloth-like spawn, so my genes are more successful than hers.
Oh. Let's throw in a gratuitous gaming reference since this is a MMORPG board too. I am infinitely superior to Hillary in gaming and could pwn her using only my toes.
All of which amounts to a "So what?" It comes down to this: The thing she is supposed to be good at she fails miserably at-- being diplomatic. That is her job! If she can't maintain her temper against a dumb misinterpreted question from a student, then how can we expect her to keep her temper, fragile ego, and, if you will, her female emotionality in check during a real antagonist, someone trained to make her lose focus and ultimately face as the premier representative of the United States? She is to be the mouthpiece of her boss, Obama. Unless he expressly wishes her to demonstrate anger or a short temper in public or during a meeting with her counterparts, her responsibility is to be calm, cool, collected, and diplomatic. If the long hours of being the SoS are too much, the strain of containing her temper or insecurities too difficult, then she should promptly resign. She simply isn't up to the task of being our nation's head diplomat.
Totem
You just wait til I get you stuck in a revolving door, mister.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
#108REDACTED,
Posted: Aug 12 2009 at 10:05 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm not backpedaling from anything you dunce. I knew my comment would garner a certain reaction so I prefaced it with such. I stand behind my statement 100% and will go on record again saying that women in general have a tendency to, let's say, be more emotionally driven than their male counterparts. In a position of great power, I find this to be a dangerous situation, and one I'll try to avoid if possible. Whether I think Hilary's response was "off the hook" or "over the top" is irrelevant to this opinion.
Totem wrote:
I'm better than Hillary. I have skillz. Liek gaming skillz, piloting skillz, and children having skillz.
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
I wasn't the first, as you recall or the second. It wasn't especially lengthy either. But really what did you expect? It seems as if you responded with a ******* and sexist response that you are trying to backpedal from.
I'm not backpedaling from anything you dunce. I knew my comment would garner a certain reaction so I prefaced it with such. I stand behind my statement 100% and will go on record again saying that women in general have a tendency to, let's say, be more emotionally driven than their male counterparts. In a position of great power, I find this to be a dangerous situation, and one I'll try to avoid if possible. Whether I think Hilary's response was "off the hook" or "over the top" is irrelevant to this opinion.
But I expect you wouldn't understand that, being all emotionally driven and such.
You aren't very bright, are you?
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
I wasn't the first, as you recall or the second. It wasn't especially lengthy either. But really what did you expect? It seems as if you responded with a ******* and sexist response that you are trying to backpedal from.
I'm not backpedaling from anything you dunce. I knew my comment would garner a certain reaction so I prefaced it with such. I stand behind my statement 100% and will go on record again saying that women in general have a tendency to, let's say, be more emotionally driven than their male counterparts. In a position of great power, I find this to be a dangerous situation, and one I'll try to avoid if possible. Whether I think Hilary's response was "off the hook" or "over the top" is irrelevant to this opinion.
But I expect you wouldn't understand that, being all emotionally driven and such.
You aren't very bright, are you?
The fact that I perceive things differently than you is zero indication of my intellect. I like how you try to connect the two though in a silly attempt to promote yourself. Typical Anna fashion.
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
I wasn't the first, as you recall or the second. It wasn't especially lengthy either. But really what did you expect? It seems as if you responded with a ******* and sexist response that you are trying to backpedal from.
I'm not backpedaling from anything you dunce. I knew my comment would garner a certain reaction so I prefaced it with such. I stand behind my statement 100% and will go on record again saying that women in general have a tendency to, let's say, be more emotionally driven than their male counterparts. In a position of great power, I find this to be a dangerous situation, and one I'll try to avoid if possible. Whether I think Hilary's response was "off the hook" or "over the top" is irrelevant to this opinion.
But I expect you wouldn't understand that, being all emotionally driven and such.
You aren't very bright, are you?
The fact that I perceive things differently than you is zero indication of my intellect. I like how you try to connect the two though in a silly attempt to promote yourself. Typical Anna fashion.
I don't think it is our differences in perception as much as I think you aren't very bright or introspective. And unlike Totem, you lack the humor to get away with saying controversial things. Your opinion is dumb. I've heard guys express your point in the past. If it makes you feel better, I've also heard Ann Coulter express a very similar point to yours. So, there you go. You have at least one woman who agrees with you. I hope you don't share your opinion with your younger sister though.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#113REDACTED,
Posted: Aug 12 2009 at 10:24 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's your opinion. That you may share it with others does not make it fact. Just as many people share my view. What's pathetic is your near immediate reduction to comments like "You aren't very bright, are you?" in an attempt to deflect my commentary. I can't say it's shocking though, as it's a reoccurring theme with you, hence my standard "grow up" retort, which applies quite nicely here.
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Your opinion is dumb.
That's your opinion. That you may share it with others does not make it fact. Just as many people share my view. What's pathetic is your near immediate reduction to comments like "You aren't very bright, are you?" in an attempt to deflect my commentary. I can't say it's shocking though, as it's a reoccurring theme with you, hence my standard "grow up" retort, which applies quite nicely here.
People who share your view are as stupid as you are.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
If it makes you feel better, I've also heard Ann Coulter express a very similar point to yours. So, there you go. You have at least one woman who agrees with you.
Debatable point is debatable.
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
I wasn't the first, as you recall or the second. It wasn't especially lengthy either. But really what did you expect? It seems as if you responded with a ******* and sexist response that you are trying to backpedal from.
I'm not backpedaling from anything you dunce. I knew my comment would garner a certain reaction so I prefaced it with such. I stand behind my statement 100% and will go on record again saying that women in general have a tendency to, let's say, be more emotionally driven than their male counterparts. In a position of great power, I find this to be a dangerous situation, and one I'll try to avoid if possible. Whether I think Hilary's response was "off the hook" or "over the top" is irrelevant to this opinion.
But I expect you wouldn't understand that, being all emotionally driven and such.
As a male who occasionally agrees with you on these issues, I feel that you're being a complete moron. Even supposing it is somewhat true that your "conventional wisdom" (which is unbacked by conventional science, coincidentally) points towards women being more emotional than men, we can pick and choose off a thousand different stereotypes. For example, men are more violent and I don't think we should elect a leader who's more predisposed towards exercising the nuclear option than a woman would be.
Your statement was incredibly sexist. Not only was it completely unfounded, it also implies that women have little or no ability to control their emotional state, and effectively claimed that women are inherently disadvantaged when it comes to performing any duty of major consequence - so let's just keep them out of politics, business, law, that sort of thing, right? And since men are all logic and lacking of emotion, we'll just let them have the important jobs, and women can do things like being nurses and teachers and secretaries - keeping the men of the world happy.
The Bardalicious of Doom wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
If it makes you feel better, I've also heard Ann Coulter express a very similar point to yours. So, there you go. You have at least one woman who agrees with you.
Debatable point is debatable.
True dat.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Majivo wrote:
Your statement was incredibly sexist. Not only was it completely unfounded, it also implies that women have little or no ability to control their emotional state, and effectively claimed that women are inherently disadvantaged when it comes to performing any duty of major consequence - so let's just keep them out of politics, business, law, that sort of thing, right?
No one ever accused Stubs of being a half-assed troglodyte.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Totem wrote:
What accomplishments, Bard? Everything she has done was on the coattails of someone else with the possible exception of her entry into college. Ambition does not equal talent, sir.
Totem
Totem
Unlike, say, Dubya or Bush Sr. for that matter.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Samira wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Your statement was incredibly sexist. Not only was it completely unfounded, it also implies that women have little or no ability to control their emotional state, and effectively claimed that women are inherently disadvantaged when it comes to performing any duty of major consequence - so let's just keep them out of politics, business, law, that sort of thing, right?
No one ever accused Stubs of being a half-assed troglodyte.
I don't think anyone has ever accused Stubs of being half anything.
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
I wasn't the first, as you recall or the second. It wasn't especially lengthy either. But really what did you expect? It seems as if you responded with a ******* and sexist response that you are trying to backpedal from.
I'm not backpedaling from anything you dunce. I knew my comment would garner a certain reaction so I prefaced it with such. I stand behind my statement 100% and will go on record again saying that women in general have a tendency to, let's say, be more emotionally driven than their male counterparts. In a position of great power, I find this to be a dangerous situation, and one I'll try to avoid if possible. Whether I think Hilary's response was "off the hook" or "over the top" is irrelevant to this opinion.
But I expect you wouldn't understand that, being all emotionally driven and such.
You probably should backpedal. It would make you look a little better.
You sound like an uneducated, sexist jerk. You sound offensive and rude.
And, look at that, I haven't even gotten very emotional about the issue. It's funny, how I can voice an opinion and not even be very emotional. Almost like a man.
publiusvarus wrote:
Tulip,
No emotion involved here..uh uh none.
Quote:
You sound like an uneducated, sexist jerk. You sound offensive and rude.
No emotion involved here..uh uh none.
Not necessarily, no.
See how you assume emotion, though? Pretty telling, that.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
publiusvarus wrote:
Tulip,
No emotion involved here..uh uh none.
Quote:
You sound like an uneducated, sexist jerk. You sound offensive and rude.
No emotion involved here..uh uh none.
Sure, there was emotion. Disdain, mostly. Just not strong emotion.
I imagine there was emotion involved in your post, as well. Amusement, if nothing else. And I imagine there was emotion involved in all of BD's posts. Annoyance and exasperation, if I had to guess.
What was your point?
publiusvarus wrote:
Samy,
On the contrary. I tend to find people who are attacking others with hateful labels tend to have their panties in a wad. Intelligent thoughtful individuals tend to think before they speak and rarely call people stupid or sexist because that pereson disagrees with them.
Edited, Aug 12th 2009 3:15pm by publiusvarus
Quote:
Not necessarily, no.
See how you assume emotion, though? Pretty telling, that.
See how you assume emotion, though? Pretty telling, that.
On the contrary. I tend to find people who are attacking others with hateful labels tend to have their panties in a wad. Intelligent thoughtful individuals tend to think before they speak and rarely call people stupid or sexist because that pereson disagrees with them.
Edited, Aug 12th 2009 3:15pm by publiusvarus
Being told that my entire sex is overly emotional and should never be in power in any dangerous situation is an attack with a hateful label. I notice that you didn't call BD out on his emotional response, however.
Interesting.
Recent Visitors: 282
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (282)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Buawhahahaha! The Hellbeast goes postal!
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC