Worst of Social Justice

[PosthumanHeresy]

I think it's funny how PETA instead of at least trying to be professional with their (albeit flawed) info, just rely on a man's perceived fixation with his dick.

But, that's just it. They aren't. They're relying on their perceived fixation of mothers on their babies' dicks.

[SpaceProg]

 

I think it's funny how PETA instead of at least trying to be professional with their (albeit flawed) info, just rely on a man's perceived fixation with his dick.

But, that's just it. They aren't. They're relying on their perceived fixation of mothers on their babies' dicks.

Ah.  Touche'...

[Sigmaleph]

I think it's funny how PETA instead of at least trying to be professional with their (albeit flawed) info, just rely on a man's perceived fixation with his dick.

But, that's just it. They aren't. They're relying on their perceived fixation of mothers on their babies' dicks.

Not quite. Peta is expecting Mr. Cerza to judge that he cannot rely on mothers' fixation on their babies' dicks, since if he could, there'd be no need to ban them from the competition. It would be sufficient to deliver the (alleged) facts and the pregnant women would either remove themselves or judge the risk to potential future penises to be small enough to not justify missing a wing-eating competition (for example, if they expect not to have male children).

To recap: PETA's argument works on the condition that a) the target believes their allegations and b) he cares significantly more about the size of penises (of other people) than he expects the future mothers of the relevant people to care. Or that he expects them not to believe PETA while he himself does.

[PosthumanHeresy]

It seems odd that PETA would overlook the fact that most will care more for money than the possible effects on strange babies' penises.

[SpaceProg]

Could we please stop talking about baby penises?  Makes me feel all wiggy....  jibblies...

[PosthumanHeresy]

Could we please stop talking about baby penises?  Makes me feel all wiggy....  jibblies...

Hmm. Maybe.

[Shane for Wax]

So much wrong. So little time.

[lord gibbon]

Harassment? As in, not even physical, but just people making inappropriate and insulting comments? Don't get me wrong, I understand that it can be hurtful, but swords? Seriously? She want's to KILL people for saying nasty things? What era did she show up from, cause it's clearly not today.

[LeTipex]

So much wrong. So little time.

Are you kidding? That would be an incentive to harrass women on the street! I never did it before, but if it gets me into awesome sword duels, hell yeah!

Also... *grabs rapière* I clock a fuckload more than 20 hours of training, so... 

[chitoryu12]

Also, what happens when the women draw swords on guys with concealed carry permits?

Or does part of the plan include banning men from carrying self-defense weapons?

[niam2023]

Ohh yes, lovable, delicious sword-based violence...we've had a shortage of it since society made damned guns.

Its always been my philosophy that there's more emotion and feeling in a sword fight than in a gunfight.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Ohh yes, lovable, delicious sword-based violence...we've had a shortage of it since society made damned guns.

Its always been my philosophy that there's more emotion and feeling in a sword fight than in a gunfight.

Agreed. This would be worth it. Kick-ass sword fights.

[Askold]

Also, what happens when the women draw swords on guys with concealed carry permits?

Or does part of the plan include banning men from carrying self-defense weapons?

I think it is assumed that since it's legal for women to cut men down, then self defense is illegal against that. I mean it's not like you have a right to shoot police officer giving you a speeding ticket either. (Oh, right USA...)

Then again, that's only one attack/incident per month. So I suppose if you knew that she had already stabbed someone earlier that month, THEN that assault of hers would be illegal and you would presumably be allowed to defend yourself just like any other time when someone comes at you with a scimitar.

That would certainly turn into a horrible mess in 15 minutes (at the latest.)

[Flying Mint Bunny!]

I don't understand why this proposed system has a once a month limit.

If you agree that women should be able to kill men who insult them, then shouldn't you just be able to kill them whenever they insult you?

[Askold]

I don't understand why this proposed system has a once a month limit.

If you agree that women should be able to kill men who insult them, then shouldn't you just be able to kill them whenever they insult you?

I think that the point was that it was supposed to be a deterrent rather than an excuse to kill every single man. That men would be afraid of the 50% of human population who are legally allowed to maim or kill men. Once in a month limit would mean that women can't do it every single time and therefore go on a wild killing spree... (Which is something that some of the craziest radfems have also suggested.) So instead the fear of being attacked without legal means of defense would prevent men from insulting women.

How it would make men respect women rather than hate or fear the maniacs who can cut them up for whatever reason or imagined transgression they wish is beyond me. Or perhaps that was never the point in the suggestion anyway.