Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
ParticipantI did feel the quake in Carmel Valley. I woke just before my alarm, and I was lying perfectly still in bed. I felt a slight vibration and wondered if it was a quake or maybe my wife moving some furniture. Yes, she does that before 7am sometimes. Sure enough, it was at the exact time of the quake in Banning.
I’ll buy a ticket if I remember.
ParticipantHuh. Probably the end of their perfect record of predicting the next president.
ParticipantThe republicans have a brokered convention. Bush or Rubio is the nominee. If I have to pick a winner, I’d say Rubio.
I wonder if part of the GOP’s anti-Trump strategy is to encourage (behind the scenes, of course) most of the candidates to stay in the race. That will reduce the chances of Trump winning on the first ballot, after which the establishment can relatively easily install their favorite candidate. I don’t know much about the political parties or their workings, so this scenario could be totally far-fetched. I’d be interested to hear other opinions on it.
On the other side, Hillary wins.
General election, Hillary wins.
About a month ago, I bet a guy at work on the republican nomination. I gave him Trump and Carson (this was when Carson was running almost even with Trump, and everybody else was trailing badly) and I took the field. I don’t see either of those guys winning the nomination.
ParticipantBiodiesel. Could be.
I said he bought it from restaurants. What I meant was, restaurants paid him to haul it away, and then he sold it. Not sexy, but pretty sweet.
ParticipantI’ve never owned a business, but I’ll tell you about two good friends who have.
Xboxboy’s advice all seems very solid, and the part about “sexy” applies to the first example. A friend bought a business that bought waste grease from restaurants and sold some of it to…I don’t know, whoever uses used grease. Very unsexy. Disclaimer, he was doing ok before this, and he might’ve paid a lot for the business, but a couple years after he bought it, he moved from Carmel Valley to Rancho Santa Fe, so it was working out for him.
Another friend started a restaurant. We’ve all read that most restaurants fail within X amount of time. I’ve read that that’s usually because the owner gets tired of working hard 100 hours a week. My friend worked those 100-hour weeks for about 5 years. He had previously managed a successful restaurant for years, and he had also owned several pizza joints, so he had lots of knowledge. He started his own restaurant, and he worked, and worked hard, all day every day for about 5 years. He wasn’t making any money at all. He had to borrow money from his brother (a partner in the restaurant) just to pay his bills. Finally, he gave up. This guy was an extremely hard worker, and he had lots of knowledge. But he couldn’t make it work. He wasted 5 years of his life and a significant chunk of his life savings on that restaurant and got nothing out of it.
Participant[quote=yuhtey]
here are 3 examples of entitled baby boomer douchebaggery towards my family in CV:
“i can’t believe they are actually feeding their child macaroni and cheese” said an old pricey bitch just loud enough so that we could hear it from across our table as we were spooning in the #1 kids food ever in the history of time at a restaurant.
“i don’t think your son’s old enough to understand fashion photography” said an old humbug CV denizen passing by in the park as i was trying to take a photo of my own child for my own enjoyment using a speed light with a modifier on top to combat the harsh sun.
“…[creepily stares at us for 20 minutes without saying word]…” did a complete wierdo with his dog after walking up to the playground and sitting at a bench by himself while we played on the slides. GO ANYWHERE ELSE, LOOK AT YOUR PHONE OR WHATEVER, OR JUST SAY SOMETHING.[/quote]
From another thread:
[quote=zk]
This reminds me of a parable I once heard.
An old fella is sitting on his porch. A guy who’s new to the area is driving by and stops to ask the old guy about the area. “What are the people like here?” The old guy asks in return, “How did you find the people where you came from?” The response is, “I found them to be generous, caring, kind, and fun.” The old guy says, “I think you’ll find them the same way here.” A different guy drives up later and asks the old guy the same question, and the old guy asks him the same question he asked the first guy. The second guy says, “I found them mean, backstabbing, and phony.” The old guy says, “I think you’ll find them the same way here.”[/quote]
Here’s a place where none of your neighbors will be entitled baby boomers, weirdos, hipsters, people with man buns, humbugs, democratic voters, old pricey bitches, or audi-driving fuckfaces:
https://www.redfin.com/CA/Baker/0-KELBAKER-Unknown/home/49801209
You’d fit right in. And, it says canyon view!
November 29, 2015 at 7:38 AM in reply to: ot. BLM campus protests related to affirmative action… #791639ParticipantExcellent point, ocrenter.
As I’ve said before on this forum, you have to start at the beginning. With elementary schools and parents. By the time they get to college, you can’t just stick them in schools they’re not qualified or prepared for and expect them to perform.
As far as Wilson goes, if we’re going to be like that about it, we’d have to rename everything named after most Americans who lived in his era and before:
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/abraham-lincoln-racist/?_r=0
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/founding-fathers-and-slaveholders-72262393/?all
The prevalence of the view that blacks and whites are equal is a relatively recent phenomenon here.
While slavery is obviously an atrocity, and while it’s easy for us to see that racism is wrong, to judge a person from 150 years ago by his views on race is not realistic.
ParticipantRussian pilot:
As god is my witness, I didn’t think turkeys could shoot missiles.
ParticipantI like both Stella Artois and Beck’s. Craft beer snobs can get condescending if you like big brand beers. Nonetheless, while I’m no beer expert, I know what tastes good to me, and those two taste good to me.
ParticipantWell, those last couple posts are just more of your usual. Misrepresenting my positions, failing logic, and accusing me of things I haven’t done. I’m through pointing them out one-by-one. It’s a lot of time, and the facts, logic, and reason I put forth seem to go largely ignored.
You keep accusing me of ad hominem attacks. I asked you to either show me where I did that or stop accusing me of it. You couldn’t point one out, and yet here you are accusing me of it again.
To say that I use personal attacks instead of logic to invalidate your arguments is laughable to anybody who’s read this thread.
Also, my point this whole time was that you imagined it when you said that people segregate the sexes for fear of feminizing boys. And you did exactly that right here on this thread.
ParticipantWell, my rib is feeling better, so no more sitting around the computer. I’m going to exercise and play some golf.
My argument was that you imagined that people segregated the sexes due to fear of feminization, and I showed you doing just that. If you want to continue to debate that point, I’m in. But I’m not interested in participating in your rants about sexism and misogyny any longer. It takes too long to keep pointing out your misrepresentations of my positions and all your logic, reason, and factual errors.
My arguments to this point speak for themselves, as do yours. I obviously think mine are superior, and I obviously think your emotions have prevented you from thinking clearly, as evidenced by your frequent misrepresentations of my positions and your frequent logic failures.
I give you points for stamina, CA renter. And it’s good that there are people out there fighting against sexism and misogyny. But, as long as you’re wearing that “genders are essentially the same” blindfold, and as long as you keep letting your highly-charged emotions get in the way of your reasoning, you’ll get nowhere.
Participant.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=zk]
[quote=CA renter]
Look at scaredy’s posts about his sons. That is what we see on a daily basis — the notion that females are “screwed up” and neurotic, and that boys need to be protected from that.
[/quote]
Put down your misogyny-tinted glasses and then read scaredy’s posts again. What scaredy said was that he was neurotic, and that he didn’t want to create another generation of neurotic men. What he said in reference to females was:“Is this intrinsic to men or is the above description the result of the last generation of mothers screwing with their sons heads. “
And when he said “this,” he was referring to your description of what made a man a good friend to other men. And part of his point was that women can’t understand what makes a man a good friend to another man, and that they should stay out of the discussion. And that those moms (and maybe our culture) shouldn’t be trying to feminize men. Not because there’s anything wrong with women. But because there’s nothing wrong with men being men.[/quote]
[quote=zk]I mentioned your M.T.G., but my point was not dependent on them. I pointed out that you misread scaredy’s post (and that therefore your point was not valid).[/quote]
I wasn’t only referring to that one post; I was referring to the string of posts that expressed a desire to “defeminize” boys.
[/quote]
That doesn’t change the fact that you misread what he was saying. Take all of his posts about not wanting boys to be feminized, and they don’t add up to “females are ‘screwed up’ and neurotic, and that boys need to be protected from that.”Here is just one of many:
[quote=scaredyclassic]Look, as a former, and some might say present, little male bitch, I am qualified to speak on this. Women are disqualified. Women weighing in here is like having the HR dept. actually legislate,reality in a workplace which they do not and cannot.
Mens’ play fighting and challenging is how we measure one another and how friendships form.
Feminizing language and male behavior is what we and my parents tried to do but it does not go well. Boys,will be boys,and that is what makes men.
I’m not saying there aren’t other ways to be men or manly just that this chatter is,well within mormal.
More than anything, fathers should want to raise sons,perceived as normal males by other male peers.
Women have no say in this matter, Just as men shouldn’t be allowed to dictate to to women how they work out their relative status and pecking order.[/quote]
Where in there does it say that “females are ‘screwed up’ and neurotic, and that boys need to be protected from that.” ?
[quote=CA renter]
Again, if women cannot speak about male behavior or how they perceive themselves in society, then men cannot speak about female behavior, or dictate to them what what they should perceive as sexist or misogynistic behavior.
[/quote]You say, “men cannot speak about female behavior, or dictate to them what what they should perceive as sexist or misogynistic behavior,” as if they’re the same thing. Women shouldn’t try to tell men how men’s friendships work. Men shouldn’t try to tell women how women’s friendships work. And men shouldn’t try to tell women how it feels to be a victim of misogyny. Now, as to what constitutes sexist or misogynistic behavior, that’s a completely different matter.
If a man has a healthy attitude towards women, and he says something that is not misogynistic or sexist in any way, and a woman perceives it as misogynistic, does that mean it’s misogynistic? For your logic to even have a chance at working (and even then it really wouldn’t), the answer to that would have to be yes. But the answer is no.
[quote=CA renter]
If one group of people is treated differently from another group, especially if they have historically been oppressed by the other group, then it is up to them to determine what is or isn’t unjust treatment.
[/quote]
Incorrect. It’s up to society as a whole to determine that.[quote=CA renter]
Of course the group in power will want to dictate things to them, as they’ve always done. Of course, they would like to exaggerate the differences between the groups in an attempt to justify the imbalance of power between the groups. It doesn’t mean that they are right, and they certainly are in no position to tell the oppressed group that they are incapable of discerning prejudicial behavior just because they’ve been subjected to it.
[/quote]
I see. So you think that, when people say that genders are different, the reason they’re saying that is “they would like to exaggerate the differences between the groups in an attempt to justify the imbalance of power between the groups.”So really, this isn’t about gender differences, it’s about power. You’re a woman, and you’re tired of being on the losing side. (I don’t agree with Brian and scaredy that women have a lot of power and always have. As I’ve said, I think women have been screwed for thousands of years). And you want power for your kind. That’s all good. I agree with all that.
But I think you’re going about it the wrong way. You’re afraid (I’m presuming, and I could easily be wrong – correct me if I am) that if you say, “women deserve equal power,” men will say, “you’re not men. You don’t deserve power. Women are soft and gentle and weak by nature and could not handle power. Therefore we won’t give it to them.” (Not out loud, of course). And that if you allow that there are natural gender differences, then men will use them as justification for continuing to hold power.
There are (at least) two things wrong with that. Number one, it’s too obvious to anyone looking at it with clear eyes that males and females are naturally different. Just like in most of the other animals. The anger of losing for thousands of years is enough to cloud anybody’s vision, and that’s why, in my opinion, you, and most 1970s-style feminists, can’t see the natural differences in the genders. If you start from a false position, you’ll get no respect and you’ll have no logical, realistic position on which to build.
Number two, it ignores the strengths that women naturally have and the weaknesses that men naturally have. If women ran the world (not necessarily women like Thatcher, Merkel, and Clinton, who are all fairly…who all have a lot of what are normally male traits), I believe there would be a lot less war. Just to name the main advantage women should have in this fight for power. Women who are fighting for more power/equality for women need to start from a realistic position, and then they need to use that position to their advantage.
[quote=CA renter]
And you’ve said that you’ve never heard or seen a parent talk about not wanting their boys to be “feminized” and you clearly missed this perfect example right here. Scaredy’s posts are think with it, all throughout this thread, but you’ve missed it completely.
[/quote]What I said was that I never heard parents say that exposing boys to girls will feminize them, or that they wanted to segregate boys and girls for fear of feminizing boys. I didn’t miss anything. You misrepresented what I said (again) and showed me how what you said I said wasn’t correct. Do you see the problem there? `
[quote=CA renter]
Even your assertion that “we don’t want boys to be like girls” is a perfect example of it! And you use this as a justification to guide boys into segregated activities. This is exactly what I’m talking about.
[/quote]
This is exactly what I’m talking about. In fact, my whole argument can be summed up in your three sentences above and my response below. If you ignore most of my post (like you usually do), please read the next paragraph and pay attention.You think that I used “we don’t want boys to be like girls” as a justification to guide boys into segregated activities. My whole argument has been that you’re imagining it when you say that people use fear of feminization as justification for segregation of genders. And you’ve done exactly that right here. You just said that I use fear of feminization of boys as justification for segregation of genders, when I did no such thing. I defy you to show me where I did that. If you can somehow imagine that I’ve used fear of feminization of boys as justification for segregation of genders right here where everything I’ve said is written down in black and white, where there’s not a lot of ambiguity, it’s not real hard to figure that you’ve been imagining it in the much-more-ambiguous real world.
[quote=CA renter]
And women absolutely do pass on the misogyny. You have no idea how many times I’ve heard women say:“I have such a GREAT relationship with my son. There is nothing like the relationship between a mother and her son. Boys are just so special.”
[/quote]Thinking boys are special is not misogyny.
[/quote]
[quote=zk]I pointed out your erroneous assertion that thinking boys are special equates to misogyny. Nothing to do with your M.T.G. (Except maybe evidence that you’re wearing them).[/quote][quote=CA renter]
And you were wrong. Let’s turn this around. Let’s say a mother has a black child and a white child, would you say: “Thinking white children are special is not racist.” Really?
[/quote]
I think it would be misinformed to think that white children are different from black children. But it would only be racist if you thought that white children were better than black children.[quote=CA renter]
If boys are special, what are girls?
[/quote]
Special.[quote=CA renter]
Yes, that is a perfect example of sexism, and it shows how some parents treat different-gendered children in a way that would affect these children and their perceptions of themselves, and their gender, for life.[/quote]
I never disagreed that how parents treat different-gendered children would affect these children and their perceptions of themselves and their gender. What I disagree with is your assertion that there’s very little difference to begin with.Participant[quote=CA renter]
[quote=zk]
[quote=CA renter]
My response to Brian should make clear my position on this. In the vast majority of cases that we’ve seen and experienced, the segregation is being done to prevent the “feminization” of boys; it’s not done to prevent the girls from becoming too masculine.
[/quote]
Here’s where you’re wrong:
Not wanting boys to be like girls is not the same as hating females. It’s not misogyny. Do you want boys to be like girls? Do you want girls to be like boys?
[/quote]
[quote=zk]I pointed out your erroneous assertion that not wanting boys to be like girls is the same as hating girls. (You had earlier said that the segregation of boys and girls was misogynistic). This, again, does not rely on the assumption that you wear misogyny-tinted glasses.[/quote]This isn’t about “hating girls,” this is about hating the feminization of boys.
[/quote]
You said the segregation of the genders was due to misogyny. Misogyny=”hating girls.”[quote=CA renter]
I’ve bolded my quote so you can read it again. There is a reason for wanting to keep a boy from being “feminized.” What might that be?
[/quote]
The reason for not wanting a boy to be feminized is because it goes against his nature and takes away part of who he is.[quote=CA renter]
Does it exist on the same level as not wanting a girl to be “masculinized”? Why, or why not?
[/quote]
I don’t know what “on the same level” means. But I wouldn’t want girls to be masculinized any more than I’d want boys to be feminized[quote=CA renter]
Yes, not wanting boys to be “like girls” can indeed be sexist, and possibly misogynistic. If you are opposed to the “feminization” of boys, then you obviously have very little understanding of the fact that genders are not nearly as binary as you seem to think they are.
[/quote]Or, if you’re for the gender neutralization of boys, then you obviously have very little understanding of the fact that genders are not nearly as similar as you seem to think they are.
You never answered my question about catcalls. Why is that?
[quote=CA renter]
There are feminine boys who are way over on the “feminine” side of the spectrum, and there are masculine girls who are far on the “masculine” side of the spectrum. It is not binary, no matter how desperately you try to wish it into existence. Trying to force your erroneous beliefs about gender types on children is extremely unhealthy for the child. They need to determine for themselves how they want to be, without the external influences that seek to push them into a “socially acceptable” box.
[/quote]
[quote=zk]
I think there’s a spectrum, and that both genders are sprinkled throughout the spectrum. But I think it’s a very wide spectrum, with all but the part near the middle populated mostly by one gender or the other.
[/quote]
As you can see, I don’t think it’s completely binary.I agree that trying to force erroneous beliefs about gender types is extremely unhealthy for a child. And I agree that they need to determine for themselves how they want to be, without the external influences that seek to push them into a “socially acceptable” box. Trying to force them all into the middle would be as damaging as trying to force them to fit elsewhere.
[quote=zk]
And I said that the segregation was being done to prevent the “feminization” of boys. Based on your response, it would appear that you don’t like the “feminization” of boys (or the “masculinization” of girls, too?) and use this as a justification for gender segregation. So, it would appear as though you’re admitting that I was right.[/quote]
I don’t like feminization of boys or masculinization of girls. I think they need to determine for themselves how they want to be, without the external influences that seek to push them into a “socially acceptable” box.Here’s where your logic fails: You posit that “zk doesn’t like feminization of boys, therefore zk uses that as justification for gender segregation.”
I don’t use this as justification for gender segregation. As I’ve stated before, I don’t encourage gender segregation by parents/teachers. If children want to segregate themselves, which they sometimes do, then they should be allowed to do that on the occasions that they want to.
-
AuthorPosts
