Oh sorry, you said it justifies it.
Nebraska AD now says year four or five will takeoff
- Thread starter IowaHawkeyeFB
- Start date
Oh sorry, you said it justifies it.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
It is? Care to link so I can be informed? If so, apparently the term has been hijacked.
Fryowa
Administrator
The report said the guy texted her and asked to come hang out. She messaged back that she would, but that she wasn’t going to do anything physical. The guy replied back that that was fine, and when she got there he had an unannounced buddy at his place with the intent of pulling a train on this girl.
It wasn't even close to implied that she deserved to be raped. What was implied is that it's very possible she wasn't raped.
Fryowa
Administrator
Which is what he implied.
Fryowa
Administrator
We can disagree. I could not care less.
But not taking @ModebaSan ’s past woman-bashing and misogynistic posts into context and seeing what he’s doing here (basically saying if it happened she asked for it) is lazy.
I once had a girl tell me no as she was physically grabbing me and putting it in herself. That story cracks me up to this day. Was that text her attempt at saying no so she just gave up? Is there more talk of her saying no after in the story? I don't know the whole story on this one.
That's fine if we disagree. But then why did you say earlier you didn't say what you are now saying he said? And you're right you need to take past things said into account. But after how you twisted what he said here, how do I know you didn't twist what he said in past posts? What came first, his bashing of women or your twisting of posts?
I read his post as those are questions you have to ask to get to the bottom of what happened. You can't just throw the guys in jail for rape without getting answers. Somehow as a society we went from "you can't dismiss what women say" to "you can't even question it". That's a bad road to go down.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
That is a lie. It is a theory of reconciling human interactions that has been labeled "misogyny" because it goes against the Western media and educational social programming that inundates children from birth.
For example, a bedrock theory advanced by the red pill is that men are generally by their nature polygamous - they are wired to want to engage in "relations" frequently and with many different partners, particularly when young because we are loaded with testosterone. Men, in other words, will mate with almost anyone. Women, on the other hand, who have to bear the long term consequences of child birth and rearing, are hypergamous. They only want to mate with higher value males so that the higher value traits will be passed to offspring. In a world that operates like that, only the highest value males would sire the majority of children. Of course, that is bad for the long term viability of a society, hence a component of many Western and North African religions is designed to keep those tendencies in check by demanding chastity as a precondition to finding some form of eternal salvation. In a world where there was no government to enforce child support orders and no science to determine parentage, that makes a lot of sense. Of course, merely saying something like that is deemed "misogyny" because the so-called "thought leaders" in that space don't have a good retort to it, particularly in light of evidence in the modern world of 10-15% of males collecting something like 98% of the Tinder swipes or whatever the kids call it now.
How does that relate to you or ModebaSan? Well, you constantly bash the guy for having a "mail order bride" from the Philippines. Why would a girl in the Philippines want anything to do with someone who you think is some loser? Well, in that context, the "loser" is high value to the person who grows up in an impoverished country. It's hypergamy, explained by the red pill, where the value is perceived wealth, US domicile or something along those lines. Are you a misogynist for advancing that theory? Of course not. You're simply making an observation about human nature.
Modeba is making the inartful defense that was debunked in the Tyson case back in the '90's. He's just a bit out of touch. It was basically the "If you don't want the all-star meat, then don't go to the all-star suite" defense. It ignores the modern law that consent must be given and can be revoked by a participant at any time.
Fryowa
Administrator
1) I didn't twist his words. If you feel that way I'm sorry. I said he implied that her actions were justification of what happened.
2) How do you know I didn't twist what he said in past posts? You don't. But they are there for you to read.You can believe me or not believe me, but like I said before, not taking things into context when you have the opportunity to is lazy.
I disagree.
Without getting answers...
The questions you need to ask to get the answers of whether it happened or not aren't "Why was she alone" or "Why didn't she bite someone." Those are questions @ModebaSan asks because again, if you read his post contextually, he he's speculating on whether she was asking for it by not fighting back or questioning her admittedly bad decision to go there. Then he proceeds to say "Young women should never go anywhere alone." If you can't see that as a statement implying that this woman shares blame, then we are too far apart to even be discussing this. I don't know what else I can tell you. Regardless of how much blame to toss around, it still is aside from the question of whether or not it really took place.
Last edited:
Fryowa
Administrator
That's a potato/po-tah-to argument if I've ever heard one. It's no different than telling someone the sky isn't blue, its cyan.
You conveniently leave out the fact that red pill and incels promote dominating women because they're perpetually rejected by females. Paradoxically, the successful, "red pill types" aren't the ones taking part in this movement, man. It's the scorned ones. Ironic, but it's true.
You mention males are wired polygamous by their nature. "By our nature" we're also wired to kill rivals, swing from trees, and shit on the ground. At what point does one draw the line dismissing (and accepting) behavior as being pre-wired by nature?
Honest question. What is your personal yay or nay point for where we draw the line and say, "This is behavior that is acceptable because it's genetically wired into humans," or "This is unacceptable behavior because the human brain is able to make conscious altruistic decisions?" Early humans killed other clans over food competition, and competition to stay alive and pass your genes on is hard-wired into our DNA. Is that acceptable? I know it still happens all the time in one form or another, but is it ok?
Because you're saying men's dominance over women isn't misogyny, it's nature.
Last edited:
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
Your first point is completely nonsensical. Please try to make it again.
Red pill and incels are totally different things. Red pill promotes male self improvement. Incels are angry at the world because they perceive themselves as hopelessly at the bottom.
At no point did I do I condone engaging in relations without consent nor did I ever mention "dominance." In terms of the acceptability of "behavior" I will just pass along the standard mantra of the day that all cultures are created equally except western civilization which is literally the worst because Europe and America were dominated by white males who are literally responsible for literally every bad thing that has happened in the history of humanity.
judzeehawk
Well-Known Member
Eff Nebraska!
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
the palouse is literally in the middle of nowhere. worked with a guy who was a big WSU fan. it's in the middle of nowhere. Ames has more activity than the palouse.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
Excellent analysis. Hilarious video.
The axis that guy is missing is the older ladies who were 9s growing up and then moved downward as they got older. Ladies who were used to having men white knight them at every turn and then they fell off a cliff when they hit 45 or whatever are a special case that require major analysis.
