Obama appointee dismisses "Mattress Girl" lawsuit against Columbia

[laughing dog]

And you see nothing in common with screaming about the Teletubbies because Tinkly Dinkly is teaching young children how to be gay or with running around promoting an agenda because a person thinks the government and society are against the male gender. Nope, those are SJWs, too. I suppose you could try to call the former group religious fanatics or something and make that a separate class, but you're still left with the latter group of people, who are trying to promote their version of social justice sans religion.

That was silly of you to assume I would defend the loons that attack tellytubbies and then proceed to attack that perceived hypocrisy. I wouldn't call trying to oppress gays "justice" social or any other type and neither do the rightwing idiots that want to oppress people. Their motivation is moral purity. Justice based morality and purity based morality are separate things.

The motivation for justice is irrelevant to the issue.

 

[Malintent]

Nature might be sexist but laws should not be. Every individual deserves equal treatment under law. Justice should not depend on which demographic one belongs to.

So you're saying it would be wrong for a police officer to shoot an unarmed man in the back while he is trying to flee, or to shoot a man lying prone on the ground with 2 bullets in him 14 more times? How come you are never outraged when a bad cop unjustly takes away a black man's right to live, but start frothing at the mouth every time protesters block traffic or a woman tries to makes a statement by dragging a mattress around? Why are certain injustices so much more unpalatable to you than others where black people were the victims? Your fake outrage is not fooling anyone.

everyone has the right to be outraged by what bothers them. Me, personally, I get outraged when black people are allowed to be racist because, you know, slavery happened... so if a few white folk take a hit because some black person is upset about that, or that their manner is offensive to another person, or because they choose not to use headphones on crowded trains, or whatever sets them off, then it is OK that the innocent suffer, right?
It's OK for innocent males to have their lives completely ruined by women that were not raped, or so much as touched by them, because.. you know... women get raped sometimes and that is no good.

 

[Nexus]

first off, i wasn't talking to you or at you or ever include a reference to you in any of my posts, but the fact that you're going out of your way to jump in front of a characterization in order to demand that it doesn't fit you pretty much absolutely confirms that it does fit you.

... Which is odd because post #15 is there for anyone to read. You quoted me then responded to me.

okay either you're a sock puppet of Derec and you forgot what account you're logged into, you think you're replying to somebody else, or you've recently had a stroke - because i have no idea what end of who's ass you're pulling any of this out of.

This is hilariously ironic. Go re-read post #15, your quoting of me and your response. And pay better attention before you go on these bizarre ass pulled rants.

 

[Nexus]

That was silly of you to assume I would defend the loons that attack tellytubbies and then proceed to attack that perceived hypocrisy. I wouldn't call trying to oppress gays "justice" social or any other type and neither do the rightwing idiots that want to oppress people. Their motivation is moral purity. Justice based morality and purity based morality are separate things.

The motivation for justice is irrelevant to the issue.

No its not. You're upset "SJW" is pejorative. And trying lessen that sting by applying the label on people you disagree with in the hopes they stop using the term. People like the christian whack jobs that attack Tellytubbies are not claiming to uphold justice and never refereed to themselves as warriors for justice. They may call themselves warriors for Christ or virtue. Come up with your own term for them like Champions of Virtue. If the COVs are as annoying and persistent as SJWs then perhaps the term COVs will become pejorative as well.

 

[prideandfall]

... Which is odd because post #15 is there for anyone to read. You quoted me then responded to me.

lol actually i wasn't lying, but i was indeed wrong - i totally forgot that there was a reply to you tacked on to the end of my reply to Derec, and i can't tell the difference between posts from either of you.
so, i was completely wrong in my assertion i hadn't posted to you, and i'm sorry that there isn't enough of a difference between you and Derec for one to be able to tell you two apart.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And you see nothing in common with screaming about the Teletubbies because Tinkly Dinkly is teaching young children how to be gay or with running around promoting an agenda because a person thinks the government and society are against the male gender. Nope, those are SJWs, too. I suppose you could try to call the former group religious fanatics or something and make that a separate class, but you're still left with the latter group of people, who are trying to promote their version of social justice sans religion.

That was silly of you to assume I would defend the loons that attack tellytubbies and then proceed to attack that perceived hypocrisy.

I did not make such a bizarre assumption. All I wrote was that it is the same kind of thing, not anything about your criteria for moral acceptance of such an event or persons.

I wouldn't call trying to oppress gays "justice" social or any other type and neither do the rightwing idiots that want to oppress people.

They would indeed think that an adult allegedly teaching homosexuality to children should be stopped as a just social outcome and probably further that a just society would criminalize homosexuality. Part of their social activism to obtain just outcome would be to convince people to boycott teletubbies until Tinkly Dinkly is burned at the stake, the show is cancelled, people get in trouble, etc, etc...very similar behaviors to complaining about JK Rowlings except it actually involves a tangible outcome of justice in their minds...it is not just an expressed opinion.

Their motivation is moral purity. Justice based morality and purity based morality are separate things.

The distinction of how particular individuals perceive their social activism for justice is irrelevant to whether they are engaging in social activism for a just outcome, ie. through their righteousness. If you don't believe logic that follows from definitions, then fine, here is a Christian on the matter:

Biblical justice involves making individuals, communities, and the cosmos whole, by upholding both goodness and impartiality.

However, like I wrote, even if you tried to make this a separate category you are still left with the following from my previous post:

... or with running around promoting an agenda because a person thinks the government and society are against the male gender. Nope, those are SJWs, too. ... who are trying to promote their version of social justice sans religion.

...to which your response had no counterargument.

 

[laughing dog]

The motivation for justice is irrelevant to the issue.

No its not.

Utter nonsense. What motivates people to promote justice is irrelevant to the fact they are acting to promote justice. It is absurd to claim otherwise.

You're upset "SJW" is pejorative.

No, I am not. Wrong again. I am surprised that any normal member of the human race thinks "social justice" is something to make fun of. Philosophers since the time of Plato have thought and discussed ideal societies and ideas about social justice. Just because some people who work towards their view of social justice appear inane or crazy, that does not mean everyone who works towards their view of social justice is inane or crazy.

I am simply using the English language correctly and equitably. If people with agenda X for social justice are considered SJWs, then people with agenda Y or anti-X for social justice are also SJWs. To say they are not SJWS is as stupid as saying 2+2 is not 4 because it looks different.

And trying lessen that sting by applying the label on people you disagree with in the hopes they stop using the term.

Wrong again. I don't think it is a pejorative term and I don't use it as one. I am modelling proper and logical English in the hopes that others will follow. It is not my problem if close-minded people think SJW is a pejorative term that should only be applied to people with whom they disagree.

 

[prideandfall]

when Nexus and others of his ilk whine about being called an SJW it reminds me of preachers, who are actively having sex with other men, calling openly gay people faggots and denouncing them as abominations.

cuz you see, if a gay man has sex with another gay man, that makes them faggots.
but if a preacher has sex with another man, well, they're not gay you see, so they're not faggots.

 

[ZiprHead]

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. - Sir Winston Churchill

 

[whichphilosophy]

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. - Sir Winston Churchill

“From fanaticism to barbarism is only one step.”
Denis Diderot, Essai sur le mérite et la vertu
1713 - 1784 French philosopher and writer.

 

[JonA]

Amazing.

Countless men get away with rape. A tiny fraction of women make false accusations of rape.

Despite this, you spend a great deal of time complaining about the latter, and no time at all complaining about the former. Is this part of your strategy for the War On Women?

What exactly is your point?

It is a periodic post that is typically due because Derec just can't drop his mistrust of women and continues to harmp on stuff like this all the time. Pretty much just releasing frustration. Derec's earlier presumptions in the thread were debunked and he still rails on.

What mistrust of women?

Are we reading the same posts?

Derec's posts in this thread comes with a terrible amount of baggage called, all of Derec's postings. You may want to check out his posts in The Lounge.

I have read some of his other posts.

I didn't see anything that made me think he distrusts women.

But anyway, Derec's character is hardly relevant to the topic of this tread - which has recently gone completely off the deep end.

 

[Malintent]

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. - Sir Winston Churchill

“From fanaticism to barbarism is only one step.”
Denis Diderot, Essai sur le mérite et la vertu
1713 - 1784 French philosopher and writer.

"I like Turtles" - Jonathan, May 2007

 

[RavenSky]

Amazing.

Countless men get away with rape. A tiny fraction of women make false accusations of rape.

Despite this, you spend a great deal of time complaining about the latter, and no time at all complaining about the former. Is this part of your strategy for the War On Women?

What exactly is your point?

It is a periodic post that is typically due because Derec just can't drop his mistrust of women and continues to harmp on stuff like this all the time. Pretty much just releasing frustration. Derec's earlier presumptions in the thread were debunked and he still rails on.

What mistrust of women?

Are we reading the same posts?

Derec's posts in this thread comes with a terrible amount of baggage called, all of Derec's postings. You may want to check out his posts in The Lounge.

I have read some of his other posts.

I didn't see anything that made me think he distrusts women.

But anyway, Derec's character is hardly relevant to the topic of this tread - which has recently gone completely off the deep end.

This thread went off the deep end in the OP when Derec derailed his own topic:

Columbia absolutely did wrong by giving Mattress Girl class credit to defame her victim and by allowing her, contrary to rules, to drag that mattress to the graduation ceremony. It is very difficult in our legal climate for victims of false rape allegations to get any semblance of justice.
Emma Sulkowicz’s Accused Rapist Had His Lawsuit Against Columbia Dismissed
So according to this judge, Title IX only protects women alleging rape but not men falsely accused of rape. That sexist bullshit, but par for the course in our deeply messed up society.

Assuming the topic was actually supposed to be about Judge Gregory Woods' dismissal of Paul Nungesser's Title IX lawsuit, Derec immediately derailed into his typical rant against women in general and Emma Sulkowicz in particular. He continues beating his hobby horse claim about "false rape allegations" as if this is any sort of widespread problem (especially when compared to the number of unprosecuted rapes), and didn't actually say a single word about the why's or wherefore's of the dismissal itself. Other people did try to have a rational discussion about the specific legalities of the dismissal, but Derec chose to continue with his hobby horse instead.

And for someone who wants to pompously finger-wag that Derec's character "hardly relevant to the topic of this tread" - take your own damned advice before offering it to people who have zero interest in your *advice*. Here is your very first post in this thread:

The behavior of many in this thread is just more evidence that the political Left places no value whatsoever on individual freedoms, liberties, and justice - the bedrock of enlightenment thinking and true liberalism.

Is it any wonder why Dawkins calls them 'pathetic'? Or Nawaz 'regressive'?

Shameful. Just shameful.

The character of "many in this thread" is "hardly relevant to the topic of this tread"... or in other words - your contributions to this thread are shameful. Just shameful.

 

[JonA]

Amazing.

Countless men get away with rape. A tiny fraction of women make false accusations of rape.

Despite this, you spend a great deal of time complaining about the latter, and no time at all complaining about the former. Is this part of your strategy for the War On Women?

What exactly is your point?

It is a periodic post that is typically due because Derec just can't drop his mistrust of women and continues to harmp on stuff like this all the time. Pretty much just releasing frustration. Derec's earlier presumptions in the thread were debunked and he still rails on.

What mistrust of women?

Are we reading the same posts?

Derec's posts in this thread comes with a terrible amount of baggage called, all of Derec's postings. You may want to check out his posts in The Lounge.

I have read some of his other posts.

I didn't see anything that made me think he distrusts women.

But anyway, Derec's character is hardly relevant to the topic of this tread - which has recently gone completely off the deep end.

This thread went off the deep end in the OP when Derec derailed his own topic:

Columbia absolutely did wrong by giving Mattress Girl class credit to defame her victim and by allowing her, contrary to rules, to drag that mattress to the graduation ceremony. It is very difficult in our legal climate for victims of false rape allegations to get any semblance of justice.
Emma Sulkowicz’s Accused Rapist Had His Lawsuit Against Columbia Dismissed
So according to this judge, Title IX only protects women alleging rape but not men falsely accused of rape. That sexist bullshit, but par for the course in our deeply messed up society.

Assuming the topic was actually supposed to be about Judge Gregory Woods' dismissal of Paul Nungesser's Title IX lawsuit, Derec immediately derailed into his typical rant against women in general and Emma Sulkowicz in particular. He continues beating his hobby horse claim about "false rape allegations" as if this is any sort of widespread problem (especially when compared to the number of unprosecuted rapes), and didn't actually say a single word about the why's or wherefore's of the dismissal itself. Other people did try to have a rational discussion about the specific legalities of the dismissal, but Derec chose to continue with his hobby horse instead.

And for someone who wants to pompously finger-wag that Derec's character "hardly relevant to the topic of this tread" - take your own damned advice before offering it to people who have zero interest in your *advice*. Here is your very first post in this thread:

The behavior of many in this thread is just more evidence that the political Left places no value whatsoever on individual freedoms, liberties, and justice - the bedrock of enlightenment thinking and true liberalism.

Is it any wonder why Dawkins calls them 'pathetic'? Or Nawaz 'regressive'?

Shameful. Just shameful.

The character of "many in this thread" is "hardly relevant to the topic of this tread"... or in other words - your contributions to this thread are shameful. Just shameful.

That's pretty funny coming from someone whose first post in this thread was a veiled character assault on the OPer.

 

[laughing dog]

That's pretty funny coming from someone whose first post in this thread was a veiled character assault on the OPer.

The irony in this response coming from someone who has not posted on point in the entire thread, and who engaged in veiled character assault in his 1st upchuck in the thread is overwhelmingly sad.

 

[RavenSky]

That's pretty funny coming from someone whose first post in this thread was a veiled character assault on the OPer.

My only post in this entire thread prior to calling out your hypocrisy above was to Nexus, not to or about Derec:

Your insistence that people against Social Justice Warriors are just a SJWs themselves is as stupid as Christians claiming Atheism is just another form of religion.

"atheist" has a very clear meaning. "Social Justice Warrior" does not, especially not since it has been perverted by conservatives seeking to denigrate all liberals.

And as long as the term is going to be twisted beyond all original meaning, what's good for the goose...

- - - Updated - - -

and the justice he deserves doesn't fall under title IX, so the slavish circle-jerking you right wing knobs do over strict adherence to the exact letter of federal law is applicable here.
that you're all in such a huff over this ruling just shows how hypocritical you are.

First, I'm not right wing. Second I wasn't arguing the legal merit of the case regarding title IX, I was criticizing Simpledon's indifference to the guy's injustice since he wasn't a part of leftist approved groups. And third I'm not in a huff over this. I've simply made three posts on this topic. The fact you got everything about me wrong and then use that BS to assume hypocrisy only shows how clueless you are.

And you have misrepresented SimpleDon as being "indifferent" to the guy, so...

You, on the other hand, immediately engaged in direct character attacks on the other members of this board, and have yet to post anything here ON TOPIC.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[fromderinside]

This is such nonsense. What if a guy violates a woman with a broomstick. That's still considered rape. But you'll probably come up with some weird theory about how a broomstick could still get her pregnant.

Nope. That would be a physical assault akin to what happened when the black guy was sodomized by cops a while back in NYC.

 

[fromderinside]

That puts me at odds with SJWs like you, prideandfall or fromderinside.

Isn't that using one's handle to mock? Uh, guidance from monitors - right here!

 

[RavenSky]

This is such nonsense. What if a guy violates a woman with a broomstick. That's still considered rape. But you'll probably come up with some weird theory about how a broomstick could still get her pregnant.

Nope. That would be a physical assault akin to what happened when the black guy was sodomized by cops a while back in NYC.

As much as it pains me to ever have to agree with TheBeave, he is correct in this specific point. Being sodomized with a broomstick without your consent is "rape" or a "sexual assault" under all but the most antiquated laws, and it would be called "rape" whether the victim was male or female, and regardless whether the assailant was male or female.

 

[J842P]

This is such nonsense. What if a guy violates a woman with a broomstick. That's still considered rape. But you'll probably come up with some weird theory about how a broomstick could still get her pregnant.

Nope. That would be a physical assault akin to what happened when the black guy was sodomized by cops a while back in NYC.

Depending on the jurisdiction, penetration with foreign objects is considered either sexual assault or rape, I believe. Most people would consider it a form of rape, however.