I went out to Worcester with my brother tonight to keep Tanya company for her first ever solo bar tending shift. On my way out of Worcester, I took 290E to 495N; at the bottom of the hill after the onramp, I pulled up next to another car, and noticed what appeared to be lights on top of the car. As I was going up the hill at ~70, he dropped back and switched in to the right lane. After I saw the headlights, I knew for sure it was a cop, so I held my speed and watched the road. At the crest of the hill, turbo spooled, I accelerated to 75, and pulled in to the middle lane to get out of the way of merging traffic, dropped in to neutral, and coasted down the hill. At the bottom, I got back in to fifth, and rode up the hill at 75. At the top of the hill, blue lights started to flash.
I pulled over slowly, turned on the dome light in my car, rolled down my drivers side window, and waited. A bodiless flashlight emerged from the cruiser, and slowly approached the car. The car lit up as it scanned for weapons, and soon after there were two knocks on the passenger window. I rolled down the window, and looked up.
It was a Mass state trooper, and he asked for my license and registration. As I was taking my license out, he asked me why my hand was shaking, if it was because I was nervous; of course, I was 20 miles from home on the side of the road. He asked how many beers I'd had to drink that night, so I answered honestly as I handed over the papers: two. He walked around the car, and came to my window. He shined his flashlight in my eyes, and I tried to to squint as I looked back at him. Then came the first test.
The officer asked me to say the letters of the alphabet, A B C D, starting from M and ending at W. I knew immediately that I was in for a barrage of tests, so I simply acknowledged the rules of the game and started playing. I passed round one, and moved on to round two: counting backwards. I had to start at 64 and count backwards to 52. Again, I counted backwards slowly, making sure not to make any mistakes.
The officer shined the light in my eyes again, and reassured me that I was doing well, so far. He asked if I could pass any more of his tests if he asked me to get out of the car. I said "I think I can," and he turned and started walking to the cruiser. He walked around the back of the car, and to the rear passenger side window. He shined his light in the car, and asked me what was in my bag. I told him it was my laptop. He asked what the prescription bottle was, so I told him they were antibiotics, prescribed to me. He asked to see inside the bag, so I reached back and opened each compartment so he could look inside. He asked to see the prescription bottle, so I handed it over, and he opened it and scrutinized each of the three pills inside very carefully. Then, he asked me again, "you're sure that if I ask you to step out of the vehicle that you can pass my other tests?" I asked, "is that a challenge?" That was the wrong thing to say.
His next words were, "are you fucking with me?" No sir, I am not. "Have you ever been arrested before?" No, and I don't plan on changing that tonight! "Your eyes are glazed over, bloodshot, and I can smell the alcohol on your breath. Are you sure you can pass my other tests if I ask you to get out of the car?" I told him that I was certain I could, so he told me to get out of the car, and I did. I followed him behind the car, and he had me put my hands on my head. He said something I couldn't make out because a truck blew by, so I said "excuse me?" He grabbed my arms at the wrists and forcefully put them on my head.
He asked if I had any weapons. I did not, and he patted me down to make sure. He had me stand facing the cruiser, with my arms at my side, not moving at all. As I stood there, I counted three trucks passing, which was an eternity since there aren't many of those on the road at 2AM. He then came up to me, and told me he was going to have me touch my nose. He demonstrated, touching his left finger to his nose and giving the same verbal command, and then with his right finger. Because he was facing me, his hands appeared to be on the opposite side from what he said. Round three, pass. Round four: balance on one foot. Fuck!
The instructions were simple: stand on whichever foot I decided, lift the other six inches in the air, stair straight at that toe, and count - one one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand - until he said to stop. I lifted my right foot, looked down, and stared at my visibly shaking foot. Twenty-two thousand seconds later, I was instructed to put my foot down, get back in the car, and wait.
He came back to my window, and asked if my record was going to come back clean when he ran my plates, license, and registration. I assured him it would, so he turned and walked back to his cruiser. Another eternity passed before he returned. He told me that I was speeding, that I needed to slow down, and I nodded; he told me that my left tail light was dimmer than the right, and it needed to be fixed - it took all of my will power to hold back from opening my mouth as I nodded. He said he was amazed that I was able to pass his tests in my state, mentioning again that my eyes were glazed over and bloodshot. He handed my my license and registration, and told me to drive safe.
I put my seat belt back on, stashed my registration in the glove box, and put my license back in my pocket. I looked over at Jason, and he looked back and said, "that was perfect." I pulled back on to the highway, leaving my flashers on until I passed 45, and continued driving. He was still following me for the next mile before he caught the next exit and disappeared in to the darkness.
Your "state?" You had two beers. If you couldn't pass those tests I would laugh at you.
so did you get a ticket?
Quote from: Trust on December 24, 2007, 08:38:02 AM
Your "state?" You had two beers. If you couldn't pass those tests I would laugh at you.
Not everyone can down thirty beers like you can, you know.
Quote from: rabbit on December 24, 2007, 10:24:30 AM
Quote from: Trust on December 24, 2007, 08:38:02 AM
Your "state?" You had two beers. If you couldn't pass those tests I would laugh at you.
Not everyone can down thirty beers like you can, you know.
Assuming he weighs, lets say 160lbs and drank both of the beers within one hour then his BAC would be about .02. According to his profile he is 21, thus he was .06 under the legal limit.
Quote from: BigAznDaddy on December 24, 2007, 09:49:14 AM
so did you get a ticket?
x2?
That cop was a fucking jew. Why'd he pull you over? Was 75 over the limit?
Quote from: Trust on December 24, 2007, 11:22:17 AM
Quote from: rabbit on December 24, 2007, 10:24:30 AM
Quote from: Trust on December 24, 2007, 08:38:02 AM
Your "state?" You had two beers. If you couldn't pass those tests I would laugh at you.
Not everyone can down thirty beers like you can, you know.
Assuming he weighs, lets say 160lbs and drank both of the beers within one hour then his BAC would be about .02. According to his profile he is 21, thus he was .06 under the legal limit.
Well, if he had two pints and weighs 160lbs, that comes to .05% according to this calculator (http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm). I don't know what the laws are where you live, but .05% is illegal here.
BAC of .08 is the general limits in the US.
Pints are 16 oz, bottles are 12 oz. Depends what he had and all. He could've had two talls (here those vary from 22 to 24 oz. beers).
It's 0.8 in Ontario, as well.
Quote from: iago on December 24, 2007, 11:28:23 AM
Quote from: Trust on December 24, 2007, 11:22:17 AM
Quote from: rabbit on December 24, 2007, 10:24:30 AM
Quote from: Trust on December 24, 2007, 08:38:02 AM
Your "state?" You had two beers. If you couldn't pass those tests I would laugh at you.
Not everyone can down thirty beers like you can, you know.
Assuming he weighs, lets say 160lbs and drank both of the beers within one hour then his BAC would be about .02. According to his profile he is 21, thus he was .06 under the legal limit.
Well, if he had two pints and weighs 160lbs, that comes to .05% according to this calculator (http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm). I don't know what the laws are where you live, but .05% is illegal here.
I was assuming it was a standard 12oz can of beer. In any case it shouldn't have been enough to cause any impairment unless he has a vagina.
I have a buddy that is 6'+, 190lbs and after two Smirnoffs he should not be driving. It's hilarious.
My freshman year of college we'd go drunk bowling and I'd have about 3 and have a good buzz. Towards the end of that year 2 40s and I was gooooood. Now, after about 6 beers I'm only in that "good place" :-\
Quote from: Trust on December 24, 2007, 01:03:21 PM
I was assuming it was a standard 12oz can of beer. In any case it shouldn't have been enough to cause any impairment unless he has a vagina.
Those random sexist comments are really annoying.
Gender makes no difference when it comes to alcohol, weight does. Yes, females tend to weigh less than men, but that's no reason to use having a vagina as an insult.
Quote from: iago on December 24, 2007, 01:57:31 PM
Quote from: Trust on December 24, 2007, 01:03:21 PM
I was assuming it was a standard 12oz can of beer. In any case it shouldn't have been enough to cause any impairment unless he has a vagina.
Those random sexist comments are really annoying.
Gender makes no difference when it comes to alcohol, weight does. Yes, females tend to weigh less than men, but that's no reason to use having a vagina as an insult.
Men can drink more, true story. That's why women drink drinks with like 2.5% alc/vol, so they can appear to drink more.
Quote from: Trust on December 24, 2007, 08:38:02 AM
Your "state?" You had two beers. If you couldn't pass those tests I would laugh at you.
Yes, I had two beers, and six double-rum+coke's, and I was high on "life." He never asked me if I was stoned, and he only asked me how many
beers I had. My BAC was somewhere around .20, but I do drink a lot so I've got a very high tolerance. Even if I got the breathalyser, I could've argued in court that because of my higher than average tolerance, I was still okay to drive. Still, If I'd been arrested that night, I would have missed Christmas, which would have pretty much ruined my vacation.
Quote from: BigAznDaddy on December 24, 2007, 09:49:14 AM
so did you get a ticket?
Just a slap on the wrist; not even a written warning.
Quote from: CrAz3D on December 24, 2007, 11:27:23 AM
That cop was a fucking jew. Why'd he pull you over? Was 75 over the limit?
The speed limit was 65. He pulled me over for having unevenly light tail lights.
Quote from: Camel on December 24, 2007, 03:42:29 PM
Yes, I had two beers, and six double-rum+coke's, and I was high on "life." He never asked me if I was stoned, and he only asked me how many beers I had. My BAC was somewhere around .20, but I do drink a lot so I've got a very high tolerance. Even if I got the breathalyser, I could've argued in court that because of my higher than average tolerance, I was still okay to drive. Still, If I'd been arrested that night, I would have missed Christmas, which would have pretty much ruined my vacation.
You're such a fucking dumbass. I really wish that cop would have locked you up for a loooong time.
Quote from: zorm on December 24, 2007, 04:55:04 PM
Quote from: Camel on December 24, 2007, 03:42:29 PM
Yes, I had two beers, and six double-rum+coke's, and I was high on "life." He never asked me if I was stoned, and he only asked me how many beers I had. My BAC was somewhere around .20, but I do drink a lot so I've got a very high tolerance. Even if I got the breathalyser, I could've argued in court that because of my higher than average tolerance, I was still okay to drive. Still, If I'd been arrested that night, I would have missed Christmas, which would have pretty much ruined my vacation.
You're such a fucking dumbass. I really wish that cop would have locked you up for a loooong time.
I have to agree.
Agreed. I know too many people some how affected by drunk driving deaths.
Quote from: CrAz3D on December 24, 2007, 11:27:23 AM
Quote from: BigAznDaddy on December 24, 2007, 09:49:14 AM
so did you get a ticket?
x2?
That cop was a fucking jew. Why'd he pull you over? Was 75 over the limit?
I hope Quikman becomes a leader again and bans you for that.
Quote from: zorm on December 24, 2007, 04:55:04 PM
Quote from: Camel on December 24, 2007, 03:42:29 PM
Yes, I had two beers, and six double-rum+coke's, and I was high on "life." He never asked me if I was stoned, and he only asked me how many beers I had. My BAC was somewhere around .20, but I do drink a lot so I've got a very high tolerance. Even if I got the breathalyser, I could've argued in court that because of my higher than average tolerance, I was still okay to drive. Still, If I'd been arrested that night, I would have missed Christmas, which would have pretty much ruined my vacation.
You're such a fucking dumbass. I really wish that cop would have locked you up for a loooong time.
It's not like I pounded a bunch of drinks and immediately got in my car. I was perfectly capable of driving when I left three hours after I stopped drinking. The field sobriety tests are designed to be much harder to pass than someone who wasn't capable of driving safely could manage to pass. The fact that I passed them - and not just by a small margin, he noted excellence - supports my position.
Quote from: Camel on December 24, 2007, 03:42:29 PM
The speed limit was 65. He pulled me over for having unevenly light tail lights.
Well then, don't fucking speed ;D
*retract cop = jew comment*
Quote from: iago on December 24, 2007, 01:57:31 PM
Quote from: Trust on December 24, 2007, 01:03:21 PM
I was assuming it was a standard 12oz can of beer. In any case it shouldn't have been enough to cause any impairment unless he has a vagina.
Those random sexist comments are really annoying.
Gender makes no difference when it comes to alcohol, weight does. Yes, females tend to weigh less than men, but that's no reason to use having a vagina as an insult.
Generally speaking, though, chicks can tolerate less booze cause they have more fat.
http://healthcenter.indiana.edu/caps/alcohol.shtml
Quote from: Camel on December 25, 2007, 08:53:47 PM
Quote from: zorm on December 24, 2007, 04:55:04 PM
Quote from: Camel on December 24, 2007, 03:42:29 PM
Yes, I had two beers, and six double-rum+coke's, and I was high on "life." He never asked me if I was stoned, and he only asked me how many beers I had. My BAC was somewhere around .20, but I do drink a lot so I've got a very high tolerance. Even if I got the breathalyser, I could've argued in court that because of my higher than average tolerance, I was still okay to drive. Still, If I'd been arrested that night, I would have missed Christmas, which would have pretty much ruined my vacation.
You're such a fucking dumbass. I really wish that cop would have locked you up for a loooong time.
It's not like I pounded a bunch of drinks and immediately got in my car. I was perfectly capable of driving when I left three hours after I stopped drinking. The field sobriety tests are designed to be much harder to pass than someone who wasn't capable of driving safely could manage to pass. The fact that I passed them - and not just by a small margin, he noted excellence - supports my position.
All it takes is one other idiot who isn't a good driver to fuck up, and because you lose reaction time being drunk AND high, you get fucked, too.
Quote from: CrAz3D on December 25, 2007, 08:58:08 PM
Quote from: iago on December 24, 2007, 01:57:31 PM
Quote from: Trust on December 24, 2007, 01:03:21 PM
I was assuming it was a standard 12oz can of beer. In any case it shouldn't have been enough to cause any impairment unless he has a vagina.
Those random sexist comments are really annoying.
Gender makes no difference when it comes to alcohol, weight does. Yes, females tend to weigh less than men, but that's no reason to use having a vagina as an insult.
Generally speaking, though, chicks can tolerate less booze cause they have more fat.
http://healthcenter.indiana.edu/caps/alcohol.shtml
Whether or not there is a link, there is still no reason to frame it in a derogatory way.
iago must have a vag too.
Quote from: Trust on December 26, 2007, 08:25:48 AM
iago must have a vag too.
Heh, I feel bad for anybody going through life like you. Someday, maybe you'll learn to think for yourself rather than letting society think for you!
Quote from: iago on December 26, 2007, 10:49:50 AM
Quote from: Trust on December 26, 2007, 08:25:48 AM
iago must have a vag too.
Heh, I feel bad for anybody going through life like you. Someday, maybe you'll learn to think for yourself rather than letting society think for you!
Society thinks you have a vagina too?
Quote from: Trust on December 26, 2007, 10:53:38 AM
Quote from: iago on December 26, 2007, 10:49:50 AM
Quote from: Trust on December 26, 2007, 08:25:48 AM
iago must have a vag too.
Heh, I feel bad for anybody going through life like you. Someday, maybe you'll learn to think for yourself rather than letting society think for you!
Society thinks you have a vagina too?
All aboard the fail-train! On an express route to the failboat!
Quote from: Trust on December 26, 2007, 10:53:38 AM
Quote from: iago on December 26, 2007, 10:49:50 AM
Quote from: Trust on December 26, 2007, 08:25:48 AM
iago must have a vag too.
Heh, I feel bad for anybody going through life like you. Someday, maybe you'll learn to think for yourself rather than letting society think for you!
Society thinks you have a vagina too?
No, society dictates that women are inferior to men, and, as such, saying that a male has female traits is an insult. For example, saying that a man can't drink as much, that he has a vagina, or even that he likes men are ways of assigning female traits to males in order to insult them.
I think that women are as good as men, and that it's ok to display female traits, in the same way that it's ok for females to display male traits. That doesn't necessarily mean that a guy is gay, since it's not an all-or-nothing situation.
http://www.youtube.com/v/Ei_uDStSYD8&rel=1
With that reasoning, I'm sure you're OK with this sort of behavior.
Quote from: Trust on December 26, 2007, 12:25:38 PM
With that reasoning, I'm sure you're OK with this sort of behavior.
You're pathetic and apparently incapable of reading. :-\
Quote from: iago on December 26, 2007, 11:57:32 AM
That doesn't necessarily mean that a guy is gay, since it's not an all-or-nothing situation.
Also, what's wrong with people acting like that? I'd certainly never get along with him, but I don't think there's anything harmful by the nature of behaving like he does.
This thread delivers.
Quote from: Sidoh on December 26, 2007, 01:06:29 PM
Also, what's wrong with people acting like that? I'd certainly never get along with him, but I don't think there's anything harmful by the nature of behaving like he does.
It's wrong because I follow society, obviously.
Quote from: Trust on December 26, 2007, 01:11:32 PM
It's wrong because I follow society, obviously.
I was trying to provoke a realization on your part. I have my hypotheses...
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=10912.msg139326#msg139326 date=1198692498]
This thread delivers.
You should visit the "Merry Christmas" thread, ha.
Quote from: Trust on December 26, 2007, 01:11:32 PM
Quote from: Sidoh on December 26, 2007, 01:06:29 PM
Also, what's wrong with people acting like that? I'd certainly never get along with him, but I don't think there's anything harmful by the nature of behaving like he does.
It's wrong because I follow society, obviously.
You're an idiot.
Quote from: rabbit on December 26, 2007, 05:42:58 PM
Quote from: Trust on December 26, 2007, 01:11:32 PM
Quote from: Sidoh on December 26, 2007, 01:06:29 PM
Also, what's wrong with people acting like that? I'd certainly never get along with him, but I don't think there's anything harmful by the nature of behaving like he does.
It's wrong because I follow society, obviously.
You're an idiot.
Let me guess, I'm an idiot because I allegedly blindly follow society?
I don't have Flash installed, can somebody summarize?
Quote from: iago on December 26, 2007, 10:21:43 PM
I don't have Flash installed, can somebody summarize?
Some (presumably homosexual) guy who looks and sounds like a girl does a booty dance to Fergalicious by Fergie
Ah, well, nobody should do that, male or female, so it's relatively moot. :)
Quote from: iago on December 26, 2007, 10:59:50 PM
Ah, well, nobody should do that, male or female, so it's relatively moot. :)
That's judging...oooh, you're a bad person, oooh
Quote from: CrAz3D on December 27, 2007, 03:09:43 AM
Quote from: iago on December 26, 2007, 10:59:50 PM
Ah, well, nobody should do that, male or female, so it's relatively moot. :)
That's judging...oooh, you're a bad person, oooh
Who said not to judge?
Quote from: iago on December 26, 2007, 11:57:32 AM
No, society dictates that women are inferior to men, and, as such, saying that a male has female traits is an insult. For example, saying that a man can't drink as much, that he has a vagina, or even that he likes men are ways of assigning female traits to males in order to insult them.
Actually, nature originally dictated it, and society followed. To be honest, I'd like a stay home wife to raise my kids, just because that's been the way of our species even pre-Neanderthal, and I've always believed that sticking to the most natural way of living will be the best for anyone involved. Most species for that matter. I'm not saying women are mentally inferior, I have no idea. I'm just saying that due to survival of the fittest, and men having a greater need for intellect while hunting, there's always a chance that men are in some way mentally superior. We already know we're physically superior (gain muscle mass easier), so why should this be any different?
Quote from: iago on December 27, 2007, 08:35:42 AM
Quote from: CrAz3D on December 27, 2007, 03:09:43 AM
Quote from: iago on December 26, 2007, 10:59:50 PM
Ah, well, nobody should do that, male or female, so it's relatively moot. :)
That's judging...oooh, you're a bad person, oooh
Who said not to judge?
You said we shouldn't judge a guy's manliness by comparing him to a woman (or whatever). You're judging our way of judging ... tsk
Quote from: Metal Militia on December 27, 2007, 11:46:26 AM
Quote from: iago on December 26, 2007, 11:57:32 AM
No, society dictates that women are inferior to men, and, as such, saying that a male has female traits is an insult. For example, saying that a man can't drink as much, that he has a vagina, or even that he likes men are ways of assigning female traits to males in order to insult them.
Actually, nature originally dictated it, and society followed. To be honest, I'd like a stay home wife to raise my kids, just because that's been the way of our species even pre-Neanderthal, and I've always believed that sticking to the most natural way of living will be the best for anyone involved. Most species for that matter. I'm not saying women are mentally inferior, I have no idea. I'm just saying that due to survival of the fittest, and men having a greater need for intellect while hunting, there's always a chance that men are in some way mentally superior. We already know we're physically superior (gain muscle mass easier), so why should this be any different?
While I think it's reasonable to want a stay at home wife, I'd be very careful invoking "nature" as justification in most situations. First, what is "natural" is not necessarily moral or in the best interests of society. Everything we do is natural, how can it not be? Even the most dispicable, seemingly unusual things people do are instinctual.
Everything is natural, and therefore nothing is justified solely on the basis of being natural. Also, you could argue that the feminist movement is a natural development, (just as much as anything in human history is), and the fact that their movement is making progress is an example for "survival of the fittest".
Besides, in early history there are many examples of human matriarchal societies. The Jewish people are a well known example of this. I also think that early natives of South America were part of a class structure where women were essentially in complete control of anything most consider significant.
Quote from: Rule on December 27, 2007, 01:26:41 PM
Everything we do is natural, how can it not be? Even the most dispicable, seemingly unusual things people do are instinctual. Everything is natural, and therefore nothing is justified solely on the basis of being natural. Also, you could argue that the feminist movement is a natural development, (just as much as anything in human history is), and the fact that their movement is making progress is an example for "survival of the fittest".
So ... in the interest of "survival of the fittest" natural actions are justified?
Quote from: CrAz3D on December 27, 2007, 01:31:17 PM
So ... in the interest of "survival of the fittest" natural actions ok justified?
That's not a coherent sentence.
Quote from: CrAz3D on December 27, 2007, 01:31:17 PM
So ... in the interest of "survival of the fittest" natural actions ok justified?
That's horrible English, are you high? "So ... in the interest of "survival of the fittest" natural actions ok justified?" Maybe drunk since you're a Southern? ;D!
(Obligatory (see http://www.x86labs.org/forum/index.php/topic,10925.msg139387.html#msg139387) ;))
One word ::).
In the interest of survival of the fittest, natural actions are justified?
Quote from: CrAz3D on December 27, 2007, 01:39:53 PM
One word ::).
In the interest of survival of the fittest, natural actions are justified?
Not all natural actions are in the interest of the survival of the fittest.
I'm asking, though, in the interest of survival of the fittest, are natural actions justified?
Quote from: CrAz3D on December 27, 2007, 01:43:22 PM
I'm asking, though, in the interest of survival of the fittest, are natural actions justified?
My point is that all actions are natural, even if they seem unusual. So it is redundant to say are "natural actions" justified. The "natural" part of the question is irrelevant, and so
your question reads: "are actions justified for being in the interest of survival of the fittest?"
You'll have to be more specific though. In the best survival interests of the individual who is doing the action, or in the best survival interests of his species?
If an individual cannot act to ensure his survival nor can the species, they go hand in hand.
So, can some one/group/species act in the interest of survival and have that action be justified.
Quote from: CrAz3D on December 27, 2007, 01:52:56 PM
If an individual cannot act to ensure his survival nor can the species, they go hand in hand.
Not necessarily true. People can do things that further their own survival, but aren't in the best interests of their species on the whole. There are well known examples in game theory
that relate to this. Suppose everyone in a classroom is given $10. You can take that person's $10 by giving their name to the game administrator, so long as no-one else has given that person's name to the administrator. It is in the overall best interests of the class for no-one to give any names to the administrator, and if everyone gives out names, you are unlikely to be in a good situation. However, it is, of course, in your own best interests to have no-one gives out names except you, helping yourself as much as you can at the expense of others.
Quote from: CrAz3D on December 27, 2007, 01:52:56 PM
So, can some one/group/species act in the interest of survival and have that action be justified.
It would depend on the situation. Do you have an example? I think survival can be a good motivation, yes.
mmmmmaybe a pest that attacks pets and farm animals? ;)
Quote from: CrAz3D on December 27, 2007, 02:07:52 PM
mmmmmaybe a pest that attacks pets and farm animals? ;)
Heh, I knew where this was going. My argument in that thread was more with the mentality behind hunting, and why people find hunting fun. The "fun" part is essentially robbing an intelligent animal of its life. You wouldn't consider picking up trash "fun", for example. I also think "dealing" with coyotes by shooting them is morally wrong: whatever good comes from the "pest" control does not make up for killing that animal.
Judging from the poll, it seems that an overwhelming majority of people here feel that hunting for amusement is morally wrong.
Quote from: Metal Militia on December 27, 2007, 11:46:26 AM
Quote from: iago on December 26, 2007, 11:57:32 AM
No, society dictates that women are inferior to men, and, as such, saying that a male has female traits is an insult. For example, saying that a man can't drink as much, that he has a vagina, or even that he likes men are ways of assigning female traits to males in order to insult them.
Actually, nature originally dictated it, and society followed. To be honest, I'd like a stay home wife to raise my kids, just because that's been the way of our species even pre-Neanderthal, and I've always believed that sticking to the most natural way of living will be the best for anyone involved. Most species for that matter. I'm not saying women are mentally inferior, I have no idea. I'm just saying that due to survival of the fittest, and men having a greater need for intellect while hunting, there's always a chance that men are in some way mentally superior. We already know we're physically superior (gain muscle mass easier), so why should this be any different?
I haven't read the rest of this thread, between Rule and CrAz3d, but I'll answer this point my way.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman staying home to raise children. But typically men get made fun of if they do the same thing. And it's the same as calling people a fag, or a pussy, or saying they have a vagina. We're supposed to consider female qualities negative.
I don't know about you, but I see vaginas as very positive.
Quote from: Trust on December 27, 2007, 07:45:21 PM
I don't know about you, but I see vaginas as very positive.
You don't see vaginas very often. HAH!
Damn. This thread disappointed me greatly. The title is very misleading. I thought it was about the game rockband. Fuck you Camel.
Quote from: Michael on December 31, 2007, 03:36:06 AM
Damn. This thread disappointed me greatly. The title is very misleading. I thought it was about the game rockband. Fuck you Camel.
I'm glad it wasn't. This thread delivered.
Well done, everyone. :)