User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6743 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
We all accede to this--when it's brought to our attention. Then return to our religious way of looking at things.
Seven odd billion of us on the planet. Might not be worth my time to worry about one stranger.
So, did you mean the moral line? I think that it's at least as far across that line as it is across the legal line, if not more so.
Especially someone you don't know or care about.
The law in complex societies such as ours is derogation from tribal justice and always on shaky footing. We don't know or sufficiently appreciate how lucky we are--if we did we wouldn't be so quick to denigrate the processes.
I'll say it again: get over your damn self. You're being a pompous, know-it-all jackass, as you tend to be, and this time, it bit you in the dick. Don't say ignorant, sexist ####, and you won't get called out for sounding like an ignorant, sexist ass. No one is "denaturing" anything, and I increasingly get the sense you're using words without the slightest understanding of what they mean. What you're calling "nature" is the product of generations of patriarchal ideology masquerading as science. If you had anything resembling a grade-school knowledge of the feminist empirical research on the history of medicine and science, you'd understand that. The whole category of "nature" is riddled through with ideology-- it can't not be. Claiming that you have some divine insight into it-- that the rest of us are attempting to deny-- is ignorance cloaked in arrogance. Excusing rape because "nature" is the same argument misogynists have been trotting out for literally hundreds if not thousands of years, and it's shameful that you've decided to thrown your lot in with them. You can delude yourself into thinking your argument has more complexity than theirs because you toss a "denature" into the mix, but that's a cheap and not particularly well-executed attempt at sophistry.
Morty, SBB, and Jack I can look past, because this sort of crap is par for course for them. But you're not getting off that easy.
I will say this more generally about the politics threads: I learn a lot from you all. There are some very intelligent people here who bring a wide range of specialized knowledge to the table. I prefer to lurk and learn when I don't have much new to contribute. But on gender: BTF is an ugly place. The child support thread was a nightmare, and this one somehow managed to top it. I'm not saying this to shout down people I disagree with, but more because I echoed Matt and Vlad's sentiments in reading through the comments-- both of these threads made me really not want to associate with BTF, not because of the opinions expressed, but because of the pridefulness people take in digging in deep on attitudes that should have been purged decades ago. You're free to hold those opinions-- some people think that the KKK really had some good intentions-- but don't expect people to want to associate with you for very long if you continue to cling to them.
Except of course this (in large part) is not what is being said in this thread by the side you are arguing against. You clearly think it is, but we are not arguing people are not monkeys, we are (I am at any rate) suggesting the conversation does not end there. In fact stating that does not advance the conversation at all.
Because we are not actually monkeys*. We are primates and our nature does influence/reflect/limit who and what we are, but it does not fully describe who we are and how we behave, nor should it. And many of us find the suggestion it does ranging from odd to offensive.
* Monkeys have a tail. Chimps, Gorillas, and people (and others) are not monkeys. I recognize you may know this, but it kind of annoys me when people make that mistake and it is sadly common.
Internet message boards, on the other hand, definitely worth your time.
You really like this mantra (so much so you decided to blast it out again out of nowhere), but it's barely ever more than one sentence. Is there no explanation for what can or cannot be allowed, what is or isn't expected based on your WE ARE ANIMALS mantra?
I think that's one reason why people react so strongly to those opinions. They do have real world effects.
Yes, we should attempt, consciously, to reason. That necessarily means looking at that which at the outset might repels us--the other side's point of view. But that isn't animalistic--furiously denying that it is required of you to stoop to giving the other side its due is. And it feels so good--almost like having your teeth in their neck, doesn't it?
Promise?
For everybody, not just the victim, not just the perpetrators. Society has an interest in seeing all persons get their due in some way, and the King wants not justice first but order and stability in his kingdom.
That's a loathsome post. Hopefully, it's not typical. Although I've been here posting for a while, except for a few posters, exceptions, I really don't have a sense of most posters' characters or personalities. I try to reply to what is said, not on who said it. Having said that, if Sam doesn't respond to this, I think I will because it seems doctrinaire and bigoted.
And by golly how can anyone possibly wonder about the validity of the "feminist empirical research on the history of medicine and science."
What exactly is "feminist empirical research"?
Yes, you, the bystander, intuits that you get involved with the law you just might find yourself in a world of ####--a quicksand of seething ordure that you might not be able to extricate yourself from so easily. So preen about your superiority in comparison to the callousness of others when it comes to helping out--until it's your turn.
***
I left it mostly unsaid with my revelatory post a few pages back, but, in addition to my desire for normalcy exceeding my need for justice - I felt like there was nothing I could realistically do (short of vigilante acts). My story was too weird and what were the cops going to do - dust my bruises for fingerprints? That was defeatist and selfish and wrong - and I knew that at the time - but I felt ... I can't describe it ... trapped? Guilty? Broken? I don't know the word for it, but somewhere triangulated between those things; that someone would feel that way in that scenario likely surprises no one.
It didn't change my beliefs on sexual assault (I'm against it), but it made the arguments for why people don't report it a hell of a lot less abstract.
If you want to create an environment where people don't feel comfortable that they can report sexual violence - then suggest that events like Steubenville are a witch hunt, or be flippant, or focus on whether the girl was asking for it -- you'll get your wish. That doesn't mean that you can't speak for other perspectives or even joke about this stuff, but you ought to be damn careful with what you're saying and mindful of the context.
As others have said, comments can have real world effects.
Let's not get too tinhorny. Obviously Sam is speaking in the voice of those bystanders' Zeitgeist, not in his own voice.
The argument at we're all stupid, selfish beasts who shouldn't be expected to rise beyond our base desires is completely inconsistent with your average Sam-based world view. Unless Sam's gone full Ayn Rand on us.
Now, it is certainly possible to disagree with the many different case studies offered in support of that thesis. But feminist attempts at "denaturing" gender are not about moving gender out of the realm of nature, but rather about recognizing the problems inherent in our construct of nature in the first place. Reasserting the naturalness of the body, and the natural coding of behaviors like rape, is just either refusing or ignoring the evidence presented by feminists in support of their thesis.
This thread hasn't really been worth commenting on much for the last ... 800 posts or so? SH's position in this thread is something that might be able to be argued (in a different universe) from an empiricist point of view without sounding like a sexist gasbag, but not from an a priori POV. SH's problem is that he is using the reasoning of misogynists and trying to claim that he is not like them.
I have not responded directly to your post partly because I don't know what to say. I have come up with a couple thoughts but they all sound pat and ridiculous to me when I think them*. Thanks for your viewpoint, for sharing in a relevant and personal way, I don't know what it meant for you to type it, but your post and DIABCs posts have made me think and evaluate my positions, to really think, and that is one of the reasons I come here, so selfishly I say thanks.
I think what you wrote, what you felt and did at the time, is very human and very understandable. I have never been in that position and can't really put myself there so I can't imagine how I would feel or act.
* EDIT: This one does to, but I decided to write it anyway.
Give him five! Up high! Down low! Behind the back! Handshake! Turn around! Handshake! Dance! Woot Woot!
That is an interesting point. I don't know that I agree, but let me explain. In whole the arc of history, where our culture is clearly bending, is away from rape tolerance and towards the better angels of our nature. A vast majority of the people in our culture are actively or at least reactively against rape, even by the fairly loose definition of the term.
But - and it is a sadly large but - there are large sections of our culture that do condone rape through redefinition and other means. It is not like the rapists are a huge percentage of our culture and so it means that even with islands of that condoning there is still a horrifying amount of rape.
So even while society as a whole is against it, it still continues seemingly unabated from a practical standpoint. As a male it is easy for me to say things are going in the right direction and most of society has learned (is learning), but even as small as I am I am not really afraid of being victimized, I am not the one living in fear of (or with the consequences of) rape.
I guess I am saying you may be wrong, but in a very real way you are also right. I am not comfortable suggesting most people are bad and condone rape, because I don't think that is true. But there is far too much rape happening to just wave it away and suggest it is not a horrifying problem.
Amazingly, the KKK still thinks they're relevant to anything:
You stay classy, KKK.
So Ray, why is 2021 deserving of scorn, but 2013 perfectly OK? Deriding a post is awesome, but complementing one is terrible?
Personally I think both are valuable.
You are seriously embarrassing yourself.
If you're a male, you increasingly have a chance of going to some sort of gender Gulag to be rehabilitated, or to prison to be raped. You know how many men are sexually abused in prison Mr. Mouse? Probably both. (And you still haven't replied to 1967.)
I didn't read 2013.
That said, I wasn't aware I was supposed to rate each post, up or down.
Complimenting. i, not e :-)
When you are using the same language as White power people, it's time to re-examine your argument.
SBB also serves a vital function in this regard. If I ever find myself agreeing with SBB, I immediately re-examine every one of my assumptions that led me to that place.
And, you know, to a lesser or greater degree, that's how it works. Everyone belongs to some group that has designated another group as its nemesis, the problem, that it thinks should just shut up and suck it up.
The arguments here as to rape and sex privileges or liabilities is a perfect example, and there is a good reason for it that can not be gotten around because that would require one side or the other to cede rights and privileges. To some degree it's irreconcilable.
Anyhoo, I'm inclined to agree with your 2024 - though I don't know how much that's skewed by my upper middle class, suburban, family man lifestyle. Not to go culture war or political with this, but I was shocked at the willingness of politicians to invoke rape in ridiculous ways during the last election cycle and relieved to see them punished accordingly.
You see, that's just wrong. Stupidly, deeply stupidly wrong. You go by what is said and meant, not by who says it or where you think it originates. You should have learned that a long long time ago. If you can't get beyond ascribing labels like that to your opponent, you ain't going nowhere.
When you can't help yourself from an addiction to tarring someone's statements like this....
Not to mention: what's wrong with White people wanting power? Unlike Black people wanting it, or American Native people wanting it, or Hispanics, White people wanting it is somehow beyond the pale?
It's not irreconcilable to respect the agency of women. What in the #### is this place?
Enough BBTF for me for a while ...
A Lego park, maybe.
Take a breather. You've earned it.
Carry That Weight
Upon showing some of this thread to a woman: "Clearly some of these mens' brains aren't fully formed, either."
Well, the KKK did do plenty of good for the right sort of people.
But then, they went too far.
And only they think their class is supreme?
For your own sake, you really need to branch out and find new and original ways to distort a point.
What was Raylan's line a few weeks back? “You run into an a$$hole in the morning, you ran into an a$$hole. You run into a$$holes all day, you’re the a$$hole.”
You see, that's just wrong. Stupidly, deeply stupidly wrong. You go by what is said and meant, not by who says it or where you think it originates.
If you're a male, you increasingly have a chance of going to some sort of gender Gulag to be rehabilitated,
At the risk of sounding stupidly wrong: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably not a modern day Socrates who's doing the quacking.
I think that's a little much. I was also asked whether I would consider the non-consensual insertion of a fist in my anus to be rape, and I said no, I would call it an assault. I repeated the phrase "a little bit raped" that YR used in a response, but the entire point was that I WOULDN'T say that some forms of conduct are "sort of rapey" or "definitely rapey." To me, rape is "intercourse without consent." Sexual assault is "non-intercourse sexual behavior without consent." I also specifically said that some sexual assaults could be worse than rape.
I would say that digital penetration is (generally speaking) a lesser offense than intercourse; I would call the former "sexual assault" and the latter "rape." This is similar to the distinction I would make between premeditated killing ("murder") and reckless killing ("manslaughter"). Both sexual assault and rape are very serious, inexcusable offenses, but different ones.
I don't think it's "just" anything. It is an outrageous violation of bodily autonomy that no human being deserves. The threshold of moral development that is necessary to know that this is unacceptable behavior is exceptionally low; the claim that there was insufficient mental development to know better is repulsive.
I'm not sure why I have to agree that it's properly classified as rape or that it's as serious an offense in order to be considered a fundamentally decent human being. (I also don't like the terms "acquaintance rape" or "date rape" because I think they diminish the intensity of the term rape, and do the victims a disservice. A woman who knows her attacker wasn't less raped than a woman who doesn't.)
Make it four. This thread stinks like a dead rat stuck behind the drywall.
Though it's been fun, I've spent too much of the last three days triggered, so I will bow out of the surely scintillating rehash of the various race arguments.
You must be a watchtower guard in one of them Gender Gulags.
Where were you during the cat portion of the thread?
I'm guilty of overreacting to crappy opinions, but honestly I thought this would be the run of the mill "she shouldn't have gotten blasted" stuff. There are really people who think its a grey area to fingerbang someone who is completely unconscious? Where am I?
There are situations in which we should acknowledge the increased risk, without shaming the victim, in addition to, rather than instead of taking steps to protect victims and transform society to a place where fewer are victimized.
If I had a daughter, I would tell her to protect herself because, while the world is full of people who are generally good, there are bad people out there. I would also tell her that it's unfair that in our society she's less safe making errors of judgment than she would be as a male, but that no matter how serious anyone might think an error of judgment might be, that nothing ever makes an assault on her body her fault or in any way excusable.
I would teach any child to respect the bodily autonomy of others, and to take action when those around them did not do so.
This sounds, to me, like the best way to reduce victimization. Guide those who you can influence to behave as a moral human being should behave, and also to safeguard against those who might harm them.
Add me to the list of those disturbed by this thread and the arguments of some normally rational posters (and some of the normally irrational too!) that go a long ways towards minimalizing the seriousness of sexual assault and engaging in victim-shaming, even as they claim that's not really what they're saying and people are just over-reacting and misunderstanding their totally legitimate points. Any valid points they have (and there are a few buried in there) are completely lost in the barrage of crap they're coming up with.
I've pretty much just skimmed the last 600 posts and that was more than enough.
Of course it is, including under the laws of NY state, where "rape" requires "sexual intercourse." There's a bill under consideration that would make the definition of "sexual intercourse" more clear, by making clear that penetration is not required, and that any contact between the penis and vagina or vulva would suffice.
Offenses not involving sexual intercourse, while sexual offenses, are not called "rape" in NY state.
Not at all. Altruism is also a stupid, beastly, base desire.
Man, I should have invested in fainting couches.
Happy to oblige! Anything to get out of this vile rut. Have you heard about the gold Combibar yet?
It's a 50g gold bar, easily divisible into individual 1 g squares, for easy commerce once TSHTF and fiat money is worthless.
I think it's been too long since I had any candy, because that looks delicious.
I didn't think it a pressing question. Moderately, because there is less victim connotation, but I personally would prefer cleaner discourse.
Good call on 2013, and yes my spelling is terrible. Really really bad. Some of the computers I post on don't flag misspellings and then it gets worse. In the pre-computer age my spelling was worse (the red squiggle telling me the word is spelled wrong is great).
This is a truly silly thing to say. Evolutionarily altruism is a good method of ensuring genetic survival (they have done studies and everything), so it is not (from that perspective) stupid at all, and honestly I am not sure what perspective it is "stupid". As to it being beastly and base it is pretty much the opposite of those as the terms are commonly (though perhaps incorrectly) defined, so I guess you are using some personall set of definitions and creating you own word play or something.
My phone was recently upgraded to "Jelly Bean" (newer version of the Android OS). Now when I search an address on my laptop google sends that information to my phone, which knows where I am and in the "Google Now" search area automatically displays the route I can take and estimated travel time given current traffic conditions.
In fact all my recent searchs show up on my phone for easy reference and picking. it is super handy and also creepy.
So does IOS (or any of the other phones) do this sort of thing? Is it super cool integration of technology/data or the end of personal privacy (or both)?
Note: The Google now service can be turned off (to a degree) and steps can be taken to limit information linked to you, but for now I wanted the full on experience.
Yeah, I mean why not just let hysteria and BS wallow by itself?
The juveniles at issue were called "rapists." They aren't. (*)
The juveniles at issue were called "barbaric" and "animals" and "unfit for human society." They aren't.
It was noted that sending them to adult prison for 10 years would be barbaric. It would be.(**)
It was noted that, in all the circumstances that obtain, the lines governing their conduct are blurry. They are.
It was claimed that "rape is rape" and this was rape. It isn't.
Efforts to distinguish things like this from an adult accosting a stranger in the dark and engaging in forcible sexual intercourse were hissed and hooted at and deemed part of an enabling "rape culture." That was absurd.
It was noted that teens lack the capacity of adults to understand adult concepts, particularly when alcohol is involved. That's true.
And so on and so forth.
(*) Ohio may deem them to be, but in civilized jurisdictions like NY, they aren't. And they aren't.
(**) The crime of which they're guilty carries a penalty of 2-7 years in NY state and requires aggravating circumstances to get you above 3 or 4. And that's for adults.
I'm sure that was meant to mean something, but as to what, I have no idea.
Agreed.
They're sending over pints of Haagen-Dazs instead.
I more or less agree with 2005 and disagree strenuously with 2013.
What no one is keeping a running tally?
all we need is some spirit of hartshorn
I said NY's laws and definitions are civilized and that's what we're talking about -- civilized jurisdictions.
He's got a golden ticket!
As stated - based on your opinions, what you agree with. Sound.
By that, he means the ones that punish rapists less harshly. Uncivilized ones lock rapists up for longer, and dare to treat fist or baseball bat rape the same as penis rape.
Yeah, it's really striking people would be offended by this line of questioning-- trying to draw a line between ####### someone while they're passed out and "forcible" rape, as if there's some sort of grey area in the former that's nonpresent in the latter.
Don't forget the slankets, big wooden spoons and DVD copies of Titanic.
It's always a pleasure when one's stereotypes are confirmed by reality, and this thread has delivered in spades.
I'm sure that was meant to mean something, but as to what, I have no idea.
I think he's reminding us that he was the only white man to cover every acre of Africa, and that he once tried to seduce Margaret Dumont. That last point might explain some of his current attitudes towards women.
Then take it up with the legislature and people of the state of New York -- among the bluest states in the nation -- as they do exactly that. If you want to point to Ohio as a bigger bastion of enlightenment than New York, grab a pint of Haagen-Daaz and knock yourself out.
It's always a pleasure when one's stereotypes are confirmed by reality, and this thread has delivered in spades.
With your superior self-awareness, I'm baffled how you can't recall you and Ray carping and mocking people being nothing but the peanut gallery.
Except, of course, the point of contention was not that, but that you decided that New York was a bigger bastion of enlightenment based on nothing but your own opinion.
I recognize all the words in that sentence as English, but I really don't know what you're trying to say here. Perhaps something about me and/or Ray having once said something that upset you?
In this context, New York is more enlightened becauss its laws encapsulate the axiomatic principle of crime and punishment that conduct of different degrees of significance and culpability should carry different levels of punishment. Ohio's, apparently, don't. The accumulated wisdom and experience over several centuries has taught the citizens and representatives of New York to distinguish easily disinguishable things. That, apparently, isn't the case in Ohio.
New York is, of course, generally more enlightened than Ohio, but specific examples are always better than generalities.
You also love this one about all the people you've upset. I'm guessing you're taking lessons from Sam about your influence on others' emotional well-being.
Anyhow, you've whined more than once about peanut gallery comments from me and others (or maybe just me, but I wouldn't want to assume), and then proceeded to do exactly the same the last few pages. Calling you out on it is all I felt like doing.
I read his comment and I too was at a similar loss. I began to worry that Morty had taken over his account.
I've upset people?
I have? I'll often call people out for comments that I find particularly foolish, but not sure how that equates to me whining about peanut gallery comments. Oh well. If you don't like my comments, by all means feel free to object to them. I'll be sure to give your responses the consideration they're due.
Tiresome. I apologize for my lack of clarity. I'll be more blunt: Making peanut gallery comments of no substance after specifically whining about other people making peanut gallery comments of no substance makes you either a hypocrite or someone with no self-awareness. Clear enough?
You know, I sort of get that I've stepped on some deeply held personal beliefs for some folks here, and that they disagree with me vehement, etc, yadda, yadda, yadda, et al. I don't really grok it, but in a "sociopath reconstructing the internal dialogue of others" sort of way, I think I get the gist of it. But I simply do not understand this notion that I'm influencing the "emotional well-being" of others. I'm not threatening your wives or daughters. I'm staking out the unpopular position (among this demographic if not among all demographics) in a debate on the internet. I'm utterly lost as to how that impacts your emotional well-being at all.
But I think they are children and should be tried as such according to the local law and while I find much of this thread distastful - how about Cyprus, let's talk about that instead! - I don't think it is cause for massive concern. I also think mentioning how distastful the whole thing is is perfectly OK and likening it to couch fainting is ridiculous, so maybe I don't agree all that much with the larger point.
More importantly when did ice cream and love of it becoem a bad thing? If you guys are trying to shame folks for eating ice cream (H-D is OK, but certainly not the best) then good luck because ice cream is food of the gods and on that front you are shouting into the wind.
If love of ice cream means turning in my man card (or whatever you guys are tyring to imply) then I choose ice cream of some random internet status. Ice cream is yummy.
And now I want Salted Caramel Ice Cream. Please send me some. And a couch to eat it on. Thanks.
This is asinine. Men don't just get sent to prison. They commit felonies; usually many of them before they are caught and sentenced for the first time.
It is laughably simple to avoid going to prison. Most people don't even have to try.
I am still waiting onthe list of sacred cows of mine you have attacked. I really don't think you are reading it correctly, it is not that you are bravely assaulting holy bovines, I think you are just garden variety offending folks relative to their expectations.
Now that may be on them (people do own their own fun, and you can't be held to their expectations of you), and I for one am not offended, but I think your take is off kilter on why folks are annoyed.
Snark about your ego. Your comment about carving sacred cows and how upset people become because of it, which I disagreed with.
I love ice cream, but only locally produced, humanely raised dairy products from my hip, indie local source.
True. Of course no one - not even felons - deserve to be assaulted, but your rebuttal of the comment still stands.
Since I don't do drugs or drink (or own a gun), am white, male and well off (oh and law abiding) I suspect my chances of jail time are very very low.
Yum. There are some local shops here that make their own organic ice cream. So good. So very very good.
Dude, let's not insult my ego. There are *rules* man. We have to have *rules.*
If it wasn't a sacred cow, they wouldn't be so damned upset about it. I may have misread Bitter's overall level of fealty to the mores at hand, but I think we can say with some degree of certainty that a lot of people have gotten really, really tweaked up at the audacity to even question the standard line of thinking about Steubenville, which means we are dealing with holy bovines by definition. If it's not a sacred cow, Matt wouldn't have huffed off aghast at my heresy.
Ah, but I have made substantive comments in this thread. Anyway, where have I been "specifically whining about other people making peanut gallery comments"? Could you point out some examples? When people make foolish comments, I may point it out. If you think my comments are foolish, you can try to do the same. That you haven't done so makes me think that your real issue is that the comments were both effective and not something you could really get a good grip on to launch a counterattack. Better luck next time!
I'll sign onto this one. High five!
That you haven't done so makes me think that your real issue is that the comments were both effective and not something you could really get a good grip on to launch a counterattack.
Knock yourself out.
[Whew, he said, wiping the sweat from his brow with a forefinger.]
Remove the stone of shame. Attach the stone of triumph!
I mean, how conveeenient. You got a secret handshake, too? Cuz I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff! And I want in.
I recall that Andy felt that Good Face deserved to be brought to his demise be cause Good Face... stated his opinion about health care.
My hands are full (I am eating Ice Cream darn it), else I would.
I this thread? I don't think so, has any one wished for your demise?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main