NationStates

Luveria wrote:

Libertarian California wrote:
He's bisexual? Doesn't that make him a bit of a hypocrite?

He claims to be bisexual but I personally believe It's an excuse to hate on gays. Apparently you're okay in his book as long you like females too and are okay with having no marriage rights. While he had a boyfriend he was saying same-sex marriage should be outlawed.

Libertarian California wrote:
He stopped being my friend because I'm atheist.

I recall him saying religious schools should be compulsory, so he really doesn't like atheists.

Vazdania wrote:

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:I don't mind him, mainly because his beliefs, if implemented, wouldn't really affect me negatively in any way. Apart from banning tobacco. *shudder*

its only smart to ban tobacco though.

Katganistan wrote:

Individuality-ness wrote:This stems from a discussion of misogyny and a Facebook discussion.

Okay. Now for the big question. What is the worst thing that someone has ever called you on NS? What is the worst ad hominem that you've ever received from your opponents in a debate here?

Also, I'd like to know what your gender is.

After answering this question, please see the second spoiler as to why I'm asking you this question.

In my experience it's been feminazi, slut, selfish whore, harlot, bitch, nutjob, closet FtM trans*, man-hater, unemployed warrior feminist... amongst others.

This still wins as the worst ad hominem I've ever gotten though. Long story short: someone took the time to find a really old photograph of me, Photoshopped it to make it look like there was cum on my face, and then used that picture to imply that I was a slut and a harlot, with a side of abduction and rape. Lovely.

The person I was talking to, a former male NSer, gave me this list: naive, foaming-at-the-mouth because I can't handle scientific research over personal anecdotes, blind, unimaginative, mushy fence sitter, elitist fucktard, closet conservative.

Why am I asking you this question?

Basically, I'm curious about the types of ad hominem that one uses on a perceived opponent, and how it relates to gender. I get the feeling that when people perceive me as female, they start attacking my sexuality, my gender identity, and others, while for males, people tend to focus on their perceived character traits.

Example (that isn't me): In a discussion on philosophers (and I'm using this loosely here), Ayn Rand is often attacked on how ugly she is, and how no man ever really wants to fuck her. I know, I've done this in the past myself. In comparison, male philosophers are critiqued as idiotic, naive, or an array of other things that have nothing to do with their looks or sexual desirability.

Not trying to say that it sucks less for guys, but I'm curious to see whether there is a connection to gender and the ad homs used. I get the feeling that it is, but NSG, your thoughts?

Female (but you knew that) and the worst things I have been called have NOT been on the forums -- they've been in my mod e-mail.

I particularly enjoyed the ones from a person half a world away who started out calling me a bitch and then repeatedly sending messages about how he would rape and murder me.

Vazdania wrote:

Luveria wrote:He claims to be bisexual but I personally believe It's an excuse to hate on gays. Apparently you're okay in his book as long you like females too and are okay with having no marriage rights. While he had a boyfriend he was saying same-sex marriage should be outlawed.


I recall him saying religious schools should be compulsory, so he really doesn't like atheists.

That would be a great America! unfortunately, I can bring myself to say no to a devout Atheist.

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:

Vazdania wrote:its only smart to ban tobacco though.

How the hell is it "smart" to ban tobacco? Why would you? It's a stress reliever, a major part of the world economy - not to mention entire regional economies, and a tradition of Western society. I love smoking, and I'll fight anti-tobacco laws to the best of my ability.

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:Meh, I've gotten the usual "fascist pig," of course, accompanied with some accusations of sociopathy and a maniacal desire for power. Oddly enough, I don't think I've ever really gotten completely cussed out by someone.

Vazdania wrote:

Luveria wrote:He claims to be bisexual but I personally believe It's an excuse to hate on gays. Apparently you're okay in his book as long you like females too and are okay with having no marriage rights. While he had a boyfriend he was saying same-sex marriage should be outlawed.


I recall him saying religious schools should be compulsory, so he really doesn't like atheists.

That would be a great America! unfortunately, I can bring myself to say no to a devout Atheist.

Tlaceceyaya wrote:

Vazdania wrote:That would be a great America! unfortunately, I can bring myself to say no to a devout Atheist.

Abatael's great america - no freedom of religion, people are murdered because of their sexuality, racism is rampant - oh, wait.
There are already countries like that.

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:

Luveria wrote:He was openly advocating the death penalty for homosexuals. He also has a love of police brutality.

That is entirely possible. He actually has wondered if he is a sociopath. I mean, even I think his authoritarianism goes over the top, and... well, I'm Pruss, so that's scary.

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:

Luveria wrote:How does that work?

I don't fucking know, I don't think it does. Ask Alaje.

Vazdania wrote:

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:How the hell is it "smart" to ban tobacco? Why would you? It's a stress reliever, a major part of the world economy - not to mention entire regional economies, and a tradition of Western society. I love smoking, and I'll fight anti-tobacco laws to the best of my ability.

Smoking (like Alcohol) should be banned. It's causes cancer.

Vazdania wrote:

Tlaceceyaya wrote:Abatael's great america - no freedom of religion, people are murdered because of their sexuality, racism is rampant - oh, wait.
There are already countries like that.

and they are still better than a socialist system

Luveria wrote:

Libertarian California wrote:
He's bisexual? Doesn't that make him a bit of a hypocrite?

He claims to be bisexual but I personally believe It's an excuse to hate on gays. Apparently you're okay in his book as long you like females too and are okay with having no marriage rights. While he had a boyfriend he was saying same-sex marriage should be outlawed.

Libertarian California wrote:
He stopped being my friend because I'm atheist.

I recall him saying religious schools should be compulsory, so he really doesn't like atheists.

Vazdania wrote:

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:How the hell is it "smart" to ban tobacco? Why would you? It's a stress reliever, a major part of the world economy - not to mention entire regional economies, and a tradition of Western society. I love smoking, and I'll fight anti-tobacco laws to the best of my ability.

Smoking (like Alcohol) should be banned. It's causes cancer.

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:

Vazdania wrote:Smoking (like Alcohol) should be banned. It's causes cancer.

It causes cancer. Boohoohoo. I don't give a fuck. You can't ban everything because someone might hurt themselves. What kind of nanny state are you talking about? A world without beer or cigarettes is one I would hate.

Genivaria wrote:

Vazdania wrote:Smoking (like Alcohol) should be banned. It's causes cancer.

Why do you hate freedom?

Katganistan wrote:

Individuality-ness wrote:This stems from a discussion of misogyny and a Facebook discussion.

Okay. Now for the big question. What is the worst thing that someone has ever called you on NS? What is the worst ad hominem that you've ever received from your opponents in a debate here?

Also, I'd like to know what your gender is.

After answering this question, please see the second spoiler as to why I'm asking you this question.

In my experience it's been feminazi, slut, selfish whore, harlot, bitch, nutjob, closet FtM trans*, man-hater, unemployed warrior feminist... amongst others.

This still wins as the worst ad hominem I've ever gotten though. Long story short: someone took the time to find a really old photograph of me, Photoshopped it to make it look like there was cum on my face, and then used that picture to imply that I was a slut and a harlot, with a side of abduction and rape. Lovely.

The person I was talking to, a former male NSer, gave me this list: naive, foaming-at-the-mouth because I can't handle scientific research over personal anecdotes, blind, unimaginative, mushy fence sitter, elitist fucktard, closet conservative.

Why am I asking you this question?

Basically, I'm curious about the types of ad hominem that one uses on a perceived opponent, and how it relates to gender. I get the feeling that when people perceive me as female, they start attacking my sexuality, my gender identity, and others, while for males, people tend to focus on their perceived character traits.

Example (that isn't me): In a discussion on philosophers (and I'm using this loosely here), Ayn Rand is often attacked on how ugly she is, and how no man ever really wants to fuck her. I know, I've done this in the past myself. In comparison, male philosophers are critiqued as idiotic, naive, or an array of other things that have nothing to do with their looks or sexual desirability.

Not trying to say that it sucks less for guys, but I'm curious to see whether there is a connection to gender and the ad homs used. I get the feeling that it is, but NSG, your thoughts?

Female (but you knew that) and the worst things I have been called have NOT been on the forums -- they've been in my mod e-mail.

I particularly enjoyed the ones from a person half a world away who started out calling me a bitch and then repeatedly sending messages about how he would rape and murder me.

Genivaria wrote:

Vazdania wrote:Smoking (like Alcohol) should be banned. It's causes cancer.

Why do you hate freedom?

Vazdania wrote:

Tlaceceyaya wrote:Abatael's great america - no freedom of religion, people are murdered because of their sexuality, racism is rampant - oh, wait.
There are already countries like that.

and they are still better than a socialist system

Vazdania wrote:

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:How the hell is it "smart" to ban tobacco? Why would you? It's a stress reliever, a major part of the world economy - not to mention entire regional economies, and a tradition of Western society. I love smoking, and I'll fight anti-tobacco laws to the best of my ability.

Smoking (like Alcohol) should be banned. It's causes cancer.

Vazdania wrote:

Tlaceceyaya wrote:Abatael's great america - no freedom of religion, people are murdered because of their sexuality, racism is rampant - oh, wait.
There are already countries like that.

and they are still better than a socialist system

Genivaria wrote:

Vazdania wrote:Smoking (like Alcohol) should be banned. It's causes cancer.

Why do you hate freedom?

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:

Vazdania wrote:Smoking (like Alcohol) should be banned. It's causes cancer.

It causes cancer. Boohoohoo. I don't give a fuck. You can't ban everything because someone might hurt themselves. What kind of nanny state are you talking about? A world without beer or cigarettes is one I would hate.

Orcoa wrote:I'm male of course and....well I never had a Ad hominem thrown at me before really.

I guess either I'm not poking someone enough in a debate to warrant that or I'm just a nice guy

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:

Vazdania wrote:Smoking (like Alcohol) should be banned. It's causes cancer.

It causes cancer. Boohoohoo. I don't give a fuck. You can't ban everything because someone might hurt themselves. What kind of nanny state are you talking about? A world without beer or cigarettes is one I would hate.

Individuality-ness wrote:

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:It causes cancer. Boohoohoo. I don't give a fuck. You can't ban everything because someone might hurt themselves. What kind of nanny state are you talking about? A world without beer or cigarettes is one I would hate.

This thread isn't really the place for this argument....

Vazdania wrote:

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:How the hell is it "smart" to ban tobacco? Why would you? It's a stress reliever, a major part of the world economy - not to mention entire regional economies, and a tradition of Western society. I love smoking, and I'll fight anti-tobacco laws to the best of my ability.

Smoking (like Alcohol) should be banned. It's causes cancer.

Individuality-ness wrote:This stems from a discussion of misogyny and a Facebook discussion.

Okay. Now for the big question. What is the worst thing that someone has ever called you on NS? What is the worst ad hominem that you've ever received from your opponents in a debate here?

Also, I'd like to know what your gender is.

After answering this question, please see the second spoiler as to why I'm asking you this question.

In my experience it's been feminazi, slut, selfish whore, harlot, bitch, nutjob, closet FtM trans*, man-hater, unemployed warrior feminist... amongst others.

This still wins as the worst ad hominem I've ever gotten though. Long story short: someone took the time to find a really old photograph of me, Photoshopped it to make it look like there was cum on my face, and then used that picture to imply that I was a slut and a harlot, with a side of abduction and rape. Lovely.

The person I was talking to, a former male NSer, gave me this list: naive, foaming-at-the-mouth because I can't handle scientific research over personal anecdotes, blind, unimaginative, mushy fence sitter, elitist fucktard, closet conservative.

Why am I asking you this question?

Basically, I'm curious about the types of ad hominem that one uses on a perceived opponent, and how it relates to gender. I get the feeling that when people perceive me as female, they start attacking my sexuality, my gender identity, and others, while for males, people tend to focus on their perceived character traits.

Example (that isn't me): In a discussion on philosophers (and I'm using this loosely here), Ayn Rand is often attacked on how ugly she is, and how no man ever really wants to fuck her. I know, I've done this in the past myself. In comparison, male philosophers are critiqued as idiotic, naive, or an array of other things that have nothing to do with their looks or sexual desirability.

Not trying to say that it sucks less for guys, but I'm curious to see whether there is a connection to gender and the ad homs used. I get the feeling that it is, but NSG, your thoughts?