caamib #sexist

caamib #sexist caamib.wordpress.com

We could also say that men are simple biological machines as well, as they would fuck basically anything if allowed.

That’s why we need extremely strict rules and harsh punishments for both genders when it comes to things like adultery. A man who commits adultery with another man’s wife must know he will, if discovered, die.

Also, you’re once again incredibly naive. If you support women’s suffrage you can’t support female premarital chastity. I mean, you can, but that’s insane, as it makes no sense and is contradictory.

A woman's suffrage is a feminist policy and means that women will vote themselves priviledges that will enable them to be sluts.

It’s like saying you support democracy but won’t support something the demos votes for – not possible.

Your ideas are like saying “I support billions being thrown into war machine but I oppose war.”

C’mon.

82 comments

old comment by SpukiKitty

Siklic; You're an embarrassment to humans, Croatia, males & coconuts.

And "Incel" sounds like a computer thing..."INCEL INSIDE!"

If you treated people with the utmost kindness & respect, treated women like human beings & equals, were a true gentleman & a sweet, gentle, likeable soul....YOU WILL MOST LIKELY MEET A CUTE GIRL WHO WILL LOVE YOU & YOU HER AND THE PASSIONATE NOOKIES WILL ENSUE!

Please accept the psychiatric treatments & counseling. Your family is trying to help you.

That said, I'm afraid you're so messed up that you'll never see the light.

The problem is, Mr. Siklic, is that you want to have a gal while still being a malcontent jerk who does nothing on his part. You're like a guy who wishes he had good money but doesn't bother to get a job & assumes a bag of cash will just fall from the sky!

The sad truth is, Siklic, is that you have to work on yourself. You need to develop your social skills, learn to communicate better, become a kind, lovable caring person...compassionate, friendly, likeable, respectful, romantic, a good egg.

Sadly, I get the impression that your neurological makeup won't allow you to grow. The parts of your brain that control the ability to feel empathy, guilt & love has shut down horribly....in the same fashion as the worst serial killers & political despots. What I'm telling you is probably beyond your very comprehension.

Someday, medical science may find a way to re-stimulate those parts of the brain and cure Anti-Social/Sociopathic/Psychopathic brains.

THERE IS NO SHAME IN ADMITTING YOU HAVE A MENTAL/NEUROLOGICAL CONDITION! IT'S OKAY. IT DOESN'T DESERVE THE SHAME OR STIGMA. PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY "YO! I'M MENTAL" & NOT BE OSTRACIZED! People with Cancer, Blindness, Paraplegics, or The Common Cold aren't looked upon as Eldritch Abominations, why should people with brain-based problems be?

I, myself, have ADHD, mild OCD & quirks concerning socialization. I have it and AM PROUD TO ADMIT IT!

Until then, get some really good, high-quality sex lube so you don't destroy your penis when you pleasure yourself.

old comment by Swede

Adultery is not a crime and carries only social "punishments".

Women's suffrage is a feminist policy indeed, and it means that women want the same privileges as men already have. As men already have the right to be sluts, women ought to have that right too.

Sweden is pretty equal, I'd say, but most women here still want a relationship with a man (or woman), not just sleep around. Sleeping with someone’s wife (or husband) is very frowned-upon (as a breach of trust), but if neither has a steady partner, they are free to do what they want with their own bodies. More men than women sleep around, and women are still more criticized if they have several sexual partners, than men are.

old comment by TheReasonator

@ SpukiKitty

Saying you want to cure different ways of thinking and being and that you want them unstigmatized is like saying we should cure homosexuality but that homosexuality shouldn't be stigmatized.

Ever consider that humanity needs neurodiversity, that perhaps without their quirks people like Einstein wouldn't have achieved what they achieved?

We should be helping people to learn how their individual brain works and live with it whenever possible, NOT reprogramming the brain like you would reprogram a robot. Look up "James Fallon". His brain still looks like what a typical psychopath would look like but he's never had any trouble or caused any trouble you'd attribute to psychopaths beyond being somewhat self-centered and inattentive to people's issues when not on the job(he's a psychiatrist). He makes it work he doesn't need a cure.

The standards we have for what is illness and what is not and whose judgement is considered more worthy of consideration on that matter is inescapably the result of social interactions. If something else was the majority what is now the majority would be considered illness. It is better to help people learn to get along and live in the world with the brains they have than to completely(as opposed to a little bit, I'm not saying medication is always bad but total redesign destroys what it means to be human) alter their brains. Since we are our brains that is effectively destroying the person and replacing them with a completely different person.

If we try to do what you suggested eventually everyone would be forced to have an identical type of brain.

EDIT:

I would make exceptions for certain things. I see no value in keeping Alzheimer's or Huntington's.

My main point is things that cause deficits may also cause enhancements of sorts and the two may not be separable, there may well be tradeoff effects in the brain, in which case we shouldn't allow the biased favoring of one way over another to extinguish a valueable neurological difference.

old comment by Giveitaday

We could also say that men are simple biological machines as well, as they would fuck basically anything if allowed.

You could say that, but you would be wrong.

The death penalty should only ever be imposed when another life has been taken. Moreover, what do you intend to do with the wife? After all, it takes two to tango.

Also, you’re once again incredibly naive. If you support women’s suffrage you can’t support female premarital chastity.

One has nothing to do with the other. This is literally like saying if you support gun control you can't support bobbing for apples. It's simply idiotic, which is what I have come to expect from your ilk.

It’s like saying you support democracy but won’t support something the demos votes for not possible.

Bullshit. It's not only possible, it's inevitable that everyone, at one time or another, will disagree with the policies of the system of governance that they support. To think it would be otherwise is the height of naivety.

old comment by Skyknight

For those who didn't read the right posts, Caamib's a neoreactionary. I'm not sure if he's gone so far as to become a monarchist, but I can't shake the feeling I've seen him champion constricting voting rights to male landowners.

He's also rather supportive of kyriarchy (what I know of neoreaction does not auto-imply kyriarchy, just hierarchy). He's actually said he wouldn't mind having certain privileges curtailed (I can't remember which ones, if either of us ever specified them) so long as he had a wife--with the tacit assumption that he'd have dominion over her.

And on top of everything else, if I'm understanding his precept of The Atheist Cult correctly (and let's get this out of the way--he's an atheist himself), he deems ALL idealism bad. So I'm guessing he sees all his noxious precepts as purely reactive, without thought of fixing what flaws he sees permeating the human species (short of omega extirpation--and I wouldn't be surprised if the psis would follow in short order). In short, he's a rank fatalist.

And I think we all know how little I like anything that even remotely touches on fate/destiny/determinism/etc.

old comment by Louis

"We could also say that men are simple biological machines as well, as they would fuck basically anything if allowed."

Don't lump either me or any other male in the world in with you; I can guarantee no one is as pathetic and wretched as you are.

"That’s why we need extremely strict rules and harsh punishments for both genders when it comes to things like adultery. A man who commits adultery with another man’s wife must know he will, if discovered, die."

Except that simply increasing the harshness of a given punishment is not likely to decrease the frequency of the "crime", given that said "crime" would likely be committed in a moment of passion. Additionally, this "crime" would likely be committed by two consenting individuals (discounting instances of rape, which are directly a violation of one's rights and should be treated accordingly) and only in violation of a private contract with no real bearing on society itself, thereby making it pointless to turn the issue into a legal one as opposed to it simply being a private matter to be dealt with by the individuals it concerns.

"Also, you’re once again incredibly naive. If you support women’s suffrage you can’t support female premarital chastity. I mean, you can, but that’s insane, as it makes no sense and is contradictory."

I somewhat agree; if you support female rights, you necessary support the right for women to decide how to live their lives, including when they have sex, though you don't necessarily have to personally approve of premarital sex so long as you agree that others still have the right to engage in it. So tell me, what exactly is wrong with this?

"A woman's suffrage is a feminist policy and means that women will vote themselves priviledges that will enable them to be sluts."

Again, what would be wrong with this?

"It’s like saying you support democracy but won’t support something the demos votes for not possible."

Technically speaking, no; someone can support democracy and not necessarily support what people do with it, so long as they still support the rights of those people to do with it as is allowed by the law. For example, someone could disapprove of abortions but still support the right for people to have them; in other words, they disagree with the act, but support the rights of others to engage in that act.

"Your ideas are like saying “I support billions being thrown into war machine but I oppose war.""

I differ to my previous statement.

old comment by KittyKaboom

If the picture he posted of himself on one of the forums he frequents is indeed actually him, he's an attractive guy. Women would be drawn to him if not for his misogynist views and overall shitty personality, which are simple enough to change. How much fucking effort does it take to be less of an asshole?

It amazes me that he got this far in life with his 'treat women well and they don't respect you for it' bullshit. That philosophy shows a painful disconnect from reality and any knowledge of human nature. Neither I nor any woman I know (except one, and she was a drug addict with serious man-issues) will put up with abusive treatment from a man. Everyone has the occasional bad day/week/whatever and we all go through hard times, but if your personality sucks all the time and you know no other way to interact with your fellow humans than to act as though they are beneath you, it will come back to repeatedly grind a combat boot into your crotch. Or a stilletto. This is apparently what happened with caamib.

He has no earthly clue how to behave toward another person and can't understand why people avoid him like the plague.

He isn't 'incel'. He's alone because he has an inflated sense of entitlement and thinks women owe him sex. At this point, any woman who would voluntarily make herself vulnerable to this guy is opening herself up to abuse. He's already admitted to forcing women to have sex with him before, though he seems to have convinced himself that it wasn't rape. Men who rape women don't rank especially high on the bangability scale.

old comment by TheReasonator

@ whatever

If the person can still sit and deliberately process empathy rather than have it as an automatic response (and the person I mentioned as an example can apparently do this) then perhaps there is some advantage to this slower processing compared to processing it fast. In some cases quick processing of empathy may lead to suboptimal decisions for everyone whereas if you think rather than feel empathy i.e. if you consider the needs of others but it's an emotionless calculated process and not a fast and overwhelming thing then you may be more able to weigh in other concerns and be willing to make necessary sacrifices when it is for the good of all.

For an exaggerated example person A runs a company and has quick emotive reactions to any pain, he becomes completely unable to fire his employees when they talk about serious troubles in their lives that would get worse.

Whereas take person B who doesn't feel empathy but can cognitively process it. He understands his employees would be harmed by being fired but by processing it more slowly he more easily considers other things and makes the necessary firings and the company does well.

Person B's decisions may sound unfair but what if the company is producing something very important such as a vaccine or researching a cure for a disease? In some cases emotional empathy may actually lead to decisions that are suboptimal compared to processing other people's troubles with less emotion. Note that when they talk about emotional empathy they're talking about in daily life for people in one's life. Making considerations about abstract persons, people not found directly in one's life doesn't fall under that. So you can have a person who lacks empathy but is a humanitarian, so dedicated to the cause of humanity they consistently put it above everything including those people in their personal lives. Some people have suggested MLK or Gandhi may have had brain scans similar to psychopaths but we'll never know.

"Defective" is a human concept. If most people had reduced empathy then those with more empathy would be labeled "defective". Both cognitive/affective styles have their ups and downs but one gets labeled the defective one for being in the minority. The same labeling process is being applied to practically every aspect of human thought and behavior nowadays and threatens to lead to a future where every differences is 'cured'. Not only would we lose the diversity that makes humanity what it is but there could be disastrous implications we haven't foreseen. Certain types of people may be necessary to prevent humanity from bringing itself to ruin.

You should read about "James Fallon". If you say he's a psychopath just because of a brain scan then he's proof not all psychopaths are evil, though I'm not even sure if psychopath is the right word in this case as he is asymptomatic (though he shares some personality traits he's asymptomatic for the checklist) in spite of his brain chemistry.

That not everyone whose brain scan looks like what would be typical for a disorder actually has the symptoms is another good reason not to cure by rewiring as then we may be curing a lot of people who aren't having any problems. It may be better to help people get better by finding out what was different in the environments and education of those who have the same brain scans but don't display symptoms.

You don't hear much about people making studies on people whose symptoms or lack thereof don't match their brain scans. We could learn a lot by studying these exceptions to the rules to find out why they are not thinking and behaving like what the brain scans would suggest.

old comment by Louis

@caamib

Ah, about time you showed up. Kind of disappointed you didn't even bother responding to the various counter-arguments made in regards to your quote above, but I'll settle for this new batch of stupidity.

"I am for something like restricting the vote to a top 1 percent of most intelligent and empathetic men."

1). A person can only be intelligent in regards to a specific field; that is, they can only have knowledge of and the ability to apply that knowledge to specific subjects, as opposed to possessing some kind of nebulous universal intelligence that can somehow be applied to everything. Thus, comparing the intelligence of one person in one field to another person in another field is pointless; for example, comparing the intelligence of a physicist and a biologist is pointless since their respective subjects of intelligence are fundamentally different. As such, how can one possible restrict rights to "a top 1 percent of most intelligent and empathic men" when the intelligence of each individual is determined by it being in regards to specific fields? Furthermore, even if a method could be established for effectively taking into account all possible form of intelligence and presumably designing specific methods of testing for every form, thereby also presumably assigning voting rights to the top one percent of each subject of intelligence, how exactly would you go about objectively determining intelligence in these respective fields; how could testing possibly be done in such a way that will consistently ensure that only the most intelligent in these respective fields would do well on such tests?

2). In conjunction with the above, how can one conduct objective, accurate testing of empathy that cannot be fooled? How could effective safeguards be put in place to prevent corruption in positions of power when the ability to conduct public input into such positions of power is limited to the group already experiencing the corruption in question, "corruption" in this instance referring to acting out of self-interest due to a lack of empathy?

3). I am assuming that you are discounting women from these rights on the grounds that they cannot experience the same levels of intelligence and/or empathy as men. On what basis do you make these claims? What studies are there that suggest women fundamentally do not possess these faculties, and what is the accreditation for these studies?

old comment by Louis

@caamib

"that's why a multitude of tests would be taken and some median result achieved."

Easy to say, not so easy to implement, for the exact reasons I laid out. I'd go so far as to say that it's either borderline impossible at best or completely impossible at worst; there are so many factors to consider, such as the ability for a given person to demonstrate intelligence under specific circumstances, in conjunction with the sheer number of possible areas of intelligence, that attempting to actually evaluate a top 1% in every individual category is effectively impossible.

"I am not so sure one can cheat a lot on empathy tests. In any case, I am not a psychologist so I don't know a lot about how these could be done."

As a word of advice, don't start suggesting radically reworking society unless you actually have a good understanding of what that would entail. As for testing empathy, multiple tests can be fooled relatively easily simply by lying; it's a form of testing highly dependent on the subject being honest, which will obviously present problems should people decide to pursue authoritative power for selfish reasons.

"This has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with women lacking empathy for men and being selfish parasites. One only needs to look at facts like how male tears are seen and how female tears are seen or how the government has grown since women's suffrage."

The concepts of "male tears" as compared to "female tears" are largely due to general societal perceptions as opposed to the specific perceptions of women; most people, men and women, tend to have views of these concepts that are more sympathetic towards women than men, due to various societal interpretations of the roles of men and women and associated topics. Additionally, the growth of the power and influence of the central government in the United States has been gradually increasing since long before the Suffrage movement, due largely to the development of various new aspects to modern living (including technological developments, new discussions regarding social behavior, etc.) that need to in some way be addressed by said government. Neither can really be attributed to women's suffrage, and the latter is arguably not even necessarily a bad thing in certain respects, though I would agree that some expansions of the power and authority of the government in recent years have been unwarranted, though those instances could easily be attributed to issues concerning those in positions of power selfishly working to obtain and maintain ever-increasing levels of power and influence.

In short, if you're looking to blame women for any of this or accuse them of lacking empathy, you'll need better arguments; unfortunately for you, those arguments don't exist, and even if they did, you're clearly not competent enough to come up with them.

old comment by caamib

"Isn't it only fair that the readers of the defamatory blogs (your own description) that you like to put up know the truth?"

The problem with this question is that it is asked by an idiot who thinks they're asking another idiot because idiocy is all they know.

Of course those I made defamatory blogs about (who are among their only readers, until somebody googles them) don't deserve anything but to tortured in most brutal way. Otherwise I wouldn't have made these blogs. They are scum who deserves death.

Also, but far from the most important thing, they can't find any truth by reading troll sites. as troll sites are filled with nonsense and lies, like the idea I raped a woman who laughs at this notion.

They could only use them as a link to the blog but this won't happen for several reasons, like

1. The fact trolls have one version of my name, sluts I met the second while the third one is correct.

2. Even if they found the blog no airhead I doxxed will read it.

All of this stands for the women I doxxed while a man I did it to is a different story and happened earlier.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=104277&Page=5#1734177

"Your one-man 'cause': accelerating the 'collapse' of Modernism. Yeah. It's working, isn't it? And still chimping out whenever anyone dares to call you out on your BS and laugh at the micropenis of your 'Manifesto' that is your thought-wanking in HTML form on said 'blog'; nope, that's not the behaviour of a self-confessed 'Intelligent', 'Moral' and 'sane' person, nosiree. [/hyper-sarcasm]"

"Moral: Constantly Googling your screename(s) to see if anyone is laughing at your micropenis of a 'philosophy' on an irrelevance of a 'blog', then going to said forum/board & chimping out at those who do. Sad."

Let's see if my theory is correct:

caamib, your impotent micropenis of a fantasy 'Manifesto' - based on your fictional term 'Incel' - in HTML form is only worth being pointed & laughed at.

image

I point and laugh at your micropenis: in verbal/socio-political/'philosophical' form, as well as physical.

He'll only serve to prove me - and my theory - right, should he reply to this post in this thread, at least.

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=104277&Page=5

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=104276&Page=7#1737626

...but then, if you want to prove me wrong, how will you possibly be able to justify your sad pathetic little non-existence, if you don't chimp out at this, or any other critique of your micropenis of an irrelevant 'blog', and in perpetuity? Do you, o Mary Jane Lick Sick, want to prove how much of an intellectual masochist you really are, or what?!

C'mon.

Like I say, o FSTDTers: he can always prove me - and everyone else in FSTDT, WGW & all other parts of the 'net - wrong; like I say: 'Rise Above It', and don't chimp out at what I - and everyone else - says about you & your way of 'thinking'. Especially to prove how you're not insecure about the 'Invincible Argument' that is your 'Manifesto' that is actually your micropenis in word form on your pathetic, nondescript little so-called 'blog'. Aye, there's the paradoxical rub, indeed. >:D

old comment by Kadorhal

I like how his entire ability to argue seems to be based on the sort of guy who got bullied a lot in school, wants to return the favor, but isn't witty enough to do anything more than just repeat what's been said to him.

Literally everything he calls us - insane, psychopathic, retarded, liars, and the like - is almost always followed by or is following himself proving he's the one who's insane, a psychopath, retarded, and/or lying. To give a perfect example, this quote he calls it "insane" and "contradictory" to support both women's suffrage and female premarital chastity, when according to other posts of his he somehow expects both the latter to be a law and for that to somehow not preclude an endless supply of whores for unmarried men to do the nasty with - we've pointed it out an endless amount of times and he just basically repeats "yes that's how it will work", never seeming to get the hint that we want him to explain how the hell those things are connected in any possible way.

What makes it annoying is he's also apparently taking a page from the Chinese government on responding to criticism. He will deny anything and everything even as we remind him that he himself has already admitted that yes, he really did get arrested for threatening to murder a girl, protest naked with a drum, ask his mother for sex and then beat the shit out of her for rightly refusing, or even that this whole fucking mess of his started with his proposals that the government should force women to date him and other people with his imaginary problem.

Of course, there's also the possibility that he was lying about all of that. In which case I think we can make the reasonable assumption that he's lying about his supposed success with women ever since becoming an even less-tolerable shitbag than he already was, too. There is no way someone who has actually had any contact with a woman could seriously entertain the idea that they would happily vote away their right to vote and submit to a man that expects all of their love and respect while giving none in return and would probably nearly murder them if they even just said "can't sex wait for just five minutes dear".

EDIT: I'm kind of sad that this entire post is probably going to go to waste now. I'm fairly sure everybody else has come to the same conclusions already, and the illiterate fuckhead himself will only read fifteen words of it total. This is all effort I could be putting into making more Vector Thrust skins instead.

old comment by caamib

" this quote he calls it "insane" and "contradictory" to support both women's suffrage and female premarital chastity, when according to other posts of his he somehow expects both the latter to be a law"

Yes, and how is that contradictory?

If women get suffrage they vote themselves the priviledges to be sluts. Not that hard to comprehend.

"for that to somehow not preclude an endless supply of whores for unmarried men to do the nasty with"

What "endless supply"? A single prostitute could service a lot of men daily. No need for some fictional endless supply.

"e've pointed it out an endless amount of times and he just basically repeats "yes that's how it will work", never seeming to get the hint that we want him to explain how the hell those things are connected in any possible way"

If what you pointed out here is what you claim to be pointing out it's a mixture of THINGS ALREADY EXPLAINED IN THE DAMN QUOTE POSTED HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE ("A woman's suffrage is a feminist policy and means that women will vote themselves priviledges that will enable them to be sluts."
and some silly fabrication about an endless supply.

old comment by caamib

I do admit I was arrested for a death threat, but anybody on LS.com who's been there can tell you that the person in question never saw it and who reported it. You're lying. Just like with you claiming I have a criminal record when you don't even know what that is here.

That post doesn't say I attacked my mother after refusing me sex. Show me where it says that. I attacked her for other reasons, aka child abuse.

My program was completely voluntary and the quote you're using to prove something doesn't even talk about it at all.

As for having contact with women, damn, you idiot... IT WAS HAVING CONTACT WITH THEM THAT MADE ME REALIZE GIVING THEM THE VOTE IS A DISASTER.

I didn't have this opinion when I had little experience with them. I had it after I had a lot of it and saw what they are.

In a society with women's suffrage women lose all respect for men because the government is now their husband. It is a pro-rape society.

old comment by Kadorhal

You really can't get over the criminal record thing, can you? If it's so different from over here then I ask you to prove it, because I'm not finding anything that suggests so.

"You're lying."

About the naked drumming incident? Okay, since you're still completely incapable of parsing English sentences written by people other than you, allow me to quote you yourself:

"even going as far as to protest naked with a drum"

I'm not going to respond to the rest because it's the same deal of completely missing the point of my post and pretending that women must be psychopaths who want people who will abuse them because you're too much of a violently repulsive shitheel to attract anyone.

Actually, I'll respond to one part.
"Also, any idea of a "woman's love" is fairy tale.

Women are natural psychopaths and have no love for men in them at all. This is why they were always kept under close supervision and had to submit to men."

Wishing for equal representation like every other fucking demographic gets nowadays does not make them natural psychopaths. And again, neither does not choosing to date someone like you, someone so completely out of touch with reality who froths at the mouth with rage at the mere sight of a woman. I'm going to need to post it a hundred more times before you take the fucking hint, but every single problem you have with women is your own godddamned fault. Get over yourself and stop blaming the rest of the world for your own failures.

still not seeing any proof you've actually even met a woman by the way

old comment by Passerby

@ Sexless Cocounutsack

Learn to prove a point you blithering imbecile. You keep calling people liars but not only do you avoid ever actually proving anything they said was untrue you have an ugly habit of confirming their accusations shortly afterwards in ways that make you look more deranged than they had initially assumed.

You claimed repeatedly that there is no such thing as a criminal record in your country. That was demonstrably false but even faced with government provided information packets and press releases from your own country you still childishly insisted we were all stupid for taking any of it at its word instead of yours. You keep insisting that nobody knows the differences between Croatian legal procedure and elsewhere but you never qualify it. If you mean that your record cannot be accessed by a third party or even the police without probable cause just say that. It doesn't mean you don't have a record but that is an actual citable part of Croatian law. If you mean that you think Croatia's policy of automatically rehabilitating lesser offences after a set period of time renders a criminal record meaningless then just say that. You'd be wrong, but you'd be closer to a point. If you think enough time has passed that your personal record would have been wiped clean then just say that. You'd still be wrong about criminal records not even existing in Croatia but you'd at the very least have given a defendable reason to believe you personally did not have a record. The time you were taken in for parading around beating a drum with your shame hanging out might be expunged by now but I guarantee you more violent offenses such as assault, harassment, and death threats do not vanish so easily.

As it stands you have said none of this, only stupidly repeating baseless assertions and showing yourself to be horribly ignorant of the subject you're claiming to know better than the rest of us and inept at the fundamental basics of general conversation vis a vis expressing thoughts and reasoning on a subject or getting to a fucking point. No, all you ever do is pontificate disjointed, unsupported, vitriolic ramblings and when it faces criticism all you say is "I'm right, shut up" like a fucking 8 year old and expect that to somehow qualify as winning an argument.

Oh, and just a minor nitpick here but you admitted to being arrested for making death threats against a girl when you denied it after I brought it up in a different thread. You also claimed indecent exposure/public nudity wasn't against the law in Croatia. Being arrested was proof enough of that but I'll just clarify that having topless beaches does not negate the fact that being topless (or bottomless) elsewhere will get you arrested. I found out that even wearing a bikini in certain areas away from the beach will get you into trouble in Croatia.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Passerby, Kadorhal et al

...seems my theory is correct. Even after such a gap in his previous post to mine yesterday. He now also proves me right, with his mental handicap-based insecurity & pathological inability to 'Rise above it'. Can I call it, or what?!.

Like I say: Mary Jane Lick Sick constantly Googling his screename (du jour), seeing if anyone is pointing & laughing at his micropenis of a 'Manifesto'/'philosophy', so that he can then justify his pathetic little non-existence by chimping out wherever said critiquing of said micropenis is occurring.

Sad.

Or simply a case of 'Last Wordism' on Mary Jane's part? [/Andy Schaftafly]

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=104277&Page=5#1734177

...and still conceding the point, re. your 'Invincible Argument' for 'Coalfart-ism' that'd make anyone reading such question their Modernistic & Feminist way of thinking, drop everything and follow you as their 'Fuhrer', eh cammy...?!

old comment by Anon-e-moose

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=104276&Page=1

>Filename

image

Your idea is like saying 'Rape is wrong, but also right'.

@Goomy pls

"@caamib/Morgan Schlicklitz/Sexless Sadsack

I just saw the page you linked. You used it to support the idea that women voting and premarital chastity are mutually exclusive. Yet it assumes, without proof, the assertion that voting should not be for women.

Doubleplusgooddoublethink, cammy. See you at the next Two Minutes Hate.

@#1739059

"caamib, either man up and actually answer somebody for once - and I mean a real answer, it's been pretty thoroughly explained what your responses lack - or stay gone."

>Filename II

image

old comment by Passerby

*snicker*

I checked out the WhyGodWhy forum. The Sexless Coconutsack got his ass whooped there too. Flopped on a pretty simple math/associative logic question posed to him to gauge his comprehensive skills. He completely confused the range and median for the average (or at least that's what it looked like until he gave his more in-depth answer) and gave a spectacularly wrong justification for his reasoning that went well past bad math. Then he fades into utter irrelevance in a thread entirely devoted to how messed up he is when anime pops up.

It's on page 34, where caamib takes a bike ride. For a guy who insists he's far too smart for the rest of us he sure doesn't do much to prove it. Another thing he has in common with "successful" writer Theodore Beale. I'm willing to bet everybody here can answer that question and why the answer is what it is.

old comment by Kadorhal

"The proper response would have been to recognize your own disgusting hypocrisy when faced with numbers."

I didn't want to respond to these last few comments in fear that it'd bring the motherfucker running again like it apparently did last time, but holy fucking shit, that is complete detachment from reality on the same level as naming your book "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think" or claiming Kent Hovind has won any debate he's ever been in.

"It was seen so in their eyes because all cops are corrupt and law is the last thing they care about."

And, of course, the same old bullshit we've come to expect. "The cops arrested me for threatening the life of another human being*, therefore they all must be corrupt and only picking on me because they have nothing better to do!" Hell, he even admits his doxxing of women who have enough common sense to avoid him (or to leave after one date, but I still have my doubts that he's actually dated anyone) is illegal and he still claims anyone who opposes him for that is in the wrong.

*Linked to that comment again because, on the off-chance I'm right and he does come running back as soon as I respond (maybe it's my refusal to refer to him as anything other than a generic "motherfucker", you saw how badly he took my other comments about his ineptitude at dating), I'm kind of expecting him to immediately go back on the "no i didn't do the thing i very clearly admitted to five fucking times before" track.

Semi-unrelated, I can appreciate any forum that realizes the only good emoticons are Something Awful's emoticons.

caamib #sexist caamib.wordpress.com

82 comments

Confused?