Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #8 - captainprincess (08/12/2014) [-]
You know, on some level she kind of has a point.
Nothing sucks for you once you're dead.
User avatar #124 to #8 - cdmin (08/12/2014) [-]
wrong
User avatar #131 to #124 - captainprincess (08/13/2014) [-]
right
User avatar #122 to #8 - ProWig (08/12/2014) [-]
Thank you for sharing this point of view. i didn't think about it that way
User avatar #133 to #122 - captainprincess (08/13/2014) [-]
I didn't share it, I just re-worded it
#118 to #8 - Womens Study Major (08/12/2014) [-]
The point is being a victim.

Women get paid while their husbands are away at war, and sit back and do nothing.

Men get killed.

Men have it worse
User avatar #132 to #118 - captainprincess (08/13/2014) [-]
no, that's not quite the point at all
it was never a "who has it worse" matter anonyfag
User avatar #115 to #8 - kibuza (08/12/2014) [-]
So the solution is:

Instead of someone coming to inform you your husband/son/father has died in combat, why don't they just kill the people who stayed home.

After all, nothing sucks once you're dead.
User avatar #130 to #115 - captainprincess (08/13/2014) [-]
That's one way to handle it I guess
A little extreme though
#99 to #8 - larknok (08/12/2014) [-]
I would also like to point out that although it's no longer quite so relevant, women were historically the victims of ******** of rape as prisoners of war whilst men were usually just killed during the conquests.

That said, men (and not women) have been (and still are) thrown into the meat-grinder of war to serve political interests.
User avatar #136 to #99 - captainprincess (08/13/2014) [-]
Thank **** THAT doesn't happen as much now eh
Step by step, the human species will clean itself up
User avatar #72 to #8 - WitchKingTroll (08/12/2014) [-]
The point should be that war affects everybody, granted on different levels. It makes no difference if you are a man or a woman, either way either you will die or you will live to suffer longer. In any case, no one is free of the repercussions.
User avatar #137 to #72 - captainprincess (08/13/2014) [-]
Yeah
But sometimes you gotta point at one group more than the other, or else nobody gets looked at

Just sometimes
#31 to #8 - Womens Study Major (08/12/2014) [-]
Get blown to bits, see all your friends die, put through some of the most intense physical and mental torture on this planet. That is a primary victim, that is direct victimhood, losing a child/husband is bad, but it is nowhere near what soldiers in combat go through.
User avatar #134 to #31 - captainprincess (08/13/2014) [-]
Well yeah
But the families do have to live with the loss for the rest of their lives
User avatar #28 to #8 - citruslord ONLINE (08/12/2014) [-]
Doesn't make them the "primary" victim. Yeah, the one who got shot, or taken as prisoner is the secondary victim.
User avatar #135 to #28 - captainprincess (08/13/2014) [-]
I think it was more a sentiment for the families of the DEAD
User avatar #168 to #135 - citruslord ONLINE (08/14/2014) [-]
I gave a set of solid points and examples to reinforce my point.
You just keep saying "They're dead". I understand that, and that's exactly the problem. They died for this woman to say, no, your sacrifice isn't enough, it was the wife's sacrifice really.
You even said "It's the living who are the victims". Even if we completely disregard those who died, who do you think suffers more? The wife of a man who died, or a man who lost limbs, allies, and likely has severe panic attacks at the drop of a hat. A man who will likely never be able to fit back into society again. You keep avoiding that point. What of the vets, they're alive.
Seems to me like you just need to make excuses at this point. I wasn't even fully disagreeing with you, I thought you made a fine point, but that there was more to it. The only game is you avoiding my most legitimate point.
User avatar #170 to #168 - captainprincess (08/14/2014) [-]
Also my entire stance from beginning to end was to advocate concern for the living over the dead

You want to pretend I don't care about vets that's fine
But it helps to demonstrate my case

Not playing
your ****** up
ringroad games
User avatar #173 to #170 - citruslord ONLINE (08/14/2014) [-]
My entire stance from the beginning was that wives are not the primary victims. They are secondary at best. Our concern has nothing to do with it, just who are the major victims.
Anyways, our concern should be focused on vets, which alot of the time are left out to dry. Meanwhile women have some pretty great support helplines available to them.
User avatar #175 to #173 - captainprincess (08/14/2014) [-]
neither was mine

You remember that thing I said where I'm not allowed to say something without implied implied implied implied implied and now I have to answer for the bitch just 'cause I noted that she has kind of a point?

Yeah I'm not playing your games
User avatar #177 to #175 - citruslord ONLINE (08/14/2014) [-]
I acknowledged that she might have a point, that it was even a decent one. My argument was that it was stated wrong if that's what she was going for.

I'm not trying to imply anything. You said it, black and white, plain as day. They are dead, lets worry about living people. So what about vets? Shouldn't they be put first? Primary? I only ask that you answer for yourself. You seem to agree with her, that women are the primary victims of war? That people dying are of less concern than people losing those people?

If my game is logical debate, then yes, you in fact are not playing it.
User avatar #169 to #168 - captainprincess (08/14/2014) [-]
Heylook you did that implying thing again where Im accused of saying something I didn't
Not playing your ringroad games
User avatar #171 to #169 - citruslord ONLINE (08/14/2014) [-]
I copy pasted that. I literally went to comment #160 and #154 and copied what you explicitly stated.
No game except you.
User avatar #172 to #171 - captainprincess (08/14/2014) [-]
And you used them to try to pretend I'm of a stance I haven't even approached
Your game is terrible

I advocate caring about the living, and not worrying about the dead
I have done only this

You and your ringroads can **** off
User avatar #174 to #172 - citruslord ONLINE (08/14/2014) [-]
So basically, you said things, but those things aren't what you meant?
If you advocate caring about the living, go support some vets then, and be damn grateful that someone gave their life so you could have arguments on the internet, because I sure as hell am.
User avatar #176 to #174 - captainprincess (08/14/2014) [-]
Grateful?
You use them to try and lord it over someone who simply wants people to cry less over the dead and focus on the leftbehinds?

Boy that's a pretty disgusting display of gratitude m8
User avatar #178 to #176 - citruslord ONLINE (08/14/2014) [-]
Y'know, I'll take the bait. Dead people are of no concern, or atleast, less concern than those that are alive.
What about vets then, are they not left-behinds? Does a vet not suffer more than a widow?
User avatar #138 to #135 - citruslord ONLINE (08/13/2014) [-]
Then she's doing it the wrong way. Sentiment shouldn't include undertones of belittling the sacrifice of the DEAD.
User avatar #139 to #138 - captainprincess (08/13/2014) [-]
It's a good thing it doesn't then huh
User avatar #140 to #139 - citruslord ONLINE (08/13/2014) [-]
Then it would make sense to say that the wife and kids of Robin Williams are the primary victims of his tragic suicide. Not the man who struggled with depression and drug abuse for years, enough to force him to off himself.
No, the real struggle is on the wife, who will likely live many more healthy years.
User avatar #152 to #140 - captainprincess (08/13/2014) [-]
And I do think that

Sucks to be suicidal and it sucks we lost a great comedian
But he ain't suffering now he's dead is he
User avatar #153 to #152 - citruslord ONLINE (08/13/2014) [-]
Except for the immense amount of suffering up to the point of making him feel that was a good choice. Have you honestly ever actually thought about what it must take to make a person do that? How absolutely terrible they must feel to go against one of our strongest human instincts.
Boohoo you lost your hubby. Well, that soldier got to be rewritten by the army, lost an arm in an explosion where he got to see his only mate turn into powder, and now suffers from extreme panic attacks whenever he hears any sort of bang.
But no, lets worry about the wifey who lost her hubby. 10/10
User avatar #154 to #153 - captainprincess (08/13/2014) [-]
Yeah let's
Let's worry about living people

Dead people are dead
Mourn them
Miss them
But don't waste time worrying about them
They're ****** dead
NOTHING can be done to help them now
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

But hey lets all be emotional and disregard the suffering suicide imparts upon the living because baww we liked that dead guy
Much better idea
User avatar #155 to #154 - citruslord ONLINE (08/13/2014) [-]
Except for the guy I just mentioned, y'know, suffering from PTSD, a pretty severe disorder. He's still alive, or are vets not victims of war. I guess you just forgot about them. My friends grandpa who lost both his legs, nah, not a victim.
I never said to disregard their suffering, but seriously saying that they are the primary victim is lunacy.
User avatar #156 to #155 - captainprincess (08/13/2014) [-]
Ah
I see what's happened

You've mistaken my stance for 100% backing
I mean ofcourse you did, you saw "on some level" and "kind of has a point" and decided to interperet it as "I am 100% in support of every word she has said, in or out of context"

YOU changed the subject to suicide and now YOU change it back to the survivors of war after getting ME, on the subject of SUICIDE, to talk about LIVING people.

No sir I'm sorry but you're not going to have me on a ring-around-the-rosie m8
Be consistent
User avatar #157 to #156 - citruslord ONLINE (08/13/2014) [-]
You're saying that I have to pick one point? The Robin Williams note was an example, an extra to try and make my case. My point being that, the dead are the primary victims because they are dead. I don't know about you, but I think dying would kinda suck one way or another. That by saying that the women who didn't go to war, didn't witness the carnage that is war firsthand, are the primary victims of it, belittles the sacrifice of the soldiers that fought so they can keep what they have.
Not my fault you can't put two and two together.
User avatar #158 to #157 - captainprincess (08/13/2014) [-]
Yes, you have to pick one point.

I'm not going to be dragged in a ******* circle by your ********* attempts at making me discuss the DEAD concerning suicide and THEN TURN THAT **** AROUND ONTO THE SURVIVORS of war after I was advocating CONCERN FOR THE LIVING

Not playing your little ringroad games
User avatar #159 to #158 - citruslord ONLINE (08/13/2014) [-]
I hope you never decide to join a debate team, or be a lawyer. My main point is that soldiers are the primary victims of war, contrary to what you and miss crazy up there seem to believe.
My side point on Robin Williams and his suicide was there initially as an extreme case. I was trying to make a point that you would hopefully understand, and see the lunacy in Clinton's statement by comparison. I thought it would be obvious that Williams was the primary victim, but you failed to see that.
In fact, suicide among veterans is likely a major problem. But I'll leave that out since you can't seem to follow more than one thing.
As simple as I can make it, there are many types of victims of war, the soldiers making up many of them themselves. Vets, as well as the ones who don't make it that far. And that by saying that the women have always been the primary victims is lunacy.
User avatar #160 to #159 - captainprincess (08/13/2014) [-]
Eh
She has a small point
It's the living who are the victims
The dead don't suffer anymore

But no let's worry about dead people
our sorrow will make their death better somehow
User avatar #161 to #160 - citruslord ONLINE (08/13/2014) [-]
I don't know how you keep missing it. I've said it like four times. It's right there.

The dead are not the only soldiers that are victims. Not only that, but having died, that's a huge amount of suffering in a short amount of time.

You seem to think that I think that not worrying about the women will bring back the dead. Yes we should worry about the women. In general, bereavement has a huge toll on ones health. But not as huge as being dead, or missing limbs, or having ptsd. They are not the primary victims of war, they are much more tertiary, and saying different belittles the sacrifice of those who died so you can have the internet you use.
User avatar #163 to #161 - captainprincess (08/14/2014) [-]
No, you're implying it all
You
Not me
Those words never came forward through me, only through you
This is what you do, this is what all the tumblr *********** do
They don't take what's said, they invent implications and throw them ad nauseum at whatever they'll stick to, to artificially construct extra layers of depth they can fill with their own ocean of assumptions and draw from it to return fire

Not
playing
Your
Game
User avatar #164 to #163 - citruslord ONLINE (08/14/2014) [-]
I'm not playing a game. You think that what she says is ok. I find it unsettling.
And you did, you said it. The sarcastic "But no let's worry about dead people
our sorrow will make their death better somehow". I'm not adding implications at all. She said it, black and white, the women come first. Primary, principle. I think that's wrong. I'm not implying that she's trying to oppress men, or anything stupid like that. I just think what she said is stupid.
What tumblr does is what you are doing. Avoiding the points I bring up and blindly follow your own point, picking out what you want from what I say to support your argument without paying heed to the other side. I understand your point, which is something that seems to elude you.
User avatar #165 to #164 - captainprincess (08/14/2014) [-]
You haven't made any points
You're playing jerk-around
I'm not playing
User avatar #166 to #165 - citruslord ONLINE (08/14/2014) [-]
I don't know how you can say I didn't make any points. I've had to make them many times, and it's becoming apparent that you aren't going to get it.
One more time, as simple as possible.
Losing a loved one sucks, but it happens all the time, and it's part of life. Dying, or losing a limb, or even having to witness the horrors of war are much worse. One point.
Saying otherwise, that somehow women are more worthy of mourn, or support, belittles the sacrifice of the men who have given everything. It's pathetic to say so.
User avatar #167 to #166 - captainprincess (08/14/2014) [-]
It's eays how
You ******* didn't
You tried to play contrarian and when I started playing along you wanted to jerk me around in circles

Not playing that game
User avatar #26 to #8 - fjaggot (08/12/2014) [-]
No she has no ******* idea what she's talking about. How about we ask real soldiers their opinion on how war has effected their lives
#20 to #8 - itemsonly (08/12/2014) [-]
Men lose their husbands, fathers and sons in combat as well though.
#52 to #20 - Womens Study Major (08/12/2014) [-]
lol'd at husbands
User avatar #21 to #20 - captainprincess (08/12/2014) [-]
Yeah, true
Doesn't change much
#14 to #8 - Womens Study Major (08/12/2014) [-]
well then you can just commit suicide and you are no longer the primary victim
User avatar #16 to #14 - captainprincess (08/12/2014) [-]
Sure.
A lot of people do turn to that.
I'm not that big a fan of it myself, I find I don't come across any problems that a cigarette and a light snack won't calm.
User avatar #11 to #8 - thefloppinater (08/12/2014) [-]
But soldiers don't always die. They see their friends die, they lose limbs, get PTSD, etc.
I get what your saying I just felt like adding this.
User avatar #113 to #11 - jewsburninindaoven (08/12/2014) [-]
But the women have to deal with their husbands or sons or fathers all being messed up. PTSD doesn't just hurt the soldier, it hurts their friends and families too
User avatar #142 to #113 - thefloppinater (08/13/2014) [-]
So you're saying that having to deal with someone who has PTSD is worse than actually having PTSD? I'm aware it hurts the others around them as well but the person who suffers from PTSD is the primary victim.
User avatar #143 to #142 - jewsburninindaoven (08/13/2014) [-]
I'm unaware as to what part of my statement would lead you to infer that I'm suggesting it's worse to deal with someone with PTSD than to have it. Are you just looking for an argument or what because in all honesty, you'd have to be retarded to think that.
User avatar #61 to #11 - donatelo (08/12/2014) [-]
but in hillarys quote, she seems to be speaking about the women who have actually lost someone in combat, read the quote again plz.
User avatar #141 to #61 - thefloppinater (08/13/2014) [-]
Actually no, she uses the word "victim", which can mean someone who is harmed, injured, or killed. Yeah, she specifically talks about women losing people, but she seems to forget that people can lose limbs and friends as well. Did I read the quote well enough for you?
User avatar #145 to #141 - donatelo (08/13/2014) [-]
"Losing husbands (etc) to combat...." when you lose someone to combat, you lose them a.k.a. death.....how does this concept escape you?
User avatar #146 to #145 - thefloppinater (08/13/2014) [-]
The point she is making is that women are the primary victims of losing people to combat. Completely false. Soldiers lose their friends, their sanity, their lives to combat. Not the women safe at home. Should I spell it out more or no?
Women aren't the primary victims in warfare.
User avatar #148 to #146 - donatelo (08/13/2014) [-]
yes...yes they are. when someone willingly subjects themselves to a dangerous environment, or signs a contract that state the dangers of the job, then they are not victims. how does one go to war without expecting horrors that go along with it? hilarys main point was that the women are the main victims of losing people in war due to combat...please re read her quote.
#149 to #148 - thefloppinater (08/13/2014) [-]
...please re read my quote. Not once do I say that people don't expect the horrors. That's like saying someone isn't a victim of something because they were expecting it. "Oh you were expecting your father to come home today and beat you? Then you're not a victim, because you expected it of course. You willingly go home everyday so you practically signed up for it." Anyway I'm done, I was a victim of your stupidity for too long. gg no re
User avatar #150 to #149 - donatelo (08/13/2014) [-]
that example did not fit the scenario. they are writing a legal document, essentially consenting to being told what to do, they essentially sign their life away knowing that there is a chance of death. a god damn child is not consenting nor signing a legal document that states "by living in this house i expect to get my ass kicked" ....come on dude? you are too dumb man. how can someone be a victim if they signed up for that **** ? no child signs up to get abused, so they are victims....NO ONE is forced to join the military. (excluding draftees.)
User avatar #151 to #150 - thefloppinater (08/13/2014) [-]
really strong argument. would not take seriously again/10
In all honesty, there's flaws in both of our arguments, and nothing you say will change my opinion on any of this. But I still think you're a ******* retard, so bye.
User avatar #162 to #151 - donatelo (08/13/2014) [-]
le out played meme thats not even used right/10
there are more flaws in yours because you are retarded. see ya gay boy.
User avatar #70 to #61 - crazyanimal (08/12/2014) [-]
No she seems to focusing in on women being the victims of war
User avatar #73 to #70 - donatelo (08/12/2014) [-]
"women lose their husbands, fathers, sons in combat". how do you even ignore this part?
User avatar #43 to #11 - Gandalfthewhite (08/12/2014) [-]
well back in the day if your town or city was taken by the opposing army then you was gonna get raped id you was a woman
User avatar #112 to #43 - jewsburninindaoven (08/12/2014) [-]
back in the day? this still goes on in the congo
User avatar #79 to #43 - durkadurka (08/12/2014) [-]
Yes, but in those situations the males are often killed or enslaved.
Moral of the story; being a peasant sucked.
User avatar #109 to #79 - hydraetis ONLINE (08/12/2014) [-]
That's still not as bad what often happens to women when they're at home when the place gets taken over.

Ex: Rape of Nanking
User avatar #15 to #11 - captainprincess (08/12/2014) [-]
natch
 Friends (0)