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

hide menu

bokkos    

Rank #4843 on Comments
bokkos Avatar Level 314 Comments: Wizard
Online
Send mail to bokkos Block bokkos Invite bokkos to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:4/04/2011
Last Login:9/17/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#4843
Highest Content Rank:#7817
Highest Comment Rank:#456
Content Thumbs: 500 total,  566 ,  66
Comment Thumbs: 15104 total,  17412 ,  2308
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 50 Content: Sammich eater → Level 51 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 70.8% (708/1000)
Level 314 Comments: Wizard → Level 315 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:1
Content Views:31625
Times Content Favorited:43 times
Total Comments Made:2829
FJ Points:15599
Favorite Tags: a (2)
Who the fuck writes in these things?

latest user's comments

#109 - Already did. Instead of being lazy, be the "academic"…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/17/2014 on When you are reading this +4
User avatar #114 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
>Already did. Instead of being lazy, be the "academic" you're trying so hard to portray.
Provide me with the arguments worthy of credibility or I shall disregard your entire post and mark it as invalid.
>You can scream invalidity until your vocal chords are raw, but that doesn't actually make anything invalid.
If you state names and not the arguments, that does not make the argument valid. Look:
Greatest pacifists in history:
Stalin
Genghis Khan
Hitler
King Richard
David Hannersberg
Julia Roberts
Now you see how retarded you are.
>What it does do, is show the lack of agency and dogma that misogynists everywhere subscribe to.
You sure are a knight in shining armor, is chivalry dead?
User avatar #200 - bokkos (08/18/2014) [-]
Difference being I'm learned of those arguments, and it's a 50/50 for pacifist/warmongers for some of them
#113 - chords (08/17/2014) [-]
i like it raw
#105 - Also: Margaret Thatcher is on the list not because of any posi…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/17/2014 on When you are reading this +1
User avatar #108 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
I bet many workers loved her too.
#102 - All I can say is you haven't, and to do your own research. The…  [+] (5 new replies) 08/17/2014 on When you are reading this +5
User avatar #104 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
Provide me with the arguments worthy of credibility or I shall disregard your entire post and mark it as invalid.
User avatar #109 - bokkos (08/17/2014) [-]
Already did. Instead of being lazy, be the "academic" you're trying so hard to portray. It is not my job to take responsibility for your own betterment and education. You can scream invalidity until your vocal chords are raw, but that doesn't actually make anything invalid. What it does do, is show the lack of agency and dogma that misogynists everywhere subscribe to. Ironically, that would demonstrate how invalid your position is.
User avatar #114 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
>Already did. Instead of being lazy, be the "academic" you're trying so hard to portray.
Provide me with the arguments worthy of credibility or I shall disregard your entire post and mark it as invalid.
>You can scream invalidity until your vocal chords are raw, but that doesn't actually make anything invalid.
If you state names and not the arguments, that does not make the argument valid. Look:
Greatest pacifists in history:
Stalin
Genghis Khan
Hitler
King Richard
David Hannersberg
Julia Roberts
Now you see how retarded you are.
>What it does do, is show the lack of agency and dogma that misogynists everywhere subscribe to.
You sure are a knight in shining armor, is chivalry dead?
User avatar #200 - bokkos (08/18/2014) [-]
Difference being I'm learned of those arguments, and it's a 50/50 for pacifist/warmongers for some of them
#113 - chords (08/17/2014) [-]
i like it raw
#99 - Yes: Florence Nightengale Rosalind Franklin …  [+] (35 new replies) 08/17/2014 on When you are reading this +8
#239 - anonymous (08/18/2014) [-]
And Queen Elizabeth the 1st. The first monarch to sort out religious tension properly (not picking sides) and politics. She was revolutionary for her time supporting the renaissance and shit. And she need no man.
#227 - anonymous (08/18/2014) [-]
The OP raises a statement that puts the mindset and behavior of MODERN women in a negative light.
You claim that OP's statement is baseless.
schnizel asks you to defend your claim.
You give the examples of: Jane Goodall Born: April 3, 1934 Emily Dickinson Born: December 10, 1830 Margaret Thatcher Born: October 13, 1925 Helen Keller Born: June 27, 1880
These are truly fine examples of women who have done great things for the world and those around them, but they fail to represent MODERN women.
I'm not saying that you are wrong, I am saying that you have failed to defend your criticism of OP's statement. If you want representatives to defend modern women then I suggest selecting them from the pool of those born within the last three decades or admit that your criticism is baseless.
User avatar #249 - bokkos (08/18/2014) [-]
Herein lies the point; men and women are entirely equal in everything that constitutes a modern society. My examples are to raise the awareness that women have been men's equals for as long as we've been in organized states. early human tribal structure is a different matter
Not only that, but the post describes such a vanishingly small portion of women (and in a rather crude fashion), it might as well not have been said at all. All humans are fantastically diverse in their thoughts and personal beliefs. Personally, I would never entertain the notion of being friends with or romantically involved with anyone who was not interesting in these respects.
So, I got a lot of criticism claiming I was missing the point, that I wasn't exemplifying the "modern" women. Want to know something? Modern Homo sapiens have been trotting along on this early for tens of thousands of years already. If Emily Dickinson isn't a modern woman, what amazingly inconsistent system are you using? The only things that have changed since her time is or technology and our culture I'll discount the cosmetic pop-culture as legitimate culture , humans have remained the same.
#256 - anonymous (08/18/2014) [-]
Now correct me if I have misunderstood you but it seems to me that your response to my saying that your examples dont represent modern women is to simply brush aside changes in culture as irrelevant, stating that we are the same species that we were ten thousand years ago. The problem isnt with humans physically so stating that we are still physically the same is irrelevant. The problem has everything to do with culture and how it is changing. While I do understand that women that actually hold the mindset given in the OP represent only a small percent of women as a whole, from what I've seen and read that percent is on the rise. I think that that is a bad thing because if it is true then we could be looking at a steady decline in society. After reading some of schnizel's other posts I can firmly say that I dont agree with him on much, and I have no problems with womens rights, but I do believe the recent rise of "feminism" is a bad thing and should be spoken against.
#150 - peterdivine (08/17/2014) [-]
If I may, I think you've rather missed the point of the statement at hand. No one is denying that women have any capacity to assist or even lead in almost any of the industry or sciences of today- we are stating that, in their justifiable crusade for equality and respect in the workplace, they have lost all their capacity to hold relationships as women attractive to men. No one denies that Emily Dickinson made significant contributions through her work, but if you think for a second any man of today would want her as a housemate, let alone a wife? Then you haven't read her biography. She were not pleasant people. And let's face it- most women today are NOT Madam Curie, though that won't stop most of them from being so self-righteous that they act like they are.

But, naturally, this can all be said for men, as well, sooooo...
User avatar #157 - bokkos (08/18/2014) [-]
What I believe, and I claim to have observed it, that people (male, female, gay, straight, whatever) fall into ranges of personalities, from submissive to dominant and everything in between. Now, this content would have us believe that women are only attractive so long as they can do things for men, and that will absolutely not stand up to the slightest criticism. Wouldn't having two working sides to a household boost household income? Wouldn't equal distribution of household duties reduce the stress of everyone involved, and increase efficiency? Not to mention it brings up the uncomfortable notion that somehow men are incapable of fending for themselves in a household environment, requiring care like some sort of child. And I would say that men who do think that are children, at least mentally.

I liked your closing statement though, because you're right.
#163 - peterdivine (08/18/2014) [-]
"this content would have us believe that women are only attractive so long as they can do things for men"

Okay, do me a favor, step back, think about this solitary statement, right here, and tell me how you see a relationship in which a woman who does NOTHING for her boyfriend is in any way attractive to anyone dating her in long-term, because you just described a woman who's selfish and self-absorbed and demanded men be attractive to her regardless. You're in for a shocker.

"Wouldn't having two working sides to a household boost household income?"

Take it from someone who had both parents working- that's really the only benefit anyone gets from having both parents work. It's a big one, but it comes with a lot of small setbacks.

" Wouldn't equal distribution of household duties reduce the stress of everyone involved, and increase efficiency?"
Funny thing about jobs is that they don't give a shit about your home schedule. Your employers want you working when you're scheduled, and anything less is used as fuel for your eventual firing. So if both Mom and Dad are working, I sure hope you know a carpool for the kids who get out of school at 4, because if you don't then they're sitting their ass on a curb until one of you gets out.

" Not to mention it brings up the uncomfortable notion that somehow men are incapable of fending for themselves in a household environment, requiring care like some sort of child"
Or being grateful that someone's there to pick up their slack? Heaven forbid.
User avatar #233 - hoponthefeelstrain (08/18/2014) [-]
so I'm getting from you that working women are hurting their families by not being stay at home moms. Why can't the dad stay home or they higher a nanny? Why does the wife have to completely give up on her dreams and ambitions and not the husband?

And no women shouldn't be selfish bitches but if taking care of her husband means being completely submissive than she doesn't need to be married to someone like that anyway.
#243 - peterdivine (08/18/2014) [-]
"Why can't the dad stay home or they hire a nanny?"

Well, SOMEone should, because they're your children and if you're hiring nannies to raise them then you're scarcely being their parents at all. I get that equal space in the workplace is a coveted thing, because the role of breadwinner also gives an unofficial "head of the family" role to the worker. The female will want it just to break her "traditional role" she doesn't agree with; the man will want it because it's expected of him. But when both parents are out, competing to "lead", who raises their children?
User avatar #282 - hoponthefeelstrain (08/19/2014) [-]
If one person in the relationship always has to drop everything to care for their family in your opinion, then that's a sad family.
#286 - peterdivine (08/20/2014) [-]
Is it sadder than the family who never has their parents home?
User avatar #287 - hoponthefeelstrain (08/20/2014) [-]
I grew up with a single military mom, every 3 years we moved and for 5 years of my life she was gone overseas. Is it sad? Yea sometimes but they're doing it so you can have a better life. It's important to spend the little time you have with them together.
User avatar #166 - bokkos (08/18/2014) [-]
You're invoking reductio ad absurdum, which would work had I stretched my argument to any type of extreme. Of course every relationship is about give and take, but it should be from both sides equally, and I mean completely equally. I didn't say, or even infer, any of the additional claims you placed.
Note that my argument never brought up children, as that is a separate matter. One I'm happy to entertain, because it is important and related, but not my focus at this present moment.
Why can men not pick up the slack for the woman? As you said, what applies for men does for women and vice versa, with the exception of biology and in my opinion ludicrous specific aspects of culture.
User avatar #101 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
May you please provide that evidence so that I can debunk it for it seems the third time. First time with you.
<3
User avatar #105 - bokkos (08/17/2014) [-]
Also: Margaret Thatcher is on the list not because of any positive contribution, but because she was an Iron Clad Bitch, and essentially made Britain her bitch.
User avatar #108 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
I bet many workers loved her too.
User avatar #102 - bokkos (08/17/2014) [-]
All I can say is you haven't, and to do your own research. The names are there, you are welcome to see for yourself the contributions to art, science and the human spirit these people have made.
User avatar #104 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
Provide me with the arguments worthy of credibility or I shall disregard your entire post and mark it as invalid.
User avatar #109 - bokkos (08/17/2014) [-]
Already did. Instead of being lazy, be the "academic" you're trying so hard to portray. It is not my job to take responsibility for your own betterment and education. You can scream invalidity until your vocal chords are raw, but that doesn't actually make anything invalid. What it does do, is show the lack of agency and dogma that misogynists everywhere subscribe to. Ironically, that would demonstrate how invalid your position is.
User avatar #114 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
>Already did. Instead of being lazy, be the "academic" you're trying so hard to portray.
Provide me with the arguments worthy of credibility or I shall disregard your entire post and mark it as invalid.
>You can scream invalidity until your vocal chords are raw, but that doesn't actually make anything invalid.
If you state names and not the arguments, that does not make the argument valid. Look:
Greatest pacifists in history:
Stalin
Genghis Khan
Hitler
King Richard
David Hannersberg
Julia Roberts
Now you see how retarded you are.
>What it does do, is show the lack of agency and dogma that misogynists everywhere subscribe to.
You sure are a knight in shining armor, is chivalry dead?
User avatar #200 - bokkos (08/18/2014) [-]
Difference being I'm learned of those arguments, and it's a 50/50 for pacifist/warmongers for some of them
#113 - chords (08/17/2014) [-]
i like it raw
#100 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
User avatar #201 - delphine (08/18/2014) [-]
Aristotle lived lived 2400 years ago. He also said some people are natural masters and others are natural slaves. The natural masters should rule the natural slaves. Aristotle was supportive of slavery because back then they had no machines to do the work for them. Times have changed, we have machines to do labor for us and we can see that slavery is morally wrong. Times have changed, and we can see that the idea that one group of people (men) are more fit to rule over another (women) is also morally wrong.
#259 - anonymous (08/18/2014) [-]
ok so he lived 2400 years ago and said some things that no longer apply today, that dosent just give you a free pass to discount EVERYTHING he has said. 2400 years ago he said that it is wrong to say that 3=4 today you are saying that since times have changed and he said some other things that you dont like it is now ok to say that 3=4. im not saying that men are superior to women, but it is a fact that men are better than women at some things and it is also a fact that women are better than men at some things. to say than men and women are exactly equal in all things is just as wrong as saying that men/women are better than women/men.
User avatar #262 - delphine (08/18/2014) [-]
And I'm not discounting it, I'm just saying that it was said in a time where people traded brides for sheep and cattle. Things change.
#269 - anonymous (08/19/2014) [-]
"I'm not saying that just because its old it is wrong, I'm saying that since it was said a long time ago it is no longer true."
Nigga what?
You are mathematically wrong. If A =/= B then it is wrong to say that A = B its as simple as that. It dosnt matter if it was said in a time where people clothed themselves in their own shit. If a statement is true then it is true regardless of when, where or by whom it was said.
User avatar #283 - delphine (08/19/2014) [-]
Math?! What the hell, last I checked this was not a mathematical discussion. It is an ethical discussion. My main point is that it is not okay to treat half the human population (or anyone for that matter) like second class citizens.
User avatar #261 - delphine (08/18/2014) [-]
I never said that women and men were exactly equal. But he DID say that men are fit to rule over women. How is that right on any planet? If you want to live in a place where men rule over women, go move to Saudi Arabia. Patriarchy is working out so well for them.
#268 - anonymous (08/19/2014) [-]
I never said that patriarchy was a good thing, I was simply pointing out a flaw in your argument. Which you made again in 162...
#270 - anonymous (08/19/2014) [-]
*262*
User avatar #214 - schnizel (08/18/2014) [-]
So because we have something else to replace slaves, now slavery is wrong because it can be replaced? Times have changed, people haven't, the only thing that has changed is our immune system.
>and we can see that the idea that one group of people (men) are more fit to rule over another (women) is also morally wrong.
It is not only morally right, but more efficient because men are rational.
User avatar #247 - delphine (08/18/2014) [-]
"It is not only morally right, but more efficient because men are rational."

I can't tell if you're a troll or one of those Return of Kings weirdos.
If you do really believe what you are saying, I hope you never have daughters.
User avatar #112 - bokkos (08/17/2014) [-]
Protip; Aristotle also adhered to the hypothesis of spontaneous generation. Just because he made some neat points occasionally does not make him infallible. If you do feel that he is infallible, please see the Religious Right.
User avatar #115 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
>A said B is right, so therefor C is wrong.
#82 - All I hear is the sound of virgin tears hitting the floor. Any…  [+] (41 new replies) 08/17/2014 on When you are reading this +208
User avatar #199 - delphine (08/18/2014) [-]
Thank you. You have given me hope.
And not just a legitimate female friend, but anyone who has a mother, a sister or a daughter should see through this.
#176 - Indoknight (08/18/2014) [-]
>legitimate female friend
>funnyjunk

MOTHAFUCKA if I had me one of those, I wouldn't be on this site for hours!!!
User avatar #173 - dwarfman (08/18/2014) [-]
Well it was posted by schnizel. Aka King of the Betas, aka /pol/fag, aka stays in his home collecting welfare while bitching about brownies.
User avatar #215 - schnizel (08/18/2014) [-]
Come one dude, I tought you were my friend.
User avatar #87 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
So besides your bitching do you have anything else to say?
#99 - bokkos (08/17/2014) [-]
Yes:
Florence Nightengale
Rosalind Franklin
Mothafuckin Madame Marie Currie
Jane Goodall
Emily Dickinson
Margaret Thatcher
Helen Keller

Now, either you're a troll, attempting to make a sarcastic point, or serious. Honestly, it doesn't matter, the evidence is so strongly on the side of egalitarianism there is no more debate, not that there was one to begin with.
#239 - anonymous (08/18/2014) [-]
And Queen Elizabeth the 1st. The first monarch to sort out religious tension properly (not picking sides) and politics. She was revolutionary for her time supporting the renaissance and shit. And she need no man.
#227 - anonymous (08/18/2014) [-]
The OP raises a statement that puts the mindset and behavior of MODERN women in a negative light.
You claim that OP's statement is baseless.
schnizel asks you to defend your claim.
You give the examples of: Jane Goodall Born: April 3, 1934 Emily Dickinson Born: December 10, 1830 Margaret Thatcher Born: October 13, 1925 Helen Keller Born: June 27, 1880
These are truly fine examples of women who have done great things for the world and those around them, but they fail to represent MODERN women.
I'm not saying that you are wrong, I am saying that you have failed to defend your criticism of OP's statement. If you want representatives to defend modern women then I suggest selecting them from the pool of those born within the last three decades or admit that your criticism is baseless.
User avatar #249 - bokkos (08/18/2014) [-]
Herein lies the point; men and women are entirely equal in everything that constitutes a modern society. My examples are to raise the awareness that women have been men's equals for as long as we've been in organized states. early human tribal structure is a different matter
Not only that, but the post describes such a vanishingly small portion of women (and in a rather crude fashion), it might as well not have been said at all. All humans are fantastically diverse in their thoughts and personal beliefs. Personally, I would never entertain the notion of being friends with or romantically involved with anyone who was not interesting in these respects.
So, I got a lot of criticism claiming I was missing the point, that I wasn't exemplifying the "modern" women. Want to know something? Modern Homo sapiens have been trotting along on this early for tens of thousands of years already. If Emily Dickinson isn't a modern woman, what amazingly inconsistent system are you using? The only things that have changed since her time is or technology and our culture I'll discount the cosmetic pop-culture as legitimate culture , humans have remained the same.
#256 - anonymous (08/18/2014) [-]
Now correct me if I have misunderstood you but it seems to me that your response to my saying that your examples dont represent modern women is to simply brush aside changes in culture as irrelevant, stating that we are the same species that we were ten thousand years ago. The problem isnt with humans physically so stating that we are still physically the same is irrelevant. The problem has everything to do with culture and how it is changing. While I do understand that women that actually hold the mindset given in the OP represent only a small percent of women as a whole, from what I've seen and read that percent is on the rise. I think that that is a bad thing because if it is true then we could be looking at a steady decline in society. After reading some of schnizel's other posts I can firmly say that I dont agree with him on much, and I have no problems with womens rights, but I do believe the recent rise of "feminism" is a bad thing and should be spoken against.
#150 - peterdivine (08/17/2014) [-]
If I may, I think you've rather missed the point of the statement at hand. No one is denying that women have any capacity to assist or even lead in almost any of the industry or sciences of today- we are stating that, in their justifiable crusade for equality and respect in the workplace, they have lost all their capacity to hold relationships as women attractive to men. No one denies that Emily Dickinson made significant contributions through her work, but if you think for a second any man of today would want her as a housemate, let alone a wife? Then you haven't read her biography. She were not pleasant people. And let's face it- most women today are NOT Madam Curie, though that won't stop most of them from being so self-righteous that they act like they are.

But, naturally, this can all be said for men, as well, sooooo...
User avatar #157 - bokkos (08/18/2014) [-]
What I believe, and I claim to have observed it, that people (male, female, gay, straight, whatever) fall into ranges of personalities, from submissive to dominant and everything in between. Now, this content would have us believe that women are only attractive so long as they can do things for men, and that will absolutely not stand up to the slightest criticism. Wouldn't having two working sides to a household boost household income? Wouldn't equal distribution of household duties reduce the stress of everyone involved, and increase efficiency? Not to mention it brings up the uncomfortable notion that somehow men are incapable of fending for themselves in a household environment, requiring care like some sort of child. And I would say that men who do think that are children, at least mentally.

I liked your closing statement though, because you're right.
#163 - peterdivine (08/18/2014) [-]
"this content would have us believe that women are only attractive so long as they can do things for men"

Okay, do me a favor, step back, think about this solitary statement, right here, and tell me how you see a relationship in which a woman who does NOTHING for her boyfriend is in any way attractive to anyone dating her in long-term, because you just described a woman who's selfish and self-absorbed and demanded men be attractive to her regardless. You're in for a shocker.

"Wouldn't having two working sides to a household boost household income?"

Take it from someone who had both parents working- that's really the only benefit anyone gets from having both parents work. It's a big one, but it comes with a lot of small setbacks.

" Wouldn't equal distribution of household duties reduce the stress of everyone involved, and increase efficiency?"
Funny thing about jobs is that they don't give a shit about your home schedule. Your employers want you working when you're scheduled, and anything less is used as fuel for your eventual firing. So if both Mom and Dad are working, I sure hope you know a carpool for the kids who get out of school at 4, because if you don't then they're sitting their ass on a curb until one of you gets out.

" Not to mention it brings up the uncomfortable notion that somehow men are incapable of fending for themselves in a household environment, requiring care like some sort of child"
Or being grateful that someone's there to pick up their slack? Heaven forbid.
User avatar #233 - hoponthefeelstrain (08/18/2014) [-]
so I'm getting from you that working women are hurting their families by not being stay at home moms. Why can't the dad stay home or they higher a nanny? Why does the wife have to completely give up on her dreams and ambitions and not the husband?

And no women shouldn't be selfish bitches but if taking care of her husband means being completely submissive than she doesn't need to be married to someone like that anyway.
#243 - peterdivine (08/18/2014) [-]
"Why can't the dad stay home or they hire a nanny?"

Well, SOMEone should, because they're your children and if you're hiring nannies to raise them then you're scarcely being their parents at all. I get that equal space in the workplace is a coveted thing, because the role of breadwinner also gives an unofficial "head of the family" role to the worker. The female will want it just to break her "traditional role" she doesn't agree with; the man will want it because it's expected of him. But when both parents are out, competing to "lead", who raises their children?
User avatar #282 - hoponthefeelstrain (08/19/2014) [-]
If one person in the relationship always has to drop everything to care for their family in your opinion, then that's a sad family.
#286 - peterdivine (08/20/2014) [-]
Is it sadder than the family who never has their parents home?
User avatar #287 - hoponthefeelstrain (08/20/2014) [-]
I grew up with a single military mom, every 3 years we moved and for 5 years of my life she was gone overseas. Is it sad? Yea sometimes but they're doing it so you can have a better life. It's important to spend the little time you have with them together.
User avatar #166 - bokkos (08/18/2014) [-]
You're invoking reductio ad absurdum, which would work had I stretched my argument to any type of extreme. Of course every relationship is about give and take, but it should be from both sides equally, and I mean completely equally. I didn't say, or even infer, any of the additional claims you placed.
Note that my argument never brought up children, as that is a separate matter. One I'm happy to entertain, because it is important and related, but not my focus at this present moment.
Why can men not pick up the slack for the woman? As you said, what applies for men does for women and vice versa, with the exception of biology and in my opinion ludicrous specific aspects of culture.
User avatar #101 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
May you please provide that evidence so that I can debunk it for it seems the third time. First time with you.
<3
User avatar #105 - bokkos (08/17/2014) [-]
Also: Margaret Thatcher is on the list not because of any positive contribution, but because she was an Iron Clad Bitch, and essentially made Britain her bitch.
User avatar #108 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
I bet many workers loved her too.
User avatar #102 - bokkos (08/17/2014) [-]
All I can say is you haven't, and to do your own research. The names are there, you are welcome to see for yourself the contributions to art, science and the human spirit these people have made.
User avatar #104 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
Provide me with the arguments worthy of credibility or I shall disregard your entire post and mark it as invalid.
User avatar #109 - bokkos (08/17/2014) [-]
Already did. Instead of being lazy, be the "academic" you're trying so hard to portray. It is not my job to take responsibility for your own betterment and education. You can scream invalidity until your vocal chords are raw, but that doesn't actually make anything invalid. What it does do, is show the lack of agency and dogma that misogynists everywhere subscribe to. Ironically, that would demonstrate how invalid your position is.
User avatar #114 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
>Already did. Instead of being lazy, be the "academic" you're trying so hard to portray.
Provide me with the arguments worthy of credibility or I shall disregard your entire post and mark it as invalid.
>You can scream invalidity until your vocal chords are raw, but that doesn't actually make anything invalid.
If you state names and not the arguments, that does not make the argument valid. Look:
Greatest pacifists in history:
Stalin
Genghis Khan
Hitler
King Richard
David Hannersberg
Julia Roberts
Now you see how retarded you are.
>What it does do, is show the lack of agency and dogma that misogynists everywhere subscribe to.
You sure are a knight in shining armor, is chivalry dead?
User avatar #200 - bokkos (08/18/2014) [-]
Difference being I'm learned of those arguments, and it's a 50/50 for pacifist/warmongers for some of them
#113 - chords (08/17/2014) [-]
i like it raw
#100 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
User avatar #201 - delphine (08/18/2014) [-]
Aristotle lived lived 2400 years ago. He also said some people are natural masters and others are natural slaves. The natural masters should rule the natural slaves. Aristotle was supportive of slavery because back then they had no machines to do the work for them. Times have changed, we have machines to do labor for us and we can see that slavery is morally wrong. Times have changed, and we can see that the idea that one group of people (men) are more fit to rule over another (women) is also morally wrong.
#259 - anonymous (08/18/2014) [-]
ok so he lived 2400 years ago and said some things that no longer apply today, that dosent just give you a free pass to discount EVERYTHING he has said. 2400 years ago he said that it is wrong to say that 3=4 today you are saying that since times have changed and he said some other things that you dont like it is now ok to say that 3=4. im not saying that men are superior to women, but it is a fact that men are better than women at some things and it is also a fact that women are better than men at some things. to say than men and women are exactly equal in all things is just as wrong as saying that men/women are better than women/men.
User avatar #262 - delphine (08/18/2014) [-]
And I'm not discounting it, I'm just saying that it was said in a time where people traded brides for sheep and cattle. Things change.
#269 - anonymous (08/19/2014) [-]
"I'm not saying that just because its old it is wrong, I'm saying that since it was said a long time ago it is no longer true."
Nigga what?
You are mathematically wrong. If A =/= B then it is wrong to say that A = B its as simple as that. It dosnt matter if it was said in a time where people clothed themselves in their own shit. If a statement is true then it is true regardless of when, where or by whom it was said.
User avatar #283 - delphine (08/19/2014) [-]
Math?! What the hell, last I checked this was not a mathematical discussion. It is an ethical discussion. My main point is that it is not okay to treat half the human population (or anyone for that matter) like second class citizens.
User avatar #261 - delphine (08/18/2014) [-]
I never said that women and men were exactly equal. But he DID say that men are fit to rule over women. How is that right on any planet? If you want to live in a place where men rule over women, go move to Saudi Arabia. Patriarchy is working out so well for them.
#268 - anonymous (08/19/2014) [-]
I never said that patriarchy was a good thing, I was simply pointing out a flaw in your argument. Which you made again in 162...
#270 - anonymous (08/19/2014) [-]
*262*
User avatar #214 - schnizel (08/18/2014) [-]
So because we have something else to replace slaves, now slavery is wrong because it can be replaced? Times have changed, people haven't, the only thing that has changed is our immune system.
>and we can see that the idea that one group of people (men) are more fit to rule over another (women) is also morally wrong.
It is not only morally right, but more efficient because men are rational.
User avatar #247 - delphine (08/18/2014) [-]
"It is not only morally right, but more efficient because men are rational."

I can't tell if you're a troll or one of those Return of Kings weirdos.
If you do really believe what you are saying, I hope you never have daughters.
User avatar #112 - bokkos (08/17/2014) [-]
Protip; Aristotle also adhered to the hypothesis of spontaneous generation. Just because he made some neat points occasionally does not make him infallible. If you do feel that he is infallible, please see the Religious Right.
User avatar #115 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
>A said B is right, so therefor C is wrong.
#35 - Picture 08/17/2014 on THATF RAFIFT 0
#21 - Witness it in it's perverse reality. 08/14/2014 on This man has seen hell 0
#28 - >top kek You think this is 4chan/a ********…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/14/2014 on That new airplane anime dub... 0
#41 - tonitraktor (08/19/2014) [-]
so much hate on a faggy 12 yr old that knows nothing about the interwebz
#32 - puffbrownies (08/14/2014) [-]
**puffbrownies rolled image** lel
#32 - If you can't answer that yourself, never have children. 08/04/2014 on Dont eat the baby 0
#31 - Oh. 07/07/2014 on Mcbeefpunch +5
#129 - [Citation Needed] Not only that, but [Actual… 07/03/2014 on amazing facts about aliens +3
#351 - It's called The Great Knife. Seriously it's like one… 07/03/2014 on Cool Swords 0
#140 - iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg 07/01/2014 on wut 0
#135 - ... Which is a conspiracy theory propagated by nutters who nee…  [+] (3 new replies) 07/01/2014 on wut 0
User avatar #141 - joekerr (07/01/2014) [-]
You know that in the federal report about 9/11 they didn't even mention the third building, too? That thing is over 600 pages long and bla bla.

Not saying that it was a inside job, but many things don't add up.

Professor Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) - 10 Years After 9/11 The Official Account Does Not Add Up
User avatar #136 - slobiscuit (07/01/2014) [-]
an "inside" job ....--> www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
get it?
User avatar #140 - bokkos (07/01/2014) [-]
iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg
#98 - Picture 07/01/2014 on Interesting Facts +2
#302 - Funny how in the cases of extreme eating disorders, food and u… 06/30/2014 on (untitled) +2
#32 - Or you own a 5 ton piece of machinery that amounts to a wood c… 06/30/2014 on Eat yer vegitables +11
#8 - If by "sunlight" you mean "long row of high int… 06/28/2014 on MY TIME HAS COME +133
#89 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 06/24/2014 on Freedom isn't divisible by 10! -1
#157 - anonymous (06/28/2014) [-]
go fuck yourself
#88 - 1. There are those who use the imperial system 2. The…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/24/2014 on Freedom isn't divisible by 10! +10
User avatar #147 - meganinja (06/24/2014) [-]
The USA still has a functional space program. Just because there aren't space shuttles doesn't mean the whole program went down the drain
#95 - Still more than you've accomplished. 06/23/2014 on This Week In Science +1
#515 - What's /B/?  [+] (1 new reply) 06/21/2014 on fattest kid in high school 0
User avatar #520 - allcapsbro (06/21/2014) [-]
IT'S THE ANIME BOARD ON FOURCHAN.COM

FUCKING SUMMERFAGS
#96 - Or the locks can be cut and allow the tradition to continue by… 06/17/2014 on Danm shame if you ask me. 0
#38 - Picture 06/16/2014 on top comment 0
#122 - ... Ten seconds from seeing the post. 06/16/2014 on Do you even lift? 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1300

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#12 - anonymous (05/30/2013) [-]
suck dick. you are an uncreative piece of **** .
#10 - anonymous (05/24/2013) [-]
Why isn't your name white? A lot of your comments suggest that this should be so...
#11 to #10 - bokkos ONLINE (05/24/2013) [-]
I didn't get a comment in the top 150 or anything in the last two days.
User avatar #8 - tredbear (04/06/2013) [-]
why is your name blur instead of light blue?
User avatar #9 to #8 - bokkos ONLINE (04/06/2013) [-]
I guess its for for people here over 2 years
#6 - anonymous (03/05/2013) [-]
sup fag
#4 - anonymous (03/04/2013) [-]
HEY FAGGOT GO DIE IN A FIRE YOU'RE A PIECE OF VIRGIN ****
#5 to #4 - bokkos ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #2 - someponynew (12/13/2012) [-]
Yahtzee is amazing.
User avatar #3 to #2 - bokkos ONLINE (12/13/2012) [-]
Yes he is! By far one of the best shows on the internet I think.
User avatar #1 - rustyshakleford (04/14/2012) [-]
Hello There
 Friends (0)