User talk:GeneralCreepiness

Did he doubt/Or did he try? 14:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Misogynistic -> etymology - "against woman" -> People who want to have sex with a woman are not indicating a dislike of women.
No, but, depending on how they go about things, they may be sexually objectifying women for their own purposes, which is not loving or respectful, but misogynistic. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 14:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That is only your assertion. You are attributing to someone who you do not know motives that you purport to know - it is a wholly absurd and dogmatic act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language GeneralCreepiness (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, all I'm stating is that there have been some controversial theories promulgating the halls of biology departments of late. These theories threaten to undermine all that we have so ardently discovered about the nature of the inherent misogyny of the defective chromosome carrier. It seems that some evidence points to the idea that, within the human species, progeny are conceived by sexual intercourse and not in fact brought by storks as has been the prevalent view. As a skeptic, I, of course, was highly averse to this information when first confronted with it, but further examination of the evidence led me to believe that there may actually be a case against the male creatures make sexual advances out of hatred for the female theory. It seems, almost, when confronted with the evidence, that, for example, asking one to coffee, may in fact be an expression of like of the female. I'm almost certain this will be scientifically disproved in the near months, but, as skeptics, we must always be open-minded when presented with evidence which contravenes even the most rock solid of theories such as the "Dworkin-Koedt Misogynistic Male Advance Theory." Recent scientific discoveries have revealed that there are almost not storks in Alaska and the cold ares of the northern hemisphere. Yet, there still seems to be a prevalence of human infants in these locations. This has led a few scientists to believe that males are expressing attraction to females not out of hatred for the female, but out of a like of the female. This rests on the radical hypothesis that there is an evolutionary mechanism which has evolved into the species in male and females which elicits an attraction and even affection for members of the opposite sex. By this mechanism, it is posited, people of differing sexes are drawn to one another instinctively in an effort to ensure the propagation of the species. Of course, this theory may be disproved by reexamining the methods which were used to look for storks as the storks in Alaska may live underground or in a variety of cave systems. Some of the Dworkin school have expressed the hypothesis that storks in Alaska have acquired the capacity to become invisible and hence carry out their human infant deliveries without being detected by our scientists. Regardless, I'm very interested where this new line of research will lead us. Simone de Beauvoir had an open relationship with Sartre suggesting that in more primitive nations such as France, female aggression towards other males other than her primary lover may not have been actually a product of hatred for the other gender. Of course, Sartre was permitted to engage in sexual advances towards other women which has commonly been regarded as the product of the misogyny which de Beauvoir has secretly internalized and attempted to lash out against by writing "The Second Sex." The common theory has been that Simone de Beauvoir was a rampant mysogynist herself and only wrote The Second Sex as an exercise in self-loathing. However, this new light on the potential weaknesses of the stork theory which will, no doubt be proved to be a baseless patriarchal conspiracy designed to subjugate women, might provide a natural explanation for de Beauvoir's behavior if the patriarchal conspiracy promulgating these radical theories of sex drive and human evolution are not properly exposed for what they are: misogyny. After all, it wouldn't be fair if the natural consequence of these theories proved true, that women in fact bear children and that these children are the result of sexual activities which come about due to an inherent sex drive in populations. However, I think that all women should reject the misogynistic notion that they are the bearers of children and stick with the stork theory until sufficient evidence comes to light which conclusively proves that children are concieved as a result of sexual copulation which is often brought about by instinctual sex drives which are acted out in various ways such as flirting and asking people to dinner. GeneralCreepiness (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are quite obviously a troubled individual. Get help. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 00:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please point to a specific instance wherein I was "troubled?" Or are you afraid that I will undermine the inherent misandry present in third-wave feminism as presented by "Atheism Plus" by pointing to one of the strongest members of feminism and stating: "look, feminists didn't always call men misogynists for having sexuality - and some men didn't call women sluts or otherwise for having the same?" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/10/gender.politicsphilosophyandsociety
 * I am only pointing to one of the most exquisite writers of feminist thought as an example of why the majority of tactics Atheism Plus is engaging in is, in fact, disempowering of women. It is sad that there are so many people on the internet who will relentlessly troll women.  But it is also sad that we live in a society where women are so inundated with fear from patriarchal media conglomerates that a question from a world-renowned and dignified academic in an elevator can ignite a schism so large that one side of a community has to resort to inventing a scientologist like cult to combat a straw man presentation of its opponents or critics.  Well, it is depressing to see such a movement of superstition, name-calling, and bigotry take hold in any community of self-professed "rationalists" and "skeptics."  Leads me to wonder who is in fact behind this inundation of atheism with cult structure - whether it is Freemasons, the CIA, Dominionists or Scientologists, it stinks of all those who send agents into a community in an attempt to destroy it with false flag operations and the worst academic projects of CIA mind control methodology.  I must ultimately wonder whether Atheism Plus considers Sartre to have been a misogynist and whether Simone de Beauvoir was so dumb as to subject herself to someone who did, in fact, hate women. GeneralCreepiness (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page.
Instead of making concern-troll edits that are just going to get reverted on sight, you might want to write something on the talkpage that we can ignore so we can get a dialogue going, okay sweetheart? Did he doubt/Or did he try? 14:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you're a real piece of work. I'm taking some of the propaganda out of your page so you might just sound a little more credible in language, and you utilize demeaning terms. Please bother to spell correctly. The nonsense phrasing and loaded language of the page is not only pseudo-science but incredibly dogmatic. So, to you, "sweetheart," I say: "All oppression creates a state of war. And this is no exception. The existent who is regarded as inessential cannot fail to demand the re-establishment of ... sovereignty."
 * "Utilize demeaning terms"? What kind of a pompous prat writes like that?--ZooGuard (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, of course, when one is dealing with idiots indoctrinated with a specific set of linguistics which they employ so haphazardly as to come to believe that anything which opposes a statement by them must fall under one general category, i.e. mysogyny, I figure it's best to appeal to their language. It's like talking to children, one can't sound excessively erudite. GeneralCreepiness (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * One certainly cannot. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 15:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sign
Did he doubt/Or did he try? 15:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you explain again how to sign comments? GeneralCreepiness (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop edit spamming
It raises the possibility that you're just trying to increase your edit count. You need to make all changes you want to make at one time, when you edit the page, once. Every time you ave a version of the page, it saves the full text of the page with that revision. That takes up enormous amounts of space in the database that will eventually slow down the website. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 17:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Polite version of the above

 * It might help if you used the preview button more, then you could get it the way you want before saving. Sophie  Wilder  18:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Please make sure that you make all your edits at once, in a single revision, wherever possible.  –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 16:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't remove content from talk pages
It's against the rules. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 13:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is going to read random comments from user talk pages. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 03:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised... Peter mqzp 03:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * People actually go through other users' talk page discussions from the past? –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 06:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. If one wants to find out whether someone is worth responding too, the best record is the history of their talkpage.  If it is full of requests to stop being a douche, to get along with others, and (to take a hypothetical example) create a reasonable signature that doesn't annoy others, one can determine that the person is unlikely to be worth responding to.  Our talkpages are a bit like our 'credit history', as it were and should be kept intact apart from some limited exceptions.  --DamoHi 07:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)