Locker room banter

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I went back to look at it before.

Worst case scenario is that a vote for Trump means slightly less interns being assaulted.

But then Bill is free to assault anywhere else but, that didn't even make it into your post, you just wanted to focus on the lower quantity of assaults (maybe) in the white house if Trump is elected.

a reply to: JinMI

Just a quick note ...

... pretentiousness is not in short supply around here.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Dually noted....
...

(and some more dots for good measure)...

a reply to: daskakik

Technically you are right but in practice the idea is worthless.

I don't think so. We've already heard claims of people being hurt by words when the pain is clearly self-inflicted. If they continue to think it is the words that cause pain, and not themselves, they will be less likely to minimize the damage they themselves are causing, and more likely to maximize censorship of others.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

"manly" physical consequences being delivered to the mouths of trash-talking scum.

So your husband resorts to violence = judge jury executioner - ever hear of phone cameras and recording it and using the police?

In some situations it's even protected Free Speech

en.wikipedia.org...

Post-Chaplinsky[edit] The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[3] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "# the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I don't think so. We've already heard claims of people being hurt by words when the pain is clearly self-inflicted. If they continue to think it is the words that cause pain, and not themselves, they will be less likely to minimize the damage they themselves are causing, and more likely to maximize censorship of others.

But people don't believe it so it is worthless. Maybe a better term is ineffectual.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you posit it is not the escalating rhetoric or declaration of war or any words at all that cause injury in war, but the first bullet fired that hits its target. And if we want to stop said injuries from occurring we must focus on the bullet, and not the words of leaders or declarations of war? Is that wisdom? Or foolishness? I so ponder these things while I sit upon my chair in the study...

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Exactly. The fires are absolutely there as well. Scary business to be sure.

a reply to: daskakik

But people don't believe it so it is worthless. Maybe a better term is ineffectual.

People didn't believe the Earth revolved around the sun either. With a little research and some early childhood education, I think people can be taught that words are completely harmless.

I would just like to add that as a guy in his mid 20s, maybe it's a generational thing, because we all know sex is more accessible a topic as it has ever been, but my friends and I talk like this all the time. Maybe not specifically just grabbing a chick, cause us regular folk would be arrested for that, but this type of lewd conversation is commonplace. We're all fairly open with our experiences, and this type of talk, quite frankly it astounds me that people HAVEN'T heard this type of stuff before. I'm not sure what type of sheltered lives you people are living, but I honestly didn't bat an eye when I heard this language. Especially considering it is far before he entered politics, this shouldn't surprise anyone.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And yet, is it not words that rouse the very hearts of men. Words that are censored in so many lands for their power to unite and tear down institutions.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

So you posit it is not the escalating rhetoric or declaration of war or any words at all that cause injury in war, but the first bullet fired that hits its target. And if we want to stop said injuries from occurring we must focus on the bullet, and not the words of leaders or declarations of war? Is that wisdom? Or foolishness? I so ponder these things while I sit upon my chair in the study...

No, I am not positing that.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

And yet, is it not words that rouse the very hearts of men. Words that are censored in so many lands for their power to unite and tear down institutions.

No. Thoughts do.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

"fifteen minutes of fame"

I called them once just to ask if they were interested in actual actors

Why would you do that, for 20 minutes of fame?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The courts would disagree with you:

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 102 › § 2102
18 U.S. Code § 2102 - Definitions

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code

(a) As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
(Added Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 104(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 76.)

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

There are still flat earthers.

I don't think general ideas about science compare to someone in your face throwing words at you. In the heat of the moment thinking about what LesMis said on ATS about words won't mean much. I've seen people laud your posts and say they agree with you and them watch them react to the words in other threads.

I don't think your philosophy is going to catch on.

You know what else? When they can't get a rise out of you by just words then they start getting physical and at that point your idea really is worthless.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Words have never hurt anyone, but those outraged by words have.

This sentence negates itself.
We've discussed this before. WORDS ARE HURTFUL. If they weren't then people wouldn't become enraged (or outraged) and hurt others BECAUSE OF THOSE WORDS.

Your pseudo-intellect leaves a lot to be desired.

You can't seem to grasp the depths of his statement.

Why are you insulting a member that consistently tries to inject logic into every post they make? Just because you don't agree with him does not give you the right to degrade the man, you stinking hypocrite!

I'm starting to really not like the words coming out of your mouth. What is your recommended course of action for dealing with them?

It's cool if I slander you in any public forum of my choosing, right?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: spiritualzombie

So you posit it is not the escalating rhetoric or declaration of war or any words at all that cause injury in war, but the first bullet fired that hits its target. And if we want to stop said injuries from occurring we must focus on the bullet, and not the words of leaders or declarations of war? Is that wisdom? Or foolishness? I so ponder these things while I sit upon my chair in the study...

No, I am not positing that.

But you say words do not cause pain... and yet what greater pain is there than the pain of war, initiated by the simple declaration of words by men of great power. For us to say no damage or pain is the fault of words is for us to reject our very role in the damage and destruction that lays before us, all started by simple ill chosen words.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: TheKnightofDoom


Exactly. Douche bags think it's normal to degrade women and apparently brag about sexually assaulting them. I'm tired of this "locker room" excuse... D-bags who think heterosexuality and misogyny goes hand in hand. It's a bunch of nonsense. Their excuse for being unevolved chimps.

It's not assault if they let you do it, like he said. lol.

Like that gal on the plane, she didn't mind him playing with her boobs but he assaulted her when he went south. lol!!

Lets add some lib logic to this, like hillary's meetings at the state dept with non gov entities.

Trump has groped 1000's of women whenever he wanted to, allegedly, with no problem as per the outraged.

Only 4 said they had a problem decades after the alleged incident.

See? Doesn't that prove his locker room talk? They love it!

I guess everyone forgot about his tax returns.

lol!!

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Do you know what verisimilitude is?

Why you do keep changing your avatar pic - ahh - you are an actor; as we all are in this thing called "life". But you are a better actor and it's ok if your husband uses violence - to defend women hood from "spoken words".

In case it not clear; "spoken words" lead to your husband taking the high moral ground to commit violence.