Social Justice Warrior Contacts The Employer Of Her Youtube Foe To Get Him Fired. It Backfires!

a reply to: Gryphon66

there is a thread on here that a journalist wrote about his femenist wife going out and sleepin around and he lets her, or do what ever they want, with out drawing a line that should not be crossed.
point being that a lot of guys that marry or are married to one are like that.

here is the thread.

Feminist: Not Allowing Your Wife to Have Sex With Other Men is Sexist.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Gryphon66

there is a thread on here that a journalist wrote about his femenist wife going out and sleepin around and he lets her.
point being that a lot of guys that marry or are married to one are like that.

So, not satire then. Fair enough.

What would the couple's sexual habits have to do with the right or wrong of either the woman's actions or what happened to her and her husband?

That's the connection I'm not seeing here. Thanks for your response!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
My question is: if the outcome of her intentions was wrong (and it was) how is an identical outcome happening to her ... right?

Aren't the actions despicable in both cases?

Because you are using twisted logic to defend her intent, which is what was wrong.

By attempting to compare the outcomes, not the actions that created the outcomes, you are intentionally trying to diminish what it is that makes her in the wrong.

She specifically targeted a random person because she disagreed with his views. He defended himself from an attack. Very different intents, very similar outcomes. Much like how a murderer is a criminal and a soldier (in most cases) is not. Both have an end result of death, but both have very different intents.

Isn't karma a bitch..she tried her best to hurt him, now upset at the turnaround..women..lol
I guess she thought that being on moral high ground in her eyes the poo wouldn't come back to her.

a reply to: Gryphon66


my words in reply to your post , clarifying my first post.

or do what ever they want with out drawing a line that should not be crossed.

plain enough now, stop trying to harp on everything someone writes.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Gryphon66
My question is: if the outcome of her intentions was wrong (and it was) how is an identical outcome happening to her ... right?

Aren't the actions despicable in both cases?

Because you are using twisted logic to defend her intent, which is what was wrong.

By attempting to compare the outcomes, not the actions that created the outcomes, you are intentionally trying to diminish what it is that makes her in the wrong.

She specifically targeted a random person because she disagreed with his views. He defended himself from an attack. Very different intents, very similar outcomes. Much like how a murderer is a criminal and a soldier (in most cases) is not. Both have and end result of death, but both have very different intents.

You are misreading my post, and I can't help but think you're doing it intentionally:

Let's review:

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What she and her husband did was despicable. No question.

When the same things are done to them in return, however, and worse ... that's laudable?

I have updated with your kind correction to the facts.

Are you saying that the outcomes of actions are not important ... only intentions?

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I'll post as I like within the T&C, thank you kindly for the advice.

Your comment was claiming that in some way, if the relationship between the woman and her husband was similar to the other one you're referencing (i.e. they have an open relationship) and if the husband is less than what your standard is for masculinity (i.e. namby-pamby) then somehow that fact adds to the matter of the case.

I was only asking you to clarify that. If you don't want to answer, ignore me.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Are you saying that the outcomes of actions are not important ... only intentions?

Outcomes do have there place in the hierarchy of importance, but intent is exceedingly more important, in the determination of right and wrong, than outcomes.

Which is why criminal law has entirely different charges for actions with equal outcome but differing intent.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Are you saying that the outcomes of actions are not important ... only intentions?

Outcomes do have there place in the hierarchy of importance, but intent is exceedingly more important, in the determination of right and wrong, than outcomes.

Which is why criminal law has entirely different charges for actions with equal outcome but differing intent.

You're vastly overgeneralizing in the latter case, but that's not the issue here. Criminal Intent

Thanks for your answer.

However, all of the "eye for an eye" commentary aside, to me, those who attacked the woman (and her husband) did so with the same "foul intent" that she initially attacked the other guy for ... they disagreed with her politics.

As is the case in many advocates for the outcome in this thread. If so, to me, the punishers are no better than the offender.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Instead of all the hyperbole you could just say 2 wrongs don't make a right, It would save people a lot of time understanding the point you were trying to make.
And you would be right to think that but the whole thing was instigated by the feminist and could have been avoided entirely if she had avoided the confrontation. So I have no sympathy for her and hope she learned a valuable life lesson.

SJWs are domestic terrorists. Using fear and making sure everyone knows if you aren't PC online a SJW will be coming for you soon to change politics is terrorism. The FBI should put out a notice.

originally posted by: mclarenmp4
a reply to: Gryphon66

Instead of all the hyperbole you could just say 2 wrongs don't make a right, It would save people a lot of time understanding the point you were trying to make.
And you would be right to think that but the whole thing was instigated by the feminist and could have been avoided entirely if she had avoided the confrontation. So I have no sympathy for her and hope she learned a valuable life lesson.

Thanks for your suggestions. I guess we all speak and write as we do. My original post was very clear though.

Of course the whole sequence of events was wrong, and of course, if she hadn't done what she did what happened to her and her husband wouldn't have happened.

I have no sympathy for her either. As you point out, however, more succinctly ... multiple wrongs do not make a right, regardless of how we feel about another's politics.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I have no sympathy for her either. As you point out, however, more succinctly ... multiple wrongs do not make a right, regardless of how we feel about another's politics.

Really?

Better unlock all the criminals...forcible confinement...is a crime...and wrong.

And, as your back peddling has devolved too, two wrongs...don't make a right.

originally posted by: christoph
SJWs are domestic terrorists. Using fear and making sure everyone knows if you aren't PC online a SJW will be coming for you soon to change politics is terrorism. The FBI should put out a notice.

Just to clarify, that goes for right-wing SJWs and conservative PC online as well?

Just trying to keep my scorecard up-to-date.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I have no sympathy for her either. As you point out, however, more succinctly ... multiple wrongs do not make a right, regardless of how we feel about another's politics.

Really?

Better unlock all the criminals...forcible confinement...is a crime...and wrong.

And, as your back peddling has devolved too, two wrongs...don't make a right.

Back-pedalling? I've quoted what I asked once and stated it. I haven't backed off that once.

The fact that you were in error about what I believe is your mistake not mine.

I have said nothing about incarcerated criminals, or the theory of punishment (or rehabilitation.)

Why do you feel the need to toss in such blatant unrelated material and misrepresentations?

Have I offended you in some way?

a reply to: darkbake

What in the world could you have possibly done to them to warrant that crap? You're easily one of the nicest people I've come across, at least online o.O



Or, my favorite meme I can't find ATM: "Feminism -- What happens to others when they don't know what they did to offend & no one will tell them. Also known as projected self-loathing"

a reply to: Nyiah

Regardless of the facts about how people feel about "social justice warriors" and/or feminists ...

... you don't find anything about how this actually turned out to be a case of "disproportionate response," at all?

Edit: Weird thread-changing stuff going on, I'm all confuzzled.

a reply to: Nyiah

Are we in the wrong thread, LOL?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Nyiah

Are we in the wrong thread, LOL?

I just noticed this, what the hell just happened to this page? ROTFL, I can't blame it on having more than one open --I don't, I had the Bernie thread open. Where did this one come from? Halloween trick or treat hijinks on ATS? I'll edit where appropriate, not applicable to this thread at all.