MRA's: What do you want?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Keltoi Samurai

Suicidesoldier#1

Keltoi Samurai

Major Lima Charlie

Suicidesoldier#1

Idk.

Doesn't it also eliminate like, DNA since like, the flood somehow infect it? : P

Not as far as I know.

on another note: what the Hell was wrong with the Forerunners, placing Flood samples in secure facilities on the Halo Installations, themselves, where they were protected from the blast and could eventually get loose and reinfect the rest of the galaxy again?

I mean, did they WANT to generate a neverending cycle of destroying all life in the galaxy every few thousand years?

if you think about it in that light, you realise that Mass Effect is essentially just a cheap ripoff of Halo

It turns out the forerunner were in competition with humans and humans found a cure, but the forerunner killed them. Realizing it was too late, they tried to find a cure but ended up destroying themselves since they were permanently infected, and so they vaporized themselves, created arks to repopulate planets, and then killed off everyone, including the flood, in an act to correct what they did wrong.


But the flood survived on the rings since you couldn't kill permanently kill them, just contain them.

It turned out that the forerunner were really stupid, and that there was another civilization before even them, the precursors, secretly controlling a bunch of stuff. : P

source, please?

Precursor

[Major Lima Charlie]

Keltoi Samurai

Major Lima Charlie

Suicidesoldier#1

Major Lima Charlie

Suicidesoldier#1

Won't that wipe out all life in the galaxy though?

Only life with sufficient enough biomass to serve as a host to the infection.

Idk.

Doesn't it also eliminate like, DNA since like, the flood somehow infect it? : P

Not as far as I know.

on another note: what the Hell was wrong with the Forerunners, placing Flood samples in secure facilities on the Halo Installations, themselves, where they were protected from the blast and could eventually get loose and reinfect the rest of the galaxy again?

I mean, did they WANT to generate a neverending cycle of destroying all life in the galaxy every few thousand years?

if you think about it in that light, you realise that Mass Effect is essentially just a cheap ripoff of Halo

Presumably, they were keeping them in order to attempt to synthesize a countermeasure and didn't get to purge them because they were betrayed from the inside. Biggest mistake the Forerunners made was warring with the humans. They had a countermeasure to fight the flood, which they destroyed. Whoops.

Mass Effect's hardly similar, especially in that regard.

[Robot Macai]

Major Lima Charlie

Keltoi Samurai

Major Lima Charlie

Suicidesoldier#1

Major Lima Charlie

Yoshpet

You assume a great deal. Granting privileges to females is little more than benevolent sexism mandated by government. You don't fight fire with fire. I imagine Feminists will wake up to that fact eventually.

So, when dealing with women's suffrage, granting women the right to vote whilst taking away men's right to a men's only vote was... wrong? Allowing women to serve in the Armed Services was taking away men's right to men's only military was likewise wrong?

I hope you don't think that such logic is an awakening.

The problem with your statement is that neither side should lose anything, only gain. xp

The military can't be men's only and egalitarian. Men have to lose exclusive rights to combat roles for things to equal out.

Deal with it.

much as I hate having to agree with Sui, I think his reasoning is based in the notion that "exclusivity" isn't a right that people have.

a "men's-only" vote isn't a right, nor was it ever a right, merely a consequence of who was given the right to vote, and thus, when women gained the right to vote, men lost no rights, and women gained rights.

in the combat role, once we have eliminated gender norming, we can discuss women in combat. until such a time, though, it's really premature to discuss it, since gender-norming is all about saying "this is the base standard that the battlefield requires of everyone in the service. unless you have a v****a, in which case the battlefield is more forgiving"

It was, and you'll frequently hear MRAs bemoan the fact that men can't have anywhere just to themselves these days. You also hear it from videogamers, because they're colossal wankers, too.

Exclusivity was for a long time a right and privilege. It does not deserve to be so, which is a point to take up with MRAs.

Do you object to female-only scholarships and services like shelters? Because as it stands now, it would appear that exclusivity is a right and privilege of women, not men.

[Robot Macai]

Major Lima Charlie

Suicidesoldier#1

Major Lima Charlie

Yoshpet

Major Lima Charlie

Yoshpet

I'm not an MRA and I don't have any demands on behalf of "all men". I do think that Feminism (or at least certain proponents) needs to check itself and re-evaluate its goal of "gender equality", hopefully reducing the over-compensation that runs rampant through its rhetoric and proposed solutions.

Overcompensation, he says.

Ever occur to you that being the overprivileged party means that you will have to lose some perks for privilege to balance out? You can't stay on top if you want to stand side by side.

You assume a great deal. Granting privileges to females is little more than benevolent sexism mandated by government. You don't fight fire with fire. I imagine Feminists will wake up to that fact eventually.

So, when dealing with women's suffrage, granting women the right to vote whilst taking away men's right to a men's only vote was... wrong? Allowing women to serve in the Armed Services was taking away men's right to men's only military was likewise wrong?

I hope you don't think that such logic is an awakening.

The problem with your statement is that neither side should lose anything, only gain. xp

The military can't be men's only and egalitarian. Men have to lose exclusive rights to combat roles for things to equal out.

Deal with it.

The right to die in combat. Male privilege.

[Bubsy]

Yoshpet

Bubsy

Just like granting rights to blacks was benevolent racism mandated by the government! It all makes sense now! emotion_facepalm

No really, what the ******** are you saying?

Strawmanning the things I say into anti-suffrage sentiment gets tiresome. Is it really so incomprehensible that I have qualms with the nuances of Feminism other than its historical focus on equal rights. Clearly that is not what bothers me. confused

You haven't even made any sense thus far.

You could at least explain what the ******** you are saying.

[Keltoi Samurai]

Robot Macai

Major Lima Charlie

Suicidesoldier#1

Major Lima Charlie

Yoshpet

You assume a great deal. Granting privileges to females is little more than benevolent sexism mandated by government. You don't fight fire with fire. I imagine Feminists will wake up to that fact eventually.

So, when dealing with women's suffrage, granting women the right to vote whilst taking away men's right to a men's only vote was... wrong? Allowing women to serve in the Armed Services was taking away men's right to men's only military was likewise wrong?

I hope you don't think that such logic is an awakening.

The problem with your statement is that neither side should lose anything, only gain. xp

The military can't be men's only and egalitarian. Men have to lose exclusive rights to combat roles for things to equal out.

Deal with it.

The right to die. Male privilege.

fix'd for ya.

see, that's what most of this "male privilege" boils down to: the right to be disproportionately represented in jails, the right to be raped in said jails, the right to be the victim in most violent crime, the right to die to protect women, or barring that, the right to be shamed as a coward, like the men who escaped the Aurora Theatre Shooting when they could have thrown themselves in front of some random woman instead

[Major Lima Charlie]

Robot Macai

Major Lima Charlie

Suicidesoldier#1

Major Lima Charlie

Yoshpet

You assume a great deal. Granting privileges to females is little more than benevolent sexism mandated by government. You don't fight fire with fire. I imagine Feminists will wake up to that fact eventually.

So, when dealing with women's suffrage, granting women the right to vote whilst taking away men's right to a men's only vote was... wrong? Allowing women to serve in the Armed Services was taking away men's right to men's only military was likewise wrong?

I hope you don't think that such logic is an awakening.

The problem with your statement is that neither side should lose anything, only gain. xp

The military can't be men's only and egalitarian. Men have to lose exclusive rights to combat roles for things to equal out.

Deal with it.

The right to die in combat. Male privilege.

In an honor-laden society, telling an entire group of people they're not worthy to fight for the greatest form of honor is pretty much a huge slap in the face.

And Macai, benevolent sexism is still sexism, no matter how you slice it, and it's still the fault of the party who enacts it. Women aren't to blame for the men in charge saying, "WOMEN CAN'T FIGHT."

[Major Lima Charlie]

Keltoi Samurai

Robot Macai

Major Lima Charlie

Suicidesoldier#1

Major Lima Charlie

Yoshpet

You assume a great deal. Granting privileges to females is little more than benevolent sexism mandated by government. You don't fight fire with fire. I imagine Feminists will wake up to that fact eventually.

So, when dealing with women's suffrage, granting women the right to vote whilst taking away men's right to a men's only vote was... wrong? Allowing women to serve in the Armed Services was taking away men's right to men's only military was likewise wrong?

I hope you don't think that such logic is an awakening.

The problem with your statement is that neither side should lose anything, only gain. xp

The military can't be men's only and egalitarian. Men have to lose exclusive rights to combat roles for things to equal out.

Deal with it.

The right to die. Male privilege.

fix'd for ya.

see, that's what most of this "male privilege" boils down to: the right to be disproportionately represented in jails, the right to be raped in said jails, the right to be the victim in most violent crime, the right to die to protect women, or barring that, the right to be shamed as a coward, like the men who escaped the Aurora Theatre Shooting when they could have thrown themselves in front of some random woman instead

And that's all women's fault, right?

Wait, it isn't. Grow the ******** up, boy, and take some damned responsibility, for once in your life.

[Major Lima Charlie]

Robot Macai

Major Lima Charlie

Keltoi Samurai

Major Lima Charlie

Suicidesoldier#1

The problem with your statement is that neither side should lose anything, only gain. xp

The military can't be men's only and egalitarian. Men have to lose exclusive rights to combat roles for things to equal out.

Deal with it.

much as I hate having to agree with Sui, I think his reasoning is based in the notion that "exclusivity" isn't a right that people have.

a "men's-only" vote isn't a right, nor was it ever a right, merely a consequence of who was given the right to vote, and thus, when women gained the right to vote, men lost no rights, and women gained rights.

in the combat role, once we have eliminated gender norming, we can discuss women in combat. until such a time, though, it's really premature to discuss it, since gender-norming is all about saying "this is the base standard that the battlefield requires of everyone in the service. unless you have a v****a, in which case the battlefield is more forgiving"

It was, and you'll frequently hear MRAs bemoan the fact that men can't have anywhere just to themselves these days. You also hear it from videogamers, because they're colossal wankers, too.

Exclusivity was for a long time a right and privilege. It does not deserve to be so, which is a point to take up with MRAs.

Do you object to female-only scholarships and services like shelters? Because as it stands now, it would appear that exclusivity is a right and privilege of women, not men.

Except there are mens' only shelters and scholarships. Just like there are white scholarships. But, of course, folks don't want to talk about those, because it hurts their argument that straight, white males are the most discriminated entity in the country. ******** bollocks.

[black_wing_angel]

Major Lima Charlie

Robot Macai

Major Lima Charlie

Keltoi Samurai

Major Lima Charlie

Suicidesoldier#1

The problem with your statement is that neither side should lose anything, only gain. xp

The military can't be men's only and egalitarian. Men have to lose exclusive rights to combat roles for things to equal out.

Deal with it.

much as I hate having to agree with Sui, I think his reasoning is based in the notion that "exclusivity" isn't a right that people have.

a "men's-only" vote isn't a right, nor was it ever a right, merely a consequence of who was given the right to vote, and thus, when women gained the right to vote, men lost no rights, and women gained rights.

in the combat role, once we have eliminated gender norming, we can discuss women in combat. until such a time, though, it's really premature to discuss it, since gender-norming is all about saying "this is the base standard that the battlefield requires of everyone in the service. unless you have a v****a, in which case the battlefield is more forgiving"

It was, and you'll frequently hear MRAs bemoan the fact that men can't have anywhere just to themselves these days. You also hear it from videogamers, because they're colossal wankers, too.

Exclusivity was for a long time a right and privilege. It does not deserve to be so, which is a point to take up with MRAs.

Do you object to female-only scholarships and services like shelters? Because as it stands now, it would appear that exclusivity is a right and privilege of women, not men.

Except there are mens' only shelters and scholarships. Just like there are white scholarships. But, of course, folks don't want to talk about those, because it hurts their argument that straight, white males are the most discriminated entity in the country. ******** bollocks.

I'd like some sources on that. I have never heard of such scholarships.

[Major Lima Charlie]

black_wing_angel

Major Lima Charlie

Robot Macai

Major Lima Charlie

Keltoi Samurai

much as I hate having to agree with Sui, I think his reasoning is based in the notion that "exclusivity" isn't a right that people have.

a "men's-only" vote isn't a right, nor was it ever a right, merely a consequence of who was given the right to vote, and thus, when women gained the right to vote, men lost no rights, and women gained rights.

in the combat role, once we have eliminated gender norming, we can discuss women in combat. until such a time, though, it's really premature to discuss it, since gender-norming is all about saying "this is the base standard that the battlefield requires of everyone in the service. unless you have a v****a, in which case the battlefield is more forgiving"

It was, and you'll frequently hear MRAs bemoan the fact that men can't have anywhere just to themselves these days. You also hear it from videogamers, because they're colossal wankers, too.

Exclusivity was for a long time a right and privilege. It does not deserve to be so, which is a point to take up with MRAs.

Do you object to female-only scholarships and services like shelters? Because as it stands now, it would appear that exclusivity is a right and privilege of women, not men.

Except there are mens' only shelters and scholarships. Just like there are white scholarships. But, of course, folks don't want to talk about those, because it hurts their argument that straight, white males are the most discriminated entity in the country. ******** bollocks.

I'd like some sources on that. I have never heard of such scholarships.

That's probably because you've been driving the "WE'RE SO OPPRESSED" schtick.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/02/texan-wins-controversial-white-man-scholarship

Alumni preference is generally another form. Perhaps less so today, but initially, definitely. Why, you ask? Because when schools were white only, only white folks would be alumni. Alumni's kids get an easy ticket in.

And we should also remember that the government does not give out race-preference scholarships. That's individual entities. You want to start a scholarship geared towards whoever, have at it.

For the record, stuff like this is why Jim Crow will return. Americans are helplessly ******** ignorant.

[black_wing_angel]

Major Lima Charlie

black_wing_angel

Major Lima Charlie

Robot Macai

Major Lima Charlie

It was, and you'll frequently hear MRAs bemoan the fact that men can't have anywhere just to themselves these days. You also hear it from videogamers, because they're colossal wankers, too.

Exclusivity was for a long time a right and privilege. It does not deserve to be so, which is a point to take up with MRAs.

Do you object to female-only scholarships and services like shelters? Because as it stands now, it would appear that exclusivity is a right and privilege of women, not men.

Except there are mens' only shelters and scholarships. Just like there are white scholarships. But, of course, folks don't want to talk about those, because it hurts their argument that straight, white males are the most discriminated entity in the country. ******** bollocks.

I'd like some sources on that. I have never heard of such scholarships.

That's probably because you've been driving the "WE'RE SO OPPRESSED" schtick.

Uh...no. I don't believe so.

I know you'd like to believe so. But then, I'd like to believe that gas prices will be back down to a dollar a gallon, someday.

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/02/texan-wins-controversial-white-man-scholarship

Well...it's Texas, but damn it, that's a whites only scholarship. I'm not fond of it, but at least it's some form of balance.

Quote:

Alumni preference is generally another form. Perhaps less so today, but initially, definitely. Why, you ask? Because when schools were white only, only white folks would be alumni. Alumni's kids get an easy ticket in.

Not always. It depends mostly on the alumni's reputation.

Quote:

And we should also remember that the government does not give out race-preference scholarships. That's individual entities. You want to start a scholarship geared towards whoever, have at it.

Actually, I'd rather take away such scholarships.

Being born with certain identifiable traits, does not make one any more or less deserving of a better education, than anyone else. I can not approve of any scholarship that isn't based on grades. I'm not even overly fond of athletic scholarships, although I do tolerate them, due to the "no pass, no play" thing. You still have to be able to succeed in the class-room, before they'll even let you touch the field. So that's not horrible. But I still prefer the idea of only giving the free-pass to the people with the grades to back it, without concern for any other asinine traits, such as skin color, or family struggle.

I do not believe anyone should be given a golden ticket to college, just for being a minority, or from a poor family. I'd rather someone get in solely because they have the grades that say "I am qualified for a higher education. This will not be wasted on me."

[Keltoi Samurai]

Major Lima Charlie

Keltoi Samurai

Robot Macai

Major Lima Charlie

Suicidesoldier#1

The problem with your statement is that neither side should lose anything, only gain. xp

The military can't be men's only and egalitarian. Men have to lose exclusive rights to combat roles for things to equal out.

Deal with it.

The right to die. Male privilege.

fix'd for ya.

see, that's what most of this "male privilege" boils down to: the right to be disproportionately represented in jails, the right to be raped in said jails, the right to be the victim in most violent crime, the right to die to protect women, or barring that, the right to be shamed as a coward, like the men who escaped the Aurora Theatre Shooting when they could have thrown themselves in front of some random woman instead

And that's all women's fault, right?

Wait, it isn't. Grow the ******** up, boy, and take some damned responsibility, for once in your life.

no, see, that's the difference between us: see, men don't all use "feminist" the same way you use "patriarchy," as a signal to "stop thinking and just rage." I'm not blaming a damn thing on feminists, and you know better than to accuse me of such.

is your stance really so indefensible that you must resort to these straw men to justify it? you're better than that, and you know it.

[black_wing_angel]

Major Lima Charlie

Keltoi Samurai

Robot Macai

Major Lima Charlie

Suicidesoldier#1

The problem with your statement is that neither side should lose anything, only gain. xp

The military can't be men's only and egalitarian. Men have to lose exclusive rights to combat roles for things to equal out.

Deal with it.

The right to die. Male privilege.

fix'd for ya.

see, that's what most of this "male privilege" boils down to: the right to be disproportionately represented in jails, the right to be raped in said jails, the right to be the victim in most violent crime, the right to die to protect women, or barring that, the right to be shamed as a coward, like the men who escaped the Aurora Theatre Shooting when they could have thrown themselves in front of some random woman instead

And that's all women's fault, right?

Wait, it isn't. Grow the ******** up, boy, and take some damned responsibility, for once in your life.

That works both ways, sweetheart.

[Keltoi Samurai]

black_wing_angel

Major Lima Charlie

Keltoi Samurai

Robot Macai

Major Lima Charlie

Suicidesoldier#1

The problem with your statement is that neither side should lose anything, only gain. xp

The military can't be men's only and egalitarian. Men have to lose exclusive rights to combat roles for things to equal out.

Deal with it.

The right to die. Male privilege.

fix'd for ya.

see, that's what most of this "male privilege" boils down to: the right to be disproportionately represented in jails, the right to be raped in said jails, the right to be the victim in most violent crime, the right to die to protect women, or barring that, the right to be shamed as a coward, like the men who escaped the Aurora Theatre Shooting when they could have thrown themselves in front of some random woman instead

And that's all women's fault, right?

Wait, it isn't. Grow the ******** up, boy, and take some damned responsibility, for once in your life.

That works both ways, sweetheart.

no, it really doesn't.

the more I talk to feminists, the more I find it's about "women have rights, men have responsibilities, and never the twain shall meet."