[Blackhawk]

Really, all you need to see is Katelyn Campbell's picture.



Summary: "Freedom of speech ends when I disagree with it." snark mistresses refuses to attend a rally about the consequences of becoming a slut, then runs to the internet to backstab her (female) school principal for allowing a speaker on campus that has opinions she, slut, disagrees with. This results in basement dwelling weirdos from the internet then spending multiple days attacking the principal and harassing her. Her principal, tired of the attacks, responds "How would you feel if I called your college and told them what bad character you have and what a backstabber you are?” ...and slut runs to a lawyer and files an injunction. To what? Stop the principal from having an opinion that she's a backstabbing slut of low character? (Source)

Definitely a collision between lower class values ("I'm anonymous! I can do anything impulsively and no one should ever track me!") vs upper class values ("Reputation and connections are carefully built over years and open hidden doors.")

[jammer]

She was right to protest that shit show. I wouldn't want to be associated with some religious fool who is spreading misinformation.

[Alpharius]

She spoke out against abstinence only retarded nonsense. Good for her.

I guess if you're in favor of holding hands instead of getting your dick wet you can stand up for abstinence all you want. Personally I think more people getting an education regarding what goes where and the nightmare menagerie of diseases you can get if you're not careful is a good thing, but maybe that's just me.

[jammer]

(04-18-2013 10:01 AM)Osiris Wrote:  

She spoke out against abstinence only retarded nonsense. Good for her.

I guess if you're in favor of holding hands instead of getting your dick wet you can stand up for abstinence all you want. Personally I think more people getting an education regarding what goes where and the nightmare menagerie of diseases you can get if you're not careful is a good thing, but maybe that's just me.

Based on the OP's logic, if you are not abstinent before marriage, you are a slut. That's good to know.

[megatron]

I don't think the OP is saying that she's a bitch for protesting the abstinence talk. She's a bitch because she's attacking the principal's character and now trying to sue her.

I'm not opposed to abstinence before marriage . . . in a normal, non-feminist, non-obese culture. A country filled with entitled slutty whales and anti-male marriage/divorce laws has a tough-go of promoting this kind of lifestyle. What's the point of living like this here? What's the reward for the men? Our system is basically incentiving irresponsibility and promiscuity for both genders. And punishing men who want to be traditional husbands and fathers.

[jammer]

(04-18-2013 10:36 AM)megatron Wrote:  

I don't think the OP is saying that she's a bitch for protesting the abstinence talk. She's a bitch because she's attacking the principal's character and now trying to sue her.

According to the article, that's because the principal threatened to call her college and call her a bad character, which is a low thing to do as a principal. I would never stand for my principal trying to sabotage me like that.

[dragnet]

I hope this broad can understand that the real issue with the assembly is the obvious disinformation and fear-mongering and not the "slut shaming".

That may be too much to hope for though.

[Blackhawk]

(04-18-2013 10:11 AM)jammer Wrote:  

Based on the OP's logic, if you are not abstinent before marriage, you are a slut. That's good to know.

Is it possible for you to have the maturity to debate people without sinking into personal attacks and using straw man debate tactics? Did I make your statement above? No? Then why make shit up?

I have no idea of the content of the assembly, having not attended. And neither does she, since she refused to attend. Did you attend that you have such personal knowledge of what was said? No? Then again, why make shit up?

Also, you need to get rid of your "all or nothing" unnuanced way of approaching knowledge. It is possible to sit through a talk and agree with parts of what the speaker has to say, and disagree with other parts. And more importantly, it's even possible to disagree with a speaker point by point, yet still agree with their overall argument.

Does riding the cock carousel reduce a woman's ability to have a stable life? Yes it does. Do men with game need, or even like, sluts? No, we do not. We actually avoid them. We prefer our fruits fresher and less bruised.

(04-18-2013 10:43 AM)jammer Wrote:  

According to the article, that's because the principal threatened to call her college and call her a bad character, which is a low thing to do as a principal. I would never stand for my principal trying to sabotage me like that.

It's not sabotage. It's called a character reference, and is part of admission not only to college, but many institutions. Try understanding Freedom of Association.

[Alpharius]

(04-18-2013 10:48 AM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 10:11 AM)jammer Wrote:  

Based on the OP's logic, if you are not abstinent before marriage, you are a slut. That's good to know.

I have no idea of the content of the assembly, having not attended. And neither does she, since she refused to attend. Did you attend that you have such personal knowledge of what was said? No? Then again, why make shit up?

Read your own source?

"George Washington High School recently hosted a conservative speaker, Pam Stenzel, who travels around the country to advocate an abstinence-only approach to teen sexuality. Stenzel has a long history of using inflammatory rhetoric to convince young people that they will face dire consequences for becoming sexually active. At GW’s assembly, Stenzel allegedly told students that “if you take birth control, your mother probably hates you” and “I could look at any one of you in the eyes right now and tell if you’re going to be promiscuous.” She also asserted that condoms aren’t safe, and every instance of sexual contact will lead to a sexually transmitted infection."

[jammer]

(04-18-2013 10:48 AM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

I have no idea of the content of the assembly, having not attended. And neither does she, since she refused to attend. Did you attend that you have such personal knowledge of what was said? No? Then again, why make shit up?

Did you read the article? The assembly was a forum for a religious nutjob to spread misinformation about abstinence. I don't need to make shit up. The article says the assembly was about abstinence.

[Blackhawk]

(04-18-2013 10:53 AM)Osiris Wrote:  

Read your own source?

From a website called ThinkProgress.org

I found that source pretty heavily slanted and biased. More propaganda than reporting, really.

[Samseau]

(04-18-2013 10:01 AM)Osiris Wrote:  

Personally I think more people getting an education regarding what goes where and the nightmare menagerie of diseases you can get if you're not careful is a good thing, but maybe that's just me.

Guess what? Condoms only stop 50% of STD's. Maybe you should have attended that abstinence only educational seminar, because you would have learned more truth than the propaganda most schools teach kids about "safe sex."

http://postmasculine.com/std-guide

P.S. Hope you're using condoms when she gives you a blow job, because you can still catch nearly every STD that way.

[jammer]

(04-18-2013 11:01 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 10:01 AM)Osiris Wrote:  

Personally I think more people getting an education regarding what goes where and the nightmare menagerie of diseases you can get if you're not careful is a good thing, but maybe that's just me.

Guess what? Condoms only stop 50% of STD's. Maybe you should have attended that abstinence only educational seminar, because you would have learned more truth than the propaganda most schools teach kids about "safe sex."

I'm pretty sure the safe sex educational seminars say that condoms are 100% against STD's, only that they reduce your risk significantly.

[Alpharius]

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/P...ondoms.pdf

Why did you say that then link me to a site that tells me to repeatedly wear a condom?

"But still, wear a damn condom."
"Wrap it up"
"Use a fucking condom"
"I'm going to keep saying use a fucking condom"

[Samseau]

(04-18-2013 11:20 AM)Osiris Wrote:  

Why did you say that then link me to a site that tells me to repeatedly wear a condom?

He recommends condoms in order to avoid the most dangerous STD of them all: pregnancy. But for the other STD's? Condom's are kind of an afterthought.

Quote:

Over the years I’ve had dozens of men ask me about STD’s, many of them looking for information, but many of them simply looking for reassurance that they were not going to shrivel up and die. I always tell them that 1) they’re going to be fine; and 2) they should be far more worried about babies. Notice the 1 in 26 times. That’s not 26 women, that’s 26 occurrences of unprotected intercourse. That’s MUCH more likely than anything else listed here with the exception of Herpes.