Sexfight (Note: title be deceiving...)

[coolsi]

Banker is a wanker
Banker is a wanker




Case closed.

[schumikimi]

"Than" is indeed a word, but in that case, "then" was the correct word.

Thank you.... I already said I was wrong with my than, i know it should've been then... But as I said before my English teacher makes the same mistake sometimes, and vice versa too...

[Rkiver]

Ok so playing the age card eh Banker?
Shut up, you child.

See I can play that too, as I am older then you. Doesn't make a difference really now does it? It's how you act. You have proven yourself to be an idiot. Case closed let us move on to something better already. Hell normally I jump right on the flaming bandwagon, but reading this, well nothing I can say really that hasn't been covered by someone else really.

[AgentX 24]

last time I checked.. "than" is not a word that exists

Hereby sigged.

[Rkiver]

That is one amusing signature you have there.

[Darkshine]

I think this discussion basically boils down to the fact that to generalise is to make yourself vulnerable to contradiction, and thus, rather stupid.

SOME women are cocks. SOME men are cocks. SOME black people are cocks. SOME disabled people are cocks. SOME chinese people are cocks. SOME old people are cocks. You get the idea.

But people playing the 'political correctness gone wrong' card are just being ignorant. In the eyes of the law we are all equal, but in the eyes of the individual, social stigma remains. That bull about 'well, black people and women can get away with ANYTHING and get all the good jobs because if you don't let them you're a sexist or a racist!' is just untrue.

It's the sort of thing papers like The Sun TELL you is going on to incite MORE social stigma which will just take us backwards. The very fact that you ASSUME they'll want a free ride is predjudice in itself.

It is not racist or sexist to dislike someone, or find their actions inappropriate. It IS racist and/or sexist to assume that those actions are connected to their race or gender, rather than their choices and actions as an individual.

[Mas Tnega]

I think this discussion basically boils down to the fact that to generalise is to make yourself vulnerable to contradiction, and thus, rather stupid.

OMG YOU GENERALISED ALL THE POSTS! INTELLIGENCIST *ahem* Sorry.

SOME women are cocks. SOME men are cocks. SOME black people are cocks. SOME disabled people are cocks. SOME chinese people are cocks. SOME old people are cocks. You get the idea.

Not unless the idea is "And SOME people are pussies who invite themselves to be fucked"

But people playing the 'political correctness gone wrong' card are just being ignorant. In the eyes of the law we are all equal, but in the eyes of the individual, social stigma remains. That bull about 'well, black people and women can get away with ANYTHING and get all the good jobs because if you don't let them you're a sexist or a racist!' is just untrue.

In a way, everyone IS equal, it's just that in some places, they are given preferential treatment, while in other places, they are trodden on. Not the best way to balance it out, but it seems to make people on both sides shout more or less the same.
However, I do feel that political correctness is where some major racism lies. I can't comprehend how choosing the more apt candidate over the women in some ethnic minority is racist, I can't comprehend why saying describing myself as "British" is racist, I most certainly can't comprehend people opting to say "African American" over "black", especially when the parents were both born and bred in neither of the respective continents, and yet no one particularly cares when you the Scottish Jocks, the Irish Paddies, the French Frogs, the Germans Krauts, and Welsh Sheep-shaggers. For this reason, I struggle to see the reason why coon is so bad, and neither did some Irish guy who got called Paddy by some black guy (except he said "nigger").

It's the sort of thing papers like The Sun TELL you is going on to incite MORE social stigma which will just take us backwards. The very fact that you ASSUME they'll want a free ride is predjudice in itself.

I always associated comic books with fiction, and I intend to for the forseeable future.

It is not racist or sexist to dislike someone, or find their actions inappropriate. It IS racist and/or sexist to assume that those actions are connected to their race or gender, rather than their choices and actions as an individual.

Everyone exploits things, but you can't say they are racists for it. However, the twats who made the exploitation possible and encourage its abuse are the racists. The black guy and the disabled white woman go for a job, and well, what do you know, the woman counts towards two quotas, does she not? I wonder what the black guy could cry out, when he notices how dumb the woman is. I wonder what the woman would cry out when the employer realises that the quotas for the disabled and females had been met, as opposed to the black people quota, and she notices that the black guy's only just got a basic understanding of the english language. Very messy, don't you think?

[Banker]

SOME women are cocks. SOME men are cocks. SOME black people are cocks. SOME disabled people are cocks. SOME chinese people are cocks. SOME old people are cocks. You get the idea.

Pretty much what I said in the first post.
It comes down to individuals, not a group.

Not unless the idea is "And SOME people are pussies who invite themselves to be fucked"

That too...


Now, as for the whole immature/mature thing..

I suppose thinking people should be treated as individuals instead of as a collective based on gender or ethnic background, 14yr olds isnt men yet (and I wonder now why I even bothered trying to justify it, since everone knows they arent.)
and that all your words dont have to be whitewashed to get a point across is immature behaviour around here then.

Somehow Im starting to doubt the majority of this forum is... normal.

As for the english thing, I was wrong, and I said I wasnt even sure about it, so even more of my immature behaviour, I can admit to be wrong.. What a fuckin kid I am.

Get real, if you wanna call me immature or a wanker
(VERY mature that one right?) bring a valid point..

Have a nice day.

[The GoldFish]

Immature behavoir is that conducted by your stereotypical child/teenager, id est, a disregard for needing any overall valid basis for their opinion to be more valid than anyone else's, as they are right because they said so, and following with a complacent and often insult driven attitude to anyone who chooses to respond with a conflicting statement, without actually accounting for the things they were opposed with nor in fact changing their position in any way. A common feature is requesting a 'valid opposing arguement', when plenty have been provided and all have been ignored or refuted with the thing they discounted in the first place.

Example; You cannot say 14 year olds do not behave maturely (blanket statement, see most of this topic) - it's perfectly possible he IS being immature, however, using the arguement that he's 14 and you're 18 is not an appropriate way of saying so. Nor can you say they're not men, as one of the many definitions of a man is any member of the human race.

[Darkshine]

I can't comprehend how choosing the more apt candidate over the women in some ethnic minority is racist, I can't comprehend why saying describing myself as "British" is racist, I most certainly can't comprehend people opting to say "African American" over "black", especially when the parents were both born and bred in neither of the respective continents, and yet no one particularly cares when you the Scottish Jocks, the Irish Paddies, the French Frogs, the Germans Krauts, and Welsh Sheep-shaggers. For this reason, I struggle to see the reason why coon is so bad, and neither did some Irish guy who got called Paddy by some black guy (except he said "nigger").

This is my point exactly, choosing the more appropriate candidate for a job is not racist. And while I am in no doubt that some corporations have quotas to fill, and that these targets can encourage poor employment policies which positively discriminate (a contradiction in terms I agree) I think more often than not discrimination in the work place swings the other way, even to this day. I would say of all three of the last three places I worked in were discriminative environments and employers. In each workplace I've battled against continued racism to the point where I've become heavily dissatisfied with my workplace and considered legal advice.

I refuse to believe 3 out of 3 is merely a coincidence.

As for your second point, I think the reason it is considered more degrading to use words such as 'coon' or 'nigger' is that these were words used to control, abuse and degrade slave workers who struggled and died for their right be free. I find all racist slur completely unacceptable, so I'm personally of the opinion that it just shouldn't be said, full stop.

Maybe I want a stale, boring world, but I'd prefer a world where people could be funny for reasons other than putting down the origins of their collegues and friends.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Using the term "black" you are grouping people by the color of their skin, which is a bit arbitrary. There are Europeans and Americans who are darker than many Africans even though they have no African heritage. Should they be called "black" as well? Generally not. Thus I feel the term "black" is too arbitrary. Terms like "African-American" are more useful in that they accurately describe an ethnic or cultural community. Of course many people missuse these sorts of terms, but that is a problem of their usage, not one of the term itself.

[Banker]

Example; You cannot say 14 year olds do not behave maturely

I gotta say I disagree, 14yr olds are generally more immature then older people, not all of them are immature but most are less mature then older people.

it's perfectly possible he IS being immature

Yes, and that's what Im saying.

however, using the arguement that he's 14 and you're 18 is not an appropriate way of saying so.

Im not, that's about him being a child (a boy) and not a man.

Nor can you say they're not men, as one of the many definitions of a man is any member of the human race.

I can. Usually, people that arent adults, are refered to as children, and if they are women (gender), they're girls, and if they are men (gender) they're boys.

So sure, he's a man in gender, but I think everyone already realised that one.. Im talking about man like in not grown up (physically, hasnt stopped growing, might not even have facial hair yet) and just too young (not an adult or not even close).

So I can, and I will, he is not a man, he is a child (boy whatever).
But really, its beside the point, it was just one thing I pointed out, and he made a whole issue of it.

My points on the women/men thing is in the first post.

As for the black thing stews, you're right..
But of course he (the racist) gonna deny it, cause part of being a racist is denial, its usually rooted deep in them so they dont even notice it themselfs..
(They think their behaviour is normal and everyone else is just sensitive, "extremly political correct" etc etc etc)

[TheRaven]

Banker it all depends on your definition of when you become a man. I mean the Jewish believe that a boy becomes a man after their Barmitzvah (sp?) which i believe is at 13. However im not an expert on Juadism (again sp?) so i could be wrong but thats as much as i can gather from the limited attention i paid to Religious Education at school.

[Banker]

Banker it all depends on your definition of when you become a man. I mean the Jewish believe that a boy becomes a man after their Barmitzvah (sp?) which i believe is at 13. However im not an expert on Juadism (again sp?) so i could be wrong but thats as much as i can gather from the limited attention i paid to Religious Education at school.

Yeah, but Im more centered on the legal term then the religous one here, cause religous terms vary too much, and mandom isnt judged by what different religon you belong to right?..

The most common legal standard is 18years, so therefore I use it..
I said 17 cause that's close enough IMO, but for almost all people, and in the eyes of society, you aint considered a man/woman until you reach 18years of age, so until then you would be a boy/girl.
(a child)

[The GoldFish]

Example; You cannot say 14 year olds do not behave maturely

I gotta say I disagree, 14yr olds are generally more immature then older people, not all of them are immature but most are less mature then older people.

Dude, are you stupid or something? You just said you disagreed with what I said and then agreed with it. You *CAN NOT* say all 14 year olds behave immaturely, because every individual is an individual (you've said words to this effect yourself). The same way you *CAN NOT* say that all 14 year olds are immature in any way, mental or physical (ie, Children, not adults). You can't say something and back it up with a generalised, blanket statement about a 'set' of people other than they all fit into the set, and expect that to be seen as valid justification, as it's an assumption about their character based on an unrelated feature. What does being 17 have to do with *ANYTHING*? It's just your jaded opinion of when people start being "mature" and has no factual basis for being correct. It's pointless arguementative fluff.

Look at what you did here;

Mentally, I am too, if you look my friends (irl, that is) and other people in my age (around me), I am the smartest, most mature and mentally strongest of men/boys (whatever) in my age, and around me.

Nah dont think so, but you got probably got the biggest ego.
And you prove your immaturity in such a statement pretty good.

Read what you wrote, you MAKE UP FROM NOWHERE that he has a big ego, totally dispencing what he said because it disagrees with him having a big ego, which is what you said, and then tell him he's immature whilst supplying no reason as to why.

So sure, he's a man in gender

So, he *is* a man then, good to know you have a good steadfast semantically correct foothold there. Try harder for a more correct statement of what you mean (ideally without such an obvious loop hole). No matter how immature he may be he will and always will be classifyable as a man. You can't deny he's a man unless you deny one of the meanings of the word man, in which case anyone can just deny the meaning where he has to have come of age to be a man. See why that's a pointless justification for an arguement? If it's not what you mean, stop saying it.

Just fyi, I think you mean you don't think he has reached maturity, based on the fact he's 14 and might not necesserily appear very wise in terms of forum postings or apparent IRL activities, where as for all you know he has reached it (and alternatively, since maturity is subjective to the person you're talking about, he may be, as a percentage, more mature than you) - which is why the majority of your arguements against anything Scareyedhawk has said are really rather unsupported.

Look at your attitude when you respond to people, you're often saying 'I can' when you don't prove yourself fundamentally correct, which suggests you have no appreciation for what is factually correct (eg, behaving immaturely). Where as, I am proving myself fundamentally correct, using whole definitions to apply the words, rather than subjectively denying their relavence when they don't suit what I say. You can't seem to get one good undenyably correct statement out as to why Scareyedhawk is immature without either padding it with stigma born insults, or totally misinterpretting/grossly misunderstanding something he's said or another factual reference, and then perverting it to your cause.

Since you only just posted your responce, you've done it again! Under the age of 18, you are not classified as an adult (as they use a legal definition of an age, *not a semantic one*). You can still be classified as a Man. If society's jades disagree, well, that doesn't make them correct, it makes them ageist.