hk blues Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Banter all over the place with this lad. More fool us for trying to find the logic in an indefensible statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 The events have been cancelled in Scotland. I fear for the women in close proximity to banana as this may tip him over the edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 The events have been cancelled in Scotland. I fear for the women in close proximity to banana as this may tip him over the edge. I can guarantee you that there are definitely no women anywhere near him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I can guarantee you that there are definitely no women anywhere near him. Maybe not by choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Going back a few posts, I was tempted to post in the ICT Chris style 'Has any P&B poster raped someone in self-defence?', but I'm a wee bit worried about the response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 My understanding is his point is women ( he never refers to male rape) are responsible for themselves. If they get dragged into a bush and raped in a park that's terrible. If they go to someone's private home for dinner and the host decides to brutally penetrate them causing horrific genital trauma and lifelong psychological damage its their own stupid fault for being so credulous. However, now I have learned this viewpoint is all just bantz and witty satire. Somehow somewhere some 4th wave feminist has been confronted with their own prejudice by this. I have to admit it's all a bit beyond me how that works and I have absolutely been whooshed. I wonder if he has the same views on male rape? As most of what he has written on his site comes across simply as hating women, I doubt he has even thought of it but it would be interesting to know if he justifies the same treatment to men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboMikey Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 https://www.facebook.com/StewartMcDonaldSNP/posts/1085049788185206?fref=nf Stewart McDonald dropping some straight bars on this clown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 This is from one of his books apparently, what a comedian this boy is eh. .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I said bra burner, not face melter. Should have seen her before the plastic surgery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Article about why RooshV shouldn't be banned - http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/03/pickup-artist-roosh-v-causes-moral-panic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I wonder if he has the same views on male rape? As most of what he has written on his site comes across simply as hating women, I doubt he has even thought of it but it would be interesting to know if he justifies the same treatment to men. Only an absolute beta would allow himself to be raped by strong alpha males. That would likely be the response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Article about why RooshV shouldn't be banned - http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/03/pickup-artist-roosh-v-causes-moral-panic Skimmed, but I fully agree with the last paragraph. Folk with these kinds of views should feel safe to air them so they can be avoided, if nothing else. Amusingly, I had to sit through this advert before I was able to get to the article. I can only imagine the rage it would induce in some of his followers - spoilt, pampered princess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Going back a few posts, I was tempted to post in the ICT Chris style 'Has any P&B poster raped someone in self-defence?', but I'm a wee bit worried about the response.It would be an interesting defence. It was rape or be raped, your honour. Or he/she raped me first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Some absolutely rapey tips on his "bang" page here http://www.bangguides.com/game/bang/ The worst of the lot for me was " Seven very detailed steps to taking off her clothes that includes tactics to fight any late-minute resistance she might throw at you." Sounds rapey as f**k These game theory weirdos are just total scam merchants for vls that think they can learn a magic formula for social interaction in order to lose their vl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcat1990 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Article about why RooshV shouldn't be banned - http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/03/pickup-artist-roosh-v-causes-moral-panic Can't disagree with this article at all. The current mob rule mentality of Britain to ban anything the masses don't agree with is grim. The aggressive progressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Can't disagree with this article at all. The current mob rule mentality of Britain to ban anything the masses don't agree with is grim. The aggressive progressive. You are obviously as thick as the author then. An absolute cookie cutter "liberals are anti free speech" piece that is usually the preserve of people wanting the freedom to be racist or homophobic. I could go on about the limitations to free speech but it's hardly worth it when we get an insight into the authors mind when he describes what RooshV is selling as "wandering into grey areas". Also, let's be clear he is selling something. Much like the likes of Jeremy Clarkson he probably doesn't believe a word of what he is selling but knows what his market of life's losers will buy into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcat1990 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 You are obviously as thick as the author then. An absolute cookie cutter "liberals are anti free speech" piece that is usually the preserve of people wanting the freedom to be racist or homophobic. I could go on about the limitations to free speech but it's hardly worth it when we get an insight into the authors mind when he describes what RooshV is selling as "wandering into grey areas". Also, let's be clear he is selling something. Much like the likes of Jeremy Clarkson he probably doesn't believe a word of what he is selling but knows what his market of life's losers will buy into. Different political views = thick. Sound mate. RooshV, homophones and racists all share horrendous views, however the should be free to believe in those views should they wish. I'm all for the belief that there should be space for points of view regardless of being correct or not, assuming you aren't forcing those views on others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Different political views = thick. Sound mate. RooshV, homophones and racists all share horrendous views, however the should be free to believe in those views should they wish. I'm all for the belief that there should be space for points of view regardless of being correct or not, assuming you aren't forcing those views on others. It's not about the views, although there is adequate evidence to suggest people that hold right wing views are significantly less intelligent, it's about a complete misunderstanding of free speech. Free speech, is not, never has and never should be the freedom to yell fire in a theatre There are any number of limitations to what you can say and what you can expect a platform to say based upon the harm principle. If people want to make the case that what they does not breach the harm principle they are free to do so. What is tiresome is people whining that a mythical unfettered right to say anything is being breached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcat1990 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 It's not about the views, although there is adequate evidence to suggest people that hold right wing views are significantly less intelligent, it's about a complete misunderstanding of free speech. Free speech, is not, never has and never should be the freedom to yell fire in a theatre There are any number of limitations to what you can say and what you can expect a platform to say based upon the harm principle. If people want to make the case that what they does not breach the harm principle they are free to do so. What is tiresome is people whining that a mythical unfettered right to say anything is being breached. Of course, which is what comes to my point of forcing those opinions on others. The RooshV meet up as I understand was to be done in private? Unless I'm wrong and they planned on marching around Glasgow relentlessly screaming that all drunk women deserve unwanted sex, then they should be allowed to meet and discuss their shitty views. The issue I have is mob rule trying to shut down anything they don't like. More often than not those views they heavily disliked are only found by searching for them. If you don't like what these idiots say, don't read or listen to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Free speech being stopped by the government might be one thing to argue against but it's not what happened in this case. People petitioned and asked for the meetings to be stopped but the government haven't stopped the meetings and these petitions etc are simply that, petitions. If people want to protest against him speaking or confront them about it then I think that's fine. The right to free speech doesn't mean you don't get challenged or the you don't face the consequences of what you say. I think the people arranging protests etc are simply the consequences for him, of what he has said/written so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.