resp kauf, dave, explanation of some things

[ILuvDiscomb obulating You]

To my beloved open minded, accepting of everyone, debate community:

> > I don't know how I got into this, but I feel compelled to respond given that
> my name was involved.

great logic.


> My response:
> First, what do genitals have to do with it?

its a joke



> I think that the reason that no
> one responded to your post is because it was so offensive that no response
> was required -- I know that answering your post will not change your mind
> even as I desperately hope that it will.  I am not attempting to be witty --
> I am attempting to answer an argument in the hopes that you will recognize
> your own as off base.

ok i admit, a lot of my arguments might be hidden with some ad homs, but damn, you havent answered a single one of them, or even come close.
all ive heard is everyone mad about how this gene guy dissed rachel and these posts are insulting. that is so baseless its not even funny. if everyone would get their heads out of their ass and read into these posts for what they are really saying, maybe then we can have a constructive discussion.
and i know theres some people who have their heads so down in there, they need a crowbar ("mostly liberal types" -simpsons quote), so i'll try to help you out.
the womyn in debate and radical feminism is nothing but an entrenchment of gender differences. it HILITES differences. it bashes males. it makes women out to be this innocent victim with evil penis bearing humans as  commiting these inhumane injustices. its stupid. theres better ways to go about resolving this.



>
> My response:
> First, why does it matter what a female is wearing in a debate round?

it doesnt, i just said its pleasing to my eyes if a nice looking girl wears a short skirt. if anyone who is sexually inclined toward women denies this (see im politically correct too), you're a liar.
speaking of liars... i wonder if anyone else noticed one of the narratives on the page that began with "gene, sorry i had to harangue you in public, but i had to for my new public image"
that by itself is proof at how discrimminating this community is. how hypocrtical it is. people are SCARED to say what they really feel because all you superliberals will chastize them.


> Regardless of my dress, I AM NOT A SEX OBJECT! My dress is MY business not
> yours and you have no right to judge me based on what I wear.

get a grip. im not judging you. it was just a comment about what goes on in my head when attractive women where skimpy clothes. has NOTHING to do with debate. doesnt matter what you wear when you debate.

> to your gender).  And my original point is that your decision on what is
> "too short" is arbitrary and entirely judgmental, as is your sexual
> innuendo.

you only make clothing a tool of discrimmination by pointing it out. i never personally thought of girls dressing like that to win rounds.. what if theyt got a fmale judge? does the opposite happen?
it only becomes a tool of discrimmination when you make it out to be one... arbitrarily.


>And thank you for not judging me for my stance in rounds, but it's
> not your place to judge in the first place.

im not judging you, just what you ar saying. i dont now you, i only know the arguments you are presenting, and theyare flawed whether you are a guy girl mix or whatever. the arguments are still wrong.

> are.
> I don't see how spelling the word "bitch" as "bytch" alleviates the
> misogynistic tones, as the word isn't etymologically related to women or men
> in any way.


funny. very funny.
how does spelling the word "women" as "womyn" alleviate gender bias? in an etymological manner that is.
maybe all you people need to step back, clear your foggy liberal heads and read my posts again. a lot of you are dumber than you might think. i was afraid i'd have to explain all my subtle mockery so you would get it. this is just one example of how ridiculous some of the arguments presented by radical feminism.

round, regardless of
> gender.  If you're getting chastised for being "aggressive and a little
> cocky" and you just happen to be debating a female or two at the time, are
> you sure that your judges are chastising the gendered aspect or are you
> reading that into the conversation?  I don't really know, but I haven't been
> in very many rounds where that's been the case, and I've heard people (men
> included) get yelled at for being assholes.

never yelled at if im debating males. only for being rude "around women"


>
> My response:
> I'm sorry that you have never had role models and i'm sorry if it's ever
> affected someone's perception of you in either life or a debate round.

charles barkley is my role model. he's not a role model.


> I
> would think that would make you MORE empathetic to >my concerns.

in all seriousness: i am empathetic. i agree, i think women deserve equal opportunities as men do. i dont think gender discrimmination is right. you will all be calling me outon my previous posts, but i was really just trying to use some extremism to show you how stupid a lot of things you say are.
i think if someone is being discrimminatory, we should talk to them about it. what i do NOT think is ok, is ENTRENCHING gender differences with things like the womyn in debate page, or passionately writing all these flaming narratives that do more or less male bash. and refusing to even LISTEN to the opposing viewpoint. even as a minority, i believe.. in a lot of cases anyway, things like affirmative action are wrong. its reverse discrimmination. why do colleges have quotas for letting a certain amount of minorities in? is that right? isnt that also a form of discrimmination? is the solution for all races to band with each other and bitch about all their hardships and chastize the other races? no.




> This is a pretty indepth subject, because if I'm even a little right and
> womyn have been marginalized out of the debate world, how would we ever
> become "qualified" according to your standards to judge the rounds you're
> talking about?  Qualified in our community often means up to some elite
> standard that you can't reach if you're not part of the elite.

it is pretty in depth. and what i have a problem with is when tournaments change their format to fit needs of "aff action" type things. ie say tournament x would normally in a certain doubles round put a panel of a b and c. but then they say oh wait, none of those are women, we better change it around. that is RETARDED and does nothing.



>
> My response:
> Funny how until now you kept insisting you and Gene >were different people.

i never said ANYTHING about that, but for the record, i am NOT the same person as gene. i have no idea who gene is. i did not set up the website.. i justlike it a whole lot because i think its HILARIOUS.


>The narratives you speak of use language that is >horrifically
> marginalizing, which the womyn page doesn't do.

right...its called a parody. would you like me to find a dictionary and define it for you? or does that entrench the patriarch, maybe i should just call it a 'tionary"?


also, about mr. breshears' post. i accidently deleted it. but you did make a lot of good points. i hope maybe ive addressed some in this post. one thing i want to comment on specifically is when you say "you're fucking with the wrong community"
wrong community... wrong community because your open minded self doesnt accept my ideas? or maybe because my ideas about men also being discrimminated against isnt as liberal as you like, and since im in the minority of that one in the debate community, i am again in the wrong community?
and for this violence crap... get a FUCKING LIFE. i got yo back i got his back, shut the hell up. thats the dumbest shit i heard in my life. thats WHY this shiznit's anonymous. id never be able to stand next to another open minded peer ever again in my life.
Sincerely,
Leroy Tyrone Yomoshima

--


"Will Not Giveup Halfway, Will Always Support Faye"
Get your free email from http://www.wongfaye.com


powered by OutBlaze