Responses welcome

[Seeingithowitis]

Originally Posted by mannybash

There are several channels on you tube that I have come across. One is Karen straughan or girl writes what I can particularly recommend her as she gives a logical and thorough treatment.

Karen Straughan is a pseudointellectual and neo feminist (yes she is - but she doesn't want you to know that) who uses the Men's Right moment to publicise her otherwise 'nobody would listen to' views. She has cleverly marketed herself to men as a spokesperson as she makes money from it through the internet, appearances and courses. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and ever increasing in the age of the internet - give yourself a connection to a cause, give that cause a lot and very loud lip service, while they feed off people like you. It's also 101 for politicians, that is where they get the idea from! She is hoodwinking you my friend. And the irony is that it's a woman doing it!

She even comes out with ridiculous lies such as women's salaries on average are more then men. Unfortunately some men just lap up her kind of 'sucking up' she does.

For example she says men are the equivalent of cattle and that men are only fit for manual labour (the "strong backs" theory as she calls it) and that women are superior to men, as she says that women can have 'strong backs' as well as men but only women can make more "strong backs" to be more cattle. Basically she is saying that men are brainless thugs who are fit to "build roads" and carry out "labour" while women are creators of life and have the brains. She believes that women should be intellectual (like she believes herself) and run things while men do the manual labour.

As well as the fact that she seems to base all her ideas on the false premise we are still living in the 15th century there are some major problems with her argument. For a start, with automation and cloning, and now the use of two females to make children, if she is correct the male population should be reduced to a bare minimum (maybe stud farms) and some for 'cattle', until they are no longer needed - that is the natural conclusion of her argument. The woman is a man hater in disguise! Considering the depopulation agenda I wouldn't be surprised if women like her offer a solution of reduced ratio of men to women in the future.

And as we are posting this on a David Icke forum it is worth noting that her views are in direct opposition to his.

Karen Straughan is a divide and rule lackey. Do yourself a favour and forget her, she is rotting your intellect.

Diana davison us most familiar with actual cases of this type. She is not a lawyer but helps people prepare their cases.

You do know that Diana Davison has been attacked by Karen Straughan don't you? Diana calls Karen Straughan a 'drama queen' and she has exposed Karen for using her femininity/sexuality to get men on her side and bring in the cash! Diana Davison states explicitly that she is NOT a Men's Right Activist and she had to look it up on the internet when people said to her she was!

What do you think of Karen Straughan started telling everyone that Diana was doing nude pics for loads of people just to make Diana look like a 'slut' (as Karen put it). And that Karen attacked Diana's male partner (John) as Karen said he is a puppet (Karen really sees men that way) for Diana. Karen said married men are all p******. Do you still want to support Karen?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7h8YSjsWXE

In regards to Diana Davison I can understand why there should be people helping those who may have been treated unfairly by the legal system. However, many more women are treated unfairly by the legal system as the legal system, especially at the top is run mostly by men. One of the reasons for that is the men's club of Freemasonry for judges etc. There may have been a few men falsely accused of rape but that is a fraction of the rapists who walk free, and that is a fraction of those that even make it to court. Conviction statistics show very few rapists are found guilty and when they are they rarely get custodial sentences and they often repeat offend.

Janice fiamengo is a professor at the university of ottowa.

You're confusing anti-feminism with being pro men's rights, it's not the same thing at all. In fact men are being sucked into a new form of neo feminism by the anti-feminist movement. You're also confusing the idea of what anti-feminism goals are with far right white male supremacy. The anti-feminism community, such as Janice Fia(men-go)(interesting name she has!) actually have an agenda to get men to think they are on your side, when in fact they think they are superior to men, they just disagree with the way feminists are going about it.

WAKE UP!

I am sure that you have heard of Dr. Jordan peterson.

That's either sarcasm and/or a baseless assumption. You really should stop doing that. You can't assume everyone has heard of someone because you have.

Why is he relevant to this discussion?

I am not a lawyer but you only have to see a few of these videos to realise the shocking situation where some one does not know what he is chared with.

Anyone can sit in front of a video camera and spout rubbish. You really need to learn to be more critical of videos. Especially when those video makers are making a load of bucks as their subscribers increase with publicity from people like you on forums!

The last part of you sentence makes no sense, what did you mean?

This is at a university hearing not a court and effectively does not have a right of innocence. One case of a 14 year old boy being sexually abused went to jail for two years and had to pay for the upkeep of the child born without his consent.

There is no "right of innocence" only in some places a presumption of innocence. Also, you are misunderstanding what that means. It doesn't mean that the defendant is innocent. It means that the defendant doesn't have to show innocence. It basically means in legal terms that in theory if the court wanted to they could imprison anyone if the prosecution decided to present no evidence but that the judge decided you were guilty. They usually don't but that is the reason why it is a Crown Justice system. the Queen passes her right it imprison anyone for any reason without proof or trial to the courts.

First off, you have to provide links to show any 'proof' of that case of the 14 year old boy.

Why do you think a 14 boy should has the right to abort a child of his being carried by anyone?

Boys of 14 do not go to jail. If he was in 'jail'(Juvenile detention) for two years how was he then forced to pay for the "upkeep" of the child?

Quite frankly it sounds like you are making that up. Or more likely that you got it from some video. The woman would have gone to prison if she admitted sex with a 14 year old so how do you explain he had to pay her anything?

This is real case and look what happened IN THE REAL WORLD -
https://www.newidea.com.au/melbourne...old-boys-child

The woman went to jail and the baby was put into care, as would have happened with the story you wrote about, and with the baby in care the boy would not have paid anything for the "upkeep" of the child.

Universities can't send people to prison. And yes they have the right to chuck you out if you behave like an idiot. They could throw you out for being drunk in a lecture or pissing on a lawn, whether you like it or not they are right to have that right as they are a private institution and they can accept or throw out anyone they like. Even a pub can throw you out if they like. It is not an abuse of rights.

The situation here is not great either I was speaking to a teacher in my library here in london and he explained how problematic it was

You're not seriously telling me you are judging the state of human rights on a *man down the library*! What next? You were chatting to a bloke down the pub who told you the earth is made of cheese so it must be true.

[mannybash]

What you have said about Karen straughan seems completely unlikely. To begin with she does do talks at universities on these issues. The picture you are portraying is unlikely to say the least. I will go over what you have said. For my part I will say that Karen straughan does not view men like cattle rather the reverse but I will go over your links and the issues you mention. Even so the predominant argument she mentions is this. Namely that modern women show no appreciation of the contribution men have done over the centuries. In defending their families, in war in science and art. While women took care of children. Now that science has advanced so much certain women believe they can do without men. Even if it were the case that the human race could carry on with a few men fathering many children it is essentially a lie. This is because the gene pool will be much narrower you will have less diversity such a situation is bad for any species

[mannybash]

Oh by the way the man in the library was a teacher so is very familiar with how to act and what the situation is

[tinfoil hat]

@Seeingithowitis
(forgot to quote it sorry)
Being called names by left wing twats who don't like the facts he produces more like.
Hardly a good reason to ignore him.

And I go by the old standards we used to have before lefties got in.
Meaning no, I wouldn't give a shit if they wolf whistled, touching is different, exposure is not an assault, though I would still ring their necks for it.
Sexy shorts?

You need to get a grip on what sexual assault actually is, and what it isn't.
Next it'll be bloody flirting that's going too far ffs.

[Seeingithowitis]

Originally Posted by mannybash

What you have said about Karen straughan seems completely unlikely. To begin with she does do talks at universities on these issues. The picture you are portraying is unlikely to say the least.

I do understand the powerful hold that formed opinions can have on all of us and that denial is an easy fallback, and I'm not being patronising I mean that. So trust me when I say that I have deliberately not portrayed her in anyway. I am not creating an image of her I have kept to the facts as I have found them and then presented them.

Karen Straughan does talk at universities on these issues. Here are some of her YouTube videos as proof.

Ryerson University.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaO3THnOHhA

Kennesaw State University.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E31dxdj9YOY

York University.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onWhjYc0wTc

You can't deny the truth Manny.

I will go over what you have said.

Good to know.

You should also watch the videos posted above as they show she does do university talks that you think she doesn't. You are building an incorrect picture of the woman that is based on your extremely partial information.

What do you think of what she has done to Diana Davison?

For my part I will say that Karen straughan does not view men like cattle rather the reverse but I will go over your links and the issues you mention.

I cannot speak for the views in her head, which you appear to be doing. I'm not second guessing her I wrote what I wrote based on reading from her own website where she explicitly states that as such.

Even so the predominant argument she mentions is this. Namely that modern women show no appreciation of the contribution men have done over the centuries. In defending their families, in war in science and art.

It is a serious concern that you think women have not contributed to Science, Art and even warfare over centuries in a significant way. Why do you think only men did that, or in the majority? You think women haven't fought and defended their families too? If anything it could be argued that modern men have not appreciated women in art, science etc. over the centuries and that you yourself are an example of that.

You would agree that noble prizes, awards and membership of official societies show appreciation of contribution, yes? Then why have women been routinely shunned from science, art and other awards and societies for centuries, even today, if they are appreciated by men?

If you say modern women have not appreciated men for art, science etc. you have to explain how you think they show this? Also, how, as a modern man do you express appreciation for the contribution of women to art, science, warfare and society over the centuries, with examples.

Also, why do you think women should show men appreciation for art and science etc.?

While women took care of children.

I find it ironic that you say you want men to be appreciated and have rights but then you are sexist against men! Men over all of time have taken care of children. They are equally capable of child rearing and love for their children as women, and as such they have taken care of children for millions of years. It is a myth (read lie) that women have been doing all the child rearing in the past or present.

Now that science has advanced so much certain women believe they can do without men.

Er, who are those *certain women* you refer to.

Women can do without men and men can do without women. I'm not saying they should but it is a fact that they can and no rights will ever change that.

Even if it were the case that the human race could carry on with a few men fathering many children it is essentially a lie. This is because the gene pool will be much narrower you will have less diversity such a situation is bad for any species

Actually you are wrong. Genetics is such that with a source pool (or without it) it would be more than enough, however they could manage with no men for genes.

[Seeingithowitis]

Originally Posted by tinfoil hat

@Seeingithowitis
(forgot to quote it sorry)
Being called names by left wing twats who don't like the facts he produces more like.
Hardly a good reason to ignore him.

And I go by the old standards we used to have before lefties got in.
Meaning no, I wouldn't give a shit if they wolf whistled, touching is different, exposure is not an assault, though I would still ring their necks for it.
Sexy shorts?

You need to get a grip on what sexual assault actually is, and what it isn't.
Next it'll be bloody flirting that's going too far ffs.

So you don't want to translate what a wolf whistle means and reply to any of what I posted to your last post. Okay.

[Seeingithowitis]

Originally Posted by mannybash

Oh by the way the man in the library was a teacher so is very familiar with how to act and what the situation is

Explain?

Btw, where is that link you didn't post in you other post about your 14 year boy you were upset about?

I'd like to read that news story. Could you post the link where you said he went to prison, had to pay for the baby and about the grown woman who had sex with him got away with it. It sounds like you made it up as it makes no legal sense (see my link). Where did you get that from?

[mannybash]

Thankfully I have had a reply from the lady concerned in my initial post. However, it was rather short because she had plenty of preparation work to do for a class. Even so it was very apparent that the situation in Canada seems to have got markedly worse. She had been prevented from speaking when she was invited to do a talk. This is not the first time this has happened and there have demonstrations against jordan peterson when ge tried to talk. The police did nothing which is remarkable to say the least. To anyone who believes that this is not true she despairs at the situation. I myself believe that the police are conspiring with these hoodlums because that is what they are nothing else. Surely if they were in any way I martial then they must recognise the rights of the speaker as well as those protesting which is in no way peaceful. It is about time we stopped this thuggery

[mannybash]

I am unable to post links for some reason or photos. I might have another go today. Teachers have to be extremely careful these days about how they refer to pupils. As well as not being sexist they must take into account the transgenderism issue though this thread is not about that and I know comparitively little about it teachers must treat pupils unusually carefully or they risk dismissal

[Seeingithowitis]

Originally Posted by mannybash

I am unable to post links for some reason or photos. I might have another go today. Teachers have to be extremely careful these days about how they refer to pupils. As well as not being sexist they must take into account the transgenderism issue though this thread is not about that and I know comparitively little about it teachers must treat pupils unusually carefully or they risk dismissal

Don't you think teachers should have to treat pupils carefully?

People should be able to send their kids to school without having to worry about abusive teachers!

I look forward to reading the links to the news stories you mentioned and the legal cases you alluded to.

Are you still a fan of Diana Davison by the way? Pretty damning video she made of Karen Straughan isn't it.

[mannybash]

I didn't see that video but will take a look. You now are assuming something without knowledge of the facts. Professors can be brought up against an inquiry brought by an individual without being told what they are accused of. In fact most cases are settled very easily. The problem is that they cost the taxpayer 10's of thousands of pounds. This leads me to suspect that complaints are simply a scam designed to get a great deal of money and have nothing to do with people's rights

[mannybash]

I just took a quick look on you tube for the video you describe. I could not find anything of that nature. Perhaps if you are more able to post links than myself you could post this link for our benefit so that we can all see it?

[Seeingithowitis]

Originally Posted by mannybash

I didn't see that video but will take a look. You now are assuming something without knowledge of the facts.

Oh come on Manny, lets be honest here, you have avoided every thing I have posted! Anyone can read that. You simply keep posting more of your opinions, which you base on a guy you met at a library and some woman on the internet, while I present nothing but facts!

Manny, lets keep this fair. You know what you've been doing. How about your answering any of the facts and evidence I have posted?

I actually have been trying to have a serious discussion with you but it is a shame that you have ignored most of what I have posted.

Professors can be brought up against an inquiry brought by an individual without being told what they are accused of.

That is simply not true. Where did you get that from? Links?

Prove that Manny - cases? Or stop making things up.

I would really like to see any examples with links from you.

In fact most cases are settled very easily. The problem is that they cost the taxpayer 10's of thousands of pounds. This leads me to suspect that complaints are simply a scam designed to get a great deal of money and have nothing to do with people's rights

Explain?

[mannybash]

Just checked the video again to be sure about it. Recently Janice fiamengo a professor of literature at the university of ottowa was brought up against a human rights tribunal by a student claiming she was desciminated against because of her disability. The video about the case is on you tube Janice fiamengo episode 73. As I have pointed out I cannot put links up for some reason. I have tried to contact the mighty zhiba about this but it seems I have to use a third party like photobucket. As a number of my threads are visual and require photos to make my point this is presenting me with a problend and severely curtails my ability to present a case as it also does here. Janice fiamengo's case was settled by mediation as most appear to be

[mannybash]

If cases are settled in this way then clearly it seems that there is no case to answer. The money is spent for no apparent reason so clearly there must be a reason someehere along the line. The only reason must be some form of bribery. It is clear that police do not actually stop people from protesting even if they try to block a door this clearly is evidence that something untoward is going on. It seems to me that complaints are brought forward knowing that the case cannot be won but that they can take a "cut" in the legal fees. Do remember that going to university is not cheap. This is easier that getting a job or anything else for that matter.

[mannybash]

By the way you call Karen straughan a pseudo intellectual. Is Dr. Jordan peterson a pseudo intellectual? Karen straughan critisised him on one lecture. Clearly therefore there can be nothing "pseudo" about her. Just because someone has not been to university does.not disqualify him/her from making a point. David has not been to university neither have I. In fact when I was at school the cleverest boy in my year did not go to university to my knowledge. He passed all his mocks thendecided to go to work in a merchant bank

[Seeingithowitis]

Originally Posted by mannybash

Just checked the video again to be sure about it. Recently Janice fiamengo a professor of literature at the university of ottowa was brought up against a human rights tribunal by a student claiming she was desciminated against because of her disability.

So, that is a case of a woman against a woman, how does that have anything to do with men's rights? What is the connection?

The video about the case is on you tube Janice fiamengo episode 73. As I have pointed out I cannot put links up for some reason. I have tried to contact the mighty zhiba about this but it seems I have to use a third party like photobucket. As a number of my threads are visual and require photos to make my point this is presenting me with a problend and severely curtails my ability to present a case as it also does here. Janice fiamengo's case was settled by mediation as most appear to be

That is odd about your internet connection, why do you have to do that?

As you are having problems with images don't bother with them, just explain in words and add links as necessary. That is obviously available to you under any internet connection. You can easily explain the cases and examples you have mentioned that way. I look forward to your posts on that.

Mediation is a good thing. It is about communication from all involved and it means it is fair. Surely you agree with that? See definition in quote box below.

"Mediation is an informal and flexible dispute resolution process. The mediator's role is to guide the parties toward their own resolution. Through joint sessions and separate caucuses with parties, the mediator helps both sides define the issues clearly, understand each other's position and move closer to resolution."

[Seeingithowitis]

Originally Posted by mannybash

If cases are settled in this way then clearly it seems that there is no case to answer.

As you are being somewhat vague can you make it clear whether or not you think mediation is a good thing or not?

The money is spent for no apparent reason so clearly there must be a reason someehere along the line. The only reason must be some form of bribery. It is clear that police do not actually stop people from protesting even if they try to block a door this clearly is evidence that something untoward is going on. It seems to me that complaints are brought forward knowing that the case cannot be won but that they can take a "cut" in the legal fees. Do remember that going to university is not cheap. This is easier that getting a job or anything else for that matter.

Manny, what is your point? Are you aware that you are shifting from one point to another and not really making any point at all? I would like to discuss this with you but I can't discuss anything when you ignore what I post then you post some unrelated stream of consciousness. Try a bit more structure and maybe that will help you organise your thoughts.

[Seeingithowitis]

Originally Posted by mannybash

By the way you call Karen straughan a pseudo intellectual. Is Dr. Jordan peterson a pseudo intellectual? Karen straughan critisised him on one lecture. Clearly therefore there can be nothing "pseudo" about her. Just because someone has not been to university does.not disqualify him/her from making a point. David has not been to university neither have I. In fact when I was at school the cleverest boy in my year did not go to university to my knowledge. He passed all his mocks thendecided to go to work in a merchant bank

Your point?

I didn't say anything about people going to university or not so I have no idea why you are posting that unrelated post.

Anyway, have you got the link to the story you posted about the 14 year old boy you said had to pay for the baby and the adult woman got away with having sex with him? You must have made that up as I have asked you several times for that link and you avoid answering.

Also, what do you think of Diana Davison now that she says that Karen Straughan is a liar, a fraud and that Karen told people she did porn when Diana did no such thing? What is your opinion of Karen Straughan as she did that to Diana Davison and her husband?

I see no point in continuing this *discussion* if you do not post the links to your *stories* and if you continue to refuse to reply to anything I post. I suggest we move forward with you posting the links and explaining your *stories* and rumours or this will have to end.

[mannybash]

First of all define proof. In mathematics there are three different kinds of proof: proof by derivation, proof by deduction and proof by contradiction. I have posted a thread on just this. It is interesting that people who want proof almost never specify what kind of proof they want. This is the behaviour of lawyers who know they cannot win in any other way. I thought that we were trying to move away from this kind of behaviour in these forums? As to the fact that I am not answering your comments I think that I am. It seems that you are diverting away from the points that I am making. I have made it clear why I am unable to post links. There is something wrong on the site I do not have problems with other sites. If you wish not to resume our pleasant discussion that is your privilege shame we were getting on so nicely. Just to make the point I have tried to post threads describing what I mean. My likeness threads but it has been pointed out that I need to provide images of what I mean. In any case we have got well away from my initial posting. To make it clear I can't post links