I am pleasantly surprised this is coming from someone who writes for the Huffington Post

1.1 seconds.

So what you're saying is that HuffPo will go back to their original claims that it's ok to grope men and that men can't be sexually assaulted?

Yes.

So maybe my question was too complicated for you to grasp. I'll try again.
So... do you think HuffPo generally says it's ok to grope men? Do you think HuffPo generally says it's impossible to sexually assault men? If yes, you have an example?

They do like to state that all men are sexual aggressors.

You have an example? Cause as long as you don't, I'm going to call you a liar.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59e4e3a2e4b04d1d518390d2/amp

This article does !not! state that "all men are sexual aggressors.". You tried. Try harder.

“... If every woman you know has been harassed or assaulted, then every man you know has likely made a woman feel unsafe.” Ripped from that article. I googled “huffpo all men are sexual aggressors”. This was the first one. I didn’t read it, just pasted it. I read it after you challenged it and found this line. I’ll go get another for you.

If "every man you know has likely made a woman feel unsafe." means the same for you as "all men are sexual aggressors" then don't bother. The naive me always believes an american citizen would understand english, my bad.

“...but it won’t make a difference until men ― all men ― acknowledge how they perpetuate misogyny and commit to making a change.” This article got me to thinking, if all men are somehow responsible for the sexual misconduct of a few, who is responsible for the Islamic truck of peace? Is it all truck owners?

Explain then how does my mere existence make women feel unsafe?

Tell me if there's another language I could try, cause english doesn't work. None of what you quoted backed what you initially said, so I'm sort of clueless here.

What about us makes women feel unsafe?

History, statistics and probabilities.

Are you saying that because approx 95% of rapists are men that other demographics should be apprehensive in their presence?

What's your explanation for the fact that many women actually do feel unsafe in the presence of men in many situations, and have been, though the ages? Feminist propaganda? General hysteria?

Maybe the former. More likely, most woman just get along with life just fine, with only a few having some bad experience or hearing a bad story that convinces them that all men are rapist pigs that need to be castrated for society's sake.

I’m applying this twisted logic to other arguments at the forefront of today’s society. You cannot impugn all men for the actions of a few.

"most woman just get along with life just fine" - Do you expect a woman to voluntarily see you naked any time?

Wow.
I mean bitchiness levels were high for you, but goddamn you must have dropped you chocolate in your ninth arm flap again.

Look, I found a video of you trying to act smart: http://loopaway.com/uploads/original/22/22061.mp4

Okay, when have I argued with you in this thread?
I haven't, because you literally are the equivalent of a particle of dog shit on an old shoe. You are not worth my time and if you were to never speak to me again it would too soon. I'm not replying to you from here on out.

I know I'm not much of a looker, but my girl likes me just fine, and that's enough for me.

Hey @halfdeadhammerhead
How about actually making a good argument rather than relying on insulting people for not agreeing with you right off the bat? Are you a child or something?

My question:; "What's your explanation for the fact that many women actually do feel unsafe in the presence of men in many situations, and have been, though the ages?"
His answer: "... most woman just get along with life just fine, with only a few having some bad experience or hearing a bad story that convinces them that all men are rapist pigs that need to be castrated for society's sake."
How is there to "make a good argument" against someone like that? A guy whose "argument" is that there probably isn't even a real problem? What does that say about all the women who came forward to report what happened to them?

I mean... The problem isn't gendered. Its psychos. There's a larger number of women getting more and more scared of a threat that can easily be combatted. They keep getting told " you're a victim, all men are dangerous and out to get you " and so they're cautious of all men, making all men out to be monsters that only a small number are.
There are just as many guys scared of things women do but they're blamed rather than the issue itself. Men are scared of being near women in colleges because of a large number of rape accusations being thrown around willy nilly ( the ones who think that they can revoke consent AFTER sex and claim rape or the ones who think guys have to ask every two seconds during sex for their consent) but no ones blaming the women for the issue, they're blaming the guys for being scared.

And for the " What does that say about all the women who came forward to report what happened to them? "
Then something happened to them. That doesn't mean they get to generalize half of the world and be taken seriously. If I got robbed by a couple of black guys would that make me being a racist justified because I've experienced bad things with black guys? Do I get to generalize ALL Muslims because of terrorists or all Mormons because of all the cult activities that happen in some sects? No. Cause people are individuals. The issue isn't " men are monsters " the issue is " there's crazy people in the world and people are more obsessed with being victims and pointing fingers than trying to prevent being victims "

Then why the numbers, the ratios, the statistics? Oh, I forgot, 21st century rhetoric. You just don't accept facts and numbers, so you don't have to explain any discrepancy.

So what exactly are you alleging in between all the personal insults?

Let's say you have 1000 people, half male half female. 2 males commit a murder. Statistics say murders are 100% male even though its 2 out of 500.
People can go around saying 100% of murderers are male and make people fear males when there's only been two murders.
Statistics don't make the person. If that was the case no one would be able to have kids because of how many kill theirs. No one would be able to drive if they aren't 100% sober all day every day because of how many drunk driving accidents occur. Statistics are there to show how often they occur by what info they have, not how scared you need to be.
Cause a lot of these statistics and ratios for certain things have VERY small sample sizes that they're attributing to the entire population.

Just playing Devil's advocate here ... so @halfdeadhammerhead, by your line of thinking that by looking at statistics and probability, it is okay to generalize a group based on the acts of a few. You are saying that by this idea, percentage wise, men are more likely to commit rape. Which means we should be more weary approaching a man. Now take that same argument and replace man with black people. You are saying that since percentage wise, black people are more likely to commit violent crimes, we should pre judge them as violent?

It's not okay to generalize a group based on the acts of a few. This is not what this is about. Also if I met a group of black males at night in a bad part of the city, I'd watch out. Not so much with a group of black females. Was that what you were trying to make me say?
Btw. you have apparently no idea what a "devils advocate" is, and that makes you look about as stupid as you seem to by by judging the rest of your bullsh!t trolling attempt. Go back to 4chan /pol/ for some practice.

That is not a trolling attempt. And devils advocate is someone who speaks the opposing view when it is not their own. I am not stating my view. I am stating the opposition of your own. From Wikipedia - " In common parlance, the term devil's advocate describes someone who, given a certain point of view, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further." So please refrain come saying things like it makes me look stupid when clearly I do understand what the meaning is. And so you are saying that it is okay to pre judge a group of black men but not a group of black women? By saying this you are invalidating your own argument because you are just saying that you have sexist views because you are focusing only on the sex of the person.

Also, since I know you will say that Wikipedia is not a credible source, here is Dictionary.com - "a person who advocates an opposing or unpopular cause for the sake of argument or to expose it to a thorough examination."

here is link as well since I know you will refute it if I do not post it. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/devil-s-advocate

Also here is the Cambridge Dictionary to give two sources of that instead of one ... "someone who supports an opposite argument or one that is not popular in order to make people think seriously"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/devil-s-advocate

Damn.

No, I'm not sexist, I'm basing my argument on facts and statistics. And also I'm not prejudging, I'm juggling probabilities. Violent crimes and robberies are mainly committed by males, that's just a fact nobody can deny. Let's take this one step further: I'd be afraid to meet really poor males at night, because that would ,increase my chances to get mugged. I'd have no problem with rich black males though. With more whites sliding into poverty, we will see more violent crimes committed by whites. We will actually see a change in the perception who is part of the "white society" when rich whites (and blacks!) will exclude poor whites, who will learn how "white" is merely a concept. And as a woman, I would not fear to meet women of any color or income background at night in a shady street. That's not sexist, just simple heuristics.
You're right with the devils advocate btw, I was sticking to the definition of the catholic authority. Still you're a troll, and not a very good one.

One, i based my question on facts and statistics of black vs non black. You based your answer to my question with man vs women. Thus changing to focus from race to sex. Now you are talking about rich vs poor. In all of these occasion, you are saying that you are not prejudging but you are also saying youd be weary. You can't be weary without basing your opinion of them based on outside information and not knowing them. Ergo, you are prejudging them. Now if you say you are not prejudging them then that is fine, but then you cannot say that you all men are dangerous because statistically they are more likely to commit rape. Because you cannot say that men are more sexually dangerous because of statistics but black people are not necessarily more dangerous even though statics say that they are. That is a broken line of logic because they are the same arguments with a word change.

The whole posting is about women and men and you're trying to bring race into the mix. Ergo eff off.

They're not just " bringing race into it " they're using your point and logic for a counter argument. If your logic doesn't work the whole way around then its not solid, its picky and biased for your point.

Thank you diyrogue. Also, I am going to end the discussion there because discussion ends when someone refuses to provide any further intellectual information. Information such as “ergo eff off” does not further the discussion and that is when I will remove myself. Please remember, you are a wonderful human person and I would like for you to have a wonderful day!

It's halfhead's M.O. to be like that. I should've learned better than to engage, but I remain hopeful she'll learn how to argue.

It doesn't work like that. You can't just equal apples and oranges to make your "argument" work technically. What women can potentially (!) expect from men has been written down since the very beginning of human records. Most creation myths contain rape and abduction. At the very best, women have been seen as objects of lust and value. Up to today, whenever there are lots of people cramped up in a fncked up place, one of the first things to happen is rape. It's pretty much archetypal, an integral part of a subconscious, collective female memory. You want to compare that to being racist, then why would I take you serious?

She’s right in part of that. There was a notable amount of rape occurring in the Occupy camps.

Of course there was, what do you expect when there's a majority of men? Thanks for proving my point, buddy!

It would appear that your leftist protestors let their true colors shine through there.

Yes, of course, to someone who doesn't even ignore the huge elephant in the room, but really doesn't see it. Black, white, left, right, a certain type of men have such a lot in common when it comes to their respect for women, and when they become all whiny how third wave feminism is the new racism and men are the new victims.

But third wave feminism is trash, though. And they seem to be doing more harm than good.